User talk:Elonka: Difference between revisions

PHG

Hello Elonka, hope you're well. I have told PHG that he may edit the Imperial Japanese Navy article, which is currently being reviewed - see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Imperial Japanese Navy/archive1. I am sure this will turn out for the best. Well, I sure hope so anyway, because I'm going to look awfully stupid if it doesn't. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection, thanks for letting me know! I see that he's also changed account names, to Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs). --Elonka 04:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sinn Féin again

Hi, two issues:

1. There's confusion about your question here, i.e. - Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of the founding year of the Sinn Féin organization, what do you believe is the consensus of the above discussions? Not your personal opinion of how you'd like the article to be written, but what do you think the group consensus is at this point? Most editors seem to have answered this question as though it were asking about consensus on the issue itself, rather than how to deal with the issue. Could you assist by clarifying? (I've emboldened the relevant part of the question.)

2. At History of Sinn Féin, a dispute has arisen which - under the Arbcom Troubles remedy - I believe needs to be brought to the attention of an outside opinion (in order to avoid an edit war). As you know, there is an ongoing dispute at Sinn Féin about the foundation of the party:

• The party split in 1970 into two. Some editors claim, however, that the minority faction to that split (the party currently known as Sinn Féin, and previously referred to as Provisional Sinn Féin) now "owns" the continuity of the pre-split party; while other editors say that to favour one side of the split (the Provisionals) over the other (the party currently known as the Workers Party, and previously referred to as Official Sinn Féin) is (a) to go against the large majority of sources, and (b) in breach of NPOV. (Those supporting "continuity" argue that the sources favouring 1970 are not acceptable because they doubt the veracity of the primary research of some, and because some book titles and structures imply continuity.)

The History of Sinn Féin article is de facto an article about the party before the 1970 split. A dispute arose when one user attempted to insert a "Main article" tag into the article, directing to Sinn Féin. This was opposed because it supported the POV that the current party enjoys singular continuity with the pre-split party. Consensus emerged not to include this tag, although there was no consensus about inserting a different tag. Another editor, however, then added a "See also" tag - again directing to Sinn Féin. I was content with this, so long as there would also be a "see also" tag directing to Workers Party of Ireland. My attempt to insert this tag, however, has resulted in reverts by other editors. I sought to discuss the issue, but neither reverting editor has engaged. Hence I seek an uninvolved opinion. Thanks. (You can follow the history of the dispute from the Talk page. You'll see that users BigDunc, Domer48 and Cathar11 have reverted the "See:also WOrkers Party" tag, but that myself, Valenciano and Damac have all expressed support for a more neutral hatnote. There doesn't therefore appear to be any consensus for the "see also: Sinn Fein hatnote on its own.) Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an attempt to move the consensus building to another article. BigDunc 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's what it says it is: an attempt (a) to clarify the question, and (b) to avoid an edit war and resolve a dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So your attempt to stop an edit war is to insert content that has been removed by 3 editors, that's a good strategy. BigDunc 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The alternative is to take the hatnote away altogether, as there was no consensus for it. Maybe you'd be better advised discussing this on the relevant talk page? Mooretwin (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's let the poll run for a few more days, and then we'll see where we stand. --Elonka 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But we need to know what the poll is meant to be about! See request for clarification at (1) above. Mooretwin (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one confused Mooretwin, read the responses, everyone understands its to state what we thing the consensus is, and so far we have all said that its the current version. --Snowded ^TALK 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful intervention. The stated question is "Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of the founding year of the Sinn Féin organization", which appears to imply it's about how to deal with the issue rather than the issue itself. Whether or not that it correct, only Elonka can clarify - not you nor anyone else. Mooretwin (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming, Elonka, from your failure to respond to this request that you are unwilling to assist with the dispute at History of Sinn Féin. Accordingly, I intend to take the request to another admin, as there is a real danger of edit-warring, given the recent comment by Domer48. Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What a surprise you are going to find somewhere else to discuss this. The forum shopping king. BigDunc 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that heads up. I was unaware of that. That rule didn't exist when I was here before so I had no idea. In the meantime, not knowing of that rule I did another revert. Apologies.

I pity your attempting to deal with the quagmire that is Sinn Féin on here. When I was active here a few years ago it used to drive most Irish posters up the wall with frustration. A small but vocal group of activists from various sides would wage edit wars against each other (well, I suppose it was a change from they and their respective IRAs waging actual wars against each other) and factual inaccuracies would be defended from one side or the other almost to the death even when every neutral historian knew for a fact that what was claimed was demonstrably factually accurate. For example Griffith did not join SF in 1905 and in fact the name "Sinn Féin" as a specific party name, going from memory, only dates from 1907. What was created was "Sinn Féin clubs" which meant that the organisation was just an umbrella for other organisations, and only became one identity in its own right later on.

Anyway, apologies for the second reversion. I'll unrevert (or is it re-revert) it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert, that works.  :) Also, since you have experience as an admin (though I understand you're participating here as an involved editor), I'd appreciate if you could participate in the "Consensus poll" thread on the talkpage? It would be helpful if you could take a look at the previous discussions, and add your own opinion to the list, of what you think the current consensus is. Even if you disagree with that consensus, it might still help to provide a baseline for future discussions and changes. Thanks, --Elonka 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Supporting accusations

You placed me on probation here citing this ruling here. I dispute this and you have not provided any supporting diff’s which would support the accusation that I engaged in edit-warring or disruptive editing on “Troubles” related articles I'm asking you now to do so. Editors who make claims and accusations should support them with diff's or withdraw them. Now Editors would like to see diff's which directly support your accusation and not explanations. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, probation was placed on your account in November, for 3 months, due to edit-warring and also defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication (I'd have to double-check for exact diffs). The probation would have expired in February, but since you were blocked in mid-December for violating the 1RR restriction, this extended it to mid-March. If you'd like to check diffs or your block log, check here, look around the time of early November 2009: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Elonka 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You were asked for the diff's to support your accusation not explanations! Now Editors would like to see them please. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The diffs are here: Domer48 (talk · contribs). Click on your contribs, then review actions from November 1-11, 2009. Or is there something in particular that you're looking for? If it's helpful, here are the warnings (including diffs) which I placed on your talkpage leading up to the probation, on October 25, November 4, November 6, and November 8,[1] I might also point out that after you were placed under probation, your next edit summary was Please stay away with your nonsense. Does that help jog your memory at all? --Elonka 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a reasonable request and asked for the diff's which support your accusation! Now I'm not looking for a big song and dance about it! So one more time! Provide the diff's of me edit warring! Is that simple enough for you to understand!--Domer48_'fenian' 18:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Elonka a reasonable request was made to you to provide diffs for Domer being placed on probation, your contention of edit warring is very hollow if you cant supply diffs. Why won't you supply the diffs you are asked for? I have asked you previously to supply diffs which I am still waiting on, what is this aversion you have?BigDunc 19:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you not able to see my above post, with diffs, from 16:50? --Elonka 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see the post but no evidence of edit warring only warnings from you. BigDunc 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the warnings, then you will see that they include diffs of the edit-warring and other behaviors which led to the probation. Which tools do you use to edit Wikipedia? I use WP:POPUPS, which means that I can just hover my mouse over a diff to see what it says. It's a great time-saver! --Elonka 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening a request for comment involves the formality of attempting to resolve the issue with the editor involved. Now I know I was not edit warring, and I'm unable to find diff's which would support this accusation and that is why I'm asking. Now Elonka, you can prevaricate all you want here if you want, but on a request for comment you will have to provide the diff's! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What issue exactly are you trying to address? You feel that you shouldn't be on probation? --Elonka 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer-why are you bringing this up now vice when the probation was put in place? Your demanding tone here is not helping you at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We are dealing with the accusation of edit warring! You have accused me of it and will not provide the diff's to support you claim. I'll then deal with your accusation of me defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication! I know that I shouldn't be on probation, I know I did not edit war, I know I did not defying consensus any consensus! I can also show with diff's that there is no consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication, I can also show with diff's you being dishonest not only about the consensus at at WP:RSN but also about 1RR! My tone is measured and reasonable Rlevse, so unless you are going to encourage the production of the Diff's what exactly are you here for? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, if you feel that the probation was inappropriate, your best tactic is to open a thread at WP:AE and ask for it to be reviewed. I have no objection to obtaining input from other uninvolved administrators on this matter. --Elonka 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No I consider a request for comment the best course! Since you will not provide the diff's to support you claims and accusations. The request for comment will be about you and focus on your actions. you will have to support the probation and you will need to provide the diff's. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's talk about the Aubane Historical Society. The dispute sparked at the Irish Bulletin article, and then a thread was started at the Reliable Sources noticeboard in October 2009. I, as an uninvolved admin, reviewed the discussion and made a determination of consensus[2] at Talk:Irish Bulletin. This determination was then challenged at ANI.[3] Another uninvolved admin, DGG (talk · contribs), endorsed my views.[4] A followup thread at RSN also endorsed my determination.[5] The consensus of the multiple threads seems pretty substantial, that Aubane Historical Society is generally not to be regarded as a reliable source. Domer48, you keep saying that there's no consensus, but just because you disagree with the consensus, does not invalidate it. Threatening an RfC at this point just seems to be more forum shopping. Please, it's time to let this one go. --Elonka 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you bring it up again, the 'initiating editor' was later blocked for 3 months as a sock (although his talk page from that iteration does not reflect this fact for some reason). That process was a farce from the beginning. RashersTierney (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, more accusations! Elonka I'm not Threatening a RfC I've told you quite clearly that this was my intention should you continue to ignore reasonable requests. I have provided you the opportunity here to address the issue of diff's to support your claims and accusations against me and you simply prevaricate. Now as part of the RfC process, editors are encouraged to try and resolve the issue informally, and that is what I've attempted to do. The request must be supported by at least two editors who have attempted and failed to resolve the issue, to date I can count four editors who have asked you to supply diff's to support your accusations and on each and every occasion you ignored the request. While RashersTierney has summed up the issue of the sock abusing banned editor on the issue of the Aubane Historical Society quite well I will address Elonka's peculiar notions on what constitutes consensus, next. The fact is, I was not put on probation because of the Aubane Historical Society I did not "defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication" either and it seems pointless to ask but!!! Can you provide a diff of me defying consensus? I was put on probation for edit warring! I've asked for the diff's to support the accusation and still have not got anything other than more accusations. This type of conduct from an Admin is too common on the project and is detrimental to it in my opinion and perhaps it is beyond the scope of a RfC.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer you were given multiple warnings which include diffs to the edits that were problematic. If you can't be bothered to look at those (even after Elonka linked directly to them here) then its not up to anyone on this project to lead you around and read them to you. If you want the probation reviewed now, there are appropriate ways to do so - railing at Elonka and pretending to be blind aren't appropriate. Shell ^babelfish 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aubane Historical Society

Please note on Reliable Source Notice Board discussion who closed it. It was the same sock abusing IP who opened it. The attitude to this on ANI was quite clear and simple! This is the trainwreck of a WP:RS noticeboard discussion. Closure by IP editor did not seem to match consensus - I would say it should have been closed "no consensus". Regardless... here it is. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Even the sock abusing IP accepted this in the original discussion and ANI's determination. [6][7] To even suggest that the follow-up thread at RSN also endorsed [your] determination.[8] is without any merit at all. To suggest that this comment here by DGG was a ringing endorsement of your determination is again tendentious, it was not even part of the discussion at ANI or on Reliable Source Notice Board it was on the article talk page and was posted before the ANI tread. In light of all this your comment above "The consensus of the multiple threads seems pretty substantial..." I'll let editors judge it on its merits. I'll also leave it to editors to find if they can were I was "defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication"? You could help by providing a diff? Elonka you made a determination, your determination is not consensus. Now you have not being able to support you claim on consensus, can you now support your accusation of edit warring? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearing the air and putting this behind us

The IP must be laughing his rocks off. This whole fiasco began when a disruptive editor with an agenda to have AHS put on a 'black list' began to edit disruptively. At the time no 'involved editor' dare question his bone fides without being smacked with a WP:AGF notice. Fine - let the game play out. The dishonest IP is eventually range-blocked, yet the series of faulty decisions put in train still stands, Irish Bulletin remains untouched because of a totally unnecessary 1RR, and well intentioned eds. (all contributors here) are at each others throats. Enough. Drop it please (thats you too Elonka). RashersTierney (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility?

Can I ask your opinion whether this represents incivility? If you think I was uncivil as well feel free to tell me, but I don't think I was. Scolaire (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(sigh). I left him a note, thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 00:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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:[9] --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)