User talk:Elonka: Difference between revisions

Crusades symposium

That's me! And my paper is based on a Wikipedia article...which may be a terrible idea, or a brilliant one... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Butting in, but I'd bet it's either William the Carpenter ... how much is the conference, anyway? I might boogie down from Central Illinois for some of it if it's not too frightful. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! It's $85, or $55 for graduate students. Symposium is February 17-20, with Adam's talk on the 20th. More information here:[1] --Elonka 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is William the Carpenter. The title gives it away! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The paper isn't online, by the way. Is that normal for conferences? I know history conferences sometimes publish the proceedings, sometimes years later, but I've never seen anything online beforehand, other than titles or abstracts. Actually I haven't even written it yet, and I have to whittle away my article-sized file into only 20 minutes worth of info. The germ of it is in the Wikipedia article and the talk page, but there's lots more I didn't mention there, in case there happened to be a certain convenient conference in the near future :) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It really varies with the speaker's history. For myself, I have a few talks which I tend to give in multiple venues, and a common question I get from attendees is, "Can I download your slides?" So I have a directory or three on my website from which people can download a version of my presentation. Also, I've sometimes seen speakers who publish a paper in a journal somewhere, and then give talks based on their publication. What are you planning for your own? Slides, or just speaking extemporaneously? --Elonka 03:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was originally writing to publish but I found someone else had already written an article about him (it may not have been published yet; I haven't seen it yet, at least). No slides, I'll just speak...not extemporaneously though, I'll have to bring something to read. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the Symposium requiring a word-for-word read in the talks? I always hate those. Checking notes is fine, but if someone's reading something word-for-word, I'd usually rather that they just gave it to me in a handout.  :/ --Elonka 16:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes, yes...I'm not going to risk memorizing it or speaking off the top of my head though. It's kind of a miracle that I can speak in front of people at all, so if I have to read, I have to read! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Questions have been raised here about your interaction with Domer. BigDunc 14:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, though given the tone, it's difficult to see them as being asked in good faith. But tell you what, why don't you (BigDunc) pick one that you'd genuinely like an answer to, and I'll see if I can answer? --Elonka 17:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to edit an other editors post, but I have stripped it back a little if ONiH wants me to remove this post I will:

1. Going back to the "discussion" here. Why is your claim that you can issue any sanction you see fit to any editor at any time not only contradicted by a proposal you were involved in having failed, but is also directly contradicted by your earlier own admission? So did you; A) Lie about having the power to issue any sanction you saw fit to any editor at any time? Or B) Deliberately waste ArbCom's time with a frivolous amendment that would have given you certain powers in one specific topic area when you later allege you've got God-like powers across the entire project? Or is there an option C) that addresses all your actions in relation to the matter?
2. Why, given you warned the editor in question about the 1RR restriction here, did you not take action over this breach (also note the blatantly false use of minor edit flag, and no edit summary either) of 1RR, where there were two reverts in 3 minutes? There's plenty of similarity between the first version and the previous day's version (especially compared to the previous lead) so it's definitely a partial revert. Did you take no action because he's an admin, or is there another reason?
3. Why given Domer believes you are involved in a dispute with him about whether his probation was correctly applied in the first place, a dispute which ONiH certainly agrees exists, are you taking admin actions against him? Why not make a report at WP:AE and let someone else handle it to avoid any possible accusations of impropriety?
4. Following on from the previous question, did you investigate the issue before deciding whether a block was needed, as that would certainly have happened at AE? If you had, you might have seen this. Scolaire points out that "there is not even the beginnings of a consensus" as to what one particular bar in the chart should display, and suggests removal while discussion is ongoing. Snappy says there's no consensus to remove it. All well and good so far, but then what happens? Despite there being absolutely no consensus as to what that bar should display, Snappy updates it anyway. You have to love tactics like that, if someone wants to remove it while discussion is ongoing then there's no consensus but if Snappy wants to change it he can change it to whatever he wants despite the lack of consensus for that either. So Domer reverts until there actually is a consensus, and he gets blocked straight away. Could he have been blocked for breaching his probation? Quite possibly, but the correct question is whether he should have been and a proper investigation of the situation would have shown you exactly which editor was being disruptive yesterday and it wasn't Domer. The editor actually being disruptive gets nothing said to them, and Domer gets a week off is inappropriate and purely punitive.
5. Since when do you or the wider community have the authority to amend the terms of probation from an ArbCom case, seemingly without a valid and actioned request for amendment from ArbCom? Assuming you do have that authority, why has Irvine22's probation not been similarly extended due to his blocks while on probation?
6. Why are you alleging that any page ban exists for Peter Hart? No such ban exists, as ONiH detailed in full here. No admin disputed that summary, and since silence = consensus, since nobody replied saying "yes, there is a ban" tjat means the consensus is that there is no ban. If you're going to ban someone using an ArbCom remedy, you'd better make sure you've followed the procedure that the remedy specifies. So where are the diffs that support the procedure specified in the remedy? Unless any admin claiming the ban is valid can actually provide those diffs, the ban does not exist. The fact that it's logged onto a page where non-admins can't remove the fraudulently applied ban is irrelevant, unless just one admin can provide the diffs there is no ban. The diffs should have been provided at the same time as the ban was logged, so it isn't even logged properly So either provide the diffs required by the remedy now and add them to the log, or admit there is no ban and remove it from the log?

Those look like perfectly reasonable and good faith queries to me. BigDunc 14:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pick one, and I'll give it a shot.  :) --Elonka 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't just pick one I have made reasonable and good faith queries and according to WP:ADMIN, you should, ...respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct..., so could you please answer my questions please, thank you. BigDunc 19:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

1. (c)
2. Admins have the option of issuing a warning rather than a block, and that particular editor was new to the dispute.
3. Because enforcing ArbCom sanctions is not considered to be "being in a dispute" with an editor. See WP:UNINVOLVED.
4. Yes, I investigated.
5. (1) The community has the authority to amend ArbCom decisions by consensus. (2) Irvine22 was not blocked per the Troubles case, but for a different reason. It's grey area as to whether this means the probation should be extended or not, though kind of moot, because if his probation were to expire and he were to resume disruptive activity, he could just be put on probation again.
6. Because while something is logged at the case page, it is considered to be active.

--Elonka 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with those replies, particularly the answer to question 1. For now, could you explain what option C is please? BigDunc 19:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The referenced diff really doesn't have much to do with the Troubles case. Instead, I was cautioning an editor that when they are reverting the edits of other established editors, they should also be engaging in discussion on the article's talkpage rather than just doing blind reverts. --Elonka 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with those answers in the slightest. Since you apparently do not like to answer more than one question at once, I will stick to the first question and related issues for now and move on to the others when I have received satisfactory answers.

On 30 November you replied to my earlier comment that stated that you did not have the authority to issue sanctions in areas which did not have them authorised. So, on 30 November did you have the authority to issue discretionary sanctions to "ensure the smooth running of the project" in areas which do not have them authorised? A yes or no answer will suffice, but bear in mind should you answer "yes" that I will wish to know where this authority comes from, so to save time and avoid being evasive I recommend you say where this authority comes from if you do answer "yes". Similarly in the Troubles area on 30 November, did you have the authority to "do what is necessary to stabilize the situation", and what does this entail? Your use of "includes" suggests that you believe your authority goes above and beyond the terms of the probation, is this the case? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that yes, Elonka specifically as well as any uninvolved administrator has the authority to place a user on probation or issue other sanctions in The Troubles topic area. See Wikipedia:General sanctions, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case and Template:Troubles restriction for the specific details. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The question was clearly relating to discretionary sanctions and not those Troubles-specific ones. BigDunc 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I'm answering this part of the question asked by One Night In Hackney: "...in the Troubles area on 30 November, did you have the authority..." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

His question refers to discretionary sanctions, not probation. If you had read the previous discussion linked to and the diffs, you would realise that discretionary sanctions are what is being discussed. BigDunc 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the diff where Elonka is talking about the specific points of the General Sanctions of The Troubles case? I see no mention of discretionary sanctions there. Can you provide a diff where Elonka has placed someone under discretionary sanctions where there are none? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Elonka has placed someone under discretionary sanctions, the issue is whether she falsely claimed she had the authority to place someone under any sanctions she wanted to. BigDunc 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And if she did, what then? I'm having trouble understanding what you and One Night In Hackney are trying to get out of this. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Ioeth, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, BigDunc? Which claim of mine are you referring to? --Elonka 01:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I really shouldn't have to spell it out so obviously when the diffs are linked and explained, but here goes. I said "however there's no comparable restriction available for admins to impose as a result of The Troubles case or any community imposed sanctions. There is no policy based reason as to why anyone should obey your dictats, as in fact policy says the exact opposite". You replied saying "Actually, uninvolved administrators very definitely can issue restrictions, in order to "ensure the smooth running of the project".". Now you put those seven words in quotation marks for a reason, because you copied them from somewhere and we both know where. So, on 30 November did you have the authority to issue discretionary sanctions to "ensure the smooth running of the project" in areas which do not have them authorised? A yes or no answer will suffice, but bear in mind should you answer "yes" that I will wish to know where this authority comes from, so to save time and avoid being evasive I recommend you say where this authority comes from if you do answer "yes". Similarly in the Troubles area on 30 November, did you have the authority to "do what is necessary to stabilize the situation", and what does this entail? Your use of "includes" suggests that you believe your authority goes above and beyond the terms of the probation, is this the case? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And again, you have asked the same questions you have been all along. What's your point? I ask because it looks like all you're here to do is harass Elonka about something she said 2 months ago. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I can name one editor who feels she has done the same to him. BigDunc 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also for what it is worth asking legitimate questions which have not been satisfactorily answered is not harassment. BigDunc 15:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, I'm assuming? So is the whole point of this that Elonka put One Night In Hackney under some kind of restrictions? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the whole point of this is discovering if Elonka deliberately misrepresented her authority in an attempt to intimidate other editors, or the point of the questions anyway. BigDunc 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for stating that in such a concise manner. I think that's a very subjective question that's open to interpretation of Elonka's statements by the reader. Do I personally think that she "deliberately misrepresented her authority in an attempt to intimidate", no. Do I think she could have worded her statements better, probably so. Now, do you really think that the best way to get an answer to that question is to berate Elonka on her talk page? And if she gives the answer that you two keep pestering her for, what then; use it in an ArbCom case against her? It seems to me that if you really want a good answer, you should ask the community for input, like at WP:RfC or WP:AN for instance. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Domer is planning an RfC. BigDunc 15:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Have I "deliberately misrepresented my authority"? No, I don't believe I have. And anyway, to my knowledge, I have never used discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. If I had, I would have logged them here: User:Elonka/ArbCom log, where there is a comprehensive list of discretionary sanctions which I have used in other topic areas, along with the probations and revert restrictions which I have placed in the Troubles topic area, which are well within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. As for what administrators can do in the Troubles topic area, beyond placing probations and enforcing revert restrictions, the Arbitration Committee has been somewhat vague. Some of the arbitrators have supported the idea of discretionary sanctions, and some have said that specific discretionary sanctions aren't needed, since administrators are already authorized a certain amount of discretion to prevent disruption to the project.[2] Another applicable precedent here would involve the page ban which Angusmclellan placed on Domer48. That's a discretionary sanction, which was controversial, but the consensus of administrators who reviewed the situation at the time, was that the page ban was an appropriate measure. If there's disagreement about whether that page ban is valid, the appropriate way to handle it is to bring it up at WP:AE or WP:AN and get more opinions. However, it would probably be moot anyway since the ban is set to expire in a couple weeks, on February 9th. Then again, if it would help settle this issue of whether or not it's even appropriate for an administrator to place a page ban in this topic area, it might be a useful exercise. --Elonka 16:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have "deliberately misrepresented" quite a number of things since you showed up. Some examples would include this here on Sinn Féin, in addition to this this here on Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association and the same on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles by ignoring this this discussion which clearly states that 1RR is not and never was a part of the Troubles ArbCom. So to then claim that this is was consensus for your amendment here is very wrong. But you have also claimed that consensus supported your addition here when we all know that's not true, this discussion was closed by the sock abusing IP who opened it. They looked for a second opinion here and were told no consensus. This discussion has not been closed, yet despite this you say here there was consensus. But then you also claimed here that their was still a ban in place on me when you know full well it was dropped as invalid and unsupportable. Not only did you know this, but as soon as it was dropped, you place me on probation, and went straight to the adimis talk page to tell him. you then tried to encourage him on his talk page to start a thread at WP:AN about discretionary sanction, and since he though better of it, you had to do it herself. This request for "Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was rejected, and although you claimed to accepted this as not having any consensus, you still went just a couple of hours later and chanced her arm at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment but alas, you had no luck there either. Because you have "deliberately misrepresented" the situation a number of editors have asked to to address the concerns and to date you have been evasive and at this stage disruptive. You made a number of claims and allegations about me and I've asked you to support them with diff's. Now there has been a number of attempts to resolve this, and I will even at this late stage ask you to support the probation with diff's of me edit warring or remove it! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, I'm trying to understand this message, but most of these diffs don't make a lick of sense. Could you please take a second look at them and make sure that you've diffed what you meant to? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do seem to be having trouble understanding things? Why not start by asking Elonka for the diff's of me edit warring which resulted in her placing me on probation? If you were placed on probation, I think it would be reasonable to know why don't you? Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I know perfectly why you're on probation and don't need anyone to supply me with diffs to see why that's the case; I'm adept enough to be able to pick them out myself. What I don't understand, however, is how diffs like this one are relevant to your point. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your turtle photo goes to the main page!

Thanks again for uploading commons:File:ThienMuTurtle2001.jpg! After I nominated the bixi (tortoise) article for DYK, the posting admin chose that picture (from others available in the article) to put to the DYK page - which means that it will be on the main page for 6 hours... Presently, it's in the Template:Did_you_know/Queue. Just to let you know. Vmenkov (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Awww, thanks for letting me know! I'll have to tell some of my friends that my elbow is making it onto the mainpage.  ;) --Elonka 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You WP:CDA comment (now at WT:CDADR)

RE: Community de-Adminship.

Hi, I moved you comment on 'editors in good standing' (and my and MacDui's responses) to the draft page, as Newyorkbrad raised the matter there, and has had some responses. It's better all in one place, and the draft page is where all the discussion currently is. I took out my comments on Ireland, they were hardly needed. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye on the discussion. :) --Elonka 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Church of the East" and the Eastern Orthodox Church

Hi Elonka. I'm not sure if "Church of the East" can refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, or if the terms refer to distinctly different entities that just have similar sounding names. If the latter is true, I think the article should be reverted back to what I had put so that people do not confuse the two names. SoccerMan2009 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not an article, it's a disambiguation page, so it should be fine. See WP:MOSDAB. --Elonka 05:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)