Jump to content

User talk:Elonka/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Hi

Hi Elonka, sorry I didn't get to spam you before you saw it. ;).... I'm Ched, nice to meet you. Thanks for getting involved. — Ched :  ?  04:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Elonka. Stay away from Ched. He's a trouble maker. But actually I came here to ask if, based on your puzzle expertise, someone saying "So what I suggest that you do is to rearrange these letters into a well known phrase or saying 'kucf fof'" amounts to incivility? What if there are well known phrases that can be arranged from the letters that are perfectly innocent? Are there any? This is not actually an important request. But it amuses me. And I can post this comment or improve the encyclopedia... Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say both comments are uncivil: the scrambled one, and saying that someone is a trouble maker. --Elonka 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Why did you post this here CoM? Who are you trying to get in trouble? You must surely know that Elonka warned me a couple of days ago about a comment I made about Chillum, and that I was the one who made the "'kucf fof" comment. [1][2] --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't link anything. So unless she went digging I don't see how there would be a problem.
I'm easily entertained and I like simple puzzles. What can I tell you? No, I didn't know Elonka warned you, or didn't remember anyway. She should apologize for that. You are very collegial and should be allowed to express yourself on your own talk page and to Chillum given all the hypocrisy, arrogance, double standards, bullying, and abuse that goes on here. :)
Wasn't Chillum banned for his socks... oops I mean "alternate accounts"?
So there are no other words that can be made with those letters? Are you sure? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure of only one thing. It doesn't pay to be honest on wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Technically, nothing pays on Wikipedia. But honesty is rewarded least of all. But maybe it is its own reward? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), may I suggest trying for a higher ratio of mainspace edits, and fewer to user talkpages? If you're looking for things to do, I'm sure there's plenty at WP:CLEANUP. For example, Category:Articles that need to be wikified? --Elonka 01:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Dearest Elonka, you have no idea how difficult it is to just edit articles quietly and in good faith. There is almost always some rogue coming around making trouble. See Sandstein, WMC, Tarc, and Geronimo for more details.
With all the frustrations they cause and the distracting demands of the drama boards and the drama mongerers who inhabit them, a little levity and distraction is often the only sanity maintaining escape available. If only were some group of capable and respected editors that actually assisted in keeping order and helping resolve disputes... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Astonishing. Do you ever bother to check your facts before you pontificate Elonka? It seeems like 59% of your edits are to articles, as opposed to 61% of mine. Has dishonesty become a requirement for wikipedia functionaries? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:GuillaumeDeVillaret.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:GuillaumeDeVillaret.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As your stamp image was tagged as being unacceptable, you might like to offer an opinion about changing their guidelines for stamps such as yours which would be considered commemorative stamps. Any opinions on this issue could be very helpful: It's discussed here.]--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:L'Oiseau Blanc stamp.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:L'Oiseau Blanc stamp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I absolutely swear, I made the possibly-compromise edit over at Atlantis before I went back over to Facebook to check on a thread I had previously posted on Mike Selinker's page, and saw your name in both places (Mike's page, not his thread). Yours was one of the 6 friend-of-Mike profiles FB chose to show me that time. Hi -- small world. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that's funny! I see you know Sean, too! Small world, indeed... --Elonka 03:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I only "Facebook-know" Sean, whereas Mike and I have broken bread together. I also once wrote an article (unpublished) on cryptography rules for the GURPS role-playing game. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Elonka/Work1

Now that the case is over, may I suggest that this page is no longer appropriate. Just passing thru, Rhomb (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting contribs there, Rhomb (talk · contribs). Only 12 edits, and you freely admit that you're an alt account.[3] Anyway, yes, I agree that the page will go away soon, but I'm going to keep it for awhile longer until I get all the archive links updated. My guess is that the diffs may be needed again at some point, and I'd like to have everything in one place rather than having to dig it all up again. :) --Elonka 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks for the message Elonka, it's nice to know when one's name is brought up at AN/I. I took a look at the discussion bu can't really see any point in commenting. Alun (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed

Hi Elonka, I just noticed that you are active again after a long break. Welcome back. I hope your break from here was refreshing to you. Well I just wanted to say hello. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re. Friday the 13th, 1307

I'd have thought, Elonka, considering the bio on your user page, that you'd have better-appreciated the point I am trying to make here...
{*sigh*}... I'll give some thought to better spelling out that point, then, I guess...
Regards ;) --Wikiscient 00:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Formerly protected Gilad Atzmon problem re-asserts self

You asked it be unprotected and another editor did so. The reason it was protected is because one individual (and his drive-by supporters) kept adding cherry picked primary source quotes to make Atzmon look bad. And now he's back at it. He includes long winded SoapBox explanations for why the article must prove how evil Atzmon is. Including since Protection lifted. And now he's removed the BLP dispute tag.

As you can see from his contributions he's quite obsessed with Atzmon and it's the main article he's edited over last year or so. I doubt he'll listen to any rational neutral editor - and biased editors who keep the conflict going keep getting attracted to the article when it's announced publicly. What's the best recourse? WP:ARBPIA and ask he be banned from the article? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Happy Elonka's Day!

User:Elonka has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Elonka's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Elonka!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Username

Hi Elonka. Sometime ago I changed my username from Xoniagar to User:Xashaiar (I am the same person). I want to stop using Xashaiar and instead I want to make my contribution under the username "Xoniagar". Is it OK or I need to put a formal request somewhere? xoniagar - talk 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

'Notification' at Irish Bulletin Talk Page

Hi Elonka! What is the significance of this notice. I've followed the links and am none the wiser. Does it determine specific guidelines as to how editing on this article should proceed, in some way differently from other articles? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! I've gone ahead and clarified what it means on the talkpage. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! --Elonka 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Murphy as self-published ref.

I've suggested the possibility of restricted, moderated use of the disputed source. This is the diff. Trying to find some way of resolving this issue. Hope my bringing this to your notice is not somehow inappropriate (walking on eggs these days:-) Anyway it might be a way to break the deadlock and get energies diverted back to the Article. RashersTierney (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Completely appropriate.  :) Feel free to bring up anything you like, including any concerns about sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, etc. The key is venue. On the article talkpage, it's important to keep discussions focused on the article. But on an administrator's talkpage, you can bring up pretty much anything you want, as long as it's done in a civil fashion.  :) --Elonka 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't think I've made my case too well, judging from reaction, at the RSN. I thought this new initiative might help. RashersTierney (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a content issue with me, I don't have any text I wish to remove at the moment, and I think it quite possible that your content will remain unblemished with neither tag nor faulty ref as simply uncontentious. Let's give it a moment to consider and if no issues arise - remove the [citation needed] tag in the near future.99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The outright removal of the ref. doesn't appear consistent with:

I endorse everything Fifelfoo has said, and have a few more points that may help. For history articles, especially those that relate to nationalism of any kind, the bar for sourcing is set high. Since Dr Murphy appears to be a qualified historian with a record of relevant publication, this source falls into the category of a scholar's self-published work. It can be used, but other sources should be preferred if possible. What I can't see immediately looking at the article is whether the statements this source is used for are controversial in any way. And are there any alternative sources that could be used for the same details? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Family commitments mean I won't be contributing here for a while. Can you see that it is restored, (with the restrictions appropriate to a self-published work). Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Ignore above. Its already been done. Best.RashersTierney (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

TB

Elonka, thank you for your patience, as I said on my talk page, I'm a little put out, but understand your reasoning about my edits, though the recent addition at the ANI didn't help. I apologize if I'm sounding a little upset, but am a little frustrated at the moment. Frmatt (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. Wikipedia can definitely be a frustrating place at times! When I find myself getting hot under the collar, I either step away from the computer, or I go do some wikignome activities for awhile. For example, there's lots to be done at WP:CLEANUP. I especially enjoy working through the pages at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, though Category:Articles that need to be wikified is good too, either to wikify articles, or remove the tag if they've already been handled. And it can be quite therapeutic to work on pages that aren't in dispute, in areas where people are actually grateful for the help! :) --Elonka 05:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions...have definitely had my fill of wiki-drama and high-intensity discussions for a while (too many ANI threads, and I'm the nominator of an article that has run to 125kbs on AfD...If you're okay with it, I'm going to copy/paste your last comment onto my userpage so that I've got somewhere to go when I get this frustrated! Frmatt (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be honored. Copy away!  :) --Elonka 05:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Could you explain this edit please. BigDunc 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was an attempt to clarify which restrictions are still in force, so as to assist with further arbitration enforcement. --Elonka 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
At your direction, a second opinion has been requested:[4]99.135.174.186 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

99

Hi, I see you are involved with this (dynamic) 1P 99, this user has similar editing history, if it is of interest to the present case the details are on my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the info, it's helpful. --Elonka 16:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have started a thread on this here, if you would like to participate. --Elonka 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've lost patients with the IP.99 (at WP:SOCK). Despite my pointing out how 'creating an account' is a good thing, he/she chooses to remain a hopping IP. It's become apparent to me, that he/she prefers to be treated as a troll. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In re: Bigdunc

Hey Elonka. Working through the Unblock backlog, and came to this block. Looks ok, as I'm seeing another revert on 21 October (here) that falls within the 1 week restriction. Do you have a link to that 1RR restriction, though? It's not at AE, I don't think, but I can't track it down. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm posting it at BigDunc's page now... Shall we make that the centralized location for this discussion, or would you rather keep it here at my talkpage? --Elonka 17:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that's fine - I see the editor has brought it up there, as well. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused here -- when was BigDunc placed on probation, so that the 1RR/week would apply to him? Seems to me it would just apply to the original participants, unless he was specifically added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
For simplicity's sake, would it be alright if we kept the discussion centralized at BigDunc's talkpage? --Elonka 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Block

Elonka I am the only editor who said they would adhere to 1RR on the IB article, I warned you that this causes nothing but trouble as unless you are going to patrol all articles related to thr troubles some editors that you notice will get blocked while others wouldn't. My suggestion of local consensus for the 1RR was ignored and now we are at ANI. BigDunc 19:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hoping that the discussion will help bring some clarity to the situation. You and I both know that the "1 revert per week" had already been discussed at the talkpage, but if the ANI thread helps to avoid situations like this in the future, it'll be a good thing! --Elonka 19:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Your last post on ANI says it all to me and I will have no more interaction with you, it is disingenuous of you to say I knew about 1 revert per week, I have been editing Troubles articles for years now and the only restriction I was aware of was 1RR per day. Instead of admiting your mistake you try to fudge the matter and hoist the blame on me, well that is BS, you were wrong simple. BigDunc 11:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
BigDunc, you saw me cross out the "one revert per day" part. You saw me say "one revert per week". You were engaged in the conversation, and even repeated back your understanding of the 1RR, though you disagreed with it. --Elonka 14:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sanborn

I've started to expand the Jim Sanborn article a bit. I might submit it to DYK in a few days in an attempt to bring it to the attention of more editors and hopefully enlist some to help on building the article up. Cheers :) Calmer Waters 00:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. On the advice of my admin coach/mentor I have updated my user name from B.s.n.R.N. to Calmer Waters which I've been told is less ambiguous than a seemingly random set of characters. Thought I would just point that out incase it looked odd to you. Cheers Calmer Waters 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hah, I was wondering about that, why there were suddenly two people editing all the Sanborn articles. It makes sense now, thanks for letting me know! :) --Elonka 16:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Is this ok? Majorly talk 18:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, on Term lengths, you signed twice (under Two years and under Three years): [5]. I just noticed because I was looking carefully after my vote was deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
My understanding was that this was okay, since in the "Poll" section, it says, "Sign multiple options if more than one is desirable to you.". --Elonka 01:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Correct, I've just seen that-- I was additionally confused because one of Hypocrite's double entries might be in the wrong place; he put a mention of "tactical voting" under "18 months" on term lengths, so I thought it was a mistake, and one of my votes was aparently deleted in an edit conflict. Anyway, I've asked if monitors are following the page, so looks good. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Back again...

As I guaranteed, his second edit since the block lifted was to come back and post something on my page... and the next was to further prove his plans to ignore any policies or warnings... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for letting me know, and for your patience! --Elonka 15:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, ma'am... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Hi Elonka. I've asked that the Aubane reliability issue be revisited. Just letting eds who were involved in the initial discussion know its reopened. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Juice Plus and User:Rhode_Island_Red

Would you please cast an eye over the Juice Plus article when you have time? Over the past months several editors without a history of editing there (including a couple who were rather unrestrained in their criticism of RIR) have commented on the negative tone of the Juice Plus article. Recent attemps to amend the paragraph on folate and homocysteine response have been met by stone-walling and editor denigration (accusations of SPA, meat/sock puppetry and COI have been made) from RIR. I think it may be time for another review of this article - I don't wish that on anyone but the situation is untenable as it stands. Please take a look. I'm posting this on Shell's page too). Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Symbol

Would it be possible to semi-protect this article? The too long plot section is primarily being restored by IP editors. Yworo (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Move wars

Thanks for your interventions at Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) and Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer). I've restored the articles to their original titles. The onus is on those wishing to move them to go through the RM process. Mooretwin (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

While I'd expect an Admin to know this, Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability
  • No original research
Now how does the player describe themselves? Do they describe themselves as Irish or British? We are not intrested here on how others describe them, but how they self identify. Northern Ireland as opposed to Northern Irish is at least WP:NPOV in the absence of any referenced sources when BLP is concerned. On the subject of Northern Ireland a high degree of sensitivity is required. Northern Irish is not and never has been a nationality. --Domer48'fenian' 23:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The players are from Northern Ireland. One played for Northern Ireland. Northern Irish is a footballing nationality. It has its own team. Mooretwin (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers, just call'em British. Thank goodness, Thompson doesn't self-indentify as a martian. Otherwise, Trevor Thompson (Martian footballer) would look rather funny. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Irish is a footballing nationality." Maybe the Admin can explain, but football is not a nationality. Now I've outlined our policy above on BLP please edit accordingly and there will not be a problem, however as of now I suggest you provide the sources that would be needed. --Domer48'fenian' 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On another note, Elonka could you possibly address your concerns to these edits and edit summeries? They contain personal attacks, in addition to incivility and also assumptions of bad faith. [6][7][8]. If you were to leave them a post you'll nedd to post it more than once. If there was a serious push to address such things I would most definitly insure to the best of my ability that I would not over step the mark on any of them. However, if these policies are used in a slective fasion it is very hard to take them serious. --Domer48'fenian' 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Elonka, the BLP articles should be using British for those born post-1707 & post-1922 (in the case of Northern Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Whee, okay, let me try and answer a few of these:
  1. I am probably not going to be able to personally monitor every Ireland-related article on Wikipedia.
  2. WP:BLP is indeed an important policy, but it doesn't immediately apply to every single detail on a biography, it is mainly concerned with negative information. For other disputes, normal dispute resolution procedures may be more appropriate
  3. If there's a clear case to move an article to another title, file a request at WP:RM. If other uninvolved editors agree, the article will be moved. If the consensus is truly obvious, then there may be a case for moving other articles that fall under the same rule. It may even be worth adding something to one of the naming guidelines. Is there any consensus precedent for this "Northern Ireland / Northern Irish" debate?
--Elonka 00:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
(Jogging my memory) I believe there was a discussion (which I was involved in) at WP:BLP, concerning the usage of 'Northern Irish'. I believe we chose from Northern Ireland as a neutral usage. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I have no preference what the title is, but I do have to ask, is it even necessary to specify nationality in the disambiguation tag? Why not just "Footballer"? --Elonka 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
We've got a Trevor Thompson (footballer) article. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Could it be disambiguated some other way? By birth year, or which team they're on? --Elonka 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep 'birth year' is how we handle at the Ice hockey articles. But, neither Thompson article shows a 'brith year'. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I got (through external links), howabout moving Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) to Trevor Thompson (b. 1936)? GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The simple rule of thumb is how the persons self identify. In the absence of a source, we use Northern Ireland. I agree Elonka "Why not just "Footballer." Northern Ireland Footballer is, in the absence of a source per WP:NPOV and inline with WP:BLP. Members of my famiely are from the north of Ireland, and to call them northern Irish would to them be very offensive. --Domer48'fenian' 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's already such an article, the English fellow Trevor Thompson (footballer). -- GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
For me to get into the middle and invoke BLP, I would need to see some reasonable indicator that this was genuinely an urgent matter. For example, can anyone provide a link to a source, that says that "Northern Irish" is a pejorative term, and that the politically correct version is "Northern Ireland"? If not, then I still recommend going through WP:RM. Get some uninvolved opinions into the mix, and then once there's a clear consensus, there will be a solid precedent to use for other similar cases. --Elonka 01:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another fucking edit/move war created by Mooretwin, how much time do we all have to waste on this every week!? He knows using "Northern Irish" is frowned upon and causes BLP and NPOV issue but he just does it to stir shit up and has admins like Elonka to support this bullshit. Just because you are from Northern Ireland doesnt make you Northern Irish, anyone with even the smallest bit of knowledge of the situation would know that - like GoodDay said use the year of birth as is done with others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 November 2009

VK blocked for 48 hours. --Elonka 01:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there any chance of he's being unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The irony of Who is the personal attack on ya fuckin lapdog? is presumably lost on Vk, but tread carefully here Elonka. I applaud your attempts at establishing zero tolerance of personal attacks, however the level of discourse in this area is such that such language is typical. Blocking some, but not others, for personal attacks risks raising tension even further. Whether you like it or not, you will now be considered "involved" in the eyes of many of the participants. Expect the Vk et al defense team to file motion at AN/I shortly... Rockpocket 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka you have things backwards, using "Northern Irish" is frowned upon with Northern Ireland in this situation more WP:NPOV. Now The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Now the question once again is, how does the person self identify? If there is no source to support either Irish or British, then "Northern Ireland Footballer" is the default. So your question "can anyone provide a link to a source, that says that 'Northern Irish' is a pejorative term" is irrelevant. As to Vin's block, one question. Who was the incivility and personal attacks directed at? As far as I can see it was not directed at anyone, therefore being blocked for bad language is simply wrong. I will obviously bring it up on ANI, and since rock has a lot of tolerance of personal attacks their comments here are strange to say the least. That they have unblocked an editor with a history of personal attacks, after an attack on Vin says quite a lot. --Domer48'fenian' 09:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Northern Ireland / Northern Irish issue, my talkpage is not the location to debate this question of content. Please remember that one of the tenets of the community sanction on Troubles-related articles (see {{Troubles restriction}}) is "All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions." So please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and file a request on the articles in question. Other options are to request opinions from WP:BLPN, or to file an RfC, but my genuine advice is that RM is probably the simplest option. To be clear: Anyone who continues to try and argue about this naming matter, rather than requesting advice from neutral parties, could be perceived as violating the sanctions. If you're not sure how to file an RM request, please ask and I'll be happy to show you how. --Elonka 16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR report

Elonka could you have a look at this 1RR report. It is a very clear case, and yet an editor can come along and close it? Now is it the case that editors can only be blocked for 1RR depending on which Admin you get to review the report? --Domer48'fenian' 10:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, this was a little WP:POINTy on your part, but I went ahead and blocked the anon for 24. To answer your question though: Yes, it can absolutely depend on the admin. It's very possible that admins can have reasonable disagreements on how to deal with a particular situation. --Elonka 16:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not directing your attention to the IP, but the report before it. So just that we are clear on it, you can violate 1RR but as to getting blocked for it, well that depends on the Admin who deals with it? --Domer48'fenian' 16:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct, admins can, and are expected to, use their own judgment in how to deal with a particular situation, especially in borderline cases. --Elonka 16:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That was not a borderline case. It was a clear 3RR on a 1RR article. Expect to see this on ANI alot, because this is what happened before. Selective application by Admin’s! While I am and was a strong supporter of 1RR I’ll not support being subject to the whims of any Admin. --Domer48'fenian' 12:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Elonka in light of your comments here here I think you'll agree that this latest personal attack and assumptions of bad faith by this editor being well aware as they are of your comments above is a bit much. Coupled with their comments here here and here not to mention equally uncivil edit summaries [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14][15][16]it needs to be addressed. --Domer48'fenian' 10:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to block someone today, for something they said a week or a month ago. Please wipe the slate clean, and try to just move forward? --Elonka 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about blocking anyone, I said it needs to be addressed. So no problem on my part with you doing nothing to address it, as long as your going to be consistent. --Domer48'fenian' 16:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikidots

I notice that the Wikidots proposal and our discussion of it have been deleted. Is it possible to get a copy of the whole of the page? Bielle (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) If you don't want it on site any more, my email access is open. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The proposal was certainly yours but about half the commentary I wrote. If you don't want to provide your text, perhaps you would be kind enough to email me a copy of my contributions. I can't seem to find the exchanges in my contributions' list. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. If my contributions turn out to be as you have stated, then I doubt I will keep them long. I would like to decide that for myself, though. Email keeps it all still off site. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving copy of text to Bielle's talk for the sake of continuity. Responding there. Bielle (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

5000 vs 20000

Looks like the DYK for Jim Sanborn created 5000 more hits while Kryptos gained over 20000+. Easy to tell where the interest is focused. Maybe Kryptos would be better focus for start-> GA -> FA nomination. Also appears to be quite abit more information availible. I am unfortunately having great difficulty abtaining information on his background. He seems not to share much with media, which is his right, but also makes it difficult to write the portions needed for GA. Also I believe more collaberation would be found on the latter article. Any thoughts? Calmer Waters 15:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Kryptos will be the easier sell, and there are many more sources on the sculpture than on Sanborn. There will also be two more articles about Kryptos coming out next month, in the non-fiction anthology Secrets of the Lost Symbol. One will be about the fact & fiction of Kryptos in Brown's The Lost Symbol, and the other will be an interview with Sanborn. --Elonka 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nazzadar

Well, It wasn't inadvertently. I just thought that was the place. I thought the cases could be followed with more info added.

Now I read that that forum is for incidents and this is more like a systematic behavior.  franklin.vp  03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

Hi Elonka, I saw that you posted for the first time in a while on the al-Durrah page. I just want to clarify that you're there as an editor, and not as an admin. Given the amount of adminning you did there before, I would personally see you as too involved to continue to be an admin on that page. I mean no disrespect by that, so please don't take it that way. It's just a question of sustained involvement.

As for the page move you commented on, I've posted a poll per WP:RM on the talk page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I've never edited the article, nor do I have any intention to do so. I have no opinion on the content or title, but will help out as an admin as I can. --Elonka 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I think when one of the main editors of the article—someone you neither took nor threatened admin action against—objects, that's something you ought to respect. That's all I want to say about it for now, as it's currently a moot point. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did issue cautions towards you in relation to the al-Durrah article. In any case, your concerns are duly noted; however, per the case wording, "Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute." --Elonka 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Where did you issue a caution to me? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example of a gentle one:[17] --Elonka 01:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not a caution, Elonka, just as my note to you here is not a caution. Had you left me a caution over al-Durrah, I'd have taken it to AN/I. Look, I'd prefer not to go through the reasons here that I'm asking you not to take admin action, because it would involve more writing than I'd prefer to do right now, and there's no point in discussing something in depth that hasn't happened. But if you do take admin action, I'll definitely go to AN/I with the reasons. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Any administrator's action is of course subject to review and discussion by other uninvolved admins. --Elonka 02:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Your responses strongly illustrate the problem, Elonka. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
What kind of a response are you looking for? --Elonka 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find this list of articles?

[18] I ask because I've had ongoing problems with this article on a 19th-century trial and execution of three Fenians after murdering a police sergeant, and if possible I'd like to have it added. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no official list, it's just anything related to the Troubles, and "when in doubt, assume it is related." See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies, and the other community discussions at the bottom of the page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. I took a quick look at Manchester Martyrs and didn't see any recent disruption, but it wouldn't hurt to put the {{Troubles restriction}} template on the top of the talkpage there. --Elonka 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If my memory serves, there was an AE clarification at some point after I blocked someone who edited Black and Tans when on probation under the same remedy. The gist if which is that anything that could be reasonably considered as related (even historically so, before the Troubles began) and was plagued by the same issues, could be placed under the remedy by an uninvolved admin. I wouldn't suggest doing it yourself, though, Malleus, given you have edited it recent. Perhaps a quick note at AE would be sufficient to get the attention of another admin. Rockpocket 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No thread at AE is needed. The wording is, "When in doubt, assume it is related." --Elonka 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Problem is, someone is going to have to add the template and make the other editors aware of the editing sanction. We can't exactly tolerate editors going past 1RR one day then suddenly sanction someone the next. It seems prudent that the person doing that job is uninvolved. Rockpocket 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The reason there's been no recent disruption is because the page was protected for a while after the most recent outbreak, and nobody, myself included, has gone back to it since. I'm going to do as Elonka suggests, and tag the article. Don't see the need for AE, it's a clear-cut case. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. Thanks for the advice Elonka. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't check the history and thus incorrectly assumed it was current, rather than latent, problems you were referring to. I think I may add it to black and tans too, on a similar basis. Rockpocket 03:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for

helping clean up the List of sculptors. red ink in those sorts of places is like a red flag to this bull and it is nice to run into other bulls every now and then. Carptrash (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, agreed. Those redlinks on lists tend to cause an immediate kneejerk cleanup response on my part, as well. --Elonka 16:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice here that you are an admin, so perhaps you can help me. I uploaded two maps, really the same map twice, but the colors that uploaded are NOT what I created in my computer, so they should be made to go away. They are File:Pre-historic Pueblo lands.jpg and File:Pueblo lands.jpg. They are and always will be orphans, and I'll continue trying to create the map in want and need. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up..

Sorry, I forgot to notify you.. I've taken the whole Domer and VK thing over to ANI, to try to get this settled before it REALLY gets out of hand. [19] is the link :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd been watching, but thanks for the notification anyway.  :) I do have to admit to being a bit perplexed as to why an ANI thread is needed, since it seems pretty straightforward to me: Domer48 was disruptive, I placed him under probation. Also, it's hard to say how there could be bias on my part, since I put one editor from each "side" on probation at exactly the same time: Domer48 and Mooretwin. Concerning Domer's claim that he's going to ignore the probation, I tend to just ignore that as fist-shaking. Because though he's been saying that he's not going to abide by it (or by the previous page ban placed by Angus), actions speak louder than words, and his behavior does appear to be respecting the newest restrictions. Anyway, if he violates the probation, he runs the risk of being blocked, by me or any other uninvolved administrator who wants to help out with arbitration enforcement. I do understand though that this is a highly volatile area, and that emotions run deep (generationally deep) on some of these issues. Since I'm a new admin on the scene, I'm still coming up to speed on the backstory. So if you feel that an ANI thread is appropriate, I'll trust your judgment. --Elonka 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

I think you have now earned this Elonka. Keep up the good work you are doing.

Home-Made Barnstar
For helping enforce good editor behavior at Troubles-related articles. John (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your help?

Hello again... I do believe our friend is back, but this time has decided to do his editing as an IP... it's the same 67.16x that he had used before... could you do something about this? Thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you point me at more of the information which makes you think this is the same person? Sorry, I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I just work on a lot of different articles, and don't remember the details of all of them. For example, when you say "the same 67.16x", can you point me at the other IP he was using? Also, is there a sockpuppet investigation page where this information is being gathered? Thanks, --Elonka 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The previous username was Chao19 (talk · contribs), your and my previous discussions are here and here... he used the IP 67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) previously, and this new IP has just started editing today, and only edited Creed related articles so far... he has removed maintenance templates, and also undid a redirect with the edit summary "Undid revision 325351005 by Adolphus79 (talk) look just becuz u dont like creed doesnt mean you can get rid of the song page.."... the fact that this new IP only started editing today, and has only edited Creed articles to remove maintenance templates, remove AfD templates, and undo one article which was changed to a redirect per WP:NSONGS (I did not make it a redirect), and has already made one stab at me, although not as uncivil as he has been in the past, makes me say that this is obviously Chao19... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, as you appear to be engaged in a "clean-up" of beheaviour on these articles I think, in fairness to the whole Irish editing community you should share your view of what a "troubles-related" article is. Most of us were under the impression that "the troubles" occurred half a century after the Kilmichael Ambush, for example. But you say it is "troubles-related". This is a rather important point if you are enforcing 1RR and the Arbcom ruling with blocks. I'd be concerned that you might interpret the next roads article I edit as "troubles-related"; we can't be too careful. So in order to reassure the Irish editors that your actions are in compliance with the Arbcom ruling we need a clear definition of what you interpret as "troubles-related". Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

btw; this question is to you Elonka, not John or Rock who tend to pop up everywhere I do. It is your definition we need to understand before we test it for compliance with Arbcom's ruling. Sarah777 (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I first asked this question last night. Now I see that at 04:28, 12 November 2009 you made a proposal at ANI - without notifying anyone - that would effectively do away with the need for you to explain yourself! Nice. Sarah777 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Attack or explanation?

Elonka, did you take VK's explanation of the phrase "cop onto yourself" as a chance to piggyback an insult onto Domer's incivility, or as a humorous explanation of the implications of the expression? If you didn't take it as a PA, then I don't want to move forward under the assumption that it was one. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would rate the language as qualifying as a personal attack, yes. And, as I know now, it wasn't even a proper definition of the "cop onto yourself" phrase, which is probably better defined as "Get a grip onto yourself" or "Get ahold of yourself", from the old English "cop" meaning to take or seize. --Elonka 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
And if it is Jdorney has now reverted twice in one day another clear breach of 1RR. Having only recently been blocked for 1 week for same. BigDunc 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Another snafu. Elonka had replied on my page - I missed it in the blizzard of messages. My bad. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Dunc, myself and JD have differences but I'm not going to support egging someone to block him! He's NOT good at spotting "slant" but he does know his history. Credit where it's due :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing to do with getting anyone one blocked, I have said it numerous times I don't want anyone blocked, even Rock, ;) BigDunc 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22

I have heard it mentioned the spirit of 1RR could you check out here, Irvine is just back from his second block in 2 weeks and is straight in with very controversial edits. Which have all been reverted. BigDunc 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to have a look at this user continued disruption be it in articles or edit summaries, you have warned users about probation and you have blocked others, you might have missed this post so I am asking again could you please look into this thank you. BigDunc 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I'll take a look. --Elonka 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ban violation?

Since User:Shell_Kinney is on wikibreak, is the ban considered dropped? Or is there another avenue that this should be taken to, or should it just be dropped? DigitalC (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a diff of what she said exactly? --Elonka 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
diff DigitalC (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, it's logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience that QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is banned from all topics related to Chiropractic for 6 months, starting in August 2009. This ban is still valid, regardless of whether or not Shell Kinney is active on-wiki. Can you give me diffs of what you think are the violations of this ban? --Elonka 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • diff - QuackGuru edits Quackery, adding information about D.D. Palmer, the founder of Chiropractic, below "He founded the field of chiropractic..." and directly below a reference tag containing "History of Chiropractic • Carl Cleveland, Jul '52".
  • diff - QuackGuru adds information to a section of Vaccine controversy, adding information directly after a sentence that mentions Chiropractic.
From my reading of the ban, s/he was to be banned from "any topics dealing with Chiropractic", and the above topics obviously dealt with Chiropractic.
DigitalC (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • diff - while this edit is uncontroversial, QuackGuru is supposed to not be editing these pages at all. This article Trick or Treatment is about a book that "evaluates the scientific evidence for acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine, and chiropractic".
  • diff - is one of QuackGuru's several edits to Naturopathy. This edit is again below a sentence mentioning chiropractic. The article itself should probably be a no-gone zone, as it has several mentions of Chiropractic in it.
DigitalC (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • diff - QuckGuru's ban specifically mentioned QuackWatch. Here is another edit of him editing the article of a book examining Chiropractic, and adding a link to a review hosted at QuackWatch. The book review that he added again specifically mentions Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Unfortunately, I won't have time to read these in detail... I recommend that you open a thread at WP:AE with this information, and see what others think. --Elonka 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Violation of probation?

The editor was warned about the probation but has decided to delete properly sourced text here and here after returning from a wikibreak. The editor has a possible COI. What avenue should be taken? QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of the ban which Shell Kinney may have imposed. However, if there are concerns that an ArbCom-related ban may have been violated, then the proper venue to bring this up would be at WP:AE. --Elonka 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles discretionary sanctions II

Hi Elonka. I thought your Troubles discretionary sanctions proposal was quite good, and needed to avoid Troubles II. So I've asked at User_talk:Seraphimblade#Troubles whether the community might re-continue that discussion (somewhere?). It probably isnt an "incident" any longer, but the next incident is likely just around the corner. I've also asked for thoughts from Sarah[20]. If you cant find community support, please bring it to arbcom to consider. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 05:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I have filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: The Troubles. --Elonka 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How is any article, once determined by an admin. as 'Troubles related', to be de-listed? The particular article I have in mind is Irish Bulletin. The disruptive editor has been banned. How long more is 1 revert per 24 hrs. supposed to apply to everyone editing on this page? RashersTierney (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no de-listing, it's just permanent. Per community consensus, all Troubles-related articles are under 1RR. However, the restriction does not apply when reverting vandalism, or reverting edits made by anonymous IPs. --Elonka 21:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that is reasonable and sustainable? RashersTierney (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The community consensus for it in October 2008 was quite strong,[21] so yes. --Elonka 21:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I've edited here for some time now on many Ireland-related articles. I've never come across this restriction before, or if I did, just moved on because the editing rather than the topic was inflammatory. 'Troubles-related' might sometimes just be a hammer to crack some nuts. Or it might just be nuts. RashersTierney (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the stark warning at Irish Bulletin. Please don't reapply an unnecessary restriction. RashersTierney (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the template is there, is irrelevant. The 1RR restriction is still in effect. --Elonka 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it should not be. RashersTierney (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The firm but fair line who is taking? RashersTierney (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Elonka, whose talk page this is. --John (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
What possible benefit to the project is that restriction having at Irish Bulletin? RashersTierney (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It's keeping nationalists (of either stripe) from ruining the article, which in my view is a good thing. --John (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Based on what evidence exactly do you come to that conclusion? There was only ever one problematic editor there, who has since been banned as a sock (and the restriction had no bearing on his/her 'outing'). The 1 revert restriction and the intimidating warning are unnecessary and potentially discouraging positive contributions. RashersTierney (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how it is keeping British Nationalism in check; except in relation to a number of Irish articles. Perhaps we should explore the problem of British nationalism more widely - I see it all over British articles, like a plague. Even in the title of some roads articles. As British Nationalism is a vastly greater problem, far greater than any other nationalism bar American Nationalism I am concerned that the Elephants in the room are being ignored while minor problems like alleged Irish or Balkan nationalism attracts all the draconian action. Something very rotten in the state of Wiki? Sarah777 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. If you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in this page. --John (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ta John. I've not only seen that page I've nearly memorised it :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture request

Sorry, I don't...I'm based in London, England and took the photo on a visit to New York in February. However, there are staff based in the office in the cemetery itself who are quite helpful and they may be able to help you. Jack1956 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins noticeboard

Just to let you know i have made a post on the Admins noticeboard about the BNP being considered an articles related to the troubles here. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up

I commend ya, Elonka, on your cool headedness. Those Troubles articles are really a headache, at times; doubly so for administrators. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Irish Bulletin

Classic example of how clampdowns can degenerate into intimidation (as viewed by non-Admins). Where is the edit-warring that merits 1RR in this article? Was it the mere presence of Domer? If I decide to edit English historical articles will we have 1RR tags slapped on them just 'cos of my presence? If you can promise me that I'll get cracking straight away, starting with the Battle of Hastings and working my way up to the war in Afghanistan. Sarah777 (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And if we go by the definition of "troubles-related" supplied by Angus then Irish Bulletin does not come under the Arbcom ruling at all. So any block based on an imagined Arbcom sanction would be a bad block which would mean the blocker would no longer be suitable to be involved in "troubles-related" articles. Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Elonka, you did an excellent job in identifying and stopping the 'gaming' IP at this article, and perhaps I should have thanked you for your extensive efforts before this, but I was always perplexed at the tagging of this article as 'Troubles-related'. My reservations on extending Admin. powers in this area are not due in any way to doubts about your good intentions or integrity. Just thought you should know. RashersTierney (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Civility

I have stricken my last comment. I hope that is sufficient. Thanks for your note. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The time maybe coming, to stricken Irvine22 from all those 'Troubles articles'. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Per this and subsequent to the conversation we had on his talk yesterday, I am inclined to agree with GoodDay on this matter. --John (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain more? From an outsider's perspective, that seems to be a normal comment about content. If there's something particularly inflammatory about it though, could you please spell it out for me? (preferably in a brief comment, with a link to a source or two). Thanks, --Elonka 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Its not outrageously inflammatory, but it is provocative (and I would say, knowingly so). The reason the decommissioning of arms was such a long, convoluted process is that both sides were very much interested in claiming the settlement was a victory towards achieving their respective goals. Suggesting that decommissioning was "imposed upon [the IRA] by unionism and the British and Irish governments" is to imply that the IRA lost their "war" and was forced to give up arms. This is consistent with the "No surrender" rhetoric of the Loyalist faction. In contrast, the IRA (and those of a Republican persuasion) will claim the IRA chose to decommission only after getting the concessions they demanded and therefore the British lost their battle against the IRA.
In short, that comment is just one of many persistent sly comments aimed at purposefully riling those who are familiar with the subject. It serves zero purpose towards improving the article and appears aimed at stoking disputes. Rockpocket 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Its also a part of a persistent pattern. Irvine has taken a position that the PIRA failed in its mission - an strong, possibly extreme unionist position. At one stage he was blocked for persistently edit waring over this. His comment above was yet another in that sequence and given his knowledge of the historical contact it was deliberately designed to provoke. We see a similar behaviour over attempts to try and make any Irish Republican English or Scottish in ancestry. What we have here is a persistent series of edits around a strong POV accompanied by provocative statements on the talk pages in the the edit summaries. A ban results in a temporary peace before he returns to more of the same. To someone without knowledge of the history it may seem innocent, but it isn't. We see the same pattern now shifting to Scotland, where s/he has taken a strong unionist to say that the United Kingdom's national anthem is the Scottish National anthem, Something not supported by citation and again knowingly aimed a provoking scottish editors (see the edit summaries). A study of his/her edits over a period of time (and the various blocks that have gone with that, not to mention the use of IPs and the one sock that we know of gives you a bigger picture here. --Snowded TALK 01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Snowded, you seem to have joined Rockpocket in characterizing my "position" as "Unionist". I have certainly never characterized myself in that way on Wikipedia, and indeed I would not. If you and Rockpocket choose to impute that position to me, and maintain that such a position is somehow provocative, that says more about your POV than mine. (And BTW the notion that PIRA "failed in its mission" may just as well be a traditional Republican position, taken by Anthony McIntyre, Bernadette Sands-McKevitt, Dolours Price and other such luminaries.) Irvine22 (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You self declared on your own page, and in various talk page conversations. Remember Chocolate Orange when you were accusing another editor of using racist language? Sorry Irvine I don't buy the protestation, its more wikilawyer/gaming etc, etc. I am weary of it. --Snowded TALK 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the other editor to whom you refer will appreciate you raising that matter. Suffice it to say that I have agreed to move past that, and have been working constructively, on and off, with the other editor since. It is pretty telling, though, that not one of you - John, GoodDay, Rockpocket, RepublicanJacobite, Snowded - can point to a single instance of incivility on my part, or indeed provide diffs for these supposed "provocative" edits and summaries.Irvine22 (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that, having identified a gap in the article's coverage of the decommissioning issue, I offered what you (Rockpocket) termed a perfectly good stab at a paragraph to plug the gap. Rather than engage constructively on that basis, certain other editors prefered to perpetuate personal conflict, tag team gaming and incivility directed towards myself. That is unfortunate, and I have not responded in kind, nor will I. I do however refute the suggestion that my contributions are anything other than content-focused good faith attempts to improve the article, and I regard your above characterization of my edits to be tendentious and unsubstantiated. Irvine22 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Irvine, did you ever hear of the concept of getting it "right first time"? Eleven edits on Elonka's page to produce such a mouse - I mean, really! Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly so, which is why I responded by saying "Rubbish". The subsequent exchange may not have been helpful, and I will admit I should not have risen to his provocation, but his pattern of POV-pushing, provocations, and incivility invited my response. That response, as you know, was stricken, at your request, by me. And yet he continues his pattern, making reference to the civility policy as if he has ever shown any indication of having read it. How long must his actions and his attitude be tolerated? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
RJ, could you provide diffs of examples of my supposed "incivility"? Thanks in advance. Irvine22 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) RJ, fair question, let me try and give you a thorough answer. There are a few key things to keep in mind:
  • First: Venue. There are proper places to raise concerns about a user's conduct. But an article talkpage is not one of them. So when on an article talkpage, it's important to keep comments focused on the article. If someone says something absurd, there is no need to respond. Just swim away, unless it looks like the idea is getting traction, in which case a simple calm comment to show that you disagree, may be all that's needed. If someone's conduct is genuinely a concern though, bring it up in a the correct venue: An administrator's talkpage, or at one of the dispute resolution noticeboards, or at an administrator noticeboard, or file a User Conduct RfC.
  • Second: Civility. If someone is being disruptive, it's never appropriate to just tell them that they're being an idiot. Because as soon as someone resorts to incivility, it weakens their argument.
  • Third: Reduce the noise level, which will help administrators to do their job. When an uninvolved administrator arrives on the scene, they usually have no clue of the backstory, of who the "troublemakers" are, who are the good faith editors, etc. When the first thing an admin sees is two people calling each other names, to an outside admin, both those editors look equally at fault. The admin generally doesn't care who started it. So whenever possible, take the high road, so that editors with problematic behavior are more likely to stand out against the quiet.
  • Fourth: Watch your contribs. One trick I use to tell who the constructive editors are, is to look at everyone's contrib history. What I'll usually see is a few editors who have a solid history of actually working on multiple articles and making well-sourced additions, a few editors who have a lock on a very small subset of articles where they spend the majority of their time, and a few who are just bouncing from talkpage to talkpage, engaging in dispute after dispute, but rarely ever actually building the encyclopedia. So what this may tell me is that if I ban or block the dispute-junkies, no one's really going to miss them, since they weren't doing anything constructive anyway.  ;) However, I also try to keep in mind that if there's a troll in there stirring the pot, the troll may be goading the normally good editors to a state of incoherent rage. So I look at other things than just contribs. But still, it's an important marker.
So my advice (to everyone) is: Don't take the bait. Keep your cool, keep on making solid well-sourced edits to multiple articles. If you have concerns about an editor's behavior, don't express them on an article talkpage, take them to another more appropriate venue, and then express those concerns in a civil way. If you're in a dispute on one or more articles, try to spend at least half your wiki-time working on other things too. It will help improve your contrib list, and it's also a wonderful way to lower your stress level, working on articles where you don't have to worry about being reverted every other edit. Plus, if you do all these things, it'll lower the noise level, and make it much easier for administrators to spot (and deal with) the genuinely disruptive editors. --Elonka 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Good advice. Irvine22 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi..

I've updated my post on RfArb/A with a third option, and replied on my talk page. I'm just trying to avoid a crazy patchwork quilt of differing sanctions and restrictions, but keeping the community sanctions long term or modifying them to be streamlined like the discretionary sanctions are certainly an option. SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Placing British National Party under 1RR

Sorry Elonka, no way is British National Party a Troubles, or even really an Irish-British relations, related article, warranting this. If the issue you are seeing is bad behaviour on that article between editors who are otherwise associated with editting Troubles related articles, that is an entirely different matter. Please don't embolden those who wish to discredit the entire system [22] with decisions like this, which will only catch people out who have likely never edited a Troubls related article their lives, or worse, will be improperly abused to win content disputes utterly unrelated to anything about the Troubles, such as the current dispute on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to the article because of the recent edit-warring, which appeared to be an overflow dispute with involved editors who routinely edit Troubles-related articles. The article also falls within the proper scope. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies. --Elonka 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said, it is an entirely different matter if you think Troubles editors are spilling disputes to other articles, especially if they aren't even disputing content related to the Troubles - the problem in that case is the editors, not the article, and as you know being an admin, there are ways and means to deal with that without tagging articles as Troubles related when they aren't - which comes to the second point, it is imo quite wrong to consider BNP a Troubles related article based on tiny amount of references to it in the article, on that basis, the amount of related articles would number in the thousands, for a start covering every British political party article. The BNP's brand of British nationalism really has nothing to do with Ireland at all. MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I must take the unusual step of agreeing with Elonka here. This is clearly at least as related to the "troubles" as the Kilmichael Ambush. Perhaps we are now getting a badly needed clamp down on the scourge of British Nationalism on Wiki? Not something even MickMac could argue with. Sarah777 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Atleast that is related to the IRA despite being before the troubles. The British National party has nothing to do with the Troubles. If the fact it has a policy on Northern Ireland means its related to the troubles then EVERY article on wikipedia about Ireland, the UK and their political parties need placing on restrictions too. What a crazy development. This is hardly a clamp down on British nationalism Sarah, the restrictions have been imposed following people supporting or defending the BNP making silly accusations not those who oppose it. So its quite the opposite. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I trust Elonka to see how nonsensical your comparison of the BNP with the Kilmichael Ambush is, and thus, how credible the rest of your opinions are on what is and is not wrong with the Wiki. MickMacNee (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with MickMacnee's first post on this. The BNP issue is not a "Troubles-related" issue - it is an issue that involves many of the same editors, simply because they are editors who are involved on Britain/UK-related political issues as a whole. What seems to have happened here is that one of the editors in dispute seems to have claimed - initially almost as a joke here, here and here - that it is a Troubles-related" issue, specifically in order to get a 1RR restriction placed on the article. The fact that the BNP has policies relating to Ireland is, frankly, irrelevant - not all British/UK political issues should be defined as "Troubles-related". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The notion that the BNP's Unionist anti-Irish policies are unrelated to "the troubles" while Kilmicheal is just goes to demonstrate how deep the cancer of British Nationalism goes on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
But the BNP's anti-Irish policies are not the subject of the dispute on that page, which relates to whether it should still be called a "whites-only" party. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That editor was being a dick with his ridiculous comments and has a major case of ownership on the article, I for one have made edits to the BNP article before they had even created an account. BigDunc 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
As before, I trust Elonka to see these statements for what they are, suffice to say the BNP policy on Ireland is actually apparently based on a goal of establishing an equal federation of independent states. If this is anti-Irish and an embodiment of Troubles brand Unionism, then I am afraid we will have to declare all EU articles as Troubles related aswell. MickMacNee (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the others who said this clearly isn't a "Troubles" related article. This party defines its main politics in relation to opposing non-European immigration, communism, Islamism, globalism and free market capitalism. If this is a "Troubles related article", then so is every single article in the British Isles. This party doesn't have "anti-Irish" anything as its core politics, in fact the opposite. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the confusion here. If I'm understanding the concerns correctly, it's that some of you feel that the Troubles ArbCom case should only apply to Troubles-related articles. However, the case's scope has been expanded since its inception in 2007. For an example of how this works, see WP:DIGWUREN. The scope of that case was written to cover all Eastern Europe conflicts, regardless if they had anything to do with the editor Digwuren or not. So the name of the Troubles case should not be used to limit its scope, because in October 2008, the case's scope was expanded to include, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland." So such an article within the new scope might or might not specifically refer to the period of time referred to as The Troubles, but that's not the point. The actual scope of the case now is British/Irish nationalism, whether the case name be "Troubles", "France", "XYZ", or "Chinese pottery". Ultimately, the main point here is to reduce edit-warring in a topic area which has been subject to a great deal of conflict. If articles are not being warred over, then the case won't be an issue. In fact, how's this: If an article is relatively stable for at least 30 days, meaning that established editors are no longer reverting each other, then it would be reasonable to remove the template from the article's talkpage. Would that address concerns? --Elonka 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
A straightforward mechanism for removing the restrictions after problematic editing has stopped would certainly resolve one of my main concerns. I still think the definition above is extremely broad and needs to be applied with the greatest restraint. This tag is not a panacea and carries intrinsic difficulties. RashersTierney (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It does not address problems that arise when an article which contains references to both Britain and Ireland, in whatever context, is subject to edit warring for reasons which have nothing at all to do with those references. In my view the BNP article falls into that category - the edit warring was about the party's racist membership criteria, not about its policies in relation to Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It is an enormous leap to say that the BNP falls under the topic "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" just because the article has once sentence about a policy on Ireland. This was a simple case of a run of the mill content dispute which had nothing to do with Ireland, spilling over into edit warring. You have more than enough tools at your disposal to deal with this normally, without making it appear that the Troubles case now has virtually limitless boundaries, with the subsequent chilling effect. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As an involved editor I have to agree, this has nothing to do with Ireland, but is (ans was) a back dorr atrempt at imposing a 1RR rule.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
If multiple involved editors feel that 1RR is cramping their style, and that they need to be able to revert each other multiple times per day, that's a pretty clear example of a problem, don't you think? Revert is not supposed to be used as an editing tool, it's supposed to be used to get rid of obvious vandalism. Reverting is completely ineffective as a way to ensure longterm stable changes to an article. The proper way to proceed is to go through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, discuss the dispute in a civil and collegial matter, and end up with an article that reflects consensus. This culture of "we have to revert each other every day" is not acceptable. --Elonka 15:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that edited warring is wrong, yes. Bu I also would say that there is an edited waring procedure that we can follow, and that can result in a page being given a 1RR restriction. But this is not the way it should have been done. irt looks to be like a clear case of playing the system.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Who here said reverting is OK? That was not the issue at all. The issue is, and still is, how is it appropriate to place a restriction created to deal with disputes in the topic areas of British and Irish relations, on an article which has nothing to do with British-Irish relations, to stop edit warring in a dispute that had nothing to do with British-Irish relations? MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the issue, it is clearly an involved issue and is being edited by a group of editors that are involved in editing the troubles articles. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have never heard such nonsense. If a bunch of us went over and edited an article on perhaps Fish would you class that as troubles related? This really is pathetic and i cant believe it has gone on for a second day. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if it is or could be associated to the troubles and uk nationalism then it is fine to template it, as editors are restricted at one article they will naturally look for other outlets for their position, as regards a bunch of you doing this and that, please take care to not get involved in WP:TAGTEAM issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to partialy disagree with you. [[Fish] would have no connection to the Irish trouble, wereas the BNP have a policy on it. And if that was what the edit war was about there mightm be a reason for this 1RR restriction, its not (and as far as I an tell the BNP policy of Oiland has never been questioned on the page). It seems that the fact that a bunch of you (a shamrock of Irish?) are also editing a page that has a tenuous link to Ireland is being used to enforce a 1RR restriction in wholey inapropriate circumstances.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Was this Fish meant perhaps? That's actually a good example of something you could, if you really tried hard, tag as a Troubles-related article, on account of some typically overwrought lyrical content in one song out of hundreds. Anyway, the BNP page is clearly not a Troubles-related article per se, and the specific issue in question on there is nothing to do with Ireland. Really bad decision and should be reversed - whatever the problems are on that page, please try to deal with them in another way, rather than by spuriously bringing the article under the umbrella of a wholly unrelated sanctions regime. --Nickhh (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this a troubles related photo?

In the absence of anyone seeming to agree with your unilateral decision to brand the BNP page a "Troubles-related article", could you please remove the tag and the restriction, until you get at least something resembling consensus for this rather strange and illogical decision? As you know, you have made a formal request for the expansion of the scope of the original Troubles decision so that it includes anything to do with British or Irish nationalism, and to increase the range of sanctions available to admins under that decision - could you at least wait until some kind of agreement emerges there before taking arbitrary and controversial actions of this sort on an unrelated article, rather than simply ignoring what everyone else is saying, on your talk page and elsewhere? Not really a shining example of how to go about improving collaboration and adherence to process here now, is it? Thank you. --Nickhh (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If the article can remain stable for a period of time, such as 30 days without established editors reverting each other, I would have no objection to removing the template. --Elonka 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me Nickhh; "In the absence of anyone seeming to agree with your unilateral decision to brand the BNP page a "Troubles-related article". I wholeheartedly agree with Elonkathat the anti-Irish BNP is troubles related. (The fact that it is a racist xenophobic party which detests any foreigners is neither here nor there). I think the "mission creep" of "troubles" related articles to include Irish articles unrelated to the troubles (eg Kilmichael Ambush) is a disaster for Wiki in this area and I utterly oppose Elonka on her simplistic draconian proposals related to expanding the already excessive powers of random Admins. But identifying BNP as troubles related is spot on. Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake if we are applying these restrictions to any article that even mentions Ireland it should only happen when edit warring is over something in that article related to Ireland which has certainly not been the case, i dont think Ireland has been been seriously debated on the talk page of the BNP article ever. The edit warring was over the BNP being a far right whites only racist political party. This has nothing to do with Ireland. One editor was sticking up for the BNP, he then claimed the dispute was troubles related and now we have 1RR restrictions stopping us from getting on with sorting out the article. its just wrong and we should not have to wait 30 days to have an incorrect label of it being "troubles related" removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
A feature of the "British right" is that they have racist anti-Irish views. Remember all those cartoons in Punch depicting the Irish as apes during the Great Genocide? Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
To Elonka: But the point being raised is not whether the article is stable or not (loads of pages aren't), but whether it is a Troubles related article. It isn't. You're still not addressing that point, unsurprisingly perhaps. Apologies for not spotting (as above) that there was one person who does agree with your interpretation, but no one else does. If you want to slap a template on it saying "this article is not stable", go ahead, but please take off the one it has. I'm only bothered by this because it seems such an obvious and rather silly-looking error, which you seem unwilling to admit or address. And Sarah, I have no doubt the BNP hate the Irish along with plenty of other people, but even that doesn't negate the point that the BNP page - and especially the specific debate underway there - has nothing to do with the Troubles.--Nickhh (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case. See my above post from 01:25. --Elonka 00:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The doubt is that the dispute is not about "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.", but about the fact it is being used in circumstances were there are other (and more appropriate) avenues to follow in dispute resolution. That it has been used in a dispute that has nothing to do with "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.". The page may have some link to hte troubles, but ther has never been any dispute over that section of the articel, this is a wholey mis-applied restriction.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes Elonka, I read your post. I'm also aware of the scope of the case. As noted just above, it talks about "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" [my italics]. Lack of comprehension is one thing, but pithy brush-offs and a stubborn and repeated "talk to the hand" when people point out the problem is another thing, especially when it comes combined with an assumption of the right to start imposing control and restrictions over other editors. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a kindergarten where you are in charge and can just invent rules unilaterally as you go along. If there is a problem on the BNP page, find another route to deal with it. Seriously. I'll open an RfC on this or go to AN/ANI if you don't remove that template. I have never edited any Troubles article, nor the BNP page, and have no wish to start doing so - however, I find it quite irksome when people wander round this place thinking they WP:OWN parts of it, all the more so when they are utterly and completely wrong about something, and everyone else is pointing that out to them. --Nickhh (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Nickhh i know how you feel, i made a post on the admins noticeboard hereabout this matter shortly after the BNP article suddenly became troubles related but i got no help at all basically being told to get lost and the thing was put in an archive box very quickly so no further comments could be made about it.
The comment by Elonka that "It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case." clearly highlights the problem. It SHOULD be troubles related to have the troubles restrictions applied to it. That is the whole point we are here disagreeing with lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but Nick doesn't seem to have ever edited the bnp article or the talkpage for that matter, I fail to see why he is continuing to comment here regarding an article he has never edited? Also what is the point of all this squealing? What is the the big issue, there has been editing causing issues at the bnp article by multiple editors involved in the editing issues surrounding the troubles articles, so .. as elonka said, if the article is stable for a few weeks she will consider removing the restriction, move on, also please attempt to show good faith to Elonka's contributions, as jericoman said if you have an issue with this decision take it to arbcom for looking at, if not forget about it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You're not wrong, that's precisely the point - I'm completely uninvolved, but can see where one admin has made a rather confused decision. As I keep saying, if there are problems on the BNP page, look to another solution. What next - if a dispute breaks out on the Ally McCoist page as to how many goals he scored for Rangers, do both those articles get tagged as "Troubles-related", and the dispute in question become managed under the relevant sanctions? The Conservative party has far more links to Northern Ireland - and since it has been in government its policies have had far more impact there - but are we seriously suggesting that an edit war there about PPC selection procedures in Norfolk should be dealt with under the Troubles decision? Come off it. There are principles of logic and fairness at stake here, without wishing to sound too pretentious about it all. Otherwise we may as well all give up and hand over arbitrary power to admins and ArbCom. --Nickhh (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is the only answer. this seems to be a case of an ed playing the system to achive an aim that seems unrelated to the outcome.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

@Nickhh, though you may be uninvolved in terms of editing in this topic area, you're definitely not uninvolved in regards to me. --Elonka 18:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I am finding difficulty with the reasoning of people who
(1) support extending the "troubles" sanctions to Irish articles not related to the troubles (which I do not support, btw)
(2) but then want to restrict the extension to articles about Ireland only, as if the troubles in Ireland were unrelated to Britain!
At least Elonka is consistent in her approach.
Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
British National Party is in now way related to the troubles. They are possibly LESS related than most British or Irish parties, why is this tag not on Mo Mowlam or Bill Clinton? The article may benafit from a 1RR, but linking it to the troubles gives a completely distorted view point, and seems like a clear case of Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. --Natet/c 11:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This is so wrong, and from other comments, seems to be a broader problem, I have posted a request.here --Natet/c 11:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this - I was planning to do something of this sort, but was hopeful that yet more noticeboard bureaucracy could be avoided by simply asking the individual in error to put right their mistake simply and quickly. And yes Elonka, our paths have crossed before - for a while you would appear out of nowhere to stick your nose into every minor dispute I was ever involved in, and patronised and harrassed me on my talk page at every opportunity. I have also disagreed with the restrictions you have imposed on articles and editors in the past (even if I will accept that you have usually got the topic area right), since in my view they often hinder improvements to the content of the encylcopedia, and take too much credit for stopping behavioural problems that would probably fizzle out on their own anyway, or with more traditional remedies such as temporary page protection. However, for the record, when I saw that the BNP page had been bizarrely hit by a Troubles notice, I had no idea it was you that had done it. When I discovered that it was though, it wasn't a surprise. And I'm not going to stand back from pointing out when such a glaring error has been made, just because we have had a fairly trivial spat in the past. Forgive me for wishing clarity, accuracy and an open editing environment (when no sanctions apply) in this place, my mistake. And while I'm here: Sarah I've never asked for extension of the Troubles sanctions to any Irish articles, so I'm consistent too; Slatersteven, I'm not entirely sure what your comment means, but I assume it was directed at me, as it followed on from mine. I can assure you it is not me who is "playing the system". --Nickhh (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Archive_36&oldid=1143360256"