Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sindhian (talk | contribs) at 15:37, 6 September 2008 (→‎Outside view by Alvestrand). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse. Consequently 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. [1]. I have moved the "disendorsements" of Shell Kinney's and Mathsci's comments to the talkpage. 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 08:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]


Statement of the dispute

Cause of concern

I have a high regard for Elonka as a prolific and committed editor; she has contributed a great deal to the project. However, I believe that Elonka has displayed erratic judgment as an administrator, engaging in selective management of editing conditions, a highly aggressive, authoritarian approach, a lack of responsiveness to feedback, a failure to deal with poor quality editing, and a complete refusal to acknowledge the importance of quality control in articles. I have encounted this personally on an article that I have been editing. Comments left on my talk page and those of other editors suggest that similar problems exist with other articles with which she has been involved.

I have started this RfC with considerable regret; in four years as an admin, I've never had to start an RfC involving a fellow admin, but Elonka's mismanagement of basic policy issues is deeply worrying. Her inadequate responsiveness to feedback - failing to respond satisfactorily or at all to e-mail correspondence and talk page messages - leaves no choice but to seek wider community feedback. I would like to emphasize that I do not support suggestions that I have heard that Elonka should be desysopped. My concerns are over her judgment in the specific area of managing editing conditions, not her general conduct as an administrator. I believe the solution lies in her recognising that there are problems with her approach and dealing with that, whether by modifying her approach or standing aside and letting (an)other administrator(s) take over the management of her editing conditions.

Although she will no doubt argue that I am merely trying to get back at her for her recent actions, that isn't certainly isn't the case. I might otherwise have put this down to a simple personality clash. However, I have received a considerable amount of feedback over the past few weeks which convinces me that there is a serious, systemic issue here. I have heard the same comments repeatedly and even the exact same words from different people - "erratic", "authoritarian", "poor judgment" and so on - which chimes with my own experiences.

I hadn't encountered Elonka before last month so I didn't have any preconceptions of her, but there seem to be widespread concerns about her approach. I believe that needs to be aired and dealt with for the good of the project. Because of this concern, I decided that an RfC was the most appropriate place to deal with the issue. I had originally intended to raise this on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard but that would not be an appropriate place to deal with an apparently systemic issue across multiple articles, some of which I believe are not currently subject to past arbitrations. (Needless to say, that is not forum shopping; it's finding the appropriate place to raise a complex issue in a formal setting.)

I have no doubt that she's acting in good faith. The problem is not her willingness to do good but the poor judgment she has shown. This dispute centres specifically on her management of the editing conditions which she has imposed on a number of articles. I have provided a number of concrete examples below relating to my own interactions with her and welcome any feedback on whether, as I have reason to believe, this is a wider problem. I want to emphasize that I am not seeking to overturn her actions, though if the community decides that is necessary I would of course welcome that. I have raised this RfC not to dispute specific decisions made by Elonka, but to highlight what I see as possibly systemic flaws in her approach.

I accept that as a relatively new admin (since December 2007) Elonka may not have as much experience in administrative tasks as those of us who have been around for considerably longer. However, her conduct suggests a systemic problem with her approach to contentious articles, and it is actively impeding the development of the encyclopedia. I understand that Elonka has some prior experience of managing online forums. I wonder if this might actually be part of the problem - there may be an element of culture conflict. WP is not an online forum; it's a project to create a high-quality encyclopedia. Our work as contributors has to be directed towards that goal. That means being serious about fact-checking, reviewing sources and good writing. Unfortunately Elonka seems to have lost sight of that approach and is actively penalising such work and is driving away contributors as a result. I note that Elonka's path to adminship was somewhat controversial (RFA 1, RFA 2, RFA 3); frankly, some of the RFA "oppose" comments chime with what I'm perceiving now.

Desired outcome

I hope Elonka takes the opportunity to respond to the concerns that are raised here and modify her approach to these issues; or if not, agree to desist from managing articles and concentrate on other areas of administration where she can make a more useful contribution.

Description

I have recently been systematically rewriting Muhammad al-Durrah, an article that was in generally poor condition and was the subject of repeated edit-warring. Over the past five years, I've specialised somewhat in rewriting contentious articles from scratch, focusing on expanding content with improved sourcing, creating coherent frameworks for articles and providing accurate, neutral wording. I have a string of featured articles, good articles and DYKs plus tens of thousands of edits to my name, so by any standards my contributions are recognised as being of a very high quality. My most recent work on the article was prompted by Elonka herself calling for editors to "get the article into a proper state" [2].

In June this year, Elonka stepped in to impose a set of editing conditions under WP:ARBPIA. The conditions, which are her own work and not specifically endorsed by the ArbCom or the community, are for the most part reasonably well intentioned. The issue has been with her management of these conditions. 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.

The crux of the problem has been a number of edits made by Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), an editor who signed up on 28 May 2008, shortly after a major news event related to this article, and has since focused heavily on the article - not quite an SPA, but close to it. In early June he was topic-banned from the article for three months by MZMcBride [3] and unbanned after a week by Elonka.[4]

Some of his edits have been highly problematic, including POV deletions of content, making basic factual errors by misrepresenting or misreading sources, and simple bad writing. Elonka has not only failed to deal with these problems, she has refused even to acknowledge them. She has reacted harshly to work on basic quality control issues, even penalising it. These repeated errors of judgment have made it increasingly difficult to work on the article without triggering a hostile reaction from Elonka. They also send a disastrously wrong message to other editors - that poor-quality editing will be tolerated without any response or counseling, but work to resolve problematic content will be penalised.

I should note that Elonka has certainly responded to some issues with some editors (e.g. [5]). However, one of the key issues that I raise below is that her enforcement of her editing conditions has been erratic, selective and inconsistent with some of her own rules. I have quite literally added more content and made more edits to the article than any other editor (see editing history from July 15th to present). Unfortunately that has meant that I have been disproportionately at risk from her management of the article.

My working method is generally to do much of my editing offline in a text editor, then paste it into the browser. When working systematically through an article, I edit it a section at a time. If I see something that simply doesn't belong in an article, I remove it with an explanation. If I see something that is out of place, dubiously sourced or factually inaccurate, I cut it out, review the source, if necessary reword it offline to make sure it reflects the source, then add it back to an appropriate section. I flag this up with an explanation in the edit summary (and talk page if necessary). An edit in which I did precisely this [6], with clear follow-up explanations [7][8] and Elonka's response to it [9], before I was able to complete the cycle of adding the material back to the article, is one of the key points of contention here.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Selective enforcement of editing restrictions. On July 24th, Tundrabuggy removed a statement concerning an individual's qualifications that was sourced to a major Australian newspaper, with no edit summary and no attempt to change or reword it or to move it within the article as required by Elonka's editing conditions [10]. He made it clear on the talk page that he had done so because he thinks the reporter "is considered by some [pressure groups] to be highly biased [against Israel]" and therefore is an unreliable source. I restored the deleted material [11] and notified Elonka of the violation [12]. She not only refused to acknowledge the violation but warned me after I restored the deleted content.[13]. As another editor described it sarcastically, "removing sourced and relevant content previously added by another editor simply because you don't like the journalist involved is not a revert, but by implication returning that legitimate material to the page is a a revert and is not allowed. Starting a debate on a talk page trying to get that same journalist effectively blacklisted as a source does not elicit any comment, whereas pointing out basic WP policies brings threats of blocks." [14] No action was taken - not even a warning - concerning Tundrabuggy's clear violation of her restrictions. The contrast with the incident described under point 3 is obvious.
2. Erratic application of editing conditions and inappropriate aggressive behaviour. On July 25th, Tundrabuggy added a sourced statement to the article concerning what he described as a report presented in November 2000. I checked the source and found that it was actually a presentation of February 2005 and made no claim to be the report published 5 years previously. This was a basic factual error. As Elonka's conditions specifically state that if something is added "is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot. Please use a clear edit summary such as "removing unsourced information, see talkpage")." I followed these instructions to the letter in removing the erroneous material [15] and posted a message to the talk page about the issue [16], stating that I would work a revised version of the material into a later part of the article. In response, Elonka posted an ultimatum to my talk page demanding that I act right now, requiring an instant response or be banned [17]. I complied under duress and hurriedly made the edit that I had already said I would make anyway.[18] She refused to acknowledge any issue with the basic factual error that I spotted. She also did not respond to my pointing out that her own editing conditions permitted the removal of erroneous material.[19]
3. Further inappropriate aggressive behaviour and poor judgment. Between July 26-28th, Tundrabuggy and four other editors made a total of 23 edits to the article, making a significant number of changes. I regarded a couple of those changes as problematic and reworked some poor wording.[20][21] The edit was not a revert, but a modification of a complex series of edits (compare before and after: [22]). One edit concerned the removal of a sourced (but POV-worded) line in an anachronistic context. Again, I said that I would work it into a later section of the article as soon as I'd checked it out and explained the reasons on the article talk page and Elonka's talk page.[23][24] As explained above, this is my standard working method and given Tundrabuggy's earlier misreading of sources, I wanted to be sure that it was factually accurate. I noted in response to a separate comment by Elonka that I was systematically checking sources and replacing low-quality ones with high-quality ones where possible, without altering the points that the sources were making. In response, Elonka banned me from the article for a month without responding to any of the issues I raised [25] and added a new retrospective editing condition, apparently to protect her own back.[26] She has made it clear that this is a response to "today's actions" in editing the article, misrepresenting my statement that I would be replacing sources (see point 5, below) and also citing in justification her previous error of judgment concerning my correction of Tundrabuggy's factual error. She further characterised my edit as a quasi-revert, apparently inventing some sort of new Schrödinger's cat-style intermediate between a revert and not-a-revert. This kind of arbitrariness makes it impossible to judge what she will consider a violation of her conditions.
4. Non-responsiveness. As already noted, Elonka has a repeated pattern of non-responsiveness to issues raised concerning her actions. This has been manifested on the article talk page, on my talk page and on her talk page. (It's perhaps relevant that at the time of writing the very first topic on her talk page is a complaint about her non-responsiveness [27] and others have said very similar things [28]). In my experience she has also refused to review her own actions or respond adequately (or sometimes at all) to clearly stated concerns. There has been no attempt at compromise, no attempt to understand the other person's point of view (and little apparent interest in soliciting it), and no willingness to engage in productive dialogue. In short, she doesn't seem to listen or respond substantively if her judgment is questioned. This is not a good trait in an administrator.
5. Disregard for good-faith editing and quality assurance. I am frankly alarmed that Elonka has displayed a disregard for my good-faith actions in improving the article and systematically addressing quality issues. She characterises my work in checking sources and replacing low-quality ones as a bad thing: "you are planning to further ignore the conditions and continue to remove other sources." [29] Note the mischaracterisation - I spoke of replacing sources, substituting low-quality ones for high-quality ones, not removing them - and the total failure to recognise that finding high-quality sources is required by Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core content policies. She asserts: "You do not have the right to remove sources until you personally review them and decide how to incorporate them into the article" [30]. This is utterly wrong; every editor has that right, indeed that responsibility, since reliable sourcing and neutral wording are basic policy requirements. In short, she is placing her own editing conditions above our most basic core policies. I have been an editor for five years and an admin for four, and in all that time I've never come across an admin so aggressively clueless about article improvement. To put it bluntly, I know what I'm doing in rewriting articles; it's something I specialise in, and indeed my ability in doing so was a large part of the reason that I was nominated for adminship in the first place. Apparently that counts for nothing with Elonka.
6. Elonka's actions are actively harming the development of the encyclopedia. As a direct result of her actions, other well-established editors are being driven away and deterred from contributing to the article. [31],[32]. A mediation has also effectively failed because most of the editors involved have given up on the article following Elonka's intervention. Although I have stuck it out longer than most, I have to admit that I'm uncertain whether there is any point in continuing while Elonka is involved.
7. Similar problems on other articles. Elonka has also been involved in a number of other articles where she has either imposed editing conditions identical to those on the Al-Durrah article, or has been seeking to manage user conduct. These include Quackwatch and Race and intelligence. Similar concerns have been expressed there by editors concerning non-responsiveness and a lack of consistency in applying the edit conditions (e.g. [33]).

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:ADMIN
  2. WP:BOLD
  3. WP:NPOV
  4. WP:RS
  5. WP:V

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. I have contacted Elonka by e-mail to discuss my concerns privately but have received no satisfactory response, and no response at all to my most recent e-mail.
  2. I have also responded in detail to issues that she and others have raised, but this has produced little or no dialogue other than followup ultimatums, arbitrary penalties and comments that amount to "do what I say".[34] (no response); [35] (Elonka's response)
  3. User:Ned Scott seems to have made an attempt to discuss this matter with User:Elonka: [36][37][38][39] Provided by Jehochman Talk

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2008
    1. Note that there has been consensus that any dispute SA has with Elonka is not the same as the dispute Elonka and ChrisO have. Hence, I'm striking this certification. Wizardman 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interests of transparency, can we see a diff for the discussion establishing this consensus? --Badger Drink (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See this rfc's talk page and the links therein. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems clear that the strategy that Elonka is taking here is hoping to not be able to get two certifications and get the whole RFC erased. Be that as it may, instead of merely striking the certification, at the very least SA's signing here should be seen as an endorsement and included below. DreamGuy (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. These are the same concerns that I brought up on ChrisO's talk page when he got blocked banned by Elonka. I've been following the resulting discussions for a bit, and while I haven't really commented on the situation much, I find myself agreeing with Chris's assessment of the situation. I attempted to raise the concerns on her restrictions both on ChrisO's talk page, and on the request for Arb clarification. Like Chris said above, this is not an attack on Elonka, or even her general admin activity. I am reluctant to certify this since I was once in an arbcom dispute with Elonka, and would rather avoid leaving bad impressions. However, an RfC about this does seem like a reasonable next step. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Badger Drink (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shot info (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Elonka is forcing her own interpretation of policy onto the Community, then artibarily enforcing it, mainly by hyping up supposed breaches of her own rules, while ignoring similar breaches by those who agree with her POV. Her hounding of SA is amazing, and her failure to engage in any dispute resolution brings us here. It should be noted that many opposes in her 3rd RFA pointed out the various failures that we are seeing here today. I guess it will be off to RfArb if this attempt to engage in dispute resolution is just sweep under the carpet (ie/ by being seen as "forum shopping" - people we have DR for a reason). It's time for Elonka to realise that she cannot remake Wikipedia into her own image.[reply]
  4. Relata refero (disp.) 07:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Elonka completely and utterly misses the point here. You don't impose 0RR on articles being attacked by WP:FRINGE advocates. You simply dont. It is the most pointlessly counter-productive action I can think of in terms of quality. Someone please tell her to stay the hell away from articles with special needs.[reply]
  5. Skinwalker (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC) This deserves its own section with diffs, but I have been horrified by Elonka's behavior at Quackwatch, which closely resembles what ChrisO describes on a different area. She imposed 0RR, threatened and blocked pro-science editors, and coached pro-fringe editors on how to get their desired result. She, Seicer, and GRBerry (by their own admission) have been colluding off-site to coordinate administrative action on FRINGE articles. I find this to be highly questionable and against the open spirit of Wikipedia. Skinwalker (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nickhh (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC). As an editor involved in the article recently I repeat my concerns about the restrictions that have been unilaterally imposed on there (and, it would seem, elsewhere). Elonka's rules are intended to stop edit-warring, and in principle of course that can only be a good thing. I also appreciate what a thankless task it is to try to calm down some of the disputes which flare up on I-P pages. However as I have pointed out elsewhere, good editing generally can be pretty ruthless at times, and will involve re-writes, deletions and reversion of poor material where appropriate. The situation on the al-Durrah article is not some content dispute, or one where we have two opposing POVs of relatively equal merit fighting it out - it is about fundamental WP policies relating to reliable sourcing and neutrality. We had a slew of editors at one point more or less trying to re-write the article (and it was bad enough already), seemingly for nationalistic or political reasons, to back up a fringe viewpoint that the boy's death was a hoax or staged in some way as part of some conspiracy to demonise Israel. Other editors, myself and Chris included, have made attempts to simply ensure instead that the article reflects with some degree of balance what mainstream reliable sources currently say about the case. As far as I know none of those editors has any vested interest in what happened, or even much of a view either way. You can't treat both of the "sides" here as if they are equivalent in where they are coming from, they are not. Equally imposing a comprehensive ban on reverts and asking people instead to add contrasting material where they see any problems will merely lead to a bloated and incoherent mess of an article. Do we really want pages here to read "Some people say the moon is made of cream cheese, while others say it is not. Those who say the former have been accused of not understanding the evidence, while those who say that about them have been accused of believing everything they are told by their government". I have pointed out the problems directly to Elonka on several occasions, eg on my talk page, her talk page and Chris' talk page. I'm sure I've raised the problem on the article talk page as well. And not only do I disagree with the conditions imposed, but they are not always even being applied consistently, as documented by Chris above. I know that some pages need fairly harsh admin action sometimes, but at the same time the key presumption on Wikipedia is that articles are open for editing, including reverts. If someone makes a poor edit one way or the other, that (hopefully) will get sorted out. It can't be up to one individual editor to put that fundamental principle on hold indefinitely, even on difficult articles, and then to bar another editor - who is simply trying to uphold other basic WP policies - from the page for perceived breaches of the unilaterally imposed rule that has suspended that principle. It seems to me that this sort of action represents the antithesis of what this project is meant to stand for.[reply]
  7. DreamGuy (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The specific article controversy ChrisO is talking about would need to be looked at in great detail to determine if his overall summary is accurate, but certainly individual claims he has made appear to be accurate and reflect what I've seen of Elonka's editing behavior in general. Furthermore, the Quackwatch example, while a mere footnote in ChrisO's description, shows very obvious problems in Elonka's editing behavior and priorities. I fully endorse the section about the Quackwatch problem and would argue that Elonka does not at all count as a non-nuetral editor, as required by the ArbCom decision she claims justifies her drastic actions. Good faith editing would require her to withdraw herself from such radical enforcement methods considering that her actions have been rightly questioned. She should remove herself from the situation instead of digging a trench. Her actions have clearly escalated the problem, not helped.[reply]
  8. <eleland/talkedits> 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Two points: First, I have absolutely no reason to believe that Elonka is acting in bad faith. She is clearly trying to further the goals of the WP, by her own lights. In a way, I admire her resolve to take controversial enforcement actions. Second, the key phrase here is "aggressively clueless." Elonka has operated in this matter with a kind of fundamentalist agnosticism - if there is such a thing - insisting that POV-pushing, nonsensical, source-misrepresenting edits be treated with near-reverence, as if all claims in this article are equally valid. It's disturbing. <eleland/talkedits> 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Relata refero is correct. 0RR for editors is dubious at best: 0RR for pages simply doesn't work. I also agree with Eleland. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bedford For everything everyone has already said.--Seek his grace 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse for future reference. My own minor contribution is here. I've seen this drama before with other players and know the ending. Will chime in much later. JJB 15:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

This is just more forum-shopping by ChrisO. Though he's an excellent editor in many other parts of Wikipedia, when it comes to Israel-Palestine issues, he sometimes gets overly-focused on a topic, to the point where he starts pushing a POV and treating other editors with disrespect. I (Elonka) have been helping out as an uninvolved admin at Muhammad al-Durrah since early June, and have issued a series of cautions and page bans to several editors there, not just ChrisO, in a (successful) attempt to stabilize the article and get it out of its chronic state of edit-warring. In ChrisO's case, though he was being clearly disruptive, he is also a longterm Wikipedian, so I proceeded with great caution in how I handled things. After a long series of warnings (see details below), I temporarily banned him from the article, 6/15 - 7/15. He started wiki-lawyering up a storm, and filed a formal appeal at ArbCom, but they backed my restrictions. When his ban was up, he came back to the article, was a good editor for about a week, and then started disrupting again, calling other editors "trolls", phrasing a BLP subject as "blowing goats", removing reliable sources from the article, and reverting sourced edits. So, I sent a bunch more warnings his way, and when he continued to ignore/defy them, I again asked him to avoid editing the article for another month. The wiki-lawyering started up again, as he has been sending multiple messages to me both on- and off-wiki. However, they aren't getting me to change my mind. So since I'm not budging, and his appeal was rejected by ArbCom last time, he is now choosing a different forum, with a User Conduct RfC on me. Based on the threats I'm seeing in his emails, if this doesn't work, his next tactic is to try and get me de-sysopped. In my opinion, this is ChrisO throwing up a huge fuss, for a very minor thing. I didn't block him, I just asked him to avoid editing one article for one month. He can still participate at talk, he can still participate at mediation, he can even work on a draft version of the article in his userspace. But that's not enough for him, he wants his pound of flesh, so, here we are, wasting more community time.

Template:Hat1

Being an administrator is a thankless job. Especially when dealing with disputes, no matter what action that an admin takes, someone is probably going to be unhappy. When an admin imposes a block, it is very rare for the blockee to say, "Thanks admin, I really needed to be blocked!" Instead, blockees usually respond with anger, and accusations that the admin is biased, corrupt, or incompetent. Things get more complex when imposing restrictions on established editors. It's one thing for an admin to deal with a vandal. It's another for an admin to impose restrictions on a longstanding member of the community. In those cases, the blockee usually has extensive knowledge of wiki-procedures, so knows exactly how to appeal any actions that are taken. But ultimately the complaints usually boil down to the same accusations as made by a newer blockee: Unhappiness at restrictions, and accusations (though more eloquent) of bias, corruption, or incompetence.

That seems to be the case with ChrisO, when I placed restrictions on him for disruptive behavior at the Muhammad al-Durrah article. ChrisO is a longterm member of the community, and has been an administrator himself since 2004, nominated by Wik (talk · contribs). Obtaining adminship was a much simpler process back then![40] But along with his years of experience, ChrisO has used his knowledge not just for the betterment of the wiki, but also to become an expert wiki-lawyer when pushing his own POV. When ChrisO is heavily involved in a topic, he uses every wiki-mechanism that he can think of, to support his cause. Since I've been dealing with him in early June, he has sent me numerous threatening messages,[41][42][43] filed an RfAr appeal,[44] and now has chosen to file a User Conduct RfC on me. And for what? Because I dared to ask him to avoid editing one (1) article for a month. He's still allowed to participate at the talkpage and to work on a version of the article in his userspace. But rather than just find something else to do among the 2+ million other articles on Wikipedia, ChrisO is again filing a major appeal.

So, though I have great respect for the community processes on Wikipedia, I find it difficult to take this RfC seriously. In my view, it is just one more way that ChrisO is forum-shopping, and disrupting the community in order to get his own way.

As background on this, the Muhammad al-Durrah article has been in a state of dispute for a long time.[45][46] Part of the problem was that ChrisO, an administrator who is heavily involved in the dispute, was himself being disruptive, being uncivil, edit-warring, and misusing his admin access to warn his opponents and threaten ArbCom sanctions on them. Per WP:UNINVOLVED, administrators are only supposed to use their tools and access in situations where they are not involved in the dispute. However, ChrisO has violated this multiple times.[47][48][49][50] [51][52][53][54][55][56] Even recently, he threatened that he was going to continue to edit war at the Muhammad al-Durrah article, "as an admin".[57]

I first heard about the dispute via ANI in early June,[58] because ChrisO was begging for help from other uninvolved admins.[59] But as I came in with "fresh eyes", it became clear that one of the key individuals causing disruption, was ChrisO himself. Other editors were disruptive as well, and I did my best to warn all of them equally (see below). Per the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBPIA, I placed some conditions for editing on the article, such as 0RR (no reverts). However, ChrisO continued with disruption. So, I gave him a steadily increasing set of cautions,[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] and eventually his first ban in mid-June.[69] He immediately appealed at ArbCom, but they stood behind my restrictions.[70] So ChrisO served out his time, and when his ban expired on July 15, he went on a major article-expansion drive. This was fine, and I supported his efforts, as long as they stayed in accordance with the editing conditions.[71][72][73] But last week, things started escalating again, as ChrisO started violating WP:OWN, accusing other editors of "trolling"[74][75] if they disagreed with him, and he was again edit-warring and violating other policies such as WP:BLP, by referring to a BLP subject as "blowing goats".[76] I didn't want to have to go through the steps of a formal ban again, so I did my best to gently get him back on track.[77][78][79][80][81] I even tried an "informal" ban, where I simply asked him to avoid the article for a day.[82][83] But he kept violating the restrictions, and threatening to do more of the same in the future.[84]. So I had little choice but to place another article-editing ban.[85]

It's also worth pointing out that, as an uninvolved admin, I am not taking action just on ChrisO at that article. Neither am I the only uninvolved administrator who is helping to manage the article.[86] Plenty of warnings and restrictions have been issued to editors on "both sides":[87]:

I have also given nudges, reminders, and warnings, to multiple other editors, such as:

In the majority of cases, one or two gentle reminders on someone's talkpage, were all the course correction that was needed. With this kind of admin supervision, newer editors are better understanding the need to be civil, to provide reliable sources for their additions, and to provide alternative views in a neutral manner, and in the proper proportion to everything else on the page. And since the Muhammad al-Durrah article has gone under closer admin supervision, the article has required no page protection, and no one has been blocked. This is exactly what ArbCom intended, with the discretionary sanctions that they authorized in January 2008.

Most of the editors at Muhammad al-Durrah acknowledge their cautions, and adapt their on-wiki behavior accordingly. Except for ChrisO, who continues to ignore warnings, and file lengthy appeals when his restrictions are upgraded to a ban. He has accused me of "mismanagement",[126] being "aggressive",[127] flying "off the handle",[128] and he has asked that I "stand aside".[129] However, my actions are not being done out of any personal stake in this. I have no preference on what content goes into the article. I am simply an uninvolved admin, doing my best to try and stabilize an article that was in a chronic state of edit-warring. I would also point out that I'm not exactly obstructing actions by any other uninvolved admin, nor have I ever received any serious (uninvolved) challenge to my ban of ChrisO or any other editor on the page. If anyone did question an action that I took, I would be happy to review things. I make careful notes whenever I impose a discretionary sanction, to keep things as transparent as possible.[130]

That ChrisO himself doesn't like his ban, well, that's par for the course: People don't like being banned. Though I do have to admit that it amuses me that in his statement, ChrisO is trying to refer to me as some sort of junior administrator. It's true that I've only been an admin on Wikipedia since December 2007, but I would point out that I have been a professional online community manager for 20 years. And on Wikipedia, I have helped to successfully resolve disputes in multiple topic areas, from Hungarian-Slovakian disputes to Homeopathy to Palestine-Israel articles. I help out at arbitration enforcement, and I was chosen by ArbCom for the Wikipedia working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. I enjoy helping out with dispute resolution, and my judgment has been affirmed in multiple community venues.[131][132][133]

In short, I see this RfC as yet more wikilawyering, and yet another waste of the community's time. I ask the community to firmly communicate this to ChrisO, to try and prevent these kinds of actions in the future. The community may also wish to review other actions of ChrisO, to potentially impose a more comprehensive ban, and/or question the wisdom of whether or not ChrisO should be allowed to maintain admin access at all, considering these repeated lapses in judgment. But I'll leave that to the community to decide. |}

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Elonka 00:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although I've had run-ins with Elonka in the past, I seriously can't see any particular problem with her actions in this particular case. This is one of those areas where no-one's going to please everyone, and she seems to be doing an adequate job in keeping both sides equally dissatisfied – which on a topic like this is the best one can realistically hope for. Complaining that someone doesn't reply to a talkpage post seems pointless – this is a volunteer project, and people regularly aren't in a position to reply to things instantly. – iridescent 00:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have worked with Elonka before and her e-mail responses have been satisfactory and speedy; she is even available on Google Chat regularly, so the issue of communication seems to be moot. I don't reply to my talk page inquiries in a timely fashion at times -- there are simply other matters that I can tend to in a given time, and I am sure that Elonka does too. As for the issues with the article, ChrisO may have had the upper hand on the article at first, but Elonka imposed restrictions on the edits as part of the mediation process -- well within her bounds. The ban was lifted with the support of all of the editors sans ChrisO, and the basis for this RFC seems to have stemmed as part of that. seicer | talk | contribs 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --I just want to put my support for Elonka here and will add a longer comment below. There are a considerable number of errors in ChrisO's statement. I totally endorse Elonka's statement and there is nothing in it that cannot be thoroughly documented. Elonka has had the patience of Job with ChrisO who has actively threatened, insulted, and bullied virtually everyone on this article that did not share his perspective. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It has all been said. Chillum 04:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. I was recently asked to review this case (not by Chris or Elonka) and I couldn't see anything she was doing that I thought was inappropriate. I think she ought to be commended and thanked for being willing to take on and stay with such difficult disputes. I've been critical of Elonka in the past and I opposed all her RfAs that I participated in, but I really see no wrong doing here on her behalf. Sarah 05:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I fail to see the problem here. Mackensen (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I have been following the Muhammad al-Durrah article/talk in and out ever since the dispute started, and to me Elonka seems like a level-headed administrator who took exactly the right steps in relation to the many problems and edit warring in the article. I believe that more administrators should act the way Elonka did, and ChrisO can take a lesson from her, instead of opening an RfC. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. When Elonka and I first met on Wikipedia, I questioned her methods as well(as another uninvolved party); they were different than what I'd seen tried elsewhere on Wikipedia but very interesting. We talked about it length, she was responsive to my concerns, we worked out a few kinks and the article in question has been stable since. She has since successfully built on those methods to assist in resolving contentious disputes that most of us wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. Contrary to the statements of Chris and other editors who have fallen under sanction, I find her to be responsive, considerate and thoughtful; she explains her decisions and gives more than adequate warning and guidance before enforcing a sanction. Each time an editor has questioned the method's Elonka uses, the community has validated them, both at ANI and when a clarification was requested from ArbCom. Editors who run afoul of these sanctions are understandably unhappy with the situation, but the behavior that needs changing is their own, not Elonka's. Shell babelfish 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree. Elonka's actions in this case, and her work in mediating this article in general, is commendable. The behavioral problems that need to be looked at are ChrisO's. I've detailed many of them in my comment section, below. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No good deed goes unpunished. Trying to mediate in a contentious article is a thankless task. Alansohn (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Daniel (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse. The real problem here is ChrisO's effort to "own" the article in question, to push his POV under the guise of simply enforcing Wikipedia policies, and to accompany these things with very uncivil comments on the talk page and in edit summaries. He refused to back down from these efforts despite Elonka's attempts to get a very contentious editing dispute under some sort of control. Even after ChrisO was banned from the article for 30 days, as soon as he came back he renewed his campaign, and was justifiably banned again (and I think he is lucky it was only for 30 days the second time.) Elonka has applied sanctions, warnings, nudges (including a few warnings/nudges to me), etc. in a very evenhanded manner, and I think she has acted within the spirit of what the ArbCom authorized uninvolved administrators to do. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I think the case is best summed up, together with the previous appeal to Arbcom as an overreaction to minor sanctions being imposed. I think uninvolved admins should be supported in mediating contentious articles even if such mediation will make some users unhappy almost by definition. Hobartimus (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agree. Elonka is carrying out a thankless job, in accord with the ArbCom ruling, and doing it quite even-handedly, which is obviously a bitter pill for some to swallow. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Elonka has been doing the thankless job of mediating Muhammad al-Dura quite well and I endorse her summary. Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I spent some time reviewing both ChrisO's filing here and Elonka's response, and it has become apparent to me that she was faced with misconduct by an experienced editor, an administrator, who had become too heavily involved with the article. Because of the effort to shut down this RfC, I came in a bit prejudiced against her; however, what turned the tide was example after example where Chris0 indicated a determination to "enforce" NPOV, including a threat to use his tools for it. NPOV is not the property or judgment of any individual, it is, rather, a quality of balance, and our only measure of it is consensus. Individual opinion about NPOV is unreliable, ultimately. Again and again I see this error, that editors appoint themselves as the "defenders of NPOV" and, as a result, define differing opinions than their own as POV, fringe, etc. In order to find NPOV in articles, we must establish and maintain civil and orderly discussion where all points of view are welcome, and it seems that Elonka has attempted to do just this, and ran into some persistent opposition. I'm not thrilled by 0RR, either, but it could be necessary in an environment where tag-teaming becomes common. ChrisO was correct to raise the conflict between this special rule and BLP policy; however, what ArbComm indicated was that this should be negotiated at a lower level, and I think the BLP issue is a red herring. I have come to the conclusion that it is essential to support Elonka in her work with maintaining order in the area in question. In taking on this task, in with the subject articles or elsewhere, she can be expected to arouse outraged opposition, where every excuse will be found to impeach her. I have seen, however, no examples of serious errors, nothing beyond certain decisions which might have been made differently, and nobody is going to encounter a situation like this and act with perfect optimality in every case. By the way, I have, in the past, seriously opposed Elonka's manner of enforcing an arbitration, where, it seemed, she became very personally attached to the issue (the PHG affair), and pursued an editor beyond all reason. However, I haven't seen that problem operative here. There may be, indeed, lessons she can learn and suggestions she can take away from this RfC, and I'd encourage her to make as much effort as she can muster to treat this as an opportunity. But she has my support and encouragement, firmly. --Abd (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse. --Fat Cigar 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted. "What a clever for the user to find this page within their first 35 contributions." This is a rather obvious sockpuppet account. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse. Elonka is one of the unbiased editors and a fair admin. Sindhian (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Endorse.- As per all above.-Bharatveer (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse - As per FT2's analysis when the dispute was brought to ArbCom.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Endorse - this is really more about ChrisO than about Elonka. --Leifern (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Endorse. People would know that I was a long-standing opponent of Elonka's in times past and opposed all her RfAs, and still believe that I had good reason for doing so. But she exceeded my expectations once in the job, and the areas she has chosen to assist in emphasise her strengths - one would have to admit many of these dramas have cooled rather than escalated with her presence in attempting to broker solutions to them. In addition, I would agree with Sarah, Abd, Shell and others. Orderinchaos 11:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Endorse. I feel Elonka has shown good judgment -- and courage. TimidGuy (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Endorse. AniMate 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Endorse. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Endorse. I have serious reservations about the usefulness of 0RR as a tool but believe that Elonka's efforts are a net positive for the project. Aramgar (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Endorse. If someone should be RfC'ed, it's clearly the other party of the dispute.--   Avg    20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Endorse per Sindhian. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I wasn't going to weigh in here, for a number of really boring reasons, but after what I've seen on Elonka's talk page, I have to endorse (assuming this RfC is in fact valid). What's going on now represents the very worst of Wikipedia. While I haven't agreed with every single thing Elonka has ever done, I'm impressed by how neutral she's been in an area where that's very hard to come by. IronDuke 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. ChrisO's approach has been unacceptable in many ways, especially his attacks at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah. Instead of giving advice to new users, he has treated it as a battleground in an attempt to rid the article of any content he deems inappropriate, in spite of the article having been constantly tagged to warn readers that the article content isnt neutral. Articles will have bad days; the way forward is to engage new users, and ideally .. motivate them to fix their own inappropriate edits. We revert vandals, not good faith contributors. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I'm in pretty much the same boat as IronDuke. ~Jennavecia (Talk) 03:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Endorse. I'm just stumbling into this and am frankly quite shocked. Elonka has always been the most calm, even-handed and sensible person I have come across at WP, both before and after her Adminship. To me, the general behavior of those spearheading this RfC pretty much casts their credibility in doubt. The fact that Elonka stands by her opinions may irk some who oppose her, but as Abd notes above, she is always "civil and orderly," and I would add fair, reasonable and not easily ruffled. I especially agree with 6SJ7's assertions, and find much of ChrisO's related comments and behavior objectionable. This seems a thinly-veiled, self-serving and completely fabricated movement/vendetta of some kind to eliminate opposition to controversial edits and opinions. — TAnthonyTalk 07:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Endorse. ChrisO has presented a rather biased view of the content. The main content dispute upon which this is based, that is, over whether the engineer and physicist were "unqualified in ballistics", as a "major Australian newspaper claims", is an extremely thin basis for raising all this fuss. ChrisO's edit.[134] Tundrabuggy's offending "reversion":[135] Tundrabuggy's defense of the reversion:[136][137] Incidentally, Tundrabuggy's article ban (shortened by Elonka) was imposed by MZMMcBride because Tundrabuggy added a single word, "reported".[138][139] Tundrabuggy pursued mediation from Wizardman, who appeared to agree.[140] Anyway, I think the content matters; as I've said before, I don't think content and conduct can be separated. I find the ostensibly biased presentation by ChrisO troubling, and he seems to be way exaggerating his case. II | (t - c) 11:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Endorse - --70.181.45.138 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Endorse. - Plus I don't think ChrisO's "working method" actually works on Wikipedia. Just imagine everyone cutting out text from controversial articles to modify and insert back later... Squash Racket (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Endorse, echoing Sarah's comments above. WJBscribe (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Endorse. Nsk92 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Comments by John Vandenberg

At the center of this dispute is Muhammad al-Durrah. ChrisO was heavily involved in the editing, and seems to have been doing a good job, however Elonka came in as a mediator and imposed new editing conditions. I was involved in the article ban of Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), where I helped that user de-focus, and start to build the encyclopedia around the topic. Tundrabuggy did as suggested, (a quick inspection of the users contribs indicate that the person should no longer be called an SPA,) and Elonka lifted the article ban with the support of everyone involved, except for ChrisO. While I havent kept a very close eye on the article, my understanding is that Elonka has not been selectively imposing editing conditions, nor has she been robotic about it. Elonka has been using her judgement to try to ensure that nobody dominates the article, so that new users are welcomed to the project. ChrisO has not appreciated having someone else, someone uninvolved, mediate the article, and has often ignored the editing restrictions. In my opinion it is appropriate to tell ChrisO to stop editing this article for a month, as this RFC is evidence that ChrisO is too heavily focused on being involved in the article. The article might be slightly different, but it will still be there in a month.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Request clarification: Would appreciate the diff that shows ChrisO objected the unbanning of Tundrabuggy and the given justification. With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt mean to suggest that ChrisO specifically objected. I was involved in the discussions to un-pagetalk-ban Tundrabuggy, and as best I recall everyone who was active and had a part to play in the initial banning was in agreement with the ban being lifted. Looking at it again now, I can see that Moreschi didnt participate in the un-pagetalk-ban discussion, yet had commented on the page ban earlier. I dont recall whether ChrisO objected or not, but I dont recall him being part of the discussions to lift the talk page ban. Sorry for any confusion there, and sorry I didnt respond to your request for clarification sooner. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I endorse John Vandenberg's view, with one caveat: I did not ask ChrisO to take a break because he was "dominating" the article. I did so because he was engaging in name-calling, edit-warring, and because he was deleting citations to reliable sources. If ChrisO would have maintained civility, left citations intact, and concentrated on changing other editors' work instead of deleting it wholesale, I would not have issued a ban. --Elonka 02:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yup. Endorse statement with Elonka's clarification. Sarah 05:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorsing this accurate statement. seicer | talk | contribs 12:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I endorse John Vandenberg's view. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorsed with Elonka's clarification. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse, with Elonka's clarification. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse with Elonka's clarification. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As above. Orderinchaos 11:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse with Elonka's caveat. ~Jennavecia (Talk) 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse as above. IronDuke 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse with the clarification. WJBscribe (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Endorse with Elonka's clarification. Shell babelfish 13:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Comments by Tundrabuggy

Under ChrisO's section that provides evidence for #1. Selective enforcement of editing conditions, ChrisO has it wrong. He uses just one example, ie this one [141], complaining that on 24th July I reverted without comment or attempt to change. In fact, I had changed it the day before on the 23rd with this edit [142] and the following edit summary (One was a physicist and the other an engineer. They did not have "no qualifications" despite O'Loughlin's opinion.) I started a section on July 22, 2 full days earlier, on the TALK page to try to come to some terms over this, [143] and ChrisO responded to that section so cannot claim to be unaware of it. He struck my attempt at compromise( "according to one reporter") and essentially reverted the material [144] The Edit summary said - ("Being a physicist or an engineer does not give a person ballistic or forensic qualifications - don't editorialise, please) . ChrisO added it again, only this time to include that they had neither qualifications or experience! [145] The following day, the 24th, I added some further names and struck the "no qualifications" part that he refers to: [146] ChrisO adds it back in [147] with the following edit summary (restored sourced material deleted for POV reasons; do not try this again)

On the 24th I also started a section about this on the MedCab page. [148]

On the talk page [149] in what he called a "tweak" in his edit summary, he said: "We do not engage in whitewashing or "spin" by cherry-picking only what individual editors think is likely." On 24 July 2008 I added evidence of Shahaf's "qualifications" on the talk page - [150] more evidence of qualifications [151] Here he claims [152] that my edits do not say what they in fact say!

Chris complains to Elonka [153][154] that I am claiming that I am using OR to prove that Shahaf has "professional qualifications" and he mischaracterises my argument to Elonka. However ChrisO had introduced a "new wrinkle" into the argument. O'Loughlin doesn't talk about professional qualifications at all. He makes no distinction whatsoever, saying that Shahaf and Doriel simply have "no qualifications".

ChrisO is being intellectually dishonest when he claims as he does in this RfC about me "He made it clear on the talk page that he had done so because he thinks the reporter "is considered by some [pressure groups] to be highly biased [against Israel]" and therefore is an unreliable source." This is simply not true, and he is well aware of it. I made it more than clear that I believed the material was factually false, and probably a violation of BLP. [155] I offered a compromise that he rejected. ChrisO reverted me following that 2-3 times by re-introducing (highly) disputed material, with threats ("do not try this again") and intimidation. I made every attempt to deal with it on the TALK page and on the MEDIATION page. ChrisO misrepresented me and my edits to Elonka and to this community. The evidence to demonstrate Selective Enforcement in this RfC is simply not there. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO uses this [156] link from the 25th as his evidence of "#2. Erratic application of editing conditions and inappropriate aggressive behaviour. He asserts that he considered the material "potentially untrue" and thus felt justified in removing it. Yet it would have taken very little to edit it to address his concerns. He could even have created his change and added it before removing the old edit, at least long enough to address it on the talk page and come to some kind of agreement. [157] It would have taken very little effort on his part to have followed the editing conditions thus demonstrated his respect for the process and for the uninvolved administrator who was enforcing them, instead of this kind of unnecessary rudeness [158]. I fail to see how Elonka's response was either erratic or inappropriate, particularly in light of ChrisO's string of reversions the previous day. (See point #1) In fact, when he politely agrees to belatedly follow the rules [159], Elonka's response was very fair and positive [160]Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section for evidence of #3 Further inappropriate aggressive behavior and poor judgements, we have a further example of ChrisO trying to have it both ways: [161]. This is the edit he refers to in this RfC when he says: "One edit concerned the removal of a sourced (but POV-worded) line in an anachronistic context." In this edit he removed sourced material on grounds that ("rm totally non-contemporaneous element ("four years later"?) - I'll return to this in a later section). Here he defines what he considers contemporaneous, then edits out my attempt to clarify the dates (ie "two days later" ) changes "eight months later to "shortly afterwards" with the edit summary ("also, no need to keep giving dates when refs give dates") He then asserts to Elonka that it is not a revert, that she and I should wait for days for him to finish re-writing the article himself and then he would "try to work in" the sourced material. [162]

Regarding #4 Non-responsiveness I will just say that Elonka did not display a "disregard for [his] good faith actions." Nor do I believe that the comment "you are planning to further ignore the conditions and continue to remove other sources" is equivalent to a characterisation of his "work in checking sources and replacing low-quality ones as a bad thing" as he claims in that paragraph. ChrisO says (regarding Elonka) "She asserts: "You do not have the right to remove sources until you personally review them and decide how to incorporate them into the article" [163]. This is utterly wrong; every editor has that right, indeed that responsibility, since reliable sourcing and neutral wording are basic policy requirements." Determining NPOV, reliable sourcing and neutral wording is the responsibility of the community of editors on WP, not one editor only. The article was in dispute and under mediation for just that reason, and the rules for editing were clearly set out.

Finally, I just want to add that I find the addition of "all other disputes across WP," which was added as an afterthought to generate more support for this one, to be patently unfair and a serious display of bad faith. It has generated an amazing amount of negativity here in wiki and demonstrates once again that the nothing good can come from bad beginnings. It goes to show why we need the Five Pillars. -- Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment By Tundrabuggy When Wizardman took over as the second stage of mediation Elonka noted at the top of the page "Just as a note, if a MedCab mediator would like to take over management of this article, I would have no trouble with handing over the torch and taking a step back. Or I could stay with it, either is fine. Just let me know how I can best be of assistance to the mediation process." [164] That's the way ChrisO could have handled this but he chose to go another route. That route has landed us here, at an RfC for Elonka and no clear way forward on the issues or the article itself. Too bad. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tundrabuggy, you may wish to review WP:RfC to get better acquainted with the differences between a content RfC and a user conduct RfC. This is a case of the latter.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference to me at this point, Ramdrake. Fundamental questions are not being addressed. How does one determine what is a fringe theory and what is an alternative position and how much weight to give each when there is a dispute? How does one determine what words mean when two people read them differently? How much weight do you give to information that is 8 years old and information that is contemporary? What do you do when you have two reliable sources providing different information? Does being a party in a suit give one's words standing and validity? Is every reporter a reliable source if he works for a reliable source? There are a lot of questions that have some significance. Where do I go to ask them? I would rather be asking them then trying to lynch someone who took it upon herself to help mediate the situation, and got a slap in the face for her reward.


im going to have to agree with tundra on this issue. chriso has superseded his authority as an admin to impose his own bias and beliefs in the al-durrah discussion an article. i understand admins are allowed to have an opinion in articles where they are not exercising administrator privileges (at least i think), but chriso has been borderline abusive in that respect. i havent been around as much as id like to in the mediation case, but i cannot deny what chriso is doing. as far as i can tell, his complaints are purely out of concern for his own reputation. he's painting over his own mistakes with ridiculous and justified claims against tundra and others to prevent backlash against himself. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coppertwig

I would like to thank Elonka for her admin work. I appreciate that at Chiropractic and Circumcision, as an uninvolved admin, she has helped organize talk page archiving, reference formatting, etc., and helped encourage people to be civil. Elonka's work has been bold, imaginative and helpful. Admins are volunteers, whose work I appreciate, and who receive all too much criticism in the course of carrying out their duties.

Apparently Elonka has taken on a very challenging task of managing editing conditions on highly contentious articles. No two situations are ever identical, so it's not always possible to enforce rules in a way that everyone agrees is fair. However, Elonka's editing conditions, like 3RR, are designed such that they can for the most part be enforced with no judgement required by the enforcing admin about content issues. This is good. Elonka has devised a set of conditions which I believe allow productive, consensus-supported editing to continue almost as easily as under normal editing conditions, while preventing edit-warring almost as effectively as page-protection.

I also appreciate ChrisO's work in improving the article and enforcing NPOV as an editor.

In response to "Evidence of disputed behavior": I disagree with each of ChrisO's points, as explained below:

  • Re: "Selective enforcement of editing restrictions": Removing a source if one believes in good faith that it is not a reliable source may not necessarily be considered to violate the editing conditions. When questions arise as to whether a source is reliable, they can be put to an appropriate noticeboard or RfC (article content). "Restor[ing] the deleted content" without first gaining consensus or an answer from such a noticeboard seems to fit the definition of a revert in spirit even if some other words were also changed, and regardless of whether removing it had also violated the conditions.
  • Re "Erratic application of editing conditions and inappropriate aggressive behaviour": In the editing conditions, the "is obviously troublesome" part refers only to unsourced material and therefore does not apply in this situation. Instead, use "If you see a sentence that you don't think properly reflects what is in a source, change it so that it does. ...".
  • Re "Further inappropriate aggressive behaviour and poor judgment": If removing some sourced material violates the editing conditions, then an intention of re-adding it later is no excuse. Temporary removal of material puts an undue burden on other editors and uninvolved admins in keeping track and making sure it gets re-added. Instead, I suggest temporarily marking it in some way rather than removing it.
  • Re "Non-responsiveness": From what I've seen, Elonka generally responds several times to repeated questioning and sometimes eventually drops out of the dialog. While it's my understanding that admins are expected to respond to questions about their actions, it wouldn't make sense to require an indefinite sequence of replies. Sometimes the answers may not be evident to the questioner but may seem to Elonka and outside observers to be already answered or self-evident. If people are not getting answers from Elonka, they may wish to try asking me: in two cases I've continued to explain Elonka's position to questioners who were having difficulty understanding it, and for now at least I'm happy to do this in other cases if the answers are clear to me.
  • Re "Disregard for good-faith editing and quality assurance": Replacing sources involves removing sources and violates the editing conditions, if they are reliable sources. Perhaps there are exceptions: there may be a way to remove reliable sources, for example with consensus; this could be discussed with the uninvolved admins; however, my reading of the editing conditions is that replacing reliable sources is not allowed. ChrisO stated that Elonka was wrong to say "You do not have the right to remove sources until you personally review them and decide how to incorporate them into the article." Actually, she was right. The editing conditions require this. A personal belief that some material violates NPOV does not confer the right to override the editing conditions. Whether something is a NPOV violation is often a matter of opinion which must be resolved by the usual methods of resolving content disputes.

There are times when it's appropriate to make adjustments in response to feedback, and there are times when it's appropriate to continue on a steady course even though there are complaints from those against whom sanctions are applied.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Coppertwig (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abd (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TheNautilus (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DigitalC (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Canadian Monkey

I am one of the editors at Muhammad al-Durrah, and one who has bore the brunt of many of ChrisO’s abuses on that page. I have been called a “troll” by him, for daring to suggest that he was inappropriately canvassing and vote-stacking on that article [165][166]. He has been condescending and uncivil to me [167]. And I have received an inappropriate “warning” from him, an action that was later deemed to be an abuse of his admin privileges (see diffs below).

I can only repeat what I previously wrote on this topic, when ChrisO last tried his hand at this sort of wikilawyering and forum shopping (slightly updated to include more recent behavioral problems with ChrisO): Elonka has done a commendable job of stepping into a controversial article and, through the imposition of strict editing conditions, eliminated edit warring while allowing for continuous improvement of the article. ChrisO does not like this, becuase the strict edit conditions have prevented him from owning the article, and getting his way with it. Too bad for him, but nothing wrong on Elonka's part. As Elonka notes, ChrisO was given plenty of warning about his behavior, and much more leeway was given to him (presumably because of his status as an admin) than to other editors, who were subjected to similar sanctions for behavior that was, in my opinion, much less disruptive than ChrisO’s. He has reverted on multiple occasions, despite being notified of both the 0RR restrictions and the general ArbCom decision related to I-P articles.

ChrisO’s behavior on this article has been problematic for a long time. He has abused his admin privileges by posting warning notifications on the Talk pages of all those who opposed him, even though he was an involved admin. This behavior was found problematic by several uninvolved admins ([168], [169],[170]) and he was told it was improper (though not sanctioned for it). He has subsequently threatened to use his administrator tools again on this article [171], and only a prompt stern warning from Elonka [172] got him to back down and likely prevented further abuse.

Unable to get consensus for his views on the Talk page of the article, he has engaged in egregious forum shopping, seeking to get his opponents banned or otherwise sanctioned and his own actions vindicated, on no fewer than 7 different venues: [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]. here – and now this RfC, making it the 8th such venue being shopped.

Given this extremely disruptive behavior, the length of time it has been going on, and the apparent lack of any noticeable change in his behavior after his previous ban, I think that ChrisO got off extremely lightly (a 30 day ban from a single article) yet again, and that a more appropriate sanction would be a topic ban, from all I-P related articles, for a substantially longer time period.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree --Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse. IronDuke 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Shell babelfish 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. Endorse. Aministrators are not supposed to enforce NPOV; editors enforce NPOV while administrators facilitate this by preventing disruption. Coppertwig (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. A serious discussion does need to take place in regard to this article as "regular community consensus processes" are not working. Instead, one or two editors act as policemen or gatekeepers to insure that an alternative view (as opposed to 'fringe' or 'looney') is not permitted a serious hearing.Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. Sarah 01:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agreed; administrators should not pick and choose which sides they endorse. They are here, with respect to this example, to apply a uniform and strict set of editing restrictions to an article that required it. They do not choose a specific version to endorse or protect, and any assumptions to that matter is erroneous. seicer | talk | contribs 01:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Elonka 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree, with a caveat that we need to be watchful for trolls who feign cluelessness in order to disrupt. If somebody has been warned multiple times (by other editors) for violations of content policy, yet they continue the same pattern, their behavior may be indistinguishable from purposeful disruption. In that case an administrator can take appropriate action. Jehochman Talk 03:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daniel (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree. One of the main problems on the Muhammad al-Durrah article seemed, when I was trying to calm things down without getting too involved, to be that editors are calling each other's positions and alleged political affiliations "fringe" instead of trying to iron out what the sources say and reach a more editorial atmosphere. Imposing core civility/edit-warring policies by Elonka seemed, and still seems like the proper way to get the discussions in that direction. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This one is obvious, administrators using their tools to advantage a particular point of view is the first and most important example of abuse by an administrator. No editor can expect an admin to use their tools differently because of the point of view held by a given editor, and no admin should ever treat two users differently because of which point of view each user is currently advocating for. The only approved exceptions are cases of clear vandalism, which by definition does not include NPOV issues, and core BLP violations (unsourced or inadequately sourced material, not the broader concern about balance/weight). GRBerry 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree per GRBerry. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Obvious. The question is whether Elonka is acting neutrally. My assertion below is that 0RR cannot be applied neutrally. (And feigning cluelessness is appartly being done by many.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Orderinchaos 11:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse, with the ubiquitous caveat that "civil editing" as used by the commenter needs to mean more than just the NPA-and-no-profanity "nonrudeness" but also includes being constructive and non-disruptive, for example, avoiding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT like the plague. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse. IronDuke 16:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Endorse. POV/NPOV is a matter for editorial consensus, and the job of administrators is to ensure that process is civil and orderly and fair, and making content decisions would generally conflict with that. If an admin is monitoring an article, it should be impossible to tell, from her actions, whether she favors the POV of an editor she is warning or sanctioning, or not. --Abd (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse. TheNautilus (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse. WJBscribe (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Nishidani

Wikipedia is the only place in the world of article-writing where an expert hand, extremely knowledgeable about editorial practices, with several years of community witness to the high quality of his work, and his scrupulous attention to sources, contexts, and POV gaming, is treated with a suspicion of mala fides, in an extremely difficult article edited more recently also by several people with no such record. There has been a total misprision of intentions. That articles like this tend to attract a lot of POV gaming to showcase the ostensibly theatrical, fictional character to Palestinian grievances, is well-known. That one of the editors most experienced in these dangers has been walloped with severe sanctions, just after a notorious case which revealed how strong the temptation has been in certain quarters to organize under coordination I/P articles to favourthe image of one of the two national parties represented by these articles, hardly lends confidence. Though, while active in wikipedia, I was tempted to edit the article, I only followed it from a distance, because it evidently requires an extraordinary amount of intricate source-research. ChrisO is not the only one here who has done his leg-work, but over the last two months, several people who clearly haven't, have edited without evincing a comparable editorial distinction. Newcomers are welcome all over wiki, but they do well to prove themselves over several months before taking on articles in highly contested areas that require deep experience and knowledge. Whatever the outcome, it is as advisable for the I/P area as for areas requiring particular competence (quantum physics), that some cautions be raised. Far too many editing here have their nation's interests at heart, but a very poor background knowledge about the articles they are coediting, and the criteria governing neutral draftsmanship. ChrisO is splendidly gifted with both, and if he raises a complaint, it warrants close attention from administrators, and in not taking it seriously Elonka (forum shopping) seriously undermines her own defence. It is suggestive of an imperturbable self-confidence before peers on questions that require delicacy of judgement, textual insight and, I should add, psychological penetration. Violating a permanent and disenchanted retirement for a good cause, Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Avruch T 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse --Shot info (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse --CrohnieGalTalk 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes. All edits and editors are not equal, Elonka has made her authority more important than content, and therefore damaged the integrity of Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. I'll disagree slightly with my colleague Alun here: all editors are equal, but neither all viewpoints nor all edits are equal. The really thorny question is how to discriminate between viewpoints without discriminating editors. There's no easy answer.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Scott Free

I've had a disagreement with Elonka, so I can't say that I'm totally impartial here.

Suggestion to ChrisO - Focus on the mediation with Tundrabuggy - In theory, Mediation implies an editing truce on the article - work out a truce with Tundrabuggy to not work on the article during mediation except in certain exceptions - resume mediation, basically.

Suggestion To Elonka - I sort of agree with your detractors and your supporters - The only thing I don't like though are comments that imply that you have trouble taking this ratified RfC serioulsy or that Chris is Wikilawyering or wasting people's time - I'm seeing a lack of good faith assumption there. My suggestions would be:

- Wait another six months before focusing on difficult arb cases with difficult editors - work more on various other admin duties, maybe join the mediation committee.

- In general, avoid tackling several of those cases at the same time.

- Work on taking a step back from situations, consider waiting a day or two before responding to 'heated' situations.

Suggestions to both: - Stay away from each other's talk pages for the duration of this RfC.

- Shorten your statements - be a little more brief, succinct and to the point.

- Step back for a couple of days to let things 'cool down'.

All the best in working this out in a spirit of neutrality, equality, compromise and consensus.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Scott Free (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ramdrake (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tentative. Wholeheartedly disagree with "more brief, succinct, and to the point", as pandering to such attitudes reduces complex disputes into a series of interchangable sound bites, and has a chilling effect on any meaningful resolution. See also: U.S. presidential "debates". I will agree, however, that Elonka's basic statement could do with a few paragraph breaks. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Some good advice that will likely help both editors. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. EmersonLowry (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mathsci

As with Quackwatch and Alternative medicine, above, this should really have had a separate section with diffs in ChrisO's presentation. [Diffs can be added here later, if requested.]

There are a few contentious articles on WP which attract editors with a thinly veiled racist POV to push, often SPAs. These editors are invariably polite but disruptive. Although my own mainspace edits are principally on properly encyclopedic topics (mathematics, France and its "culture",history, music), I do watch a small number of these articles which, although some time back contentious and quite unencyclopedic, have now become reasonable or at least more reasonable than before. They are still occasionally plagued by POV pushing. One such is European ethnic groups, now an anodyne and neutral article largely masterminded by User:Dbachmann; it replaced the highly problematic European people. Another is Race and intelligence, improved since December but still highly problematic, with its satellite articles on Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, eugenics, dysgenics, etc. Lynn and Rushton have proposed genetic causes for differences in IQ scores between different population groups in the world and what should be done about it. Here there is a problem of fringe science, bad science or pseudoscience. My only mainspace contributions in this area have been in adding details of academic reviews of books, positive and negative. In these articles, Elonka has claimed that editors and administrators of long standing have somehow, through off-wiki communication of which I am quite unaware (telepathy? witchcraft?), ganged together to form a "tag team" or worse still a "lynch mob". This is a case where her judgement has been seriously in error. In three cases, most seriously with User:Jagz, but to a lesser extent with User:Koalorka and User:Zero g, she failed to notice the single purpose nature of their edits or a significant part of their edits. She came to act as their protector, advising them backstage how to edit better. Koalorka now has a year-long ban on editing articles related to Turkey, after I pointed out his systematic anti-Turkish disruption. Jagz is indefinitely banned after having revealed his true colours when warned by MastCell not to edit Wikipedia policy pages during his probationary topic ban, when he was mentored by Elonka. (His final act, through an anonymous Florida IP, was to place a captioned phallic image on my user page.) Most recently, acting on behalf of Zero g and disregarding procedure, Elonka challenged a non-contentious merge decision on an out-of-print unnotable book, creating needless wikidrama by her baseless accusations of dishonesty and vote-rigging. What is equally worrying is Elonka's way of directly challenging other administrators: her polite but stubborn refusal to listen to User:Mastcell's accurate appraisal of Jagz; her threats against User:Cailil before and during his RfA; her persistent hounding of User:Slrubenstein for his use of the word "troll" instead of "polite troll" or "trollish edit"; her innuendos about Durova's dropping of the mop; her remarks about Alison's Irish roots being problematic in handling Troubles pages. All these erratic acts and errors of judgement, which sometimes verge on baseless conspiracy theories, are not helpful to the project and cause unnecessary offence. Elonka has excellent qualities in her capacities both as editor and administrator. I am personally very impressed by her contributions to articles on the Crusader period and I think that it is highly laudable that she has been one of the few admins to volunteer to help restore calm to some known areas of nationalistic conflict on WP, a generally thankless task. But Elonka should also be aware of her own limitations, particularly when she embarks on some of her more ill-starred "experiments". Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Elonka's description of an edit was a revert but claimed it was not a revert. More explained here. QuackGuru 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I endorse Mathsci's outside view, but I'll add a few comments. Possibly due to her vast experience in managing an online community, Elonka is extremely sensitive to politeness and civility issues, which is an excellent thing. However, beyond just all getting along together, the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopaedia, which strives for high standards of neutrality, and editorial quality. Either way, it is easy to lose sight of the balance which must be achieved between politeness and obedience to the rules on one side, and the writing of quality articles on the other. While Elonka has excellent skills in managing and enforcing civility, she often seems to lose sight of our goals of editorial quality. Sometimes, it is necessary to enforce NPOV, FRINGE, UNDUE, etc., even if it ruffles a few feathers. The trick is to try to ruffle as few of them as possible. Some POV-pushers happen to be the very image of politeness and civility; that doesn't change the fact that they are POV-pushers, and must be dealt with appropriately, the same way we must deal with issues of civility, personal attacks, etc. That means that not all sides may be considered equal in a content dispute, if it is demonstrated for example that one is pushing a fringe view. Elonka seems to have difficulties identifying such situations, and tends to always treat all views in a content dispute as equal (NPOV says they should be treated in accordance to their important in the real world, as opposed to indiscriminately equal).Ramdrake (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Elonka also seems to have a problem in realizing that politeness and civility are things she is expected to do and not just something to accuse other people of. I would argue that a true sensibility to civility and politeness would have prevented many of her edits which are under dispute here. Mere choice of words alone does not civility make: editing actions and disregard for others' views are also civility violations. DreamGuy (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Slowing down a bit and listening to feedback, especially from people who do not share the same views, would probably be helpful. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elonka seems willing to jump to conclusions when sensing a problem and then is unwilling to admit fault later. DreamGuy (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There really are no polite words for this callous, impulsive, and mercenary behavior. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The people who reject this summary, below, seem scared of this general concern about controverisal articles. But MathSci is not making a vague general point - he is refering to conflicts between a host of active, well-informed, plicy-compliant editors and two specific SPA, one clearly racist, the other just disruptive. This is not McCarthyism. Any editor could have joined in on the various discussions. Jagz actually initiated I think two RfCs that went against him. He was community banned not because of some McCarthyist campagin, he was community banned because he was a disruptive SPA who continuously violated or ignored our coure policies, NPOV, V, and NOR. These policies are essential to Wikipedia yet Elonka would rather demonstrate her powers as sysop than serve these core policies and the community of editors committed to them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse. Alun (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fundamentally correct. Particularly as it relates to Race and intelligence articles, where IMO Elonka has done more harm than good. She has ignored those editors who have correctly represented academic consensus and have maintained encyclopedicity in favour of civil POV-pushers (Jagz, Zero g). In particular, I call attention to this thread on my talk page, whereby Elonka completely ignores all arguments based on competence, and instead goes for those purely based on user conduct. Completely missing the point that user conduct can only be properly evaluated in the light of encyclopedicity of contributions. Context is important, and Elonka hasn't really looked at it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Comment: I think diffs for Quackwatch and Alternative medicine would be appropriate to show so a pattern can be seen if there is a pattern at all to be looked at. I would appreciate the diffs if you are still willing to show them, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse the comments above. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse. Moreschi also makes a very important point about context. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse. Good advice from Jehochman as well, encourage Elonka to take it onboard. Shot info (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Endorse. "Flabber-gasted" is the best word to describe my reaction to what I'm seeing here, Elonka apparently encouraging this Single Purpose Account editor to deceive the rest of the community. SPAs are perfectly proper to WP:POLICY (I'm one myself and I'm labelled as such). But it doesn't earn me any favours in the project - quite the reverse, I've repeatedly been hounded for it. (Recent examples are so extreme that I refuse to link you to them). And Elonka behaves this way in order to torpedo the efforts of another admin, an expert on dealing properly with nationalist issues all over the world, not just this one. PRtalk 08:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse -- with hesitation, because I'm convinced Elonka has the good of Wikipedia in mind. But from this outsider's perspective it often looks like she tutors disruptive editors on how to WP:GAME the system rather than truly bringing them to take Wikipedia's behavioral and content standards to heart. A rethink of her approach would benefit all concerned -- not the least, Elonka herself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse, with the understanding that Elonka, with her background, seems incapable of understanding that there are polite vandals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Verbal chat 08:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse. R. Baley (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Endorse. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse. --Folantin (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Endorse. RMHED (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Endorse. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Endorse. user:Everyme 16:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Endorse except for my inability to confirm laudability independently: when in a pinch, I rely on even fainter praise such as "tireless" and "dedicated". JJB 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  27. Endorse generally; specifically the stubborn refusal to acknowledge or understand other editors, and a rather persistent ability to miscontrue and misunderstand others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Slrubenstein

On the talk page ChrisO explains, "The locus of the dispute is Elonka's methods in managing editing conditions and disputes, not simply the al-Durrah article" and that is why I endorse this. I too want to make it clear that I think Elonka is a superb editor; my complaint is how she operates as an administrator. I have little to add to MathSci's account, but I do want to make a point in response to Shell's comment. Simply put, I am concerned that some admins think that some hyper-sensitive notion of civility - which seems to identify civility as the absense of any dissent - is more important here than our content policies and the contents we are supposedly working on. It is true that ArbCom shouldn't mediate conflict discputes - this is done through the anarchic wiki process. And Admins have practically no role in this. My fear is that Elonka is trying to establish a role for admins in content disputes, and the way she dies this is by ijnsisting on presenting them as personal behavior conflicts that require administrative attention rather than content disputes that require wiki community discussion and action. In the cases MathSci metnioned, in one case there was a community ban against Jagz after over a year of disruptive edits furing content discussions and in the case of ZeroG a consensus to merge two articles. In both cases Elonka had not desire to involve herself as an editor, equal among others, debating issues based on knowledge guided by content policy. Instead she sought to carve out a rationale to justify an administtrator acting like a cop. It is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

An administrator is supposed to use their powers to serve the community. In my experience with her in conflicts with Jagz and Zero G, Elonka took the side of the single disruptive editor against the consensus of active, well-informed editors. It is almost as if Elonka believes that because she is an administrator she is therefore an authority figure. This is of course the opposite of the Wikipedia ideal. In the two specific cases I mention, Elonka seemed to believe that the conflicts among editors had to do with civility. In fact the conflicts had to do with substantive issues concerning the contents of articles. ArbCom has no jurisdiction over this, and admins have no special jurisdiction over this, and as a "sysop" Elonka perhaps should not have gotten involved at all in these conflicts. Or, she could have involved herself as any other editor, researching the sources and notable views and seeing to work out a consensus. But Elonka systematically refused to be an editor, working to improve an article. Instead, she judged people's behavior without looking at the history of interactions among editors, without looking at behaviorin context (indeed, when she accused me of certain things and I asked her for evidence she simply ignored my request). This is not the beahvior of a sysop, it is the behavior of a martinet. Is there any way we can work this out so this capricious and authoritarian administrator disappears, but the excellent editor remains?

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This. This. This. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yep, she's a good editor, but a bad admin. Just like it was predicted in her RFA by many opposes :-(. Hopefully she will review the Community's feedback here on these issues, but given that she's trying to wikilawyer her way out on the talk page at the moment, I seems the answer is, unfortunately, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Shot info (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. Alun (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. I'm also concerned at the way that Elonka appears to be dismissing out of hand the concerns of experienced editors and admins. I don't doubt that, like any very active admin, she has a number of irreconcilable opponents who dislike her for essentially political reasons. But it's a great mistake to dismiss all criticism as being ill-intentioned or mistaken. Admins need to be responsive, understand where other people are coming from and make an effort to understand contexts, as Slrubenstein points out. "Laying down the law" is not the way to go. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elonka's assertion that ArbCom supported her implementation of 0RR is disingenuous - they said it was allowed, that is within the rules, however I doubt their comments were intended to place her actions beyond all criticism. A less extreme approach of insisting that editors discuss significant changes before making them, and not allowing edit wars has been used elsewhere. While this approach is certainly not perfect, it does appear to cause fewer problems, not least because it allows some flexibility. The purpose of sanctions is to ensure the smooth running of the project, so if editors are making changes to the article in a manner that isn't disruptive, they shouldn't be punished. PhilKnight (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Particularly as it relates to civility. Civility is important, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all, and civility is meaningless when compared to competence and encyclopedicity of contributions. A civil POV-pusher is no better than an uncivil one. The role for administrators is to facilitate expert retention (and, as a consequence, ensuring Wikipedia accords with academic consensus) by sorting out user conduct problems in the light of encyclopedicity of contributions (as you can see, this is my new favourite phrase). It might also be acceptable to lay out a broad framework for debate to take place within, again determined by encyclopedicity ("no Holocaust denial here, we're Wikipedians"). Beyond that? No. Elonka has gone a little too far in merging the roles of editor and administrator: more importantly, as administrator, she has wilfully lost sight of the importance of WP:ENC and associated policies such as WP:NPOV (particularly WP:UNDUE) and especially, so it seems, WP:FRINGE. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse.Ramdrake (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Though I wouldn;t go so far to say she's a particularly good editor, as the behavior problems she's had as an admin were fully manifesting themselves when she was just an editor. But certainly as an admin her behavior should be held to a higher standard than other people, not less.[reply]
  13. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Endorse. EmersonLowry (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Elonka frequently displays a fundamentally wrong attitude for an admin. Friday (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse. She displayed identical behaviour at Talk:Rab concentration camp in adopting a policy of neutrality between a lone POV editor who was, completely without any sources, trying to fundamentally change the article to say a variety of things that are historically entirely untrue. All of the other editors (including me, to state my interest) were urged repeatedly to try to find 'middle ground' between the 'two positions'. She displayed total disregard for WP:ENC, seeing herself instead in the role of a marriage guidance counsellor. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Endorse. Civility cannot trump our other policies and guidelines, although it should be expected in conjunction with those other policies and guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse. --Folantin (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse. Jagz was a bad apple, and Elonka's almost obsessive backing of this indefinitely banned racist editor was beyond comprehension. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. user:Everyme 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse with same proviso as I gave Mathsci. JJB 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  22. Endorse the gist of the problem as summarized here, although there is a sentence or two in the summary I might quibble with wrt her individual editing as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alansohn

It is often said of firefighters that they are rushing towards a fire, while virtually everyone else is heading in the opposite direction. Most editors, and most administrators, will refuse to get involved in an article that has any evidence of rancor, despite the fact that this assistance and intervention might well help solve the problems with the application of an outside view. Elonka is one of this very small group of editors willing to jump into minefields that any rational editor would be terrified to step into. I've been involved in a number of articles where Elonka's assistance has been effective in moving problems towards resolution. I have not agreed with all of Elonka's actions, and disgareed with quite a few, but the classic sign of an effective compromise is one where everyone is a bit unhappy. User:ChrisO and the Muhammad_al-Durrah article are no exception. While I understand Chris' frustrations -- I've been in the same boat -- I see no evidence whatsoever of any of the issues that have been raised here. I see Elonka doing her best to deal with an unbelievably contentious article and I fail to see what this RfC is intended to accomplish.

Users who endorse this comment:

  1. Alansohn (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. Coppertwig (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am not for sure what this RFC is hoping to accomplish, either. Nothing is truly actionable, although there may be some suggestions for all those involved to take away. seicer | talk | contribs 16:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse. Some comments on this page seem to illustrate McCarthyism, which was taught in grade school several times. Apparently the educators thought it an important subject for some reason. --Fat Cigar 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  5. Endorse, except for Alansohn's comment that he understands ChrisO's frustrations. Those "frustrations" are in fact the frustrations of someone who insists on getting his own way on everything and who has come up against someone who isn't letting him do it. I'm sure that's not what Alansohn meant.  :) 6SJ7 (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse per seicer. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Well said. Orderinchaos 11:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse. IronDuke 16:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse--TheNautilus (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ramdrake

There isn't much that hasn't already been said, but one of the things which I find most troubling with Elonka's behaviour is how much on one hand she insists on AGF and CIVIL from every editor, and will not hesitate to severely criticize an editor who has, in her opinion trangressed these guidelines, while on the other hand, her very behaviour on this RfC is quite puzzling in its own way: calling ChrisO's endeavour a "waste of time for the community", "wanting his pound of flesh", and then arguing over and over that because of a technicality this RfC isn't properly certified seems hardly to be in agreement with AGF and CIVIL. IMHO, it sounds just like arguing for the sake of trying to win an argument. In this respect, this is in keeping with the two incidents during which I brushed with Elonka, namely the blocking/unblocking of Jagz and the "contested" merge of Dysgenics (book). In both cases, Elonka was asking editors to assume good faith towards a disruptive editor, even calling into question the legitimacy of the consensus which had either gotten them blocked or performed the merge. In both cases, whenever Elonka's judgment was called in question (in good faith - everybody's entitled to make mistakes), instead of defending her actions, I saw her attacking her critics. I see the same behaviour here, and I can't dismiss the possibility that this is a behaviour pattern. I'm confident that Elonka can take heed of the comments in this RfC and work to change what needs to be changed in her behaviour (this is, after all the goal of a conduct RfC). If anybody asks, I can supply diffs if requested; however, these two incidents have generated sufficient wikidrama already that I think most people here already know what I'm talking about.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone asked, I am supplying links to sections which demonstrate the kind of behaviour I'm talking about: [179][180][181]--Ramdrake (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this comment:

  1. Ramdrake (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Another recent example was following the ScienceApologist ban under the Homeopathy editing restrictions, Jehochman indicated his disagreement. To give some background, Jehochman has been very actively involved administering editing restrictions in Homeopathy related articles since early this year, while until recently Elonka had no involvement. In this context, it was poor behavior for Elonka to accuse Jehochman of acting in bad faith. Also, this comment on the talk page implies the majority of editors criticizing Elonka in this RfC are acting in bad faith, which again is poor behavior. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elonka's words on Moreschi's talk page speak for themselves. She behaved disgracefully. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Disgracefully" is a nice word. I prefer "petulantly", but there ya go. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. We all have our flaws. One of Elonka's is that she sometimes closes her mind (really tight) when she believes she's being attacked, either on a personal basis or in a dispute. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse - and also encourage Elonka to take on board Ned's comments above (don't endorse the use of the stronger adjectives in other endorses however - although I do understand where they are coming from). Shot info (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse. We're all wrong sometimes, some people seem to find it impossible to accept that they are fallible. Not a good attribute for someone with the ability to arbitrarily impose "martial law" on an article. Wikipedia specifically says that when we are wrong we should accept it, apologise and move on, not get all huffy and try to pretend we are perfect. Alun (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Given the flaw described by Ned Scott (which, I believe is accurate, from personal observation), Elonka should not try to operate in these controversial areas she's been working in. She's not well suited to the job. What looks to me like incessant ruleslawyering from her is probably one manifestation of this flaw. Friday (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse - Elonka demonstrates a complete unwillingness to hold herself to anything close to the same standards she demands of other people, or even the standards she committed herself to (while campaigning for an admin spot after losing twice because of concerns that she'd use the tools to further disputes she was involved in, she promised to not make controversial edits and to step down if six or more editors file a complaint that she abused her position).—Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2008 August 5
  11. Endorse From reading some of the comments here, I get the feeling that maybe Elonka might be used to a 'board room' type atmosphere. This is just the feeling I am getting, and if that is the case it would not work easily if at all with the core policies established for Wikipedia. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse. I think Elonka's view of what constitutes incivility by others is overly broad, and in the few times I've run across her I've noticed that she does not seem to apply the same stringent standards to herself. My first encounter with her was after she requested feedback about Dirty Dancing; when the reviewer gave his opinion of the article (which I concurred with), she complained that the feedback was incivil [182]), and then basically told him that since he had never written an FA by himself he didn't know what he was doing ("you usually had some of Wikipedia's finest editors tweaking things as you went along.") [183]. More recently, I was a little perturbed to see her dig at ChrisO in her longer response ("Obtaining adminship was a much simpler process back then!"). While that statement is true, including it in this context is unnecessary and could be interpreted as saying "I'm more qualified than he is". I have no idea whether that is how Elonka meant her statements to come across, but if not, she needs to be a bit more careful how she chooses to phrase things. Karanacs (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse. R. Baley (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse Elonka often appears to interpret even constructive and civil criticism as an actionable offense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse - --70.181.45.138 (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse. JJB 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  19. Endorse. I believe Elonka consistently places her notion of "civility" over the actual goal of Wikipedia; i.e. to build an encyclopedia. In one exchange with me, she invited me to characterize the scope and "common thread" of my conflicts with another editor [184]. When I did so,[185], she dismissed it as a "personal attack."[186] How can one discuss the "common thread" of one's conflicts with another editor without discussing what you feel that person's flaws as an editor are? RedSpruce (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JackSchmidt

JackSchmidt posted the following informal comments to my talk page very shortly after I posted this RfC. He has given permission to copy it over to here if the dispute had not been resolved within a few days. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Howdy, you helped me out a while ago with a dispute (naming conventions or something). I noticed that you currently have some trouble getting Elonka to understand you. I think the problem is that you two are just speaking different languages. When you talk about the article, you mean its content. When she talks about the article, she means the behavior of the editors as seen through the edit history. You both try to explain your concern to each other, but neither can hear the other because of this fundamental difference.

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. If you put up a completely perfect version, then it will be torn down and replaced by disagreeing editors, because the current atmosphere is quite nearly an edit war. On the other hand, if she manages to create a peaceful atmosphere where editors collaborate, then they still might be collaborating on a poorly sourced, counterfactual piece of garbage, because the current article needs work.

In other words, I don't think you two are actually disagreeing on anything. I think you are just concerned with completely different things. Both your and her actions advance one of these aspects very well, but on the other hand, do damage to the other.

I think you two just need to consider the other's goal and figure out how to match it with your own.

For instance, if a section of the article has not been edited in a while, then replacing it is not edit warring, even if it is technically a revert of some 2004 edit. If you confine complete rewriting to such sections, then you can drastically improve the article without degrading the atmosphere. The exact same thing in another language: If she only imposes editing restrictions on sections of the article that are currently involved in the bad atmosphere, then that leaves editors free to boldly contribute to other sections.

Hope this helps, JackSchmidt (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this comment:

  1. Jack's comments make a lot of sense. The ideal outcome here would be for the two sides to find a way of working that meets each others' concerns. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. EmersonLowry (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One side sees the the restrictions placed on the article as preventing good content edits, while another side sees the restrictions as creating a better environment. While I don't think the blanket 0RR method is a good idea, I can certainly respect the goal of wanting to make a more ideal editing environment. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Interesting perspective. And insightful. An administrator who even forms a perspective as to what a NPOV article on subject X should look like has already gone a long way towards jettisoning their neutrality and disqualifying themself from dealing with the editing environment. From Wikipedia:Administrators: "administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Administrators dealing with the conflict are essentially required by policy to attempt to deal only with the editing environment, while assuming that if disruptive editing is prevented that the parties will eventually reach agreement on what a good article looks like. At this point I view the editing restrictions at Quackwatch and Muhammad al-Durrah as experiments. If they work well, we'll keep using them in other places. If not, we'll attempt to figure out why and then use some different restrictions that might work better. To date, my assessment of the Quackwatch situation is that the editors there would rather edit war and snipe at each other than actually discuss the article content and reach agreement. Unfortunately, we can't actually require volunteer editors to dig in and work on an article, much less to work together, which is what is really needed. GRBerry 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Excellent summary of the cause of this dispute. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, quite similar to my sense of the situation. I gather that Elonka is trying to stabilize the battleground, not mediate the content. If so, that is a worthy goal and greatly needed for this topic area. Moreover, it is her (or anyone's) prerogative not to try to deal with the content aspects. The community could assist her (and ChrisO) by providing more editors/admins who can work in tandem with her by dealing with the conflicts over content & policy. HG | Talk 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. So right on. But consider that Chris O and Elonka may be fighting over what is more important: abiding by content guidelines or following behavioral ones. I think this is a systemic debate within Wikipedia which literally shakes it's pillars. Some editors desperately want the content to be "perfect" so badly that they scrap civility and condemn admins who place such a high importance on etiquette. Other editors demand respectful treatment; this is volunteer-based work so why are a-holes allowed to make my time miserable here, if only out of a sense of duty to protect the content. What's interesting - what JackSchmidt has made so obvious to us here - is that in our honest attempts to create the best Wikipedia possible, sometimes we are actually working against other people's efforts to do just the same. They just have a different and equally important way of accomplishing this, but we don't recognize it. We just see the obstacle in our way. It's time to bury old hatchets, stops with the unnecessary histrionics and move on the best way we know how. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse. I believe Elonka's efforts are in good faith to try to create a more collaborative editing environment. However, I believe civility is only as important as our other policies and guidelines, and I fear that 0RR, or at least the way it is being implemented, might be placing civility at a much higher level than the others. Karanacs (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse. Let's recognize and support each other's efforts to improve this encyclopedia with various approaches. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse--TheNautilus (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Leifern

In the spirit of full disclosure: I have had several run-ins with ChrisO, and Elonka has also seen fit to comment on what she (in my view, incorrectly) viewed as uncivil behavior.

I have two comments related to this issue:

  1. ChrisO makes a very poor case against Elonka, in that he first complains about Elonka's judgment in one article (in which he is heavily involved), but then invites others to criticize her for any other real or perceived injustice she may have caused on any other matter. As comments on this page clearly show: everyone has some beef against Elonka. The accusations are also broad in nature and require a significant burden to disprove, especially considering Elonka's interest in wading into controversial issues. If Elonka has made 2,000 decisions and been right on 95% (a great batting average), she'll still have 100 misses. Which brings me to my second point.
  2. Elonka's dedication to resolving contentious issues deserves first and foremost our praise, and then also our sincere efforts to help her get better at it. If ChrisO believes that Elonka made errors in judgment, he would negotiate and explain his point of view as an involved party, rather than to present his case as if he were impartial. --Leifern (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this comment:

  1. Endorse. There are far better ways to address these issues than RfC. Alansohn (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. I thought RfCs were supposed to be about a single dispute. Coppertwig (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. This RFC has went from one with a centralized focus, to one that is a general rant against Elonka. seicer | talk | contribs 23:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse. RfCs are supposed to be about a specific issue - not a venue to pile on and vent every real or imagined grievance against Elonka. In this case - the editing restrictions placed and their application - Elonka has done nothing wrong. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse, except for the statement that "everyone has some beef against Elonka". Many of those who have commented have some beef against Elonka, in some cases stretching back years, and having nothing whatsoever to the specific article in question, or, indeed, any of the other "issues" raised on the page. This page has, as is sadly typical for RFCs, turned into a pile-on, where anyone who has had a minor beef or tussle with Elonka in the past two years now sees their opportunity to get their licks in. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. Nothing will be solved by this RfC except that it creates a lot of negative feelings and it will do nothing to change the problem with the deadlock in the article or even less in the area of I/P conflict. It is a shame. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. A lot of the comments on this RfC page appear to be POV-pushing run amok. It seems that there are quite a few editors who are using this forum in an attempt to strengthen their POV on articles by trying to weaken someone they see as a threat to their freewheeling ways and bullying of opposing editors with different POVs. This tactic applied over and over eventually gives them a clear consensus because opposing editors "disappear". --Fat Cigar 03:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  8. Endorse. Leifern's Point 2 is an extremely important one. Elonka is a rare administrator in that she has come into at least one article in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict area, as a truly neutral admin, has continued to seek to help stabilize the article, and has remained truly neutral. There is an unfortunate history in this whole topic area of admins coming in either as mediators, "neutral" enforcers of policy, or third-opinion givers, and then either turning tail and fleeing in horror after a few days, or becoming partisan. Elonka has done neither. That sort of thing should be encouraged, not censured. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse. I also agree with Jayjg's point that a large number of the comments critical of Elonka's work are those who have either had a remedy enforced against them or have years long disputes with Elonka that have nothing to do with this issue. If there are kinks in the remedies Elonka is using (which I have yet to see any substance to those claims), lets talk about how to improve them instead of tossing the baby with the bathwater. Shell babelfish 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Point #2. No opinion on point #1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse. Support User:Jayjg's view . Editors( esp.User:Mathsci & User:Slrubenstein, being critical of Elonka here in RFC are doing so due to their past grudges .-Bharatveer (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse. I have faced and seen witch hunting on this forum and this is clearly one more instance Sindhian (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse per Coppertwig. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse. Sarah 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Well said. IronDuke 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse. -- Elonka has chosen an approach to controversial articles that requires frequent and heavy use of admin tools to keep order (or at least a willingness to use them to enforce restrictions). There is a chance that this will work, The vibes are that some members of Arbcom feel this idea is worth trying out. The community does not have to agree with this way of addressing controversy, and they could certainly tell Arbcom to get lost. If Elonka is using admin tools in a way that goes beyond what people are used to seeing, they should consider if this might be a good way of handling difficult articles in the future. Elonka shouldn't be penalized for following a strategy that could have future benefits, and feedback on tuning or modifying her strategy is not out of place here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Endorse. This is nothing but a pile up of users w/ past grudges. --DJS24 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse--TheNautilus (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Endorse, echoing Shell's comments. WJBscribe (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arthur Rubin

Disclosure: I consider Elonka's imposition of 0RR on another article a bad approach, and the ArbComm decision allowing such inventive remedies doesn't recognize a method of appeal of the remedy as a whole, only appeals as to specific restrictions on specific users. She warned me for violating a 0RR, and I haven't editing that article since. I don't recall having a dispute with Elonka other than that, or with ChrisO at all.

To begin with, Elonka has such an obscure definition of "revert" that it is not possible to objectively decide whether an edit is a revert, and, a common editing style of moving a statement of one section to another in two separate edits (so that the section tags are properly maintained) might technically be in violation of 0RR, even if the resultant sequence of edits would not be a revert in Elonka's sense, even if it would be in the sense of 3RR.

I'm not familiar enough with this particular article to determine if Elonka is favoring one side or the other, but I'm just commenting that her 0RR cannot be enforced without analyzing the individual edits in the context of the article; and noting that an edit misrepresenting a source to support a statement about a living person can be reverted under BLP, regardless of any editing restrictions that may be placed on the article. If that's what ChrisO has been doing (as he claims), his article ban should be revoked.

I'm afraid the proper venue for the expanded assertion that Elonka is misuseing the 0RR restrictions she placed on other articles would be to go directly to RfAr, and the RfC would be appropriate. ArbComm would almost certainly refuse to hear the case, but there's no other appropriate venue.

  1. Endorse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. Alun (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse. Ramdrake (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. The other alternative, of course, is recall. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. I personally don't think the 0RR should be in play. I think the 3RR policy should be enough if enforced properly. I would also like to add that enforcing these rules, editor histories should be looked at for problem in editing behaviors, which I have seen not understood or done.--CrohnieGalTalk 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse. 0RR causes chaos when there is WP:FRINGE. Further serious problems over BLP or if the parties have gone to law. PRtalk 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse. DreamGuy (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse - one of the (many) issues surrounding Elonka is her failure to understand her own rules and also consistently enforcing them. Since she cannot do this, it is of little wonder she feels that she cannot understand Wikipedia Policy and needs to invent new and improved EP:Elonka Policy. Shot info (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse - The 0RR is an awful idea. Verbal chat 08:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. If people think Elonka is exercising poor judgment with 0RR, and that she is failing to accept to feedback (her attempts to delete this page are not encouraging), then administrative recall would be the next step. ArbCom is unlikely to provide any sort of relief because they are apparently part of the problem. Jehochman Talk 11:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse. 0RR is counterproductive to writing an accurate article. R. Baley (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse - no need for recall however. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Endorse. JJB 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by HG

  1. "A stable editing environment for (each) article (is...) absolutely necessary for the good of the encyclopedia and that article." (copied)
  2. Elonka, like others who seek to intervene in contentious situations, is firmly reminded to be as responsive, even-handed, patient, and non-aggressive as she can be.
  3. In experimenting with intervention methods in the Israel-Palestine topic area, it would be helpful if Elonka (and others) also provide a means to get feedback and evaluation, outside of disputed Talk pages.
  4. "Elonka's dedication to resolving contentious issues deserves first and foremost our praise, and then also our sincere efforts to help her get better at it." (copied)
  5. During an attempted facilitation or intervention, Elonka (among others) is advised make use of Dispute Resolution avenues when her intervention methods or judgments themselves become a point of contention.
  6. This RFC cannot readily resolve concerns about Elonka's specific actions or judgments, partly because of the RFC's broad scope.

I welcome comments and friendly amendments to any of the foregoing points. Thanks and best wishes to the involved parties. HG | Talk 07:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of points
Thanks 6SJ7 for your input. For #5, I would certainly say that "Dispute Resolution avenues" should cover Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions and I would note that WP:DR does include ArbCom and WP:AE. How's that? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HG, my concern is with the idea of advising the administrator in question to "make use of Dispute Resolution avenues", especially in the context of this case. It is the aggrieved editor who is supposed to initiate these "avenues", and then the admin should respond and participate further. In this case, the aggrieved editor did address the issue on the admin's talk page, but when that did not work, he failed to go to Step 2, which was Arbitration Enforcement. So let's remind everybody to follow proper procedures, especially when the ArbCom has emphasized what the steps are for a specific group of articles. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- everybody should follow DR and WP:AE procedures. I'm sorry if "(among others)" does not express this sufficiently. Generally, I tried to focus my comments on Elonka, the RFC subject, not ChrisO or others. Thanks! HG | Talk 21:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this
  1. Sensible advice, except on 6, there is a chance this RFC can resolve matters if Elonka recognizes legitimate concerns and keeps them in mind going forward. Jehochman Talk 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree per Jehochman. PhilKnight (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse points 1 to 5 per Jehochman. Coppertwig (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with points 1 to 5. Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse points 4 and 6; also endorse 2 except for the word "non-agressive" because its practical meaning is unclear and could be misconstrued; also endorse 3 except that the means are already there on the administrator's talk page. Point 5 seems inconsistent with Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions, which is the process that is truly applicable to this case. Point 1 is fine as far as it goes, but there are other things that are "absolutely necessary" as well and they can sometimes come into conflict with a "stable editing environment" -- but I don't think that occurred in this case. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC) (Discussion moved above. Thanks.) HG | Talk 02:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jehochman

  1. Administrators are just users with some extra tools. They are not "more equal" than others.
  2. Membership in the working group is not a letter of marque to conduct experiments on other users, to fabricate new policy, or to violate community norms and expectations.
  3. It is especially important to consider the encyclopedic quality (and quantity) of an editor's contributions when fashioning remedies for behavioral problems. We are not mindless, rule-enforcing automatons.
  4. 0RR is a draconian remedy. Even when an administrator is authorized to place this remedy, it would be best to seek community feedback before and during its use.
Users who endorse this
  1. Jehochman Talk 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good all round summary. Mathsci (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thirded. Verbal chat 11:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Well said. PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. <EC>I think this summarizes things quite well, thank you. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. 0rr should be dispenses with at once. Alun (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorsed, with the caveat that special editing restrictions (such as 0RR) may be necessary in some situations. However, the possible deleterious consequences of their applications (on core policies, for example) should be properly discussed so that a proper framework for their application can be constructed, through community discussion and consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse, with Ramdrake's caveat. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse I would think any situation where a 0RR would be valid would be extremely rare. DreamGuy (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse. I believe 0RR could be harmful to the project. Karanacs (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse. R. Baley (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse. Agree with Ramdrake, and I would also highlight the need for effective, continuous communication between admins and editors of contentious articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes sir. Badger Drink (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse as written. JJB 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by GRBerry

At Quackwatch, which has been under special conditions since July 11, no editor has received more than a caution. The special conditions were imposed while the article was protected due to an edit war, and did result in an early unprotection. This was the second time in July 2008 and the seventh time in under one year that the article had been protected due to edit warring.[187] Since that time, with 0RR in force, the article has had more edits in 3.5 weeks than it did in the 4 months leading up to and including the early July edit war, without the editors getting into another edit war. The admins watching the article have not had to do more than caution any editor, and as far as I know no editor has needed a second caution. I'm not sure the net change [188] from all the edits is of any great significance. The changes basically are: 1) an infobox was added, 2) some references were moved to the end of sentences from inside them, and 3) the praise and criticism sections were made a single combined section, plus a few minor wording tweaks. Given the lack of substantive content change, I doubt any editor's overall view of article quality has changed much, but the edit war has ended; and it is my view that the 0RR restriction is the primary reason the edit war ended.

We could alternatively have tried 0RR or 1RR per week restrictions on certain editors I suppose. I don't think the restricted editors would generally be happier if put on #RR restrictions across broad ranges of articles than they are with article specific 0RR restrictions, but there wouldn't be a risk of catching unknowing and unproblematic editors (say, a recent change patroller) in the net. I'm not really convinced that this specific article focused method is better than the nationalistic method of focusing on individual editors, but I've also seen nothing that convinces me it is any worse.

Users who endorse this
  1. GRBerry 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I don't go further in enforcing WP:ARBPIA than notifying editors of the case and potential for sanctions. Accordingly, I have no opinion to offer on the effect of the restrictions on the page where ChrisO was sanctioned, as the issues there have moved far beyond whether or not editors should be given notice of the potential for sanctions. I assume nobody endorsing this view is endorsing this paragraph.[reply]
  2. Endorse. As an editor who has been guilty of edit warring at Quackwatch in the past, I am quite pleased with the results of Elonka's and co-admin's special guidelines. Under her watch, the editors at the article really have had to just slow down and discuss their positions rather than just edit war. Nice work, Elonka! -- Levine2112 discuss 19:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse: As an administrator who worked with Elonka and another administrator in mediating Quackwatch, I am pleased with the end result as a result of the 0RR restriction. I initially protected the article to prevent edit warring, and unprotected it after there was a reasonable discussion on the talk page between Elonka, myself, another administrator, and those involved with the article. A few editors were warned after the initial rollout phase, no blocks were doled out, and it's been very pleasing to watch the article progress. Editors are working cooperatively, and the progress seems to have flowed smoother than my mediation at Cold Fusion. There is nothing but praise towards Elonka in this instance, and these strict restrictions should be imposed elsewhere more often to help stem these disputes which are cropping up at an alarming pace. seicer | talk | contribs 01:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And trust me, getting any consensus on science-related articles is very difficult to accomplish. seicer | talk | contribs 02:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse - I have seen this method work in places where all other attempts have failed. That's not to say that this is a miracle pill and if there are disputes where strong restrictions are causing more harm than good, they should be handled on a case by case basis. Shell babelfish 06:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 0RR can be an effective way to ensure that everyone has a chance to edit by going slow and give way to other editors. Often the alternatives are worse. 0RR fails when the editors involved make it fail, by refusing to play by the rules. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. # Endorse. If it helps resolve the mess there, must have some merit--TheNautilus (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse - I have seen the edit-warzone that was Quackwatch, and have seen how much better and more collaborative the editing is now. Even if some users think that the 0RR system is a joke, they work within the system and it has shown itself to be effective. - DigitalC (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Antelan

At present time I offer two observations:

  1. This RfC is clearly factionalized along traditional "lines of disagreement". Those who have agreed with one another on substantive issues (ID, some nationalism issues, etc.) are lining up in agreement, as in the past.
  2. The articles that have 0RR restrictions have less editing activity than they did before 0RR was imposed.

These are both neutral observations at their core. How you interpret them depends upon your point of view. From my point of view, observation #1 suggests that the editing rules are having negative consequences for particular factions. If the rules truly benefited no faction, both factions would either like or dislike the rules, or would be internally split regarding the rules. I don't mean to suggest that Elonka is intentionally favoring one group over the other; I just mean that I take observation #1 as evidence that the rules have lead to disparate outcomes for the different groups.

The interpretation of observation #2 likewise depends on your point of view. If we attempt to establish success of editing rules, we must establish parameters for defining success. If reduced edit-warring on the article page is the sole outcome variable, then the 0RR restrictions have been a success. However, other outcome variables, such as article quality, substantive article edits, or talk page activity are considered, then these rules may be even more or even less successful than has been claimed; I have not investigated this myself.

Addendum (Note that people who endorse this comment may not necessarily endorse this addendum) GRBerry felt that point #2 was "demonstrably false"[189]; I do agree that it's at least debatable, depending on how you do your numerical breakdown. I have done a more thorough analysis of edit counts, bytes added and removed, and content added and removed, here. My conclusion is that, more or less, the most major change in the past 8 weeks was the addition of an infobox. Each of the 49 edits in the 4 weeks prior to 0RR removed 30 bytes from the article, on average. Each of the 184 edits in the 4 weeks after 0RR added 6 bytes to the article, on average. Antelan 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this
  1. So written. Antelan 04:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Undeniable inferences from the empirical evidence. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mathsci (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, and it's obvious why. Observation 1) is explained easily, Elonka treats all editors and all points of view equally, therefore when editors with minority povs come to an article without sources (or with unreliable sources) they are usually prevented from contributing to an article. By treating all povs equally Elonka is allowing the neutrality of the article to deteriorate. This may pacify those editors who want to include controversial fringe or unsupported evidence, but it does not improve the content of the article. So of course editors who have been prevented from pushing a minority or fringe pov are satisfied, an "admin" who apparently has "authority" has sided with them, against Wikipedia policies on neutrality, and allowed them to include their pov in the article, and that admin has avoided any understanding of the content and has not tried to ascertain the reliability of any source or notability of any particular pov, she just wants to impose a version that allows everyone to contribute, however unreliable their contributions. Then the admin has stopped the removal of this pov by imposing a 0rr rule. Needless to say editors interested in quality and neutrality are incensed by this. Elonka is looking for "peace", and thinks that the way to get it is to compromise the integrity of content by allowing pov-pushers to include controversial and poorly sources information, she seems to think that NPOV means giving all points of view the same value. Observation 2 is relevant as well. I think that it is a red herring to say that imposition of 0rr leads to a stable article, it's no different to protecting an article, how is stopping editing leading to stability? The problems have not been resolved, they have just bee swept under the carpet. It's a red herring for the simple reason that we are compromising quality for "peace", well I for one would prefer to see an unstable article that is neutral some of the time, than a stable article that is not neutral and full of unsupported pov-pushing. Elonka's actions are hurting the neutrality of Wikipedia and are contravening our core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, they also ignore WP:RS. There's a post to AN/I that I think sums up the problem nicely diff. And Shell Kinney has noted this problem as well diff. Alun (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very insightful, Antelan, and I think Alun makes some interesting points as well; that AN/I diff is particularly worth reviewing. I've certainly noticed this effect on Muhammad al-Durrah, where the only editor left doing anything substantive is the resident conspiracy theory promoter. Everyone else seems to have quit, several (like Relata refero and Nickhh here) explicitly citing Elonka's restrictions as a reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Of course Shell is wrong in one respect, there is a very easy way to solve the problem, and that's to do research about the subject. When I come to a new article, the first thing I do is find out as much as I reasonably can about the subject. I'm amazed that anyone thinks they can solve any dispute without getting involved in the content and understanding the issues properly. Alun (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think this is well said along with the comments in agreement. This rule has made a lot of editors refuse to go to the article, me included. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Observation #1 struck me early on. However, there's another plausible explanation. Factions may be aligned relative to the aggrieved party (i.e., ChrisO), who may have a stronger perceived POV than Elonka (and a clearer outcome than the 0RR policy in concept). But how useful is the observation or its explanation(s)? Does it help us AGF all the parties involved? Point #2 seems logical, but perhaps true of any effort to quiet a battleground. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree, also endorse Alun's comments (above) and Elonka should take on board Shell'sadvice Shot info (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  9. Point 1 is the smoking gun, the Eureka moment. There is a third group here as well: those who are saying "Whoa, there is something good to come from all this but please everyone put down the hatchets and slow down". While noting the dangers of painting with broad brushes, the vindictiveness of the comment's said two groups strikes me as a case of editors, even if subconsciously, trying to use process to gain upper hands in several content disputes, or at the very least projecting some personal feelings into the mix which are not fully corroborated by editing behaviors. But regardless of how well (or not) I can read minds, the very presence and empirical description of these groups demands that everyone take a deep breath, indeed many of them, and prudently decide what we are trying to accomplish. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Shot's above link to Shell's advice is a prudent reminder that civil is not synonymous with non-disruptive; instead it is only a proper subset. If Elonka's further appreciation of this after all the dust settles is the only result of this RfC, it would have been worth it. While other commenters have alluded to this, they have gone too far is other characterizations and in tone to the point of failing to get my endorsement. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorsed Ramdrake (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

This RFC has gone from what may have been a valid dispute into an ugly incivility-creating free-for-all focusing on anything Elonka may have done wrong ever. This just confirms the consensus made nine months ago that RFC/U is useless.

Clarifying question. Hi Sceptre. I assume you're not being ironic, but your link points to a discussion to keep RFC/U. The closing admin does not describe consensus as RFC/U is useless, but rather that we should avoid "below-par" RFC/U's. If so, do you think perhaps the problem lies in the scoping here ("Statement of Dispute") or our oversight/facilitation of the process? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a consensus to keep RFC/U, there was simply a consensus not to delete. If you look at most people's comments, they do show a pattern of disdain towards the process. Sceptre (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this
  1. Sceptre (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The RFC/U has become nothing more than a fishing expedition and has well exceeded the initial comments set out by Chris0. seicer | talk | contribs 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse Sceptre's first sentence and Seicer's comments. I don't know anything about the MfD and I think RFC/U can be useful under certain circumstances. In this case, the "scope" got way out of control very quickly, a subject that has been discussed previously on the talk page. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse. User RfC's generally solve nothing and lead to bad blood. I would point out that the bad behaviour on this RfC does not only apply to Elonka's detractors, there are plenty of examples of ad hominem comments and a general lack of good faith from both "sides". Alun (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree with the spirit of this comment if not its totality. There is a use for them but too often drama hijacks all. In reading some parts of this I can't help thinking of the Witch scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Orderinchaos 11:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. This RfC has degraded into a dog pile; it truly is a tempest in a teapot. --Fat Cigar 04:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse in the spirit of Fat Cigar, Seicer, & 6SJ7 Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MastCell

Scope or no scope, the point of an RfC is to offer potentially useful feedback. So here goes. I have no strong opinion one way or the other about ChrisO's page ban, and I generally favor giving wide latitude to admins who enforce ArbCom's never-ending parade of discretionary sanctions. I do have some general concerns about Elonka's participation in disputes, though I should note that we apparently have very different a priori conceptions of the administrative role, so take the following with that grain of salt.

In the end, we're here to write a serious, respectable reference work, not to create an egalitarian/Utopian rule-driven community. To some extent, the latter goal serves the former, but only to some extent. My sense from the race and intelligence dispute in particular was that Elonka took the side of the "underdog" to an extent that compromised the fundamental goal of building a good encyclopedia. Her intervention verged on coaching disruptive, agenda-driven editors on how to game the system.

I think I understand her motivation—she felt that these editors were being "ganged up on", and needed someone in their corner. Still, a disruptive agenda account will naturally encounter resistance in trying to push their agenda here. That resistance is not "tag-teaming"; it's the encyclopedia's natural and only defense mechanism in action. Admins need to be able to make this distinction to intervene effectively. Demanding civility from established contributors is fine, but not as the sole means of addressing a dispute. We can't implicitly or explicitly enable agenda accounts to violate WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP just because they've managed to provoke other contributors into losing their temper while they themselves remain superficially polite. This episode led me to question whether Elonka's approach favored formal egalitarianism at the expense of the project's actual goals.

I understand there are overlays of interpersonal drama here. I'm making a concerted effort to ignore the melodramatic side of Wikipedia. Focusing solely on Elonka's adminstrative actions: I'm not demanding she be desysopped, nor would I consider supporting a recall at this point. I'd only ask that she consider my perspective seriously, as some other comments have been dismissed as being motivated by grudges etc. I'm not saying that Elonka is "wrong" while Moreschi and I are "right". Balancing the need for fairness (all-accounts-are-equal-before-the-law) with the fact that not all editors' views are equal in the real world is one of the central dilemmas on this site. I'm just asking Elonka give it (continued) consideration in the future. MastCell Talk 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this

  1. Endorse. MastCell's analysis is very wise. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. If anything, I would go further - I don't believe that Elonka was being egalitarian in banning Ronz, and not banning the editor on the other side of the dispute who was possibly being more disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah, that's about right. I disagree on one important point- Elonka should not be an admin. Her hamfisted efforts at amateur policing demonstrate this quite well. Her approach to the whole thing is irredeemably wrong. Friday (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse. Generally, MastCell is almost always spot on in such analyses. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. I have had a very similar impression of Elonka's motivation, and a key part of my concerns is that - as MastCell suggests - civility seems to have been pursued as the sole means of addressing the dispute. I asked Elonka on several occasions to counsel editors who were engaging in soapboxing or original research but was either ignored or dismissed. That only helps to perpetuate such problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. Dispassionate and rational. Forward-looking and solution-seeking. In fact, if there are disagreements with the jist of this, I'd be interested to hear about them (on my talk page) for my own personal education. Antelan 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. Elonka has referred to her editing rules on this article as an experiment, and I hope that, like any experiment, she is able to accurately analyze its successes and failures. I believe this view to be a very good explanation of what many see as a (potential?) failure in the process being used. Karanacs (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse absolutely. Our task is to write an accurate encyclopaedia, that is our number one priority. We cannot give editors who misrepresent references, push a fringe POV, or use unreliable sources the same level of consideration as constructive article writers - we must certainly treat them politely, but if they do not conform to our core policies they need to be shown the door. Focusing on civility rather than the core content policies is missing the most important part of the picture. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse. Shot info (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Well said, MastCell. R. Baley (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Bingo. Brilliant. Civility < Nondisruptive. If this was the first outside comment at the top of the page, we'd all be writing articles now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse. This is an encyclopaedia, not a social club. Admins should be enforcing the core policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. As a reader of an encyclopaedia, I care about accuracy and reliability, not how polite the writers are. --Folantin (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse. I agree also with Phil Knight's comment. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Quite correct. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse, per Emerson. If Elonka showed serious indications that she understood the problems with 0RR, and her actions in supporting the actions of SPAs against a clear consensus (not "tag teaming"), I'd withdraw my support for her desyopping, although there are additional questions about her actions that should still be discussed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Endorse overall, especially on her gaming the system and treating this like a club instead of an encyclopedia. But I disagree on the recall/desysop bit. She is the one who promised to avoid controversial edits and step down if six people said she abused her power. It's certainly not disruptive to expect her to keep her promises. Based upon the failure of her earlier attempts, she very likely would never have gotten admin status without that promise. This is not a trivial thing at all. If she thinks she can defend herself then run for admin again and put it to a vote. Simple. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked up, and sure enough you're right. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_3. Elonka should take to heart some of the comments expressed there from her supporters; e.g., "willing to learn from past mistakes, willing to hear the concerns of other users." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse; a pearl of sense. ColdmachineTalk 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse. NPOV is specifically about differentiating between viewpoints according to their real-world importance, not about treating all viewpoints as if they had equal validity. Elonka comes across as trying to do the latter, perhaps unintentionally.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Endorse. Alun (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse, especially per Tim Vickers. I don't think it benefits Wikipedia to become a shoddy, unreliable reference work assembled by superficially polite editors, but maybe that's just me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Endorse, with some sympathy with the view that a recall would be appropriate. — Athaenara ✉ 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have since endorsed User talk:Elonka#Recall Proposal (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 04:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Endorse. And she should step down considering way over 6 editors have stated she has abused her power. And to not honor that promise is prima facie evidence of that abuse. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Endorse. If problems with ORR and "tag-team"/consensus were addressed (or even recognised), there would be far fewer problems here (per Arthur Rubin). Verbal chat 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Endorse. Jehochman Talk 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Me too. And Athaenara phrases my additional concern well: some sympathy with the view that a recall would be appropriate. --barneca (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Per Tim and Ramdrake. Badger Drink (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Endorse. JJB 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  29. Endorse generally with respect to the undesirable effects of her intervention in articles, which has been discouraging to some of our finest medical editors. I disagree with one statement from MastCell: "nor would I consider supporting a recall at this point". My concerns about Elonka's overall judgment as an editor and admin are completely unrelated to ChrisO or the current dispute, about which I know nothing, but predate Elonka's RfA. I did not oppose her at RfA because she offered to be open to recall. As an editor completely uninvolved in the dispute which led to this RfC, I believe she attained adminship because editors mistakenly trusted in the Administrators Open to Recall process, and then she went back on her word, after she became overly invested in and crossed the neutrality line on articles she was mediating. I'm also concerned about the number of times I have seen her misunderstand or misconstrue other editors or their intent, and then refuse to budge, try to understand or back off; this gives further cause for concern considering the authority she is exercising on some articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Outside" view by Rembaoud

"Outside" and not outside, because I was an insider in a similar-but-different "experiment", which was resolved well, and all the agressive dudes were expelled or their agressivity reduced (by force) to an acceptable level. I see this as a similar thing. A hard and agressive guy simply does not want to accept that he/she is not right in everything, and his more and more "semi-trollings" because of this were/are simply ignored in a growing number. UFF --Rembaoud (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by 70.181.45.138

You all have WAY to much time on your hands ;) End the drama and move on.--70.181.45.138 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this
  1. iridescent 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Indeed. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. True- having just returned from a month's holiday I strongly agree with this comment! WJBscribe (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Alvestrand

I have no insight in the specific case that triggered this RfC, nor do I have a wide enough knowledge of Elonka's activities to make sweeping statements about her "style". But seeing that "the PHG case" is being cited as a point against her further upstream, and I have an opposite opinion that hasn't been brought to the table so far, I thought I'd add my 2 cents based on my watching that case.

In my opinion, the most important application of admin tools is to deal with editors that are not willing to act within the Wikipedia ruleset. For simple vandals, they are lauded for their efforts.

The case that is much harder to deal with both in time and personal risk is the case of the polite POV-pusher who appears to be sane and reasonable right up to the point where his particular pet theory is challenged - at which point the POV-pusher will use any means to defend his actions, including wikilawyering, fakedmisrepresented obscure sources and appeals to the community's sense of fairness. It takes skill, persistence and a great deal of commitment to the ideas behind Wikipedia to deal with those - and the reaction of parts of the community is often negative, with accusations of partisanship, abuse of admin tools, percieved conflicts of interest and personal axes to grind being frequent parts of the "reward" for that work. The PHG case is a classic "hard case" in that regard, and my reading is that it was Elonka who made the biggest contribution to getting that issue exposed, raised and Arbcomm'ed. At great cost in both time and reputation risk.

Nobody's perfect, and very few people are able to invest the volunteer time to even read and remember EVERYTHING that's said in a given case, so I'm not surprised when I see actions (by any editor!) that I feel could have been done better. But I think that in the end, having administrators burn out because of excessive criticism is probably one of the bigger dangers for the Wikipedia community. We need to give credit and praise when they do good, not just criticize them when they're less than perfect. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this

  1. Endorse. Alansohn (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse - Well said! -- Levine2112 discuss 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse Well said. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The last bit is just what I've been thinking the past few weeks. IronDuke 19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse absolutely. I will freely confess to initially seeing Elonka as "the disruptive one" in the PHG case and getting into some rather bitchy arguments with her about it. After having taken the effort to understand the whole thing and check the disputed sources (which far too few of those involved actually did), I realised that Elonka had been correct from the start. – iridescent 16:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. Many of us were guilty of giving less support to Elonka than we should have when she raised concerns about PHG. It was her tenacity that exposed the (ArbCom confirmed) misrepresentation of sources and I doubt other users would have persevered so long. The project would be much the poorer were she to - quite understandably - decide that participating here isn't worth this sort of stress. WJBscribe (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. Nsk92 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse: Excessive criticism has brought down far too many administrators and mediators over the past year. Some, who may feel that their pet article no longer represents their opinion, will drag out a thread at ANI/AN/RFC/ArbCom calling for the head of the mediator or administrator involved, with little or no discussion and a weak or distorted rationale. Far too many pile it on by inviting any and every uninformed or unrelated editor who may have at one point opposed the mediator or administrator in question, and this process has driven away so many great contributors. This needs to stop. seicer | talk | contribs 04:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Sindhian (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elonka&oldid=236670252"