Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:33, 4 August 2008

Certification

You need to certify, Chris. Viridae 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. (You can tell it's been a long time since I've filed an RfC, can't you?) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's still a problem with the certification. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. - unless ScienceApologist can show some kind of involvement in this dispute, I believe his certification needs to be removed. As far as I can find, only ChrisO was involved in this dispute and since its essentially another challenge of sanctions under an ArbCom ruling, this should be back at an appropriate venue such as AE or Arb clarifications. Shell 23:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. SA doesn't appear to be involved in this dispute, and certainly hasn't tried to resolve it. - auburnpilot talk 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no overlap between ScienceApologist and ChrisO. It is true that I have dealt with both users, but it's on different articles, and in relation to completely separate ArbCom cases. Awhile ago, I issued a one-week page ban on ScienceApologist, but it was for the Atropa Belladonna article, a completely different topic area from Muhammad al-Durrah. I would also point out that ScienceApologist already appealed that ban at ANI, and the community upheld my restriction. So again, no overlap. --Elonka 02:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman, the rfc clerk, has struck ScienceApologist's certification. See his comment and User_talk:Wizardman#Proof Someone else will need to certify.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no one else has raised a concern about ChrisO's ban, so no other certifiers are possible. --Elonka 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I do recall myself making an attempt to resolve the issue of his ban, but I haven't finished reading everyone's comments, so I'm not about to certify anything just yet. Just pointing out that there are others that are possible. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The locus of the dispute is Elonka's methods in managing editing conditions and disputes, not simply the al-Durrah article. I have used the al-Durrah to illustrate my personal experience of the problem. If ScienceApologist or other editors have similar concerns about Elonka's methods, an endorsement seems appropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than actually read the first few sentences of ChrisO's statement and take the fairly evident wider interpretation of these criticisms, Elonka predictably chose to take the most narrow interpretation possible. It was not unexpected that Elonka would try to wikilawyer her way out of the wider interpretation of these criticisms, because this and off-wiki coordination of strategy are precisely two of the major concerns with Elonka's behaviour. The other, also referred to by ChrisO, is her occasional but systematic backing for politely disruptive SPAs and her persistent hounding of editors or administrators of long standing who resist them. These possibly well meaning but nevertheless misguided "experiments", often carried out against consensus, should no doubt be discussed in this RfC. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If this RfC is deemed unacceptable, then a new RfC could be created with the cause for concern being something along the lines of 'Elonka's style of ArbCom enforcement'. A few editors editors would have to post on her talk page, repeating concerns in a generalized manner, and then we would be back here again. PhilKnight (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that Ned Scott is a valid certifier. He has not contacted me in any way about ChrisO's current ban. I would also point out that there is a long (negative) history between me and Ned Scott, and that he has often popped up to criticize actions that I have taken. If Ned Scott has diffs showing that he has "tried and failed" to resolve the situation with ChrisO's recent ban, I would be interested in seeing them. --Elonka 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the behavior being question includes your habit of trying to wikilawyer your way out of conflict, you might consider letting the endorsement stand based upon his actions on ChrisO's page, which you certainly saw and indicated that ChrisO was not the only person who had a problem with your behavior. To try to get this to dies from lack of standing is an attempt not to resolve conflict but to have the page erased as if there were no evidence. You need to be proactive in working to resolve complaints instead of denying any problem and trying to make it disappear through red tape and campaigning. DreamGuy (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How about if everyone just follows the existing policy as written? That's why there are policies, so everyone doesn't do what they want to do. --Fat Cigar 21:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Based upon the indenting you seem to be suggesting in this comment that my suggestion wasn't following existing policy. It certainly would be. I believe ChrisO and Ned Scott were also following existing policy. So the "everyone" part seems misplaced. DreamGuy (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a person/persons/relevant board where this could be decisively sorted out? I forsee extra drama and difficulties if this issue is not properly resolved. IronDuke 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. RFC *is* the place for sorting out issues related to person(s). I don't know which issue you mean.

If you mean whether Ned can certify, that issue has already been resolved below by another admin. Elonka for some reason continues to object, which to me just seems to be nothing more than wikilawyering. If she were successful in getting the certification yanked she could then just try to argue against anyone certifying it, but the point is that whether it's this RFC or one rewritten later to be more broad it's very clear that it would eventually be certified and she would have to deal with it. Wikilawyering the certification seems to be merely a stalling tactic to waste the time of the people trying to bring the problems up for comment.

If you were asking about something else, please be more specific and I or someone else we'll see if we can point you in the right direction. DreamGuy (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I remember those comments by Ned Scott written at one of the venues that ChrisO used to complain. But it was ChrisO that applied for page protection, and mediation and got both. On June 9th ChrisO asks for the help of an uninvolved admin and Elonka volunteers, asking first if she is acceptable, and he says "Your assistance would certainly be appreciated." The following day ChrisO adds at the FTN "An informal mediation on the above has now begun on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, with the help of Elonka. It would be helpful if editors with experience of dealing with fringe theories (and their proponents) could participate." He did not complain about the ORR rule until Elonka got serious about enforcing it. ChrisO accepted the 0RR rule as part of the deal to unlock the page and start editing. If he was not happy with the mediation conditions, he should/could have brought his concerns to the group, as we as a group had accepted the conditions and were bound by them, and if we as a group had told Elonka that we no longer wished to abide by those rules, then she would have gracefully stepped down. Instead, he waited until the sanctions caught him, and then went to a mediation. It was at this mediation, and in that context, that Ned Scott brought up his concerns. I would be interested to know if he contacted Elonka personally to discuss his concerns or if that was the only occasion? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See also

See this request for clarification from June, in which the Muhammad al-Durrah sanction was at issue. --bainer (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Shell Kinney

After reading Chris's statement and the statements of those editors supporting his views, I'm really concerned by one particular thread I'm picking up. It appears that some believe that editing sanctions should not be applied evenly, but that administrators should make decisions on who's viewpoint is correct and act accordingly. Except in obvious cases (BLP springs to mind), administrators are not arbitrators of content, nor do I believe that Arb rulings are meant to be used in such a manner. What administrators can, and should do, is enforce civil editing and cooperation and allow regular community consensus processes to determine content. If this community process is not working, then we need to open a dialog on what is failing and why - not attempt to set up Administrators as content judges. Shell 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Agree. This is the gist of the supporting arguments put forth by Relata refero, Skinwalker & Nickhh Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, no it isn't. And nor do I see anyone asking for admins to rule on content or to apply sanctions unevenly. Myself and Relata both simply suggested that 0RR does not help in this sort of situation (nothing to do with even or uneven application of any sanctions); and myself and Skinwalker were both complaining precisely that sanctions were not being applied evenly. I know we shouldn't really have discussion threads here but comments made by myself and others are being misrepresented. Or perhaps I should say misunderstood.--Nickhh (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly is so - here is what you wrote: "You can't treat both of the "sides" here as if they are equivalent in where they are coming from, they are not". Perhaps you'd like to refactor what you wrote if you didn't mean it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. See the comments by Shot info and Skinwalker. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry CM, still can't see the bit where I say that therefore sanctions of the sort being discussed here should only be imposed on some editors but not others (or rather, imposed on them on a different basis). "Treat" has quite a broad definition. All I am saying is that when blanket editing restrictions like 0RR are imposed, every editor is going to be caught by them, from the most conscientious, policy-observant good faith editor to out and out vandals. Imposing them seems to be a way of saying "you're all as bad as each other and none of you can be trusted", which I do not believe to be the case. Nor can I see the damning quotes to supposedly back up the similar claims you've made against Relata & Skinwalker. --Nickhh (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

When you complain that "You can't treat both of the "sides" here as if they are equivalent", you are obviously requesting unequal "treatment". If you didn't mean that, refactor your comments. If you meant that - then Shell is spot on in calling you out. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney has made false statements on my talk page to support Elonka. I striked the dishonesty. QuackGuru 18:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, see also to User:Hammersoft here (i was the IP in question), somewhat ironic content, in my view, in this to Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, and Mathsci's criticism of Elonka and from a link to a discussion given by Chris O here, to Antelan, who attempts to intercede in a dispute between Elonka and Ronz, Elonka says "a third party administrator, Shell Kinney, has reviewed the communications and come to the same conclusion" Shell joins disputes involving Elonka, her positions match Elonka's exactly, and the nature of her support often takes the form of attacking the other parties in dubious terms. Both Shell and Elonka present Shell as uninvolved and dispassionate. 86.44.28.197 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"It appears that some believe that editing sanctions should not be applied evenly, but that administrators should make decisions on who's viewpoint is correct and act accordingly." I have two problems with this statement. First, this is true only to the extent that admins can block people for obvious violations of policy, like violating 3RR or vandalism. Otherwise, administrators should wait until a consensus developes among editors that one person is being disruptive and act accordingly - what I mean to say is that in most cases admninistrators simply should not be making decisions about whom to block or ban. 'Administrators are neither judges nor cops. Administrators have certain tools that enable them to block or ban but in most cases they should be instruments of the community, not excercising their power, which is what I think Elonka has done. Second, there are some clonflicts that are all about content, and can be resolved only by people who are willing to research and discuss content. In these cases Elonka is just another editor and her status as admin is irrelevant - what I mean to say is that in cases where resolution must be based on deciding which editor is right, it is irrelevant that one is an administrator. But Elonka makes her status as administrator the central issue! In these cases there may be a serious conflict and what is needed is not an admin using their special powers, but snesible and experienced editors who can help informally mediate ... it shouldn't matter whether they are admins or not, but they should be editors whow ant to help write a GREAT encyclopedia meaning a big book filled with articles that have reliable and notable contents! Slrubenstein | Talk 03:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman made a really great comment - there are times when a content dispute becomes a behavioral problem that administrators can help with because an editor is somehow disrupting the ability of others to edit normally. I've noticed multiple references to people pushing a strong POV or pushing fringe beliefs and how much trouble these editors are and I guess I'm wondering why they end up being so much trouble? Are they careful not to do things that rise to the level of being disruptive (i.e. not reverting too often or keep adding junk but use different sources each time to try to make it stick) or are they being disruptive and its just difficult to get any kind of helpful sanctions placed on them? It seems like several ArbCom cases lately have given a rather open book on things administrators can do in order to try to resolve a dispute -- if the type of restrictions Elonka is trying won't help in every case, what other kinds of things might help? Garden variety disputes are one thing, but certain areas seem to keep popping back up to Arbitration and it doesn't seem like we've really come up with a good solution yet. This is kind of off topic for this RfC, so feel free to toss ideas or comments over on my talk if you'd like. Shell 05:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Shell - you asked why people pushing fringe beliefs are troublesome. The reason is that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Remember the first pillar? The first pillar is the goal; the other 4 pillars are only means to attempt achieve it. If we adopt a policy that we don't care about the quality of our content we won't really wind up with an encyclopedia; we will wind up with a compendium of crap. Let me ask you something... should the manager of a restaurant care about an employee with a habit of slipping cockroaches (presumably brought from home) into the food as long as the employee was polite and refrained from slipping the same cockroach into the same dish more than three times in 24 hours? And, if the manager didn't care, would you want to eat there? Cardamon (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Certified

I've moved this RfC to certified, given that there has now been a second certification from Ned Scott (talk · contribs) with valid evidence of trying to solve the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, as I posted above, I challenge Ned Scott's ability to certify this. He has provided no diffs, and I can speak from personal knowledge, that he made no attempt to resolve the issue involving ChrisO's recent ban. --Elonka 01:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are diffs provided, of Ned Scott's attempts to resolve. Viridae 01:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, look at the dates on those diffs. They are from mid-June. That ban that he was concerned about was already taken to ArbCom, and ArbCom upheld the ban. It was a different situation. --Elonka 02:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What does pre- or post-arbcom have to do with anything? Is a limited arbcom pronouncement a free pass out of a RFC that addresses wider issues? This is obvious rules-lawyering. NS is clearly referring to the same situation. Skinwalker (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is to deal with "unresolved" issues, partially as a step towards ArbCom. Once an issue has been reviewed by ArbCom, that's about as resolved as it gets. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Since that particular incident, ChrisO's ban expired, he was then disruptive again, and banned again, but to my knowledge no one anywhere expressed any concerns about that ban, except for ChrisO. --Elonka 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after reviewing Ned Scott's diffs, they seem to point only to his objection to her imposing 0RR. Chris, AFAICT, has not objected to 0RR. These are different issues. I think it's a bit thin for what seems right now to be mainly one editor's grievance against another, and not a community problem with Elonka's behavior. Flexibility on this point wouldn't bother me overmuch, but then I think we'd have to change the certifying conditions to soemthing like, "Please try to find someone to co-certify your RfC, unless you think it's really important or in your view it for some reason isn't necessary." IronDuke 04:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read ChrisO's summary on the RfC for a second time just to make sure, but it does seem Chris has a clear objection to the 0RR approach, and it is the direct cause of most of the other issues cited in this RfC. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have re-read ChrisO's summary on the RFC, and will note the following,

"The basic problem is that the editing conditions are being thoughtlessly and aggressively managed, with a rigid application of 0RR being prioritised above maintaining NPOV and basic factual accuracy, and are being enforced erratically and selectively. In short, it is a poorly thought-out and poorly handled approach."

I added the emphasis to demonstrate that ChrisO's disdain for the 0RR editing restriction for stated reason. seicer | talk | contribs 06:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading it. My "disdain" is not for the 0RR editing restriction but the way that it is being applied and prioritised above basic content policies. 0RR should never be interpreted in such a way that it penalises an effort to resolve (for instance) indisputable factual errors added by another editor - there has to be some latitude, not just a rigid application of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that there was ever an indisputable factual error added. The first time it was reviewed by Arbcom , ChrisO claimed a BLP issue for his right to remove material and have his ban lifted, not an indisputable factual error. This would appear to be another issue altogether. ChrisO sought and agreed to the mediation and was bound to the rules as we all were. He never brought up his concerns on the TALK page, nor did he speak up when another editor was penalised by the same rules, if that editor did not share his perspective. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire RfC is just an uncertified attempt to forum-shop by ChrisO. Read the top sentence on the RfC page: "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." Ned Scott did not attempt to "resolve" this dispute. He posted a couple comments disagreeing with my actions, on ChrisO's talkpage, in mid-June. He never contacted me directly, he had no other involvement in the dispute or editing the article, and further, Ned Scott has a documented history of disagreeing with my actions, in multiple venues, for years. He has been repeatedly warned for disruption in situations involving me. For one diff, check here, and I can pull up others which go back to 2006. So it's a real reach for Ned Scott to try and certify this RfC as "attempting to resolve the dispute". Further, after Ned Scott's comments, ChrisO filed a full out ArbCom appeal, and ArbCom chose not to overturn the ban. That's called successfully resolving a dispute, because it's gone to ArbCom. So that entire issue, of the first ban, was resolved. Then after that issue, ChrisO was disruptive again, violating WP:CIVIL, WP:BLP, and the editing conditions, so after multiple warnings, he was banned a second time. No one challenged that ban, except for ChrisO. Not even Ned Scott challenged it. So again, Ned Scott is not a valid certifier. --Elonka 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the introduction to this RfC and my announcement on the administrators' noticeboard, this dispute is not about the ban that you imposed, which I have not requested be lifted. It is, rather, about your approach to managing a range of disputed articles over a period of time. I've documented the issue as I've seen it in relation to the articles that I've edited, and others have documented it in relation to the articles they've edited. The same issues have been endorsed by a number of long-standing editors and administrators. So there is no real case that there is nothing substantive here. Nor is it forum-shopping. The issue here is your judgment relating to a number of articles; there really is no other forum in which to raise such an issue other than RfC. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.)

I'd like to offer some advice at this point:

1) Please focus on reviewing and responding to the very real concerns that have been raised in the RfC, rather than focusing on trying to decertify it. Ask yourself why your approach has raised such concerns in the first place. You don't have to agree with the criticisms that have been made, but please try to see things from others' perspectives. Take this opportunity to review the issues that have been raised and use it as a learning experience.

2) Please don't dismiss critics of your approach as "groupies" (your phrase). Quite apart from the disrespect it shows your fellow editors, there's going to be no progress at all if you disregard constructive criticism because you think the people offering it are malicious or nuts. If Ned has had issues with you in the past, that does not mean that anything he says about current disagreements must automatically be invalid.

3) Please think about how you might do things differently to address the concerns that have been raised. In particular, I highly recommend reviewing the very insightful comment offered by JackSchmidt. He makes a lot of sense, and I would very much like to see an outcome that sees everyone's legitimate concerns being met, rather than unfruitful bickering over "who's right". -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

-- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The proper forum for discussing ArbCom discretionary sanctions, is ArbCom, such as at WP:AE. The first time that I banned you from the Muhammad al-Durrah article for disruptive behavior, you filed an appeal at ArbCom, and got nowhere. So when your ban was up, you came back to the article, were disruptive again, and when you got banned again, instead of going back to ArbCom, you looked for a new forum to challenge the restrictions. All of your wiki-lawyering does not change the fact that you were disruptive: You called names, you violated BLP, you edit-warred, you deleted citations to reliable sources. That is why you were banned. And perhaps you should spend some time listening to the genuinely uninvolved editors who are participating at the RfC, to examine the real concerns about your behavior. Sure, there's a steady flow of editors into this RfC that I have cautioned, banned, and blocked in other venues, who are eager to find someplace to disagree with me. You could say, "Elonka abuses her admin tools and closes AfDs too fast," and they'd all go in and endorse your statement, because they don't care what the truth is, they just want revenge. I know who they are, and I take their opinions with a grain of salt. Don't get me wrong, there are a few genuinely thoughtful and uninvolved opinions in this RfC so far, and I am listening carefully to what they say But the main thing that I'm seeing here, is that you (and a few of the other participants here), seem to feel that because you've been around on Misplaced Pages longer than others, that your judgment cannot be questioned, that you know the "right" way to write an article, and that if anyone disagrees with you, that you have the right to call other editors "trolls" and "wackjob conspiracy theorists", even if they are using reliable sources. But my opinion is that no, you do not have the right to belittle other good faith editors. And you do not have the right to delete citations to reliable sources just because you don't like them. You do have the right to edit the article in a civil and collegial manner. And I'll say it again: If you would have stayed civil, left reliable source citations alone, and concentrated on changing the work of other editors rather than simply deleting it, you would not have been banned. --Elonka 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How does one know if a source is reliable when one doesn't get involved in content? You claim that editors are removing information from reliable sources, but you have no way of knowing whether these sources are reliable without investigating the actual content of the article. Furthermore, even if a source is reliable, it is easy to misrepresent a source. It's easy to claim a source says one thing when it in fact it says something completely different, especially if that source is technical, or if the person making the judgment about what to include in an article knows nothing about the content. That's really the crux. Is this about behaviour or content? I've been of the opinion from the beginning it's about content. You appear to agree it's about reliable sources, but the problem is that one needs to be well informed to judge the reliability of a source, and one needs to be well informed to judge whether a source actually does say what an editor attributes to it. It's very easy for editors to make a synthesis of a source that will slip right by an admin who is "overseeing" an article when that admin is not really interested in content. Alun (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Alun/Wobble, I am not talking about obscure sources. But when someone removes a citation to an obviously reliable source, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or something published by a highly respected publishing house such as Oxford University Press, and the editor is using reasons like, "unreliable source" or "conspiracy theories", then that's pretty clearly disruptive. Per the conditions for editing which I usually use to calm disputes (and which I have used successfully at multiple other articles), I tell editors that if they have a serious question about such a source, that instead of removing it, they should tag it inline with {{vc}}, and then start a talkpage thread on it, and possibly bring it up at WP:RSN as well. If there is consensus that the source is inappropriate, then even if it's from a normally reliable outlet, we can still remove it from the article. But editors aren't supposed to just delete plausibly reliable citations out of hand. What they can do in the meantime is to edit down the information from that source. They can condense, rewrite, add other sources, tag it as needing verification, etc. But citations to clearly reliable sources should not just be deleted. And that's exactly what ChrisO was doing, was deleting citations to reliable sources. Which is one of the reasons that he was banned. --Elonka 21:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal are necessarily "obviously reliable". In some contexts they are reliable and in others they are not. Especially in science, journalists make all sorts of mistakes, I have been involved with several science related articles where editors have used supposedly "reliable sources", such as the BBC, the The Times, etc. I think that reliability depends on context and that we cannot assume that a source is always reliable for all subjects. But I take your point that there are more constructive ways to deal with content disputes. I wasn't involved in this specific dispute and was writing more generally. Alun (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's deal with these constant misrepresentations. I have never, as far as I know, called any editor a "wackjob conspiracy theorist". I am not seeking to overturn your ban - I've made this clear. I've already explained why I've brought this RfC - if there is a systemic problem across multiple articles this is the only forum I know of where it can be dealt with systematically. I've not violated BLP - in fact, you've previously acted against me for trying to deal with a BLP problem that FT2, an arbitrator, agreed was "a clear violation of BLP". I've not "deleted citations to reliable sources" - I've taken out content that was indisputably erroneous, using a reliable source to claim something that the source did not itself claim. (Did you even review that source, Elonka? You certainly didn't acknowledge the clear error that I pointed out.)

On that particular issue, once again you've completely missed the key issue, which Alun has pointed out above. In the incident I think you're referring to, the source being used was reliable, but the information in the article that was credited to that source completely misrepresented it. This is the crux of the problem, which Moreschi has also pointed out. You're focusing obsessively on conduct without paying any question to context. The question you are consistently failing to ask is whether there is good reason to remove "reliably sourced information". Your approach would compel editors to leave "reliably sourced information" in articles even if that information mispresents the source. Like I said in the RfC, you're paying no attention at all to quality control issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To Elonka, you say "He has been repeatedly warned for disruption in situations involving me.' Completely untrue. You're trying to paint the picture that because we had an arbcom case together that we're somehow enemies, and furthermore you try to paint me as being disruptive in other interactions that we've had. Your cited diff had little to do with your RfA and more do to with my feelings that a then-banned user should still have his comments stand. A good number of editors can back up that I tend to stick up for such editors, regardless of the situation.

I do not think of you as an enemy. I'm bothered by some of the statements being made against you here. I plan on making my own statement to help keep this RfC on track, and to give a sort of trout-slap to those who are trying to attack you over all.

You comment that I didn't challenge the second ban. That is because I wasn't aware of it until I saw a note about this RfC. Had I been aware of it I would have likely said something there as well. I tried to keep my comments brief when commenting on the situation at all, because I felt that was the best way I could state my concerns without you feeling I was trying to "attack" you. At that time, had I pushed the issue further then you would be acting much as you are now, and my comments would fall on deaf ears. While that's happening now, my hope in certifying this RfC was to get comments from other users, whom you might listen to.

You're not a bad admin, and you're not completely wrong in your approach, but you tend to ignore any outside input when you believe you are right and are being challenged on that. I can't speak for everyone, but I am trying to help you here. Seeing this attempt to discredit my certification is very disheartening, but not really surprising. The RfC is here, the comments are being made, and there's not much more you can do about it. What you can do is have some faith in the community (we will stick up for you when the accusations are unfounded) and to listen to the comments that do have some constructive criticism. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagreements with posted views ("disendorsements")

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse. The circularity of "Disendorsements" is strongly discouraged. They mess up the proceedings, bring us closer to the dreaded chaos of threaded discussion, dissolve logic, and, well, are undesirable. See guidelines. . I have moved two such sections to this talkpage, see below. Feel free to indicate disagreement with any posted view on the main page, but please do it by writing a view of your own, however brief. Use positive endorsements only. Bishonen | talk 08:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC).

Users who do not endorse Shell Kinney's comments

1. Relativism of the nature established by Elonka's mercenary and completely arbitrary (heh) "zero tolerance" sanctions should have gone out with wood paneling and disco. I believe the latter is what's most at issue here. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

comment Can you explain how Elonka is demonstrating "mercenary behavior" in relation to her mediations? One certainly wants to listen to all arguments, however improbable. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

1. So agree with Badger here. Shot info (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
2. But Elonka has effectively been acting as a "content judge" by acting as if all points of view are equal in every case. But they are not, all content is clearly not equal, but Elonka seems to believe it is. Indeed Elonka has gone out of her way to side with editors who insist on equal weight for tiny minority or minority points of view. It's dangerous to pretend that content disputes are really behaviour disputes, it effectively means that any admin can get involved and introduce bans at any time, severely compromising the neutrality of an article. It is especially dangerous when the admin does not get involved with understanding the subject matter, taking the attitude that an editor is being "ganged up on" is absurd in content disputes, it is likely in a case like this that the edior is pushing a minority pov, which is why every other editor disagrees, but this is unimportant to Elonka. If everyone were to take this attitude Wikipeda would be giving equal weight to intelligent design at the evolution article and alternative medicine at the medicine article. All points of view are not equal, and single editors trying to force minority points of view into articles should not be encouraged by admins. Frankly I'm shocked by this authoritarian attitude and I'm worried that Misplaced Pages will soon become a "police state" if this sort of thing carries on, where "admins" set themselves up as judge and jury and think they should have the power to summarily and arbitrarily ban editors from articles, that they effectively enforce the inclusion of any and all points of view by any editor who wants to contribute because the "poor soul is being ganged up on". This is not school, Elonka is not a teacher, there is certainly no requirement that any old nonsense should appear in an article because a single editor wants it to be there, if this is the new "policy" on content, then Misplaced Pages will cease to be an encyclopaedia and will just become a repository of the "weird and wonderful" rather than of well researched knowledge. Alun (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Shell thinks that Elopnka's criotics believe that "administrators should make decisions on who's viewpoint is correct and act accordingly." I do not think this. I think editors should make decisions on who's viewpoint is correct and act accordingly. Editors actin in good faith often come into conflict and we should encourage creative dissent as well as conpromise. In two cases I was involved in, there was no need for administrative action, just editors sorting things out. In one case a year's worth of disruptive edits led to a community ban against someone. Elonka claimed other editors were equally disruptive but refused to provide evidence, thus slandering good editors. She made this slanderous claim to take the side of one disruptive editor. This is not even-handedness. In another case she effectively vetoed the consensus of editors oon a page, insisting that administrators must make decisions concerning merging - which is not our policy. In both cases Elonka had a shortage of good faith in the wikipedia community process, and put her authority over the good judgement of the community. This is not fair play, it is a power-trip. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse Mathsci's comments

1. I am always suspicious when I hear statements like this: "There are a few contentious articles on WP which attract editors with a thinly veiled racist POV to push, often SPAs." First of all, being one of the "named" so-called SPA's that has taken to editing this article, the implication rings rather harsh in my ear, and sounds like a "thinly veiled" accusation of 'racism' directed at me personally, since according to ChrisO I am one of those SPAs he's been complaining about. Of course I might add that your sentence also leaves room for those "racist" POV-pushing editors attracted to this article to be editors of long-standing as well. The application of "fringe view" seeks to marginalize a view - ChrisO has referred to it as "pathological thinking." The application of that term should be used with caution, as with other pejoratives, like "racist." Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I was talking about Race and intelligence, which from the history page you have never edited. Have you possibly misread what I wrote? If so kindly refactor your comment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Response Your remarks were made at this RfC which is particular to this article in which my editing was said to be "at the crux of the matter." If you had not intended for your remarks to be applied here, perhaps you should be the one to refactor. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an RfC about Elonka's behaviour as an administrator, not just what has happened on the El Durrah article, as made clear by ChrisO's posting on WP:AN and in his actual presentation. Now that your counter-endorsement has been disallowed from the main page, I don't think any further discussion is necessary. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Do not endorse. Sounds like McCarthyism. --Fat Cigar 01:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
2. I am not endorsing this, because it classifies those who are in disagreement with the article as those who are "editors with a thinly veiled racist POV" and/or "SPAs," which is a fallacious statement. For an editor to imply that other editors who do not hold belief that of which he edits by, is a poor attitude and conveys that they may have difficulty working with other editors if they hold this preconceived notion. seicer | talk | contribs 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment It was difficult working with user:Fourdee, but it is incorrect to suggest that it had something to do with me. How would you characterize his behaviour? Mathsci (talk)

Comment. Seicer below makes the fallacious deduction that because I wrote that these articles sometimes attract editors with a thinly veiled racist POV, I intended this description to apply to a large number of editors that edit there. That is certainly not the case and it is an extremely rare occurrence. I don't know how long he/she has been an administrator, but perhaps he/she has forgotten about editors on Race and intelligence like User:Fourdee, permanently banned by Jimbo himself for extremely antisemitic remarks, and User:MoritzB, another POV-pusher also indefinitely blocked after attempting to misrepresent James Watson in the article. Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not agree with JackSchmidt's comment

1. JackSchmidt wrote, "I think all you want is a clearly written article. All she wants is a stable editing environment for the article. Both are absolutely necessary for the good of the encyclopedia and that article." He is absolutely right that both are necessary for the good of the encylopedia. And he may be right that Elonka's intentions were to promote a stable environment. Would that this were so - I really wish I could agree with JackSchmidt. Perhaps in some cases, like the specific one JackSchmidt was commenting on, her actions do have this effect (although this seems not to be the case to me). The problem is, I do not think - at least in the two cases I was involved in - that Elonka was promoting a stable editing environment. In one case she took the side of a clearly disruptive, unconstructive editor who after about a year of attempts to work harmoniously with him was effectively banned by the community of editors working on the article; in this case taking his side could only undermine a stable editing environment, and despite Elonka's claims to mentor the editor all he did was go on to be more disruptive, and the community ban was eventually confirmed and reinstated. Elonka's actions had the effect only of making the editing environment unstable again. In the other case, there was a clear consensus in support of a merger and Elonka took the side of the one person who opposed it. Her purpose was to dictate that the decision to merge should be made via a RfD rather than discussion by editors on the talk page. This purpose goes against policy and has only one effect: to put power in the hands of administrators, who decide on RfDs, and to take it away from the wikicommunity of editors. This does not promote a stable editing environment - indeed, she once again took the side of a lone disruptive editor who was reverting decisions reached by consensus. The effect of her act was to undermine stability and to redirect power to administrtators at the expense of the wiki-community. Sorry, but in these cases JackSchmidt's comments do not apply. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is the subject of this RFC "Elonka's actions on this particular article", "Elonka's admin actions" or "Elonka's editing in general"? Different posters seem to be commenting on different things. Not saying anyone's right or wrong but it's unfair on Elonka to drag more general "I don't like her" criticisms into this if the RFC only pertains to her actions in this instance. – iridescent 14:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. ChrisO has made it quite clear in his introduction here and in his comment on WP:AN that this is an RfC concerned with Elonka's general behaviour as an administrator. If there is any doubt ChrisO can be contacted directly for clarification. It is certainly not up to Elonka to limit this RfC: she has already attempted, so far unsuccessfully, to challenge its validity. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying that you or ChrisO are wrong, just trying to clarify; my comments on the RFC were specifically regarding Elonka's actions in the particular case mentioned. As oppose #1 on her RFA (and as the recipient of this once the RFA had passed) I certainly have had problems with Elonka's general behaviour in the past. (I haven't crossed paths with her for a while so won't comment on her recent activity). I just don't think she acted inappropriately as regards this particular article. – iridescent 15:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point and it was confusing for me too. In the case of the Al-Durrah article - an article which would never see the light of day in the Encyclopedia Britannica - I have no opinions. In Alt Med articles my own feeling is that the presence of expert editors like Eusebeus, Fyslee or MastCell brings a sense of order to these articles. It is great that they participate and they bring the right air of scholarship and moderation. I don't think Elonka's "correctional institution" rules are any kind of substitute for this in any way at all. They must scare people away, even good editors, who will receive no recognition under Elonka's regime. BTW I don't think that ChrisO's presentation will win any prizes :) Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit rich to be putting up an RfC on an administrator's general behavior when you yourself are an involved editor in an article under mediation by that same administrator, and currently subject to sanctions. Particularly when he solicited her in the first place, and accepted her mediation, and attempted to impose her conditions on others. It would have seemed a lot less self-serving and disruptive if ChrisO had simply removed himself from editing the article first, rather than filing these actions whenever the sanctions applied to him! Oh and I notice that in his comment on WP:AN he entirely neglects to mention his sanctions at all. More than a little misleading under the circumstances, I'd say. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Making this a larger issue of Elonka's behavior in other places is clearly an afterthought - note the date- - the whole of this issue is in relation to the al-Durrah article. He claims my edits are at the "crux of the matter" and all the examples are from the al-Durrah article and date from his banning. It is also clear from a reading of Elonka's talk page. The attempt to enlarge this issue is an attempt generate a wider negative consensus. It is patently unfair. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the above isn't an attempt to game the way out of the minor fact that there is an issue (or two) and many and various members of the Community are expressing their concerns about them? Shot info (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there appear to be at least two (and probably more) distinct RFC's taking place in the same RFC and they are getting all tangled up with each other. For example, from what I can see, the "cases" that Slrubenstein and Mathsci are talking about really having nothing to do with what ChrisO is talking about. I have commented on the dispute between ChrisO and Elonka, because I have "been there", but I can't comment on the other cases because I don't know anything about them. For all I know, the editors who are aggrieved about the other situations may have a point -- I just don't know. What I do know is that these different situations should not be piled on top of each other in a way that suggests that there is some sort of general, systemic problem with the way Elonka handles disputes. In the one situation I know about, the one involving ChrisO (and other editors on the same article), her actions have been reasonable and evenhanded. Someone needs to untangle the mess so that each distinct situation may be properly evaluated. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to some of the comments

Re Mathsci's comment: There's nothing wrong with advising someone how to edit better. If someone chooses to mentor difficult editors, that choice should not be taken as an endorsement of the editors' characters.
Elonka's position at the AN/I discussion about the merge looks perfectly reasonable to me and her behaviour there looks unexceptionable to me.
I believe anyone has the right to make an accusation that there is tag-teaming (violation of WP:CANVASS) if they believe this is happening; I don't see how making such an accusation would be considered an abuse of admiinstrator privileges.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that Mathsci believes that admins should differentially enforce policies such as WP:CIVIL based on whether someone is an admin and on judgements of which side is right in content disputes; if so, I respectfully disagree.
In short, Mathsci's comment fails to convince me that Elonka has made any error of judgement in the cases cited.
Re the diffs posted by Ramdrake: I skimmed those discussions and Elonka's behaviour there looks perfectly reasonable to me.
Re Slrubenstein's comment: Slrubenstein apparently believes that an admin should either become involved in a dispute as an editor, or not become involved, and should not enforce WP:CIVIL while making no judgement on content disputes. I respect Slrunbenstein's right to hold that opinion, but I disagree. I believe that there is an important role for admins who enforce WP:CIVIL while forming no opinion about the content disputes in which the uncivil behaviour arises (i.e. the whole concept of "uninvolved admin"). It's essential to maintain standards of civility; otherwise content disputes are decided by whoever is most aggressive, an atmosphere which does not lend itself to maintaining the most NPOV encyclopedia. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, you give a reasonable summary of my position with one fault: I do not always think this. It depemnds on the situation. I definitelythink this for two instances in which Elonka and myself were involved. I do not believe it for all instances. Sometimes you just have several edits being uncivil and reverting one another and it is the mutual uncivility itself that is the problem. BUT in other cases the conflict is between editors who have researhed a topic vwrsus SPA users who are pushing a POV, usually resorting to disruptive edits. In these cases one had to look art the substancwe to judge who is making constructive edits and who is making disruptive ones. It all depends Slrubenstein | Talk 03:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, prompting individual edits of an SPA, as if you were that editor yourself, is just not on. This happened with Zero g. After a certain point hints on style and civility actually get taken over by procedural hints - telling them to do things they haven't thought of doing, or indeed doing it for them - which directly relate to content. She herself contested an article merge, acting as if she were the POV-pusher. She claimed quite wrongly on Moreschi's talk page that:

My concern is that a small group of editors, all agreeing with each other, moving from article to article and rolling over opposition, does not define "consensus". And that this group is adamantly opposed to any kind of wider community input such as an RfC or AfD, further concerns me.

The AfD that Elonka requested showed that she was competely mistaken, as there was overwhelming support for this uncontentious merge where no content was lost. But she wasted a huge amount of time and made needless insults. She did not listen to the advice of MastCell or Moreschi. Her behaviour was in fact disruptive. No other administrator acts like this. Her mentoring of Jagz was a total disaster. She did not stop him contacting other editors to advise them on how to edit articles on which he had been topic banned, thus testing the limits of his ban, nor did she stop him editing WP policy pages, again completely against the spirit of the topic ban. She did not listen to the advice of MastCell, Cailil or Slrubenstein, brought up again on the talk page of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Cailil, where she wrote about Jagz, whose account had devolved into that of an SPA/"polite troll" according to several administrators:

But I don't see it that way, I see his opponents, such as Slrubenstein and Mathsci, as forming a kind of lynch mob. They put so much pressure on a good editor, and generated so many accusations and attacks, that the editor finally snapped.

He might have been a good editor a year or more ago, but Elonka refused to acknowledge that his behaviour had completely changed. Koalorka she treated again with kid gloves, taking a few days after I pointed it out here fo r it to register with her that a significant part of his edits were systematic anti-Turkish POV pushing, which had brought him to WP:AN/I on more than one occasion. By failing to notice these POV-pushers and vilifying those who did, Elonka creates needless wikidrama. Even when Koalorka used gross personal insults towards me on his user page

another butthurt Marxist foaming at the mouth when confronted with a world view that contradicts their own

having first suggested that I was a "sneaky Turkish nationalist" (an incorrect claim, as it happens), she acted inappropriately. Normally, as WjBscribe wrote at the time, this should have resulted in an immediate block. Elonka at times like these seems quite clueless and seems to be taking sides with POV-pushers like Jagz or Koalorka, contrary to all suggestions from other editors or administrators. These erratic bouts of obtuse stubbornness are not at all helpful to the project. She should abandon her "conspiracy theories" and her "experiments". She should learn to listen to administrators with more experience than her. She should learn to distinguish between single purpose POV-pushers and editors whose main purpose is to add significant scholarly content to this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of process deletion?

At least four administrators (plus me) feel that deletion of this RFC was not the best move. It had already been certified by another administrator, and a bunch of editors had made comments. I personally dislike RFCs as a process, but the page contained good advice, and appeared to provide a venue for editors to express their concerns in way that might help resolve disputes. I very much regret the rules lawyering that has gone on over this process, and the attempts to find technicalities that would allow the page to be deleted. Sure, if the RFC had descended into chaos and acrimony, that might have been a reason to invoke ignore all rules and blow away the page by applying stricter than normal criteria, but that's not what happened here. An orderly discussion was hidden, at request of the subject, without any sort of consensus to do so. Jehochman 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to be ruleslawyers here. The RFC being not deleted won't hurt anything. Deleting it when people are using it does hurt something. I'd support an undeletion. Friday (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I belive that this was out of process aswell. I certified the RfC because two editors had given valid certifications. Chris's certification is based on problems he's had with Elonka's use of the sanctions that arbcom allow admins to give out. Ned's was for exactly the same reason. Regardless of which particular incident they were referring to, the concerns were both over Elonka's interpretation of ArbCom sanctions and that's what this RfC was about. I would personally have liked the deleting admin to come and discuss it with me before overruling my decision. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)