Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Elonka

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


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

I think there's still a problem with the certification. ''This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. '' - unless ScienceApologist can show some kind of involvement in this dispute, I believe his certification needs to be removed. As far as I can find, only ChrisO was involved in this dispute and since its essentially another challenge of sanctions under an ArbCom ruling, this should be back at an appropriate venue such as AE or Arb clarifications. Shell   babelfish 23:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. SA doesn't appear to be involved in this dispute, and certainly hasn't tried to resolve it. - auburn pilot  talk  23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, there is no overlap between ScienceApologist and ChrisO. It is true that I have dealt with both users, but it's on different articles, and in relation to completely separate ArbCom cases.  Awhile ago, I issued a one-week page ban on ScienceApologist, but it was for the Atropa Belladonna article, a completely different topic area from Muhammad al-Durrah.  I would also point out that ScienceApologist already appealed that ban at ANI, and the community upheld my restriction. So again, no overlap. --Elonka 02:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wizardman, the rfc clerk, has struck ScienceApologist's certification. See his comment and User_talk:Wizardman Someone else will need to certify.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, no one else has raised a concern about ChrisO's ban, so no other certifiers are possible. --Elonka 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do recall myself making an attempt to resolve the issue of his ban, but I haven't finished reading everyone's comments, so I'm not about to certify anything just yet. Just pointing out that there are others that are possible. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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

I do not believe that Ned Scott is a valid certifier. He has not contacted me in any way about ChrisO's current ban. I would also point out that there is a long (negative) history between me and Ned Scott, and that he has often popped up to criticize actions that I have taken. If Ned Scott has diffs showing that he has "tried and failed" to resolve the situation with ChrisO's recent ban, I would be interested in seeing them. --Elonka 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that the behavior being question includes your habit of trying to wikilawyer your way out of conflict, you might consider letting the endorsement stand based upon his actions on ChrisO's page, which you certainly saw and indicated that ChrisO was not the only person who had a problem with your behavior. To try to get this to dies from lack of standing is an attempt not to resolve conflict but to have the page erased as if there were no evidence. You need to be proactive in working to resolve complaints instead of denying any problem and trying to make it disappear through red tape and campaigning. DreamGuy (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about if everyone just follows the existing policy as written? That's why there are policies, so everyone doesn't do what they want to do. -- Fat Cigar 21:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Based upon the indenting you seem to be suggesting in this comment that my suggestion wasn't following existing policy. It certainly would be. I believe ChrisO and Ned Scott were also following existing policy. So the "everyone" part seems misplaced. DreamGuy (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a person/persons/relevant board where this could be decisively sorted out? I forsee extra drama and difficulties if this issue is not properly resolved. IronDuke  23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking. RFC *is* the place for sorting out issues related to person(s). I don't know which issue you mean.
 * If you mean whether Ned can certify, that issue has already been resolved below by another admin. Elonka for some reason continues to object, which to me just seems to be nothing more than wikilawyering. If she were successful in getting the certification yanked she could then just try to argue against anyone certifying it, but the point is that whether it's this RFC or one rewritten later to be more broad it's very clear that it would eventually be certified and she would have to deal with it. Wikilawyering the certification seems to be merely a stalling tactic to waste the time of the people trying to bring the problems up for comment.
 * If you were asking about something else, please be more specific and I or someone else we'll see if we can point you in the right direction. DreamGuy (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I remember those comments by Ned Scott written at one of the venues that ChrisO used to complain. But it was ChrisO that applied for page protection, and mediation and got both. On June 9th  ChrisO asks for the help of an uninvolved admin and Elonka volunteers, asking first if she is acceptable, and he says "Your assistance would certainly be appreciated."  The following day ChrisO adds at the FTN "An informal mediation on the above has now begun on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, with the help of Elonka. It would be helpful if editors with experience of dealing with fringe theories (and their proponents) could participate." He did not complain about the ORR rule until Elonka got serious about enforcing it.  ChrisO accepted the 0RR rule as part of the deal to unlock the page and start editing.  If he was not happy with the mediation conditions, he should/could have brought his concerns to the group, as we as a group had accepted the conditions and were bound by them, and if we as a group had told Elonka that we no longer wished to abide by those rules, then she would have gracefully stepped down.  Instead, he waited until the sanctions caught him, and then went to a mediation.  It was at this mediation, and in that context, that Ned Scott brought up his concerns.  I would be interested to know if he contacted Elonka personally to discuss his concerns or if that was the only occasion?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Shell Kinney
After reading Chris's statement and the statements of those editors supporting his views, I'm really concerned by one particular thread I'm picking up. It appears that some believe that editing sanctions should not be applied evenly, but that administrators should make decisions on who's viewpoint is correct and act accordingly. Except in obvious cases (BLP springs to mind), administrators are not arbitrators of content, nor do I believe that Arb rulings are meant to be used in such a manner. What administrators can, and should do, is enforce civil editing and cooperation and allow regular community consensus processes to determine content. If this community process is not working, then we need to open a dialog on what is failing and why - not attempt to set up Administrators as content judges. Shell   babelfish 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. This is the gist of the supporting arguments put forth by Relata refero, Skinwalker & Nickhh   Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, no it isn't. And nor do I see anyone asking for admins to rule on content or to apply sanctions unevenly. Myself and Relata both simply suggested that 0RR does not help in this sort of situation (nothing to do with even or uneven application of any sanctions); and myself and Skinwalker were both complaining precisely that sanctions were not being applied evenly. I know we shouldn't really have discussion threads here but comments made by myself and others are being misrepresented. Or perhaps I should say misunderstood.--Nickhh (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is so - here is what you wrote: "You can't treat both of the "sides" here as if they are equivalent in where they are coming from, they are not". Perhaps you'd like to refactor what you wrote if you didn't mean it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. See the comments by Shot info and Skinwalker. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry CM, still can't see the bit where I say that therefore sanctions of the sort being discussed here should only be imposed on some editors but not others (or rather, imposed on them on a different basis). "Treat" has quite a broad definition. All I am saying is that when blanket editing restrictions like 0RR are imposed, every editor is going to be caught by them, from the most conscientious, policy-observant good faith editor to out and out vandals. Imposing them seems to be a way of saying "you're all as bad as each other and none of you can be trusted", which I do not believe to be the case. Nor can I see the damning quotes to supposedly back up the similar claims you've made against Relata & Skinwalker. --Nickhh (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When you complain that "You can't treat both of the "sides" here as if they are equivalent", you are obviously requesting unequal "treatment". If you didn't mean that, refactor your comments. If you meant that - then Shell is spot on in calling you out. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote just above in respect of the word "treat" - it has a wide meaning and I did not use the word to refer to the imposition of sanctions. I meant that such editors need, for example, to have rules about NPOV and RS explained to them in a way that other editors do not, and also that their additions to articles need to be revertable (as should everyone else's - hopefully the better edits will stick in the long run). Now please stop fanning a dumb semantic dispute based purely on your mis-reading of what I said, when I have pointed out to you three times now that I neither said nor meant what you are claiming I said. I don't have the time or inclination to carry on with it any more. If I was indeed "called out", it most certainly wasn't "spot on". --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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


 * I'm sorry, I think my statement was unclear about what I meant. I understand why people strongly pushing a single POV are a problem for the encyclopedia, I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not there is a failing in the way we currently handle POV pushers that allows them to continue being so disruptive.  To use your example, I'd hope that particular employee got fired so to translate that to what I'm asking - are we firing disruptive POV pushers and if not, why aren't we?  I've seen a number of comments from people who deal with POV pushers a lot about 0RR not helping, so I guess I'm asking what things do you think would help on problematic articles? Shell   babelfish 22:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In an ideal world, the best thing would be to have actual Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to help out with content disputes, whenever possible. In those cases where an article is a locus of conflict between mainstream opinion editors and POV-pushers, 0RR has the unfortunate characteristic of giving POV pushers and mainstream editors equal weight, which translates to WP:UNDUE in favor of POV-pushers. I think that is possibly one of the main issues, if not the main issue.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Shell – Fringe POV pushers often do get ejected, if they lose their temper, become excessively vituperative, or edit war over the same edit. Otherwise, they might go on indefinitely.


 * Wikipedia has a system that either sort of works, or almost works, depending on whether the glass is half full or half empty. So I suggest making incremental changes.


 * My comments are mostly about the science articles in Wikipedia, but probably apply to all academic subjects which have a mainstream with a limited number of opinions currently represented.


 * Some examples of the changes I would like to see are:
 * Move away from the idea that all points of view are equivalent. In my restaurant example, that would be like saying that all substances have an equal right to be considered as food.  While we have some Arbcom decisions which say that science articles should be written from the mainstream point of view and the wp:undue weight section in wp:NPOV, some admins seem to believe that "Mainstream POV pushers" are equivalent to fringe POV pushers and should be handled the same way.
 * There seems to an opinion that admins should not base decisions based on content. That is saying that the assistant managers in my hypothetical restaurant are not supposed to have opinions about what can be put in the food. I have heard that in the past it was more common for admins to block for sustained fringe POV pushing. (Can someone confirm this?) If this is true, I would suggest getting back to doing that, but cautiously, and only in the most obvious of cases, and with an exemption for people  writing  science  articles from a mainstream point of view as long as they did not try to totally  exclude alternate points of view.  (I would understand if no admin could be found to make a decision on say, a dispute about magnetic monopoles.)  Possibly a 4 level warning system of templates for POV pushing could be written, similar to those for vandalism or edit warring.
 * In addition to the previous point, I would like to see definitions of fringe POV pushing in terms of behavior. An example of this is how the Arbcom was recently able to define misrepresentation of what a reference says in terms of user conduct, although it is also a content issue.  One simple idea might be to say that, for a user to express determination that an article will reflect what s/he thinks scientists should believe rather than what they do believe, is evidence that the user is a POV pusher.
 * I would also like to see more people taking a dim view of fringe POV pushers rewriting wp:fringe, wp:NPOV and so on in order to make them more favorable pushers of fringe POVs.


 * I don't suggest moving suddenly to a board of subject matter experts; there is too much chance of getting it wrong. I also doubt that the community would approve such a move.  Perhaps a lesser step could be taken.  That would be to set up a group of trusted users, modeled on checkusers. Then people could reveal their identity and have official transcripts sent in confidence to a member of the group.  The trusted user would then confirm the degrees, saying something like, “I, Joe Blow, confirm that user:MechanicalGenius has an Associate of  Arts degree in Small Engine Repair from an accredited Community  College.”  It would then be up to individual members of the community to decide whether or not they  felt that user:MechanicalGenius had any extra credibility in subjects related to his or her degree.  I’m not really sure whether this would work; it might be too much of a burden on the trusted users.  I’m also not sure whether it would work with third world universities.  Cardamon (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Certified
I've moved this RfC to certified, given that there has now been a second certification from with valid evidence of trying to solve the dispute.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryan, as I posted above, I challenge Ned Scott's ability to certify this. He has provided no diffs, and I can speak from personal knowledge, that he made no attempt to resolve the issue involving ChrisO's recent ban. --Elonka 01:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are diffs provided, of Ned Scott's attempts to resolve. Viridae Talk 01:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, look at the dates on those diffs. They are from mid-June.  That ban that he was concerned about was already taken to ArbCom, and ArbCom upheld the ban. It was a different situation. --Elonka 02:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What does pre- or post-arbcom have to do with anything? Is a limited arbcom pronouncement a free pass out of a RFC that addresses wider issues?  This is obvious rules-lawyering.  NS is clearly referring to the same situation.  Skinwalker (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of an RfC is to deal with "unresolved" issues, partially as a step towards ArbCom. Once an issue has been reviewed by ArbCom, that's about as resolved as it gets. See Dispute resolution.  Since that particular incident, ChrisO's ban expired, he was then disruptive again, and banned again, but to my knowledge no one anywhere expressed any concerns about that ban, except for ChrisO. --Elonka 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that after reviewing Ned Scott's diffs, they seem to point only to his objection to her imposing 0RR. Chris, AFAICT, has not objected to 0RR. These are different issues. I think it's a bit thin for what seems right now to be mainly one editor's grievance against another, and not a community problem with Elonka's behavior. Flexibility on this point wouldn't bother me overmuch, but then I think we'd have to change the certifying conditions to soemthing like, "Please try to find someone to co-certify your RfC, unless you think it's really important or in your view it for some reason isn't necessary." IronDuke  04:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read ChrisO's summary on the RfC for a second time just to make sure, but it does seem Chris has a clear objection to the 0RR approach, and it is the direct cause of most of the other issues cited in this RfC. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have re-read ChrisO's summary on the RFC, and will note the following,
 * "The basic problem is that the editing conditions are being thoughtlessly and aggressively managed, with a rigid application of 0RR being prioritised above maintaining NPOV and basic factual accuracy, and are being enforced erratically and selectively. In short, it is a poorly thought-out and poorly handled approach."
 * I added the emphasis to demonstrate that ChrisO's disdain for the 0RR editing restriction for stated reason. seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  06:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're misreading it. My "disdain" is not for the 0RR editing restriction but the way that it is being applied and prioritised above basic content policies. 0RR should never be interpreted in such a way that it penalises an effort to resolve (for instance) indisputable factual errors added by another editor - there has to be some latitude, not just a rigid application of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me that there was ever an indisputable factual error added. The first time it was reviewed by Arbcom, ChrisO claimed a BLP issue for his right to remove material and have his ban lifted, not an indisputable factual error.  This  would appear to be another issue altogether. ChrisO sought and agreed to the mediation and was bound to the rules as we all were.  He never brought up his concerns on the TALK page, nor did he speak up when another editor was penalised by the same rules, if that editor did not share his perspective. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The proper forum for discussing ArbCom discretionary sanctions, is ArbCom, such as at WP:AE. The first time that I banned you from the Muhammad al-Durrah article for disruptive behavior, you filed an appeal at ArbCom, and got nowhere. So when your ban was up, you came back to the article, were disruptive again, and when you got banned again, instead of going back to ArbCom, you looked for a new forum to challenge the restrictions.  All of your wiki-lawyering does not change the fact that you were disruptive:  You called names, you violated BLP, you edit-warred, you deleted citations to reliable sources.  That is why you were banned.  And perhaps you should spend some time listening to the genuinely uninvolved editors who are participating at the RfC, to examine the real concerns about your behavior.  Sure, there's a steady flow of editors into this RfC that I have cautioned, banned, and blocked in other venues, who are eager to find someplace to disagree with me.  You could say, "Elonka abuses her admin tools and closes AfDs too fast," and they'd all go in and endorse your statement, because they don't care what the truth is, they just want revenge.  I know who they are, and I take their opinions with a grain of salt.  Don't get me wrong, there are a few genuinely thoughtful and uninvolved opinions in this RfC so far, and I am listening carefully to what they say  But the main thing that I'm seeing here, is that you (and a few of the other participants here), seem to feel that because you've been around on Wikipedia longer than others, that your judgment cannot be questioned, that you know the "right" way to write an article, and that if anyone disagrees with you, that you have the right to call other editors "trolls" and "wackjob conspiracy theorists", even if they are using reliable sources.  But my opinion is that no, you do not have the right to belittle other good faith editors.  And you do not have the right to delete citations to reliable sources just because you don't like them.  You do have the right to edit the article in a civil and collegial manner.  And I'll say it again: If you would have stayed civil, left reliable source citations alone, and concentrated on changing the work of other editors rather than simply deleting it, you would not have been banned. --Elonka 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How does one know if a source is reliable when one doesn't get involved in content? You claim that editors are removing information from reliable sources, but you have no way of knowing whether these sources are reliable without investigating the actual content of the article. Furthermore, even if a source is reliable, it is easy to misrepresent a source. It's easy to claim a source says one thing when it in fact it says something completely different, especially if that source is technical, or if the person making the judgment about what to include in an article knows nothing about the content. That's really the crux. Is this about behaviour or content? I've been of the opinion from the beginning it's about content. You appear to agree it's about reliable sources, but the problem is that one needs to be well informed to judge the reliability of a source, and one needs to be well informed to judge whether a source actually does say what an editor attributes to it. It's very easy for editors to make a synthesis of a source that will slip right by an admin who is "overseeing" an article when that admin is not really interested in content. Alun (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alun/Wobble, I am not talking about obscure sources. But when someone removes a citation to an obviously reliable source, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or something published by a highly respected publishing house such as Oxford University Press, and the editor is using reasons like, "unreliable source" or "conspiracy theories", then that's pretty clearly disruptive. Per the conditions for editing which I usually use to calm disputes (and which I have used successfully at multiple other articles), I tell editors that if they have a serious question about such a source, that instead of removing it, they should tag it inline with vc, and then start a talkpage thread on it, and possibly bring it up at WP:RSN as well.  If there is consensus that the source is inappropriate, then even if it's from a normally reliable outlet, we can still remove it from the article.  But editors aren't supposed to just delete plausibly reliable citations out of hand.  What they can do in the meantime is to edit down the information from that source.  They can condense, rewrite, add other sources, tag it as needing verification, etc.  But citations to clearly reliable sources should not just be deleted.  And that's exactly what ChrisO was doing, was deleting citations to reliable sources.  Which is one of the reasons that he was banned. --Elonka 21:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal are necessarily "obviously reliable". In some contexts they are reliable and in others they are not. Especially in science, journalists make all sorts of mistakes, I have been involved with several science related articles where editors have used supposedly "reliable sources", such as the BBC, the The Times, etc. I think that reliability depends on context and that we cannot assume that a source is always reliable for all subjects. But I take your point that there are more constructive ways to deal with content disputes. I wasn't involved in this specific dispute and was writing more generally. Alun (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Ned, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say something here. You absolutely have been warned multiple times to back off. You have done so now for quite some time, but there was a period of time that you appeared to follow Elonka around and inject yourself negatively into situations you had no prior experience with just to oppose her.  While that doesn't  make your opinions invalid, lets not try to whitewash history either.


 * Its also interesting that its been suggested multiple times that Elonka ignores outside input. She was the one who first brought her sanction ideas on AN for comment, she's worked with multiple other administrators on various articles where these sanctions have been in place and solicited input (for example, Chris originally agreed he thought these sanctions were a good idea and most other editors on the article agreed with them).  The only input I see that she tends to take with a grain of salt is the editors who complain things are unfair after they've run afoul of the sanctions. Shell   babelfish 04:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Shell, disregarding Community input is one of the reasons why we are here today. Of course you are entitled to argue that the various members of the Community who actually believe that there is a problem should be ignored.  Why not, it's a very familar refrain and a useful defense is it not?  It should be noted that for a significant number of people who have run "afoul of the sanctions" have so because of novel approaches Elonka has for interpreting or rather misinterpreting her own rules.  Shot info (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And you're welcome to believe that the editor's behaviors weren't the actual problem and that the community repeatedly validating these approaches isn't sufficient when faced with editors unhappy when caught by a sanction. Its just a difference in viewpoint. Shell   babelfish 05:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is of course a subtle difference here as you try to paint opposing viewpoints as somehow inherently "wrong". What you are saying is - because of behavour X is unacceptable we can ignore behavour Y.  While others are arguing, behavour Y is unacceptable.  The "only difference in viewpoint" is if you believe that two wrongs make a right.  Shot info (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm sorry, but that's not what I'm saying. I presented several instances where Elonka has listened to input, including having intentionally solicited it herself.  My point is that those people saying that she does not listen to feedback seem to have missed those instances and appear to be describing what they feel is a lack of response to their feedback.  In the same way that a vandal who's appropriately warned doesn't get unblocked by saying we're doing it wrong, editors who break restrictions placed under ArbCom sanctions can't expect that their disagreement with the sanction necessarily means its wrong.  I think you'll find its rather rare that editors who are blocked or under sanctions feel that what happened to them was right. Shell   babelfish 06:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Shell, you are more than welcome to dismiss the advice and advice all and sundry to do so as well. I personally don't mind.  I only hope that Elonka takes it on, only because we all know where these sorts of wikidrama seems to end up if the advice is ignored :-(.  And I don't know about you, but I personally don't like going there.  Shot info (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

" You have done so now for quite some time, but there was a period of time that you appeared to follow Elonka around and inject yourself negatively into situations you had no prior experience with just to oppose her."

What the hell? No I haven't. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ned, its entirely possible that you don't realize it, but you do tend to react poorly to situations that involve Elonka. Since you asked, there's a bit of a sampling on my talk page to show what I'm referring to.   Regardless, the only reason I said something is because by denying it entirely, you're calling Elonka's honesty into question and that bothers me.  However, you should not have been put in that situation to begin with; I understand that Elonka is feeling very attacked by all this, but pointing fingers at those involved in the RfC doesn't help things at all.  What should have been a calm discussion about the broader sanctions handed out by ArbCom and how best to (or best not to) implement them has turned into a complete circus. Shell   babelfish 09:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to understand, how many editors are going to be told to back off from this situation? With Ned Scott, that makes three so far that I have seen told to back off because I guess of prior history.  I don't know the history of any of these but I would think the knowledge of these editors would be useful to editors like me to understand the whole picture of events.  I would like to ask all editors allow everyone to add to the conversations as long as they are constructive and not rude, which I haven't seen in the comments except when being told to back away.  I thought everyone is allowed to contribute.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't comment on the situation when you don't know what's going on. Right now I'm defending Elonka on her own talk page. What I'm angry about here is the accusation that I've followed her around, or that I've tried to harass her. Why does that accusation make me angry? Because it's not true. Elonka is not my enemy, and while she has driven me crazy before, I can honestly say that I do respect her. Instead, you've gone and assumed that I'm making some post because I don't like Elonka, or because I'm looking for blood. You are telling me to back off because I'm asserting that I don't hate her. Wow. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To respond to Shell's comment, people here are free to see my reply on her talk page. As I said there, I am calling Elonka's honestly into question, because she has greatly exaggerated things when she gets backed into a corner. She's not a dishonest person, not over all, but sometimes she can be a very dark lady when you disagree with her. If anyone has time, feel free to dive into some of the subpages on Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions to see what I mean. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Users who do not endorse Shell Kinney's comments

 * 1) Relativism of the nature established by Elonka's mercenary and completely arbitrary (heh) "zero tolerance" sanctions should have gone out with wood paneling and disco. I believe the latter is what's most at issue here. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Can you explain how Elonka is demonstrating "mercenary behavior"  in relation to her mediations? One certainly wants to listen to all arguments, however improbable. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) So agree with Badger here.  Shot info (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) But Elonka has effectively been acting as a "content judge" by acting as if all points of view are equal in every case. But they are not, all content is clearly not equal, but Elonka seems to believe it is. Indeed Elonka has gone out of her way to side with editors who insist on equal weight for tiny minority or minority points of view. It's dangerous to pretend that content disputes are really behaviour disputes, it effectively means that any admin can get involved and introduce bans at any time, severely compromising the neutrality of an article. It is especially dangerous when the admin does not get involved with understanding the subject matter, taking the attitude that an editor is being "ganged up on" is absurd in content disputes, it is likely in a case like this that the edior is pushing a minority pov, which is why every other editor disagrees, but this is unimportant to Elonka. If everyone were to take this attitude Wikipeda would be giving equal weight to intelligent design at the evolution article and alternative medicine at the medicine article. All points of view are not equal, and single editors trying to force minority points of view into articles should not be encouraged by admins. Frankly I'm shocked by this authoritarian attitude and I'm worried that Wikipedia will soon become a "police state" if this sort of thing carries on, where "admins" set themselves up as judge and jury and think they should have the power to summarily and arbitrarily ban editors from articles, that they effectively enforce the inclusion of any and all points of view by any editor who wants to contribute because the "poor soul is being ganged up on". This is not school, Elonka is not a teacher, there is certainly no requirement that any old nonsense should appear in an article because a single editor wants it to be there, if this is the new "policy" on content, then Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopaedia and will just become a repository of the "weird and wonderful" rather than of well researched knowledge. Alun (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Shell thinks that Elopnka's criotics believe that "administrators should make decisions on who's viewpoint is correct and act accordingly."  I do not think this.  I think editors should make decisions on who's viewpoint is correct and act accordingly.  Editors actin in good faith often come into conflict and we should encourage creative dissent as well as conpromise.  In two cases I was involved in, there was no need for administrative action, just editors sorting things out.  In one case a year's worth of disruptive edits led to a community ban against someone.  Elonka claimed other editors were equally disruptive but refused to provide evidence, thus slandering good editors.  She made this slanderous claim to take the side of one disruptive editor.  This is ''not even-handedness.  In another case she effectively vetoed the consensus of editors oon a page, insisting that administrators must make decisions concerning merging - which is not our policy.  In both cases Elonka had a shortage of good faith in the wikipedia community process, and put her authority over the good judgement of the community.  This is not fair play, it is a power-trip. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse Mathsci's comments

 * 1) I am always suspicious when I hear statements like this: "There are a few contentious articles on WP which attract editors with a thinly veiled racist POV to push, often SPAs."  First of all, being one of the "named" so-called SPA's that has taken to editing this article, the implication rings rather harsh in my ear, and sounds like a "thinly veiled" accusation of 'racism' directed at me personally, since according to ChrisO I am one of those SPAs he's been complaining about. Of course I might add that your sentence also leaves room for those "racist" POV-pushing editors attracted to this article to be editors of long-standing as well. The application of "fringe view" seeks to marginalize a view - ChrisO has referred to it as "pathological thinking."  The application of that term should be used with caution, as with other pejoratives, like "racist."  Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was talking about Race and intelligence, which from the history page you have never edited. Have you possibly misread what I wrote? If so kindly refactor your comment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Your remarks were made at this RfC which is particular to this article in which my editing was said to be "at the crux of the matter." If you had not intended for your remarks to be applied here, perhaps you should be the one to refactor. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an RfC about Elonka's behaviour as an administrator, not just what has happened on the El Durrah article, as made clear by ChrisO's posting on WP:AN and in his actual presentation. Now that your counter-endorsement has been disallowed from the main page, I don't think any further discussion is necessary. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not endorse. Sounds like McCarthyism. -- Fat Cigar 01:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I am not endorsing this, because it classifies those who are in disagreement with the article as those who are "editors with a thinly veiled racist POV" and/or "SPAs," which is a fallacious statement. For an editor to imply that other editors who do not hold belief that of which he edits by, is a poor attitude and conveys that they may have difficulty working with other editors if they hold this preconceived notion. seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It was difficult working with user:Fourdee, but it is incorrect to suggest that it had something to do with me. How would you characterize his behaviour? Mathsci (talk)
 * Comment. Seicer below makes the fallacious deduction that because I wrote that these articles sometimes attract editors with a thinly veiled racist POV, I intended this description to apply to a large number of editors that edit there. That is certainly not the case and it is an extremely rare occurrence. I don't know how long he/she has been an administrator, but perhaps he/she has forgotten about editors on Race and intelligence like User:Fourdee, permanently banned by Jimbo himself for extremely antisemitic remarks, and User:MoritzB, another POV-pusher also indefinitely blocked after attempting to misrepresent James Watson in the article. Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not agree with JackSchmidt's comment

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

Users who do not agree with 70.181.45.138's comments

 * 1) We are trying to end the drama. You are confusing the problem with the attempt of solving it. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not agree with Alvestrand's comments

 * 1) Oppose in respect to the comments on the "PHG case": I am no professional historian, but all my references have always been taken from proper published sources. I have never "faked obscure sources" either. Elonka has been making tremendous efforts to discredit my sources however (an historian such as Laurent Dailliez, turned out rightly not to be as criticism-safe as I assumed, but Elonka repeatedly challenged, in vain, the other French historians I had best access to) and to mischaracterize my actions. Throughout this case, Elonka has been pursuing me with wave after wave of false or approximate accusations, moving to other accusations when the previous ones proved too weak (a technique another editor described as "putting fires everywhere") and has continued stalking/harassing me since in my other contributions . And in order to bolster support she apparently uses systematic off-Wiki sollicitations (invisible canvassing/ tag-teaming:, ). Since then, Elonka has even been claiming authorship of the Franco-Mongol alliance article on her userpage... quite amazing. I am an enthousiastic and a prolific contributor to Wikipedia and all my contributions have always been done in good faith (as recognized by the Arbitration Commity), and I do not think Elonka's behaviour has been appropriate (at all) in my case. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG, this statement is a severe distortion of the Arbitration case you were involved in and the events surrounding it. One of the findings from the case was specifically "Arbitrators' independent review of several of PHG's sourced edits versus the content of the original sources confirms that several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion."  This was not about your unfortunate choice of Dailliez, this was a systemic misrepresentation of sources.  You have since been blocked multiple times for continuing the same problematic editing, including the last time which resulted in you being forced to choose mentor to verify your sources.  This has been back to ArbCom twice now and the last time Elonka actually argued against leveling any additional sanctions against you, so your characterization of her behavior is fantastical at best. After the amount of work she put in to tracking down the sources and rewriting Franco-Mongol alliance and having to go all the way to arbitration to remove your distortions from the article, I can't imagine why she wouldn't consider herself a significant contributor for that article.


 * I invite other editors to read the case for themselves and review the case talk for the additional clarifications. Alvestrand's comment is spot on. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 18:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Shell. You forget to mention that even the Arbcom reaffirmed their belief in my good faith. I may have been quite enthousiastic for the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance, looking for every bit of scholarly confirmation or every little bit of information on the existence of the alliance, but I never intentionally misrepresented sources, neither has it ever been shown. Now some people, whatever the reason, were bent on showing that there was "no alliance", but that was not really why I created the article in the first place or what I was interested in describing (I believe an article about the "Franco-Mongol alliance" is normally more to describe in what sense it existed than in what sense it did not). I was ready however for a compromise wording and an NPOV presentation of both views "an alliance, or attempts towards an alliance", so that both approches could be systematically combined, but Elonka broke our agreement in this respect and has been forcing her way so that her view could almost exclusively be represented, despite the abundance of litterature for both interpretations.
 * I was also attacked for mentionning facts which apparently hurt some sensitivities, such as the capture of the Jerusalem by the Mongols. Numerous authors do mention raids and the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, but this was met by huge disbelief by many (Elonka's original "This DID NOT happen", and many others). Frankly, only facts and opinions published by reputable sources count on Wikipedia, and I don't think we should suppress some important historical facts just because of some editor's incredulity.
 * There may have been discrepencies of interpretation between various editors on specific items, but I always remained very close to the material, sticking to specific quotes, and most of the time actually giving the quotes so that other editors could judge for themselves. Now, that typically led to accusations of "cherry picking", but I always gave the quote for what they were, not necessarily as representative of the whole work of a given author. In retrospect, I guess I should have given the quote, but also a summary of the global view of a given author.
 * You also forget to mention that I have been able to disprove every single of your accusations about my references (Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table), as I was able to disprove every single of Elonka's accusations as well (Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Workshop). There has never been a case where I would have been shown to forge a reference or whatever. When several editors band together to make this sort of accusations however (I have been reading recently suggestions that you were tag teaming with Elonka (Wikipedia talk:Tag team)), then it gives the overall impression that indeed there must be something wrong with the attacked editor, and this can clearly sway an Arbcom decision.
 * Overall I am a good-faith editor who is fascinated by the subjects he writes about, and is maybe slightly over-enthusiastic about documenting them. I am extremely proud to have brought to light and documented such little-known subjects as the Franco-Mongol alliance, Indo-Greek Kingdom, History of Buddhism, Boshin War, Imperial Japanese Navy, France-Thailand relations etc... I document extensively all I write, and no, I don't misrepresent sources, or when it is perceived to be so, it is certainly not intentional. Cheers PHG (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said anything about whether it was done in good faith or not, nor did I comment on whether or not your continued problems with sources are intentional, what I said was that it is a problem and continues to be a problem and thus your original statement was terribly misleading. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 06:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note - I have made one small redaction after PHG objected on my talkpage; I used the word "faked" to describe what people like PHG were doing with sources. That's too strong, at least in PHG's case; I've changed it to "misrepresented", to be consistent with ArbCom's language. Apart from that, I stand by what I wrote. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
Is the subject of this RFC "Elonka's actions on this particular article", "Elonka's admin actions" or "Elonka's editing in general"? Different posters seem to be commenting on different things. Not saying anyone's right or wrong but it's unfair on Elonka to drag more general "I don't like her" criticisms into this if the RFC only pertains to her actions in this instance.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – <font color="#E45E05">iride <font color="#C1118C">scent 14:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. ChrisO has made it quite clear in his introduction here and in his comment on WP:AN that this is an RfC concerned with Elonka's general behaviour as an administrator. If there is any doubt ChrisO can be contacted directly for clarification. It is certainly not up to Elonka to limit this RfC: she has already attempted, so far unsuccessfully, to challenge its validity. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not saying that you or ChrisO are wrong, just trying to clarify; my comments on the RFC were specifically regarding Elonka's actions in the particular case mentioned. As oppose #1 on her RFA (and as the recipient of this once the RFA had passed) I certainly have had problems with Elonka's general behaviour in the past. (I haven't crossed paths with her for a while so won't comment on her recent activity). I just don't think she acted inappropriately as regards this particular article.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – <font color="#E45E05">iride <font color="#C1118C">scent 15:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and it was confusing for me too. In the case of the Al-Durrah article - an article which would never see the light of day in the Encyclopedia Britannica - I have no opinions. In Alt Med articles my own feeling is that the presence of expert editors like Eusebeus, Fyslee or MastCell brings a sense of order to these articles. It is great that they participate and they bring the right air of scholarship and moderation. I don't think Elonka's "correctional institution" rules are any kind of substitute for this in any way at all. They must scare people away, even good editors, who will receive no recognition under Elonka's regime. BTW I don't think that ChrisO's presentation will win any prizes :) Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It does seem a bit rich to be putting up an RfC on an administrator's general behavior when you yourself are an involved editor in an article under mediation by that same administrator, and currently subject to sanctions. Particularly when he solicited her in the first place, and accepted her mediation, and attempted to impose her conditions on others. It would have seemed a lot less self-serving and disruptive if ChrisO had simply removed himself from editing the article first, rather than filing these actions whenever the sanctions applied to him! Oh and I notice that in his comment on WP:AN he entirely neglects to mention his sanctions at all.  More than a little misleading under the circumstances, I'd say.   Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * The problem is that there appear to be at least two (and probably more) distinct RFC's taking place in the same RFC and they are getting all tangled up with each other. For example, from what I can see, the "cases" that Slrubenstein and Mathsci are talking about really having nothing to do with what ChrisO is talking about.  I have commented on the dispute between ChrisO and Elonka, because I have "been there", but I can't comment on the other cases because I don't know anything about them.  For all I know, the editors who are aggrieved about the other situations may have a point -- I just don't know.  What I do know is that these different situations should not be piled on top of each other in a way that suggests that there is some sort of general, systemic problem with the way Elonka handles disputes.  In the one situation I know about, the one involving ChrisO (and other editors on the same article), her actions have been reasonable and evenhanded.  Someone needs to untangle the mess so that each distinct situation may be properly evaluated.  6SJ7 (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "What I do know is that these different situations should not be piled on top of each other in a way that suggests that there is some sort of general, systemic problem with the way Elonka handles disputes." Why not, because you refuse to believe it's true? RFCs are for discussing an article or an individual. This is for an individual. Of course it should include all the various situations. What, you expect people to file ten different RFCs on the same person concurrently? That's not how things work, at all, and it's absurd to suggest it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's all just game-playing, as I see it. I think this process is being abused by this RFC.  6SJ7 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to some of the comments
Re Mathsci's comment: There's nothing wrong with advising someone how to edit better. If someone chooses to mentor difficult editors, that choice should not be taken as an endorsement of the editors' characters. Elonka's position at the AN/I discussion about the merge looks perfectly reasonable to me and her behaviour there looks unexceptionable to me. I believe anyone has the right to make an accusation that there is tag-teaming (violation of WP:CANVASS) if they believe this is happening; I don't see how making such an accusation would be considered an abuse of admiinstrator privileges. I could be wrong, but I get the impression that Mathsci believes that admins should differentially enforce policies such as WP:CIVIL based on whether someone is an admin and on judgements of which side is right in content disputes; if so, I respectfully disagree. In short, Mathsci's comment fails to convince me that Elonka has made any error of judgement in the cases cited. Re the diffs posted by Ramdrake: I skimmed those discussions and Elonka's behaviour there looks perfectly reasonable to me. Re Slrubenstein's comment: Slrubenstein apparently believes that an admin should either become involved in a dispute as an editor, or not become involved, and should not enforce WP:CIVIL while making no judgement on content disputes. I respect Slrunbenstein's right to hold that opinion, but I disagree. I believe that there is an important role for admins who enforce WP:CIVIL while forming no opinion about the content disputes in which the uncivil behaviour arises (i.e. the whole concept of "uninvolved admin"). It's essential to maintain standards of civility; otherwise content disputes are decided by whoever is most aggressive, an atmosphere which does not lend itself to maintaining the most NPOV encyclopedia. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, you give a reasonable summary of my position with one fault: I do not always think this. It depemnds on the situation.  I definitelythink this for two instances in which Elonka and myself were involved.  I do not believe it for all instances.  Sometimes you just have several edits being uncivil and reverting one another and it is the mutual uncivility itself that is the problem.  BUT in other cases the conflict is between editors who have researhed a topic vwrsus SPA users who are pushing a POV, usually resorting to disruptive edits.  In these cases one had to look art the substancwe to judge who is making constructive edits and who is making disruptive ones. It all depends Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, prompting individual edits of an SPA, as if you were that editor yourself, is just not on. This happened with Zero g. After a certain point hints on style and civility actually get taken over by procedural hints - telling them to do things they haven't thought of doing, or indeed doing it for them - which directly relate to content. She herself contested an article merge, acting as if she were the POV-pusher. She claimed quite wrongly on Moreschi's talk page that:


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


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


 * having first suggested that I was a "sneaky Turkish nationalist" (an incorrect claim, as it happens), she acted inappropriately. Normally, as WjBscribe wrote at the time, this should have resulted in an immediate block. Elonka at times like these seems quite clueless and seems to be taking sides with POV-pushers like Jagz or Koalorka, contrary to all suggestions from other editors or administrators. These erratic bouts of obtuse stubbornness are not at all helpful to the project. She should abandon her "conspiracy theories" and her "experiments". She should learn to listen to administrators with more experience than her. She should learn to distinguish between single purpose POV-pushers and editors whose main purpose is to add significant scholarly content to this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You say Elonka was proved wrong by the AfD: I'm not convinced of that. I believe Elonka did not predict what the result of the AfD would be, nor as far as I know take sides in it, so one result or another of the AfD would not prove her wrong.  Rather, I think she promoted the use of an AfD in order to bring finality to the merge one way or another rather than ever-continuing edit warring.  Therefore a "delete" or "merge" or "keep" decision would have been a success; the only possible failure of the AfD would have been a result of "no consensus; please continue editwarring". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Abd's comment in endorsing Elonka's statement, particularly "Individual opinion about NPOV is unreliable, ultimately." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem was that Elonka was effectively acting as an editor not an administrator. She stepped in several days too late after a clear consensus had been achieved with no disputes of any kind. She just decided to act on behalf of Zero g. But she has no right to do this pretending to be an impartial administrator, not having checked the facts. She has no privileged status, she's just someone with an extra set of buttons. She has got so used to being a "dea ex machina" that she forgets herself. All her actions on Zero g's behalf were ill-judged, procedurally incorrect and a waste of the community's time. Her suggestion that the merge consensus was not OK and effectively a stitched up job, was a personal opinion, based on her gut feeling that she was involved in a battle against a "lynch mob". It is time for her to stop being an administrator if she jumps to completely irrational conclusions like this. Please go and look at the discussion on Moreschi's talk page. Her statements there were neither reasonable nor measured. They were not taken seriously by either Moreschi or MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the last sentence of this edit by TAnthony: : TAnthony, (22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)) please assume good faith. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig, please re-read the sentence, it's a direct and frontal attack (not to mention an insult)on all those who oppose Elonka. It would be a lot simpler to assume good faith if it was at least redacted or refactored to be less aggressive.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I was asking TAnthony to assume good faith. In other words, asking TAnthony to consider refactoring, just as you are. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were asking us to assume good faith on his part for this attack. Didn't make much sense. This makes much better sense, thanks for the explanation.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see how it could be misconstrued. Refactoring. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the last sentence of T. Anthony's statement was perfectly reasonable. The statement of the initiator of this RfC seems like exactly what T. Anthony says it seems like, AGF or no AGF.  I don't know about the statements pertaining to other articles because I am not familiar with those articles.  6SJ7 (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of process deletion?
At least four administrators (plus me) feel that deletion of this RFC was not the best move. It had already been certified by another administrator, and a bunch of editors had made comments. I personally dislike RFCs as a process, but the page contained good advice, and appeared to provide a venue for editors to express their concerns in way that might help resolve disputes. I very much regret the rules lawyering that has gone on over this process, and the attempts to find technicalities that would allow the page to be deleted. Sure, if the RFC had descended into chaos and acrimony, that might have been a reason to invoke ignore all rules and blow away the page by applying stricter than normal criteria, but that's not what happened here. An orderly discussion was hidden, at request of the subject, without any sort of consensus to do so. Jehochman Talk 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need to be ruleslawyers here. The RFC being not deleted won't hurt anything.  Deleting it when people are using it does hurt something.  I'd support an undeletion.  Friday (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I belive that this was out of process aswell. I certified the RfC because two editors had given valid certifications. Chris's certification is based on problems he's had with Elonka's use of the sanctions that arbcom allow admins to give out. Ned's was for exactly the same reason. Regardless of which particular incident they were referring to, the concerns were both over Elonka's interpretation of ArbCom sanctions and that's what this RfC was about. I would personally have liked the deleting admin to come and discuss it with me before overruling my decision.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This episode should serve as a learning experience that everyone should abide by the policy. The rules don't apply only to the "little people". The people certifying the RfC apparently did not follow the rules, which was wrong. Let the RfC die and do better next time. -- Fat Cigar 14:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User's 35th edit. How clever of him/her to find this page. Bishonen | talk 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Take a look at the contributions. I'm guessing this is a reincarnation of someone (Jagz?) who was involved in the Race and intelligence kerfuffle. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(also posted at ANI) Wikilawyering to get an RFC deleted is lame, and only suggests scrutiny is being avoided. If the subject (Elonka) has acted appropriately, then the RFC will bear that out. If she has not, then the RFC will also bear that out. Either way, the RFC needs to exist in the first place. Arbcom members (in this case, Thebainer) have no special jurisdiction over RFCs. RFCs are a community process, wholly seperated from Arbcom actions by design. Was the RFC certified correctly? Whether the dispute was the same dispute or two seperate disputes is a wholly subjective matter. I would say it related to the same root cause, and was therefore appropriately certified, and the RFC should be undeleted and allowed to proceed - preferably, it should be undeleted by Thebainer, but if he is unwilling to do so, or unresponsive, then the place to discuss potentially out of process deletions is Deletion Review. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   14:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am hopeful that Thebainer will reverse based on the emerging consensus. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aussie. Probably asleep. <font face="comic sans ms">  bishzilla    ROA R R! !     14:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

So, is Thebainer the only one that's supporting deletion right now? (besides elonka presumably) If that's the case I may undelete it myself, since I made sure to look through everything in regards to the complaint (heck I struck the other certifier), so I'm just tryign to make this all run smoothly using my uber-clerk powers. Wizardman 14:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thebainer and the rank sockpuppet above. Yes, it looks like it. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Thebainer should be blocked and/or have admin status taken away for clearly violating policy here... An admin had certified it, he/she can't just overrule that and decide his opinion is superior. One stray admin out of the hundreds or thousands wandering around here can't just set policies him/herself ignoring other people's opinions. Trying to do so is a complete mockery of Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Logically, just seeing the way this RfC has been going, either of two things will happen:
 * This RfC will get undeleted and proceed as usual
 * This RfC will stay deleted, in which case it's likely a matter of days before a wider RfC regarding Elonka's behaviour will be filed. We will then be back exactly where we started, but with the added "bonus" of having wasted oodles of the community's time.

"I would say, even if the certification might not be exemplary, it should be allowed to stand, as the alternative is only wasting the community's time.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of an RfC is to deal with situations that can't be resolved by other means. In my case, the door to my talkpage is wide open.  Per WP:DR, if I (or any editor) is doing something out of line, the first course of action is to talk to the editor and try to work things out that way.  Not to immediately jump to an RfC. So if anyone posts at my talkpage with a genuine good faith concern, I will do my best to respond in kind.  I am quite amenable to talking.  I don't bite, really.  :) --Elonka 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya, Elonka. Please could you reply to the question I left there 2 days ago? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka is being disingenuous here. Her response to my question on her talk page suggests (a) she does bite and (b) she evades answering questions, if they put her in a bad light. Needless to say she implied I had major problems as an editor myself. However, as a daily contributor of quite a lot of mainspace content in mathematics, this does not seem to be born out by my current editing, even in administrative matters like clearing up the assault on Michael Atiyah's BLP, where I have interacted on-wiki and off-wiki with several administrators, including two members of ArbCom, who helped resolve the issue. It is unclear why Elonka appears to go out of her way to vilify editors who edit this encyclopedia in a serious and scholarly way while at the same time she gives carte-blanche to "polite trolls". Her priorities seem to be quite wrong. Mathsci (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the list of admins who "feel that deletion of this RFC was not the best move". I had hoped that Elonka would use this opportunity to respond positively to people's concerns, so the wikilawyering is very disappointing. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And add me. I'm actually supporting Elonka on this one, but I can't see any grounds for deleting this. Whether or not one agrees with the points, they were all rational discussion of what particular users saw as problems, whether or r not they actually were.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – <font color="#E45E05">iride <font color="#C1118C">scent 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For extra fun
I already both had this page watchlisted and knew of it from a review site. However, checking my email, I see that on Saturday night I received a neutrally worded email informing me of the RFC. It was sent by an editor I don't recall having previously interacted with at all. I can't think of any good reason for anyone involved in or commenting on the RFC to be using stealth canvassing, and want to discourage it. GRBerry 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also meat puppets, as in the above thread. We need to be careful about the possibility of a Joe job. Jehochman Talk 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to specify the editor, but it wasn't a frameup job. The new wiki email this user system explicitly identifies which editor sent a mail... "This e-mail was sent by user " " on the English Wikipedia to user "GRBerry" is the first sentence of the system generated footer.  GRBerry 15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can make a guess who it was, and I recommend assuming good faith. While I was chatting off-wiki with someone about the RfC over the weekend, I saw that certain editors (such as GRBerry) were being listed on the RfC, and I said something in casual conversation about how I wasn't sure if GRBerry knew about the RfC or not, and if not, he should probably be notified.  The person I was talking to, asked me if I wanted them to contact GRBerry.  To the best of my recollection, I said no, I was just mentioning it casually, I wasn't telling them who they should or shouldn't contact. A few minutes later, they said that they had sent an email (and to be honest, if I would have advised them to contact him, I would have said post on the talkpage, since I know GRBerry prefers on-wiki communications).  Anyway, to my knowledge, the individual who sent the email did so in a one-time fashion.  I am most definitely not going around saying, "Please send anonymous emails to the following list."  So (if we're talking about the same communication), it was just a one-time thing, and I wouldn't read too much into it. If I would have wanted to contact the editors whose names were on the RfC, I would have just dropped a note on their talkpages and said, "Hey, your name is mentioned over here, just wanted to let you know."  There's no reason I would have had to go all Machiavellian about it. --Elonka 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New Editor Confusion
Maybe someone can help me out here, seriously. How does an informal mediation   suddenly turn into a  referendum on the  mediator in general? Isn't it appropriate that the editor should acknowledge that he is under sanctions as part of a mediation when he announces it to the world, as ChrisO did not at the Admin NoticeBoard? It seems all wrong to me. Elonka had even said: "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." ChrisO could have tried this approach, rather than what he has done here. This should have a chilling effect on other admins and a warning not to get involved in trying to help mediate a situation in which there is another admin  heavily editing-involved. What earthly reward is there for trying to mediate when every other editor in the world piles on with their complaints about the mediator in every other conceivable venue ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good questions! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a question, but exactly why are articles being managed? Mediation is not managing an article. I don't get this at all, we're not children, blocks are not meant to be punishment, though in this case Elonka is clearly intent on punishing a good faith editor because he had the temerity to question her "authority". I'm quite concerned about this attitude. Elonka seems hell bent on going for a power grab for admins and the creation of an "admin class" with total power over who can and can't edit any particular article. The really scary thing is that this is totally arbitrary, this power grab seems to be nothing to do with improving Wikipedia and everything to do with asserting authority. Elonka seems to think that those of us who are not "admins" are expected to "tug our forelocks" at our "betters", and accept that they are now going to assume total control on editing of any given article. So I must be a "good boy" and do what my "betters" tell me or I'll be summarily blocked? Are we citizendium? I don't think so, at least there the "managers" of the articles have to demonstrate a level of expertise in the field they are responsible for. Here apparently from now on we do as we're told or an admin will block us from any article they are "managing". From anarchy to fascism in the wink of an eye. Am I to understand that this blatant attempt to wrest power from us contributors was due to an arbcom "ruling"? Well arbcom are not our bosses, this is not their project, it is not Elonka's project and it certainly isn't the "admin class's" project. This is not owned by anyone, or rather it is owned by the community at large. This attempt to put all of us "in our proper place" by Elonka is quite scary. I'm thinking of calling a general strike of editors about this, this isn't right. No accountability for the "admin class" (their RfC's get mysteriously deleted), but total power for their "class". Alun (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, no, that's not what is going on at all. :)  I am not acting as a mediator, I am acting as an uninvolved administrator.  The articles that are being "managed" are very very few in number, and are only those which have been a chronic state of edit-warring or other dispute for a long time.  ArbCom has recognized that certain topic areas of Wikipedia are highly contentious, and result in major disputes that keep showing up at ArbCom's doorstep.  Accordingly, ArbCom occasionally authorizes uninvolved administrators to place "discretionary sanctions" on certain such articles.  See Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.


 * So it was by that authority, that I decided to give a try at using discretionary sanctions to calm the dispute at an article that desperately needed it, Muhammad al-Durrah. Just check the talkpage and its history, it's been in a state of conflict for a long time.  So I went in with uninvolved eyes, and decided to make some course corrections to try and get the article out of its chronic state of dispute.  The corrections were things like, "Don't delete citations to reliable sources, do stay civil, don't revert other editors, do change other people's work, and try to find compromises."  And look, since the conditions were placed, the article has become stable, the talkpage is more productive, the protection button has not needed to be pressed, and no one had to be blocked.  I'd say that's a successful outcome, though the article still has a way to go, to get fully stabilized.


 * I've used these techniques at other articles, and had great success. I could show you some great "before" and "after" diffs, or show you an ethnic dispute (such as Hungarian-Slovakian), where before my involvement, the editors were tumbling into admin boards every few days, pointing fingers at each other.  But since my intervention, (most) of the editors are working together more collaboratively, the articles have stabilized and improved, and everyone is much better about providing sources for their changes.


 * I don't use this kind of intervention at any dispute, but just the really bad ones. And I don't bat 1000%...  There have been a few cases where things didn't work as well as I'd hoped.  So I carefully look at what did and didn't work, and why, and then I modify my procedures accordingly.  I could go into great detail on things that have changed, but this probably isn't the right venue for that.  Bottom line though: I would challenge the naysayers to point out any article on Wikipedia right now which has become less stable because of my efforts. Instead of the opposers saying, "Elonka's methods won't work," please point out a situation where you can say, "Elonka's methods don't work.  Look, the article is less stable, it's in worse shape."  I don't think you're going to find such a thing. --Elonka 16:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Way to go, Elonka!
 * Alun, Elonka is not managing article content, but setting conditions on the editing process so that editors can work things out productively between them. The 3RR rule on the wiki as a whole is a similar idea: the admins enforcing 3RR don't make judgements about content, in general, but enforce 3RR so that editors can calmly go about their business figuring out what the article content should be. Please assume good faith about Elonka's motives. The deletion of the RfC is not a mystery: there was an opinion held by many, apparently, that there was no valid certification because there was no one specific dispute which more than one editor had already tried to solve.  I believe deletion is the normal process for RfC's when there is an absence of valid certification. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like "getting off on a technicality", which is hardly what one might call convincing. What ever happened to ignore all rules? This RfC serves several purposes, and the al-Durrah article Elonka is talking about is just a small part of it. Besides I was referring to this. Which oddly enough the "tag team" sections seems to describe all of Elonka's cheer leaders here. We're not at a sports match you know, "way to go" sounds as if this is some sort of competition. You don't even seem to be interested in any sort of debate, just cheering your "side". Again Elonka's language says it all So it was by that authority, it's all about authority. Arbcom is just plain wrong to allow this sort of dictatorial attitude from a non-editor who is self confessedly ignorant of the subject. I'm really worried where this sort of authoritarian attitude will take us as a community. As for the claim about stability, that's just a red herring, I'd rather have an unstable and occasionally accurate article than a stable set of pov-pushing. If you want stability then go edit on Conservapedia. I don't normally "vote" in arbcom elections, elections are just stupid anyway, but I might pay more attention to the type of people who get there in future if we are going to have the sorts of decisions that encourage admins to take over articles lock stock and barrel and impose "martial law". Alun (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For Elonka: Requesting waiver of certification
Elonka, as I think you know I'm utterly uninvolved in any side of this dispute. It seems to me that a number of admins are concerned that the RfC has been deleted. Fundamentally, it's an RFC. It's presence does not harm anyone or anything. I'd therefore like to ask you, formally, to waive the certification requirements so the RFC can be un-deleted and proceed. That seems, to me, to be the way forward with the least amount of drama. Your thoughts? Nandesuka (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See my 15:59 reply above? I'd like if people first tried talkpages, before jumping to an RfC.  Thanks, --Elonka 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking as one of the certifiers, I've already tried talk pages and e-mail without a satisfactory result. I made it clear in my note on your talk page and in the RfC itself that I had taken these steps. I only "jumped to the RfC", as you put it, because you were so unresponsive on this and previous occasions. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Editors can voluntarily waive the requirement for certification, but bringing pressure on an editor to waive the certification requirements seems to me to be inappropriate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sam. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An RFC is going to happen, one way or another. If it all has to be redone because she's wikilawyering all it will do is delay the inevitable. By standing in the way by raising concerns other admins have already said are invalid she's just wasting everyone's time. She doesn't have to agree that the certification is valid, but if she wants to prove good faith toward resolving conflicts she should stop wasting everyone's time. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A small problem
I looked through User:Thebainer's contributions, and noticed that his edits are few and far between; who knows when the next time he'll be on is. This could mean that we may have to act anyway, though I'd rather wait for a further explanation from him. Wizardman 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if one does a highly controversial action and then disappears, it should not be surprising if the action is reversed after community discussion. There was clearly no consensus to overturn Ryan Postelthwaite's certification, and many administrators and editors are uncomfortable with Thebainer's action.  I think the status quo ante should be restored. Jehochman Talk 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus appears to be on your side; why not do it? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just do it then? Be bold? Alun (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:WHEEL. --Elonka 17:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not wheel warring if there is a discussion and a consensus emerges. I am not going to take any actions, other than to express my opinions. I see that Sam Blacketer and Rlevse are here.  Perhaps one of them can ascertain what to do. Jehochman Talk 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Serioiusly Elonka, don't play the wheel war card here. I'm slightly annoyed that the bainer decided to undo my certification with no discussion at all on wiki about it. The right thing here is to undo his action, given there's clearly a consensus for it here and AN/I.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well someone either restore the RfC or let's just agree it's an unlawful killing but that no one will breach the unwritten "class solidarity" of the "admin class". Alun (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, wheel warring. Nice. I would be rather annoyed if an admin action taken by one person which is disagreed with by the vast majority of people on this page and shouldn't have ever been taken, as another admin thought it was certified well enough, can't be reversed. I don't really care about this either way, at any rate. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more thing I'd like to ask. If there were consensus to keep it deleted (there's not, I'm speaking hypothetically), where should the dispute go then? The talk page doesn't seem to be working, medcab didn't work out, do what's left? Wizardman 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, DRV is almost certain, I'd say, to reverse the deletion. And, in either case, beyond RfC, there is obviously ArbCom, which could consider, among other things, the deletion of the RfC. One step at a time. It was proper to take this to DRV, that should have been done immediately, once it was apparent that negotiation with Thebainer wasn't working or he was absent or whatever. It's a simple process, comparatively, and avoids deciding the underlying issues; at DRV, the sole question should be the propriety of the deletion, and Elonka's behavior should be almost entirely irrelevant. (Even her alleged request for deletion and her expressed gratitude later are irrelevant. Hey, I'd be grateful too if someone deleted an RfC on me, probably! Not fun. It's not fun even when it is about someone else!) --Abd (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I rather think that's the point, Wizardman - delete the dispute, pretend it never happened and continue as before. Depressing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather reminds me of this episode of Star Trek. Wizardman, nothing will be resolved in the article by penalizing Elonka's behavior. The article's problems will still be there. They are the same problems that are to be found in the I/P section and there will be more and more of this sort of thing until some method is found of resolving them. Discretionary sanctions by uninvolved admins probably won't work because what happens is that involved and experienced admins call in their favors and get other (apparently) uninvolved admins to flock to the article in question and "protect it" from any perceived threat. If that 'protection' doesn't work and the protectors have accidentally managed to get truly uninvolved admins, then the wikilawyering process begins with the RfC's and other bureaucratic finaglings to draw attention away from the real problems and attach them to the sacrificial goat instead. That's what's really depressing about this RfC. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
here. --Random832 (contribs) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn.. and now the drama will go from 12 hours to 5 days. Wizardman  18:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * More like a daytime soap than a drama. I'm waiting to see who gets pregnant by who, only to find out that it's the husband's identical twin brother who's really the father. After everyone's had plastic surgery, obviously. Alun (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested early closure of the DRV a per WP:SNOW and the fact that the opinion is currently 11-1-1 in favor of overturning. No need to drag this out to five days.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One day is better than three hours, for a DRV. Likely a regular will close it early tomorrow morning, UTC.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One day is still better than five, considering all the wiki-drama.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Perhaps it would be better to allow uninvolved admins to deal with this?"
''I left a note on Thebainer's page, informing him I had recreated this talkpage, which got me the following surprise comment from Elonka:
 * Bish, perhaps it would be better to allow uninvolved admins to deal with this? I am uncomfortable with you using tools here. --Elonka 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying to Elonka here, not wanting to spread this discussion thinly over so many pages. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Uninvolved admins...? Your insinuation takes me completely by surprise, Elonka. A bit like a slap across the face. I'm "involved"... with you? With your RFC? How's that? Have I commented on the RFC? No. I haven't even read it, FGS. I have nothing to say about it. I don't know squat about the situation on Muhammad al-Durrah, because I don't have the time or interest to get my head round it. Let's see, what is it I've done...ah, I moved some misplaced commentary from the RFC to this talkpage. (I felt able to do that precisely because I haven't expressed, or indeed formed, an opinion about the RFC.) Was there malice in that move, pray? Was there harm? How? Did you dislike it? Er, why? Am I hostile to you in any way? No. Did you and I have an argument in 2005? Why, YES! We did! Is that how I'm involved? Have we been on pleasant terms ever since? Indeed, yes. I'm really gobsmacked by this. Tools? You're uncomfortable with me using tools? It didn't occur to me that you'd object to me, or to anybody, undeleting this talkpage and providing somewhere for people to discuss Thebainer's deletion of the RFC, but whatever. (You did request that Thebainer delete the talkpage too—I saw that on his page—but I took that to be a mere piece of thoughtlessness, or ignorance of the usual practice, on your part.) Do please specify what kind of malice, bad faith, or personal motives lay behind my recreation of the talkpage. I'd be fascinated. In my simple way, I thought it a proper, helpful, and neutral admin action. "Uninvolved admins?" You know what? Please get off my talkpage and stay off. Take your nasty insinuations with you. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Elonka's complaint is especially ridiculous as she routinely gets admins she is involved with to come support her by doing deletes and blocks completely without any policy-based reason. She's perfectly fine with biased admins helping her, but if she can insinuate an admin who disagrees with her is biased she then feels like she can disregard what is said. That's wikilawyering through and through. DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well...except I don't disagree with her, DG. I don't have any kind of opinion of Elonka's actions here, or of her good faith. Or, well, I didn't have one. I admit I'm starting to form an opinion now. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Sounds like tag teaming. Alun (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, we don't know what off-wiki communications Elonka has had on this issue. I don't think it's appropriate to speculate. But I honestly think it would have been better to deal with the issues raised by this RfC rather than trying to strangle it and suppress debate. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was attempting irony. Alun (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bish, all I'll say is that I recently found myself hearing that my explanation for an unblock I did was obviously a lie. In fact, it was so obviously a lie that the idea that I might have any honesty or integrity in me simply wasn't worth considering for long.  My conclusion, seeing such nonsense was that this was a form of psychological projection.  Q.v.:
 * "If I would lie, cheat, and steal to get even with user X over a slight three years ago, then user X must be lying, cheating, and stealing in an effort to get even with me, even though I can't figure out how."
 * I could only assume that the people who thought, why, yes, it's automatic that Geogre's explanation is a lie, would themselves lie, that their assumption that I just had to be aiming for some vastly evil objective were themselves engaged in plotting and planning. Above, someone speculates on how much off-wiki discussion Elonka has had on the matter, and there is a good amount of off-wiki discussion she has done in the past, so perhaps she can't imagine that you had a pure motive.
 * Nuts to all of that, of course, but there's no recourse but to remain honest. Geogre (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. - brenneman  01:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So am I. I haven't had a quarrel with Elonka.  I haven't got anything to say in this RfC.  However, I do have a point of view.  A point of view is not the same thing as "involved," and anyone looking for a person without a point of view will succeed only in finding either a knave or a fool.  Geogre (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A simple request: stop senseless debate over a matter that is going before an RfC.
I'm going to make a simple request: folks, follow procedure here. Get the RfC back with DRV -- I think that will be the result and it looks like it's snowing in August. Then proceed with it, step by step, in a civil manner that doesn't treat Elonka like she has fangs dripping with newbie blood. Unless, of course, you can produce the bloodstains, etc. Elonka, let others defend you, recuse yourself. You are involved! Make your response if there is anything to say, but, remember, RfC does not have the power to desysop you, the most it will do is to slap you with a wikitrout, or lay the foundation for an arbitration, in which case, your behavior will be under even more of a microscope. Let it work itself out. I'm making no judgement about the underlying facts, but I'll tell you this: I've been dealing with on-line process for better than twenty years, and you want to make a community think you are guilty as sin (even if you did little or nothing)? Defend yourself! Tenaciously! Never admit that you made mistakes! You may know all this, but ... you never know, it probably doesn't hurt to repeat it. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion, with a question
In the spirit of "discuss content, not the editor", it seems obvious to me that the 0RR editing restriction (and how it is applied - regardless of who applies it) is possibly one of the most contentious pieces of this debate. What I'm asking is, should we open a community discussion about the merits of 0RR and how best to apply it, disconnected from any specific case, to arrive at a consensus that everybody can at least live with? 0RR strikes me as a restriction which can be applied in different ways by different people, and possibly this lack of consistency, rather than who applies it and where, is where people get unnecessarily upset. Maybe a discussion, followed by laying out a framework as to how to apply such a restriction while respecting existing Wikipedia policies could help de-escalate this situation and help find an acceptable issue for everyone. I believe there is a genuine concern here, which genuinely needs to be addressed, independently from any one admin's conduct. The only question would be as to which venue is best to discuss this matter. Feedback is welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a very good idea. 0RR can work, as long as it's applied consistently and intelligently and without neglecting other basic concerns. I guess the challenge is, as you say, to work out a framework that everyone is happy with. I'd certainly like to offer my support for that effort. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What ChrisO means is, as long as it is applied in a way that he doesn't get blocked for it, and can do whatever he wants. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cut out the cynicism, please. There's a real issue here, as Ramdrake says, we need to work together in good faith to resolve it, and your comments aren't doing anything to help. If you want to help, you're welcome to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I believe that, regardless of whether his actions may have been right or wrong, Chris has raised areas where 0RR enforcement can easliy conflict with the core policies of Wikipedia, and this concern has been echoed by several other editors here. If 0RR is to be a policy that's going to be enforced more and more often in the future to deal with dispute loci, some thought needs to be put into how it can be enacted while avoiding conflict with core Wikipedia policies. Failing that, we'll be back here when the next admin (regardless of who it is) tries to enforce 0RR as a blanket policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) We have a 0RR or 1RR policy - it's called WP:3RR which states quite clearly, The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. What we need is admins to enforce these rules (and other core policies of WP), rather than making up new rules, and then arbitarily enforcing them.  Shot info (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see with that Shot info, is that editors learn to group together to avoid getting blocked under that rule, so its not always catching everything it needs to. Also, I think part of the idea is to figure out how to help work on contentious articles where short blocks haven't helped in the past (a lot of these have already been all the way to ArbCom). <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * if their behavior is clearly disruptive. If an admin cannot identify that, and enforce that, then how can they identify a so-called "tag team" and work out if their behavior is clearly disruptive?  It seems the issue is that within a portion (size unclear) of admins, there is a clear lack of knowledge and enforcement of core policies.  Hence why new rules need to be written. Shot info (talk)

(ec)
 * Shot Info, you're absolutely right. However, 3RR allows for reverts, which accounts for undoing POV-pushing, insertion of misleading, poorly-sourced or misinterpreted info (relative to source), which all becomes technically impossible with a strict application of 0RR. Therefore, 0RR needs to allow for some exceptions, and we must have a consistent set of possible exceptions, along with criteria to validate when a revert meets these exception criteria. I'm not trying to rewrite the rule book here, but just to make sure that whatever they are, "discretionary measures" don't run the risk of running counter to core Wikipedia policies when applied. I read in the current RfC that this seems to be a pretty consistent concern. Hope this further explanation helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

0RR has its merits, and obviously, its disadvantages. I respectfully suggest that the place to discuss the relative merits and demerits of 0RR is not on a user conduct RfC. The only questions related to 0RR that can be properly discussed in a user conduct RfC are – is 0RR an option available to that user, per ArbCom, and if so, did Elonka apply 0RR fairly and competently. The answer to the former question has already been given by the arbitration committee, during ChrisO’s previous attempt to forum-shop his way into article ownership. I refer you to the Arbitrator views and discussion section (already referred to in Elonka’s response), where FT2 clearly and unequivocally states “0RR is an appropriate choice available to an uninvolved administrator, within the sanctions provided”. I have yet to see any evidence that Elonka applied 0RR unfairly or incompetently. If someone has such evidence, let’s see it. If not, it’s time to wrap-up this RfC, and go discuss 0RR in the proper venue. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Canadian Monkey, if you re-read my suggestion above, you will see that I am asking input as to the best venue to discuss fair application of 0RR in harmony with Wikipedia's core policies. This underlines that no, here is not the best venue to discuss it, but I still think it needs to be discussed "somewhere" to prevent this kind of issue (a perceived disregard for WP's core policies due to a too-strict application of 0RR) from happening again down the road. That's all.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder where is a good place to discuss the merits of 0RR. Village pump (policy)? WP:AN? WT:3RR? An arbitration enforcement page? Any other idesa? I'd lean towards the pump, or a subpage created for the purpose. Coppertwig (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd think a dedicated subpage of the village pump is probably the best idea. 0RR is a relatively new concept, with very little in the way of history for us to be able to iron out possible "bugs". It's possible that some aspects of its application may need to be adjusted for it to harmoniously co-exist with our other (core) policies. If there has been no systematic discussion of this kind to determine best application practices, it would be problematic to fault Elonka for applying it the way she sees best, without any existing guidelines.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the underlying issue here is that of editing conditions more broadly, since 0RR is just part of a package: we need to look at what specific conditions may be imposed, including 0RR, and how they should be managed. What I would like to see, ideally, would be a "toolkit" of individual conditions that admins could apply to articles. We also need to have some sort of regime to manage editing conditions of the sort that Elonka has imposed on a number of articles. One aspect that worries me is that there's effectively no oversight, no community involvement and no time limitations on Elonka's regime. If editors are dissatisfied with it (or her management of it) there are few options available to deal with that other than relying on her own good will. I'm very, very uncomfortable with the concept of admins appointing themselves the sole arbiters of an article for an indefinite period. Let's see if we can come up with some ideas - how about Editing conditions as a place to discuss the issues? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. What do others think?--Ramdrake (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a solely forward-looking discussion. What would that mean for this page, which is a backward-looking discussion about what one particular administrator did?  6SJ7 (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As Ramdrake said above, it would be "disconnected from any specific case". It would only have an indirect impact on this page - I would hope that Elonka would join in the discussion. As for this page, don't forget that an RfC doesn't necessarily have a specific goal - it's about airing and discussing issues. Wizardman is proposing to close the RfC and make a decision on it in due course. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with ChrisO: it would be good to discuss editing conditions (whether here or at a subpage of the pump or wherever) and I like the idea of a "toolkit". While I think Elonka's rules are well-designed, it would be worrying if admins were able to apply whatever rules they want. (By the way, note that Elonka's 0RR uses a different definition of "revert" from what is used for 3RR, and that I think this is necessary to make 0RR work.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very important point, Coppertwig. The action for which Elonka page-banned me, notionally under 0RR, was not in fact a revert; I had cut a misplaced addition out of one section and was editing it off-line preparatory to pasting it back into another section, and I had stated what I was doing in the edit summary . Elonka page-banned me before I could paste the addition back into the relevant section of the article. Ironically, if I had been editing the entire article in one go rather than section by section, she wouldn't have seen any "removal" of information, merely a rewording of the line and its move from one section to another. She didn't attempt to clarify what I was doing (nor apparently read my edit summary) but jumped to a false conclusion without bothering to check her facts. The problem now is that it's totally unclear what she considers to be a revert. I can understand why almost everybody has given up editing the article, considering it's effectively booby-trapped by Elonka's idiosyncratic rules. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris, that is a pretty blatant misrepresentation. You weren't just afk in a text editor.  You reverted an edit of Tundrabuggy's, with an edit summary that you were going to "return to it in a later section".  Which sure, sometimes people do, they'll remove something in one edit, and then put it back in another edit.  That's fine, I'm not going to call that a revert.  But in actuality what you did, was you removed the entire section (including the citation to its source, the Wall Street Journal) at 7:45, but then you obviously had no intention of putting it back.  You engaged in a couple other edits, where you did not restore it, and then you moved on to other things, such as posts on various user talkpages, noticeboards, an unrelated AfD, and even went on to working on other articles. I placed the ban at 19:47.  It was clear that the main reason you had removed that section, was because Tundrabuggy had added it shortly before.  Just as you had completely reverted another sourced paragraph that he added.  But instead of saying "revert", you tried an edit summary that made it look innocent, when it wasn't.  You have done this before, too, where you would use a false edit summary to accomplish a revert.  It's pretty clear disruption, and gaming of the rules. --Elonka 17:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is trivially and provably false when you consider the edit summary, in which I said "I'll return to this in a later section" (the "to" is unintentional bad wording on my part - read it as "I'll return this in a later section"), and the talk page post I made very shortly afterwards here, in which I explained the importance of not introducing anachronistic material into the narrative and said that I was in the process of redoing the "Main issues" section, where Tundrabuggy's addition was appropriate (with rewording). I also said on your own talk page exactly what I was doing in response to a query by Tundrabuggy But you didn't bother to query what I was doing. You didn't reply to my message on your talk page. The responsible thing to do, if you were unclear about what I was doing or unhappy about it, would have been to communicate with me and try to resolve it without punitive action. But you disn't do that - you jumped to a conclusion and page-banned me with no attempt at communication. You know, all of this could have been avoided if you'd done that one simple step of responding to what I posted on your talk page. There's a definite lesson to be learned there. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * May I ask if the information removed by ChrisO returned to the article? I don't know the history of this specific article so would appreciate a little clarification so I too can understand whether this was a revert, removal, or just some kind of copy edit being done.  Thanks,-- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Read above. I was reworking it offline as part of a rewrite of an entire section but got page-banned before I could paste the finished results back into the article. I have the whole thing sitting here on my hard drive. It would be there now if not for Elonka. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Chris, your invocation of "good faith" rings hollow. This whole RFC is in bad faith. You did it this way rather than as an Arb Enforcement because you wanted to take the focus off yourself and put it on someone else, and to get people who have unrelated disputes with Elonka to "pile on" with complaints against her. You are not trying to "resolve" anything. You are just trying to make sure the rules that apply to others don't apply to you, and that you can do whatever you want. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a major violation of WP:AGF from you right there, 6SJ7. See WP:POT. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 6SJ7, I understand your frustration, but absent a diff somewhere where ChrisO makes statements along those lines, you're just making assumptions. If you're concerned about the focus of the RfC, please try joining in the productive discussions and help make something good come out of it. In any case, please try to tone down the language a bit and handle your disagreements more civilly.  <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. I'd like to see a few uninvolved admins help moderate this RFC. Editors who make excessively strident comments should be guided towards better civility. Jehochman Talk 00:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely - firm guidance is needed on both sides of this discussion. I called out Badger Drink earlier for his comments about Elonka on the RfC; this was his response. Not at all helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell and Jehochman, I have two questions for each of you: First, please re-read ChrisO's "Statement of the Dispute" on the RFC page and tell me whether you think there are any uncivil comments contained in it; and second, in an RFC that concerns a user's conduct, isn't it fair game to comment on the conduct of the user who starts the RFC?  6SJ7 (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, this discussion is totally off-topic (I've added a subheader so we can keep it separate). Point-scoring isn't going to help anyone. Let's just get on and work out some solutions here, OK? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you write out your views in your own section. State them civilly, with an eye toward resolving the conflict, rather than intensifying it.  I have not supported ChrisO's statement, and do not care to critique it. Jehochman Talk 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (double ec) Perhaps it's fair to comment on a user's conduct here. However, speculation about a user's motives is probably going too far, in my opinion. WP:CIVIL still applies even during necessary commentary on conduct. ChrisO seems to me to be taking action to reduce polarization and to work in a positive way towards a solution. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (triple ec) I think I've made my point. I have already commented in the RFC to the extent I feel is necessary for the moment.  6SJ7 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As Shell points out, another related issue is the concept of tag-teaming. I agree that tag teaming gets us nowhere and if editors working on an article have divided into two or three tag teams of close-to-equal-numbers, we have a problem that probably calls for page protection and mediation. But I am deeply concerned that there are sometimes cases where one disruptive editor's edits are rejected by all, or virtually all other editors working on a page, and an administrator depicts this situation as "tag teaming" or some cabal in action when in fact what is going on is that a consensus has developed and one disruptive editor acts to impede progress. A consensus is not a tag team, and one disruptive editor should not be allowed or encouraged to throw around the term "tag team" so casually or recklessly - it can only undermine the very process of consensus formation among well-informed editors acting in good faith that we want to encourage. We need to be very clear about the difference between tag team and consensus. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a problem however, let's face it - admins currently have problems in IDing "Disruptive editing" from normal editing. So it's going to be interesting to see how will they be able to work out what a so called "tag-team" is from a consensus.  Shot info (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. Good points, Shot info. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this set of comments is spot on. Tag-teaming does occur, sure. But most often, when I look into an accusation of "tag-teaming", what I actually see is the complaining editor trying to force a bad set of edits, and being reverted by a consensus of other editors. Ideally, admins would be competent to differentiate these two scenarios before intervening in them, but we don't live in an ideal world. This is not a comment on Elonka specifically, but a general observation. MastCell Talk 22:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system
If the issue here was in fact the 0RR, where is there evidence that ChrisO came to anyone else's defense in relation to it? Why is there no evidence of a discussion regarding it outside of its application to him, personally? Instead, both times that the rule was enforced (on him), he took the issue to arbitration, --last time he acknowledged that he wanted his ban lifted, but this time he is saying it is in fact Elonka's behavior that is the issue, rather than his own. Elonka has acknowledged in her statement that she gave him a lot of leeway because he was an administrator. If anything, that was a mistake, not only because rules are meant to be fairly enforced across an article, but also because involved-editor administrators know better than others how to "game the system" with respect to finagling their way out of sanctions, as ChrisO has done here. When I was page-banned for changing one word, several administrators discussed the issue outside of official channels. If people have concerns about another, let them make a serious attempt to try to work out differences, before; not after they have been sanctioned. Had this happened, there would have been no problem about certification. The certification process is there for a reason, ie to demonstrate clearly that steps that have been taken to resolve the particular issue. Elonka is right in suggesting that this RfC shouldn't go forward simply because it has been filed. The rules are there for a reason, and shouldn't be manipulated to prove a point. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been filed, properly certified, and endorsed by multiple editors. It's going ahead whether you feel like you want to ignore how RFCs work or not. Ignoring a dispute doesn't make it go away, and, frankly, the complete unwillingness on Elonka's part (and that of a couple of her supporters) to deal with it properly shows a total disdain for policy. The rules are there for a reason, and it's Elonka trying to manipulate them to get out of a mess she put herself in.
 * And, actually, this shouldn't even be an issue, as when she ran for admin she promised to not make controversial edits and that she'd step down if six or more editors filed a complaint. At this point she should be stepping down. Making false promising she apparently had no intention of following knowing that she couldn't be held to them is also gaming the system. DreamGuy (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the issue of 'proper' certification, and certainly this process has been ridiculous here. Certified, uncertified, deleted then undeleted. The rules for certification are there for demonstrating that attempts to resolve them have been made, not used as an excuse to lift the ban on one person and to pile on another. As for manipulation, it appears that ChrisO is better at it.  I suppose because he has more 'experience' here at wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get that this is a place to try to resolve disputes, not for you to violate WP:AGF and make personal attacks. Your whole view of this situation appears to be at odds with what really happened. Making highly uncivil comments in no way helps your arguments. DreamGuy (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DreamGuy, I think if you want to recall Elonka's adminship, you have to start a list on her talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. She's seen the list here. If she was serious she'd already have stepped down.DreamGuy (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We definitely don't want to create an environment where any administrator can be forced to step down if a dozen people get aggravated at them about a small set of incidents. Ideally, we want administrators to listen to feedback and become better. Jehochman Talk 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Notifications
Since the scope of this RfC appears to have widened to not just ChrisO's ban, but to my general administrative conduct and to the concept of discretionary sanctions as a whole, I have posted links to the RfC from a few different places, to draw the attention of other editors who may be interested in these topics. I also posted to a few article talkpages where I have managed, or am in the process of managing, other disputes than just the one at the Muhammad al-Durrah article. These were the (recent) ones that came to mind. If I missed any, feel free to speak up about it, or of course anyone may wish to post their own notice. The places that I notified were:


 * Wikipedia talk:General sanctions
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested
 * Wikipedia talk:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars
 * Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah
 * Talk:George Thomas Coker
 * Talk:Atropa belladonna
 * Talk:Quackwatch
 * User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment

FYI, --Elonka 18:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is such cross posting by the subject customary? Even if your canvassing is neutral and policy compliant, this could be a provocative move.  Those who have disagreed with you may feel that you are trying to stack the deck. The subject of the RFC should not be framing the discussion.  Feel free to use the talk page to request whatever you like.  An uninvolved editor will surely perform any reasonably requested actions. Jehochman Talk 19:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you know that the answer to your first question is no. This just looks like more policy violations and wikilawyering by Elonka. I know years back already she already threatened to try to get me blocked (in fact, I think she may have shopped around until she found an admin clueless enough to go along with it) when I put just a couple of notices on talk pages of people who might want to vote on something I was involved in, and here she's spamming all sorts of pages. Looks like yet another example of blatantly breaking policy while trying to skirt the rules by giving it a label other than what everyone else calls it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a neutral reference to this RfC would be appropriate on the talk pages of all pages on which Elonka has imposed 0RR. I have doubts about the first three and last one (and have no doubt whatsoever that the first one is not appropriate, as this is about Elonka and 0RR, not 0RR in general.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed from the first 3. The comment on Talk:Quackwatch seems appropriate, and I'm afraid we have to trust to Elonka's judgement as to appropriateness on her subpage.  I didn't check the other talk pages, but, if the text is similar, and these are articles on which Elonka has enforced 0RR, I would be upset if they were removed.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, thank you for posting the list here. That was helpful. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I might add that this has little or nothing to do with 0RR. As ChrisO says in his introduction it is about Elonka:  "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."  Broad enough?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * apparently to Jehochman, above, but interpolated in such a way as to change the apparent meaning of other comments &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it customary to change from a specific dispute over a specific subject to a user conduct across the whole of wiki?  Of course those who disagree with her will feel she has stacked the deck, just as those who agree with her believe ChrisO stacked the deck.  ChrisO was very clear that my edits were "at the crux of the matter" -- all of his complaints dealt with one article -- his widening of the issue was an afterthought-- quite clever.  He has successfully managed to divert attention from his page ban to someone else's behavior without having made any effort to work things out in any civil manner, whatsoever.   It strikes me that what has happened in the RfC was not the original intention of this process.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tundreabuggy, why don't you and ChrisO take your content dispute to Mediation? I believe both of you should be able to discuss your differences and work out a resolution of some sort. I have not endorsed ChrisO's summary specifically because I am opposed to importing content disputes into the realm of behavior disputes. Jehochman Talk 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was at mediation, but Elonka's actions have effectively mooted that - Wizardman closed it a few days ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was at mediation, but ChrisO's actions have effectively mooted that. This isn't a behavior dispute, it is a 'dirty trick' by a disgruntled deeply involved administrator.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop, this is a personal attack, and nothing else. It is also a blockable offense.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing to contribute, Tundrabuggy, please go somewhere else, otherwise, as Ramdrake says, you're heading for a block. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently the post to WT:WORKINGGROUP is exempt from Wikipedia policies, per the ArbComm's creation of the group. I'll revert the removal, but it would be reasonable for Elonka to resign from the group if she were to post there, as that's an obvious violation of WP:CANVASS.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing at the heart of this dispute is that Elonka may feel empowered by ArbCom, as part of being invited into that group, to construct novel remedies and conduct experiments on users. This situation makes me feel more sympathetic towards Elonka, and more critical of ArbCom.  We should never be conducting experiments on users.  Anything that comes out of that working group should be presented to the community for discussion and approval. Jehochman Talk 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a very important point. The working group should investigate and report.  it shoud not be a mask for ArbCom or a group of administrators expanding their powers, period. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Another super sekrit list where the cabal can meet to decide the fate of "the little editors". Perhaps we should take up the much more serious question of ArbCom's repugnant idea that some are more equal than others when it comes to making Wikipedia policy.  Policy is made by the community, not by ArbCom, nor by their appointees. Jehochman Talk 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [citation needed]. (We have policy that the community had little to no input in.) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. The community is not responsible for the policies concerning the set-up and ultimate mgt of Wikipedia, but most policies and guidelines for day-to-day operations do seem to be made by the community. HG | Talk 06:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. The issue of this working group is interesting, though. If Elonka's editing conditions are something that have come out of the working group's discussions, have the results of those discussions been posted anywhere? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The editing conditions were placed because of WP:ARBPIA: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."
 * At Muhammad al-Durrah, I opted for 0RR (no reverts), because I saw that one of the things that was causing instability at the article was "kneejerk" reverting. At other articles, I have used different conditions.  The two pages with the heaviest sets of conditions have been Muhammad al-Durrah, and Quackwatch.  At others, I have used a lighter touch. My batting average is pretty good, and to my knowledge, most of the places where I have invoked discretionary sanctions, the articles have stabilized. I'm especially proud of the results at Atropa Belladonna, where I made a couple very minor course corrections, banned one editor from the page for a week, and the article (pardon the pun) flourished (and I would also point out that my ban was upheld at ANI).


 * In fact, if anyone can point out any articles that have become less stable because of my intervention, I would be interested in hearing about it. Most of the naysayers here at the RfC seem to be saying things like, "the conditions won't work" or "the conditions can't work". And yet, the conditions do work. I have used them successfully in multiple locations.  So if anyone would like to point out situations where they didn't work, I would be interested in seeing them.  Or I'll even offer this: If anyone can think of an article that has proven to be an intractable, "No one can figure out how to stabilize this article, it's just going to be in and out of protection forever" situation, feel free to suggest it here.  If I think I can help, I'll be happy to take a look at it, and be very vocal about exactly what I'm doing and why, step by step.  Then people can observe the process first-hand, and see if they might want to try and apply the techniques to other articles. The ultimate goal here is "better articles, which reflect positively on Wikipedia." When I have to make a course correction, I always keep that goal in mind. --Elonka 17:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Elonka's list, above. As an FYI, on July 23rd I was asked to help out at Battle of Jenin, where I had facilitated in the past. I declined. Having noticed Elonka's interest in helping out with I-P disputes, and seen her at WP:IPCOLL, I asked her if she might get involved with Jenin. That same day, Elonka made two brief, neutral process comments there. (She has not commented there since then.) I've tried to state this in a neutral manner relative to the RFC, though I certainly appreciate her responsiveness to my request. Thanks. HG | Talk 06:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, only edits from one POV have been proceeding at Quackwatch, because all the pro-science editors have dropped out. I've made a few comments at the talk page, but there are are a number of sources which have been agreed to be not reliable, which are still in the article, and a number of sources used to support statements not in that source.  One editor can make more POV edits than a group of editors trying to reach consensus.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Recall has been proposed
I have proposed recall at User talk:Elonka. My reasons are stated there. Jehochman Talk 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Elonka achieved the recall result, the related pages and result are posted here.
 * User talk:Elonka/Archive 25
 * User talk:Elonka/Archive 26
 * The result of the vote for recall and oppose is 37/ 50 before the archiving the talk page. It means the vote for recalling her adminship is over 6 times of her own pledge at her 3rd campaign Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 regardless of her supporter's objection. Finally, Elonka has stated in the past that she likes the idea of the admin recall system, and plans to place herself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Acalamari 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) The statement by the nominator tells everything :vain promise.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)--Caspian blue (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch Example
I can't help but notice that some admins believe that Elonka's actions in the Quackwatch article is an example of where 0RR was of benefit because editing has nearly stopped. This is a simplistic argument but yes, it's an excellent example of where 0RR has failed and also where Elonka has failed to clearly articulate her EP:Elonka Policy much less consistently implement it. What both GRBerry and Seicer do not acknowledge is that most editors no longer participate in editing the article at all - the real reason why editing has slowed. And the article is in a worse state after the implementation of EP:Elonka Policy with her favoring of 0RR and her ignoring basic WP (such as this thing called WP:WEIGHT). Is this the future vision of Wikipedia -- The Encyclopedia that Elonka can edit? Shot info (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your support of the editors in the heat of the dispute has been noted in the past. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  03:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Has it now? Shot info (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shot info might have been looking for feedback from more neutral parties, perhaps. Antelan  04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point. I've noticed something similar at Muhammad al-Durrah, the article I mentioned in the RfC. Elonka herself expressed frustration at the way the bulk of the article was being ignored . I began systematically expanding it in response, doubling the size of the article within 15 days, but as you know I ran into the landmine of Elonka's editing conditions. Other editors had already dropped out by that point, specifically citing Elonka's management of the article (e.g. ) The situation now is that only one editor, Tundrabuggy, is left doing any significant editing on the article. I suspect he rather prefers that, since he signed up to Wikipedia as a single-purpose account promoting conspiracy theories and his own original research about the al-Durrah case. Unfortunately that's now going completely unchecked by Elonka or anyone else. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quackwatch is where I first ran into Elonka and the 0RR, and that and following the edits around a bit completely put me off editing that article or any other under Elonka's "management" and 0RR. Verbal   chat  08:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it that when I make comments on this page regarding ChrisO's actions and motivations, people jump all over me and warn me about "civility", but when ChrisO calls Tundrabuggy "a single-purpose account promoting conspiracy theories and his own original research about the al-Durrah case", that seems to be ok? ChrisO was asked months ago to stop accusing people of promoting "conspiracy theories" in the article in question -- in fact that is part of what led to this whole problem in the first place -- and yet ChrisO continues to do so.  As per the statement of Canadian Monkey and a comment by Leifern on the RFC page, maybe that is the behavior we should be focusing on, and not on Elonka's efforts to bring the editing dispute under control.  6SJ7 (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Amusing false statement to begin this - "because editing has nearly stopped". I found 0RR somewhat useful at Quackwatch because edit warring had stopped, but also pointed out that the article has had more edits in 3.5 weeks since 0RR was removed than in 4 months prior to 0RR being imposed.  That rather clearly contradicts the opening comment.  That someone can't even bother to get the facts right discredits their conclusions.
 * 22 days after 0RR imposed: 178 edits = 8.1/day
 * 122 days before 0RR imposed: 149 edits = 1.2/day
 * 8.1/day is 6.75 times more frequent editing than 1.2/day


 * However, this way of choosing to present the data is misleading at best. The statement GRBerry is attempting to refute by his selection and presentation of data is "because editing has nearly stopped."  A quick look at edits since July 12 (since that's the break point GRB chose, I assume that's the date 0RR was imposed) bears out the statement entirely:


 * Week July 12-18--94 edits, or 13.4 per day
 * Week July 19-25--64 edits, or 9.1 per day
 * Week July 26-Aug 1 -- 17 edits, or 2.4 per day
 * Partial week Aug 2-6 -- 5 edits, or 1.0 per day


 * The trend is sharply downward, and it looks to me that the statement "editing has nearly stopped" is entirely supported by the data. I tried to compare it to a comparable period before the restriction, but found it impossible to compare because page protections limited editing during portions of that time. When editing is prohibited, edit numbers will be down, but it's not useful to draw conclusions from that.  I think it's more useful just to look at how editing has dwindled to almost nothing after the restrictions have been imposed.  This is not to say anything about the quality of the edits; I have not even looked at the page itself, only at the history page. Woonpton (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it discredits "What both GRBerry and Seicer do not acknowledge is that most editors no longer participate in editing the article at all." --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To realize the falsity of that statement, an editor merely needs to review the history tab. Since it has to be done by hand; the following is what I found comparing the <4 weeks since ORR was imposed to June and July prior to 0RR (roughly the same amount of unprotected time) ignoring bots, admins protecting the page, and editors tweaking protection templates:
 * Before 0RR but not after: WLU, Orangemarlin, ArLaPella, Levine2112, Dematt, 0 IP editors
 * After 0RR but not before: Ronz, Petergkeyes, Mathsci, McGeddon, Kaiwhakahaere, Minderbender, Arthur Rubin, Elonka, 1 IP editor
 * Both periods: ScienceApologist, Ludwigs2, Fyslee, ImperfectlyInformed, Itsmejudith, Jeffire, Shot info, QuackGuru, Jossi, Vsmith
 * This doesn't address how significant the edits are, but clearly refutes this claim also. In fact, this has been a pattern I've observed - many of the claims related to this article from the partisans have had no support when the facts are investigated.  GRBerry 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that actually is a bit of a concern; there's a lot of similar statements and blanket statements being made on this RfC without any kind of diffs or other evidence to back them up and that really makes me question how many of these other statements may be based heavily in feeling instead of actual facts. Thank you for taking the time to put that together GRBerry. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest GRBerry look a bit deeper, in light of User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) The editor analysis is also incorrect. I should be in the before category (although not immediately before), as I thought the sections of the article which I found questionable were generally in balance; my sole substantive edit after the 0RR was a revert of clear error having been made repeatedly in the past without consensus.  I was warned for the revert, and haven't edited since.  I think the error is back, because noone will remove it now.  I find it impossible to edit the article without reverting a section to a previous version, because there are more incorrect phrasings than correct ones.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Analytics Redo
GRBerry asked me to strike my point due to what he feels is factual inaccuracy on my part, so I offer my own analysis:

Quackwatch mainspace, unfiltered: This is a re-analysis on a week-by-week basis for 4 weeks before and after 0RR.
 * June 13 - June 19: 0 edits
 * June 20 - June 26: 5 edits 33,187b (+486)
 * June 27 - July 3: 31 edits 33,264b (+77)
 * July 4 - July 10: 13 edits 31,704b (-1,560)
 * July 11 is the date of rule creation, but page protection was not lifted until the 12th.
 * July 12 - July 18: 96 edits 32,230b (+526)
 * July 19 - July 25: 66 edits 33,046b (+816)
 * July 26 - August 1: 17 edits 33,351b (+305)
 * August 2 - August 7 (partial week): 5 edits 33,329 (-22)

Cumulative changes, 4 weeks before 0RR: -1,483b. (1) Shortening of an unfavorable paragraph criticizing the site's organization and lack of peer review. (2) Shortening of a cautionary opinion by Ladd. (3) Removal of a cautionary opinion by Best.

Cumulative changes, 4 weeks after 0RR: +1,099b. (1) Addition of an infobox (648b). (2) Addition of an unfavorable paragraph from medical historian Ernst. (3) Addition of a cautionary paragraph about journalists' & sociologists' opinions of Quackwatch (Ladd and Best).

In essence, during the 4 weeks before 0RR, Ladd and Best were removed from the article. During the 4 weeks after 0RR, Ladd and Best were re-added, and an infobox was added. Antelan 19:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Antelan, could you link to the point that GRBerry asked you to strike, because I'm not seeing where it is. Thanks.  Also, as I noted in my earlier comment, it's misleading to compare before-restriction edit counts, when the page was protected for some portion of the time, to after-restriction edit counts when the page was not protected.  Apples and oranges;  numbers comparing the two conditions are uninterpretable. Woonpton (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * GRBerry's request. Despite the page protection, if you look at actual material contributed and not just edit counts, you'll see that not much has happened on the QW page (either before or after 0RR), except for the addition of an infobox. So sure, for a few weeks after 0RR there were more people accomplishing less on a per-edit basis. At least, this is what the numbers are telling me. If they're telling you something else, I'm all ears. Antelan  19:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for link. It seems to me that two different issues have gotten conflated here.  Your statement #2 reflected your perception that there is less editing after restrictions than before, which I continue to insist is a question that can't be adequately answered  because the before and after data are not comparable-- and to my mind that applies to cumulative bytes of change before and after just as it applies to edit counts before and after.     So, sorry,  the numbers relating to before and after are telling me nothing but that they can't be interpreted in any useful or valid way.  But GRBerry's objection in the section just above was not to your before-after perception but to Shot Info's statement that editing on the Quackwatch article "has nearly stopped"  which GRBerry said was not true because according to data he presented there was more editing after the restriction than before.  As I pointed out, the before-after numbers (especially using wildly different time periods for before than for after, as these inexplicably did) give a misleading picture and besides, don't even address the question at hand,  whether editing has nearly stopped.  As I demonstrated, a simple week by week tally does show that indeed, editing on the Quackwatch article has nearly stopped, so the assertion that ShotInfo's statement was false, is inaccurate.   (Caveat: there could well be alternative explanations for the dwindling of edits,  but the fact that edits have decreased sharply over the last four weeks is indisputable).   Then he used the before-after numbers that he generated there, to argue that your statement #2 was also false.  That assertion I cannot evaluate, because of the uninterpretability of the before-after comparison which I've already noted.  Don't know if that helps clarify or just adds to confusion. Woonpton (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that makes perfect sense. I suppose I was just "moving on" to new metrics: bytes added, bytes per edit, and an analysis of what was actually added vs removed. Antelan  21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And that makes perfect sense too, as a descriptive tool; my caution was solely about drawing conclusions comparing before vs after, whatever the metric. Cheers, Woonpton (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

0RR - tripwire or booby-trap?
Many of the comments in this RfC have been about the problems associated with 0RR. I initially supported its application, but having thought about it over the last few days, I'm increasingly convinced that 0RR itself is a key problem.

The root of the problem is that 0RR can effectively act as a booby-trap rather than a tripwire. This is particularly true if there is a lack of clarity about what exactly is considered to be a "revert". An editor may make a good-faith edit, in the belief that it's not a revert, but may end up with an instant block if the administrator managing the 0RR disagrees. The problem can be exacerbated if there are poor communications between editors and admins.

In the case of Elonka's editing conditions, there is extra potential for confusion because (despite the ostensible 0RR) reverts are allowed in some circumstances: "If something is added that is unsourced, that 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"). If there is a source though, then use one of the other above steps instead." This clearly counts as a revert per our standard definition, "undoing the actions of another editor" (see WP:3RR).

As Elonka's conditions recognise, some edits do have to be reverted. Like it or not, reversion is a standard editing tool. The problem arises with disruptive reversion, not reversion per se. We recognise this in WP:3RR, which states that editors can be penalised for repeatedly reverting "even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive" (my italics).

Revert limitations are meant to be an "electric fence", as WP:3RR puts it. However, I don't we should use a revert rule as a lethal electric fence - touch it and die. A 0RR presents too much scope for misunderstanding and misinterpretation by editors and admins alike. In particular, it doesn't lend itself to clarifying the purpose of a disputed edit or inviting a self-revert. It drastically and dangerously lowers the trigger for punitive action.

If revert restrictions are needed, a 1RR seems much more suitable. It should be coupled with a requirement that any reversion must be accompanied by a clear edit summary and explanation of the reasoning on the talk page. Editors should have the opportunity to challenge a reversion. If an addition is reverted, editors should discuss the matter (and perhaps seek outside input) to seek a consensus, rather than re-reverting. Excessive use of reversion over time should of course still result in penalties. A 1RR would thus provide a trip-wire to channel behaviour in a productive direction rather than act as a booby-trap that penalises potentially misunderstood good-faith actions. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Process point. I feel like the Quackwatch analytics and 0RR discussion are rather off topic. Isn't this Talk page intended (more or less) to discuss how the RFC can best evaluate the concerns raised about Elonka's judgment etc? It's not really a forum to discuss rules or policy. To the extent discussion of 0RR etc are germane, maybe comments could state the implications for our work on the RFC. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't even understand 0RR, and I thought of posting a section on this page saying exactly that. If someone deletes a bunch of sourced material without a good reason, am I then not allowed to revert that type of vandalism known as blanking? If someone adds a bunch of POV nonsense, is that not allowed to be reverted? If someone doesn't use the "undo" or "rollback" button, but nevertheless deletes added, or adds content just deleted, is that not a revert? II  | (t - c) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. My revert in Quackwatch is one that wouldn't have be a "revert" for 3RR purposes.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm going to answer here because since Elonka wrote the editing conditions, I think this is relevant. Someone might like to suggest a better place to discuss it.
 * A 0RR rule pretty well has to have a different definition of revert, or it won't work. Elonka's 0RR editing condition had a particular definition of revert.
 * I think if an edit is discussed on the talk page and has consensus, it wouldn't be considered a revert. Editors can copy sections of text onto the talk page and edit it there, as is often done at Talk:Chiropractic.  When there's agreement/compromise on the text of the section, it can be put into the article.
 * 3RR isn't precisely defined, either. There are exceptions for vandalism, and the definition of what is vandalism involves some subjectivity.
 * Possibly 1RR is better; but under 1RR people might still be focussing on editwarring, just at a slower pace.
 * My understanding is that the definition of revert for 0RR allows some edits that would be considered reverts under 3RR. Arthur Rubin, you seem to be saying that it's the other way around.  Could you give more detail? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of each. For the most part, Elonka's definition of revert is more restrictive, as it has to be, but it doesn't exempt reversion of vandalism or BLP violations....or, for that matter, reversions of banned reverts.  "1RR" can avoid excluding reverts, but not 0RR.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HG: This is not really the place to discuss the policy implications of 0RR, whether it is a good idea or how it should be applied. This situation does not provide a very good "case study." For one thing, there is every reason to believe that if Elonka's restrictions had been honored, after further discussion she would have eased off on the restrictions and shifted it to 1RR and perhaps beyond. As it was, the 0RR was not honored, and after warnings, ChrisO was banned for 30 days, and the 0RR restriction was banned. In my opinion, the better option upon his return would have been to fully protect the article again. The consequences of having not done so -- including ChrisO's attempt to take ownership of the article -- are fully described in Elonka's response on the RFC page. So the point is, the lessons to be learned from these events really have little or nothing to do with the efficacy of a 0RR rule in emergency situations, such as were present in this article. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7, I believe at this point it's been demonstrated that the issues are far more extensive than just 0RR and its application. Besides, it's not really useful to speculate as to what could have happened. I see little value in belaboring this specific point much further.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, feel free to not belabor it. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've belabored the point again today, just above; please show me where I've belabored the same point lately.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mobs and dispute resolution
(Moved from the main page as it's probably more of a comment about the RFC than anything else.)

When a group of editors is in agreement about something, we generally call this "consensus". But, have you ever noticed that when that same group is in agreement about criticism, it often gets called a "mob" instead? People often speak of mobs and pitchforks, and suggest that people just get back to work. What does this mean, exactly? If any group of editors expressing criticism is dismissed as a "mob", this is tantamount to saying "dispute resolution is not welcome here." This makes no sense in any way I can see. If you don't want to participate here, nobody will make you. If the "mob" is wrong, by all means, explain why. But trying to discourage other people from doing it by calling them a "mob" is simple obstructionism. Don't do it. Friday (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'm almost beginning to understand why people resort to squawking at a certain gossip site.  Well, not really, but maybe just a little. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rab concentration camp
Now, this is an interesting one that I don't think anyone's really picked up on (apart from the chap who originally mentioned it here, AlasdairGreen27). For the purpose of the RFC, the interesting bit is Talk:Rab concentration camp/Archive 1.This is one proposed version of the article - and this is the other. I'm sorry, but this is as close to a "sword-skeleton theory" situation as we're ever likely to see in real life. Elonka's response is this, which just...no. That doesn't work. 3RR, editing conditions, civility - they just don't apply here, because was pushing a massive NPOV violation. Is that really so hard to see? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also worth reading Elonka's response on Gennarous's talk page - see User talk:Gennarous for the threaded discussion. I note that the only issues which were raised were civility and edit-warring - not a word about NPOV or original research, both of which Gennarous was obviously and blatantly violating. There seems to be a definite trend here... Also, I just noticed that AlasdairGreen27 has commented on the recall request on Elonka's user talk page - see here for his comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get involved in all this but I will say that, if this is a problem, its far more widespread. When faced with two sides of an argument they are personally uninvolved in, both admins and ordinary users often like to take the "middle road" regardless of actual facts and policy. The personal psychological gratification one experiences from being "the middle man" or "arbiter" is probably to blame. One equates the two sides of an argument and bases his/her judgment on the level of perceived "fanaticism", and not on the actual issue (i.e. sources, arguments, policy, etc...). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there might be a cultural issue here - a relativist approach that deems all viewpoints to be of equal merit, whether sourced or otherwise. If so, that wouldn't be very compatible with NPOV, which specifically requires a mainstream, majoritarian approach (see WP:UNDUE). -- ChrisO (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka had been an admirer of the "expertise" of User:Gennarous for quite some time prior to his arrival at the article on Rab concentration camp. She was perfectly well aware of the kind of editor he was , although not aware that he was a sock of User:Yorkshirian. She also observed his edit warring at History of Islam in southern Italy . So when Gennarous asked her to help him out in a dispute with User:Lomis, she replied  and duly turned up at Rab concentration camp. Gennarous was editing the article, entirely without any sources whatsoever, to say it was a prisoner of war camp and to throw in a lot of stuff (with sources) about how the Yugoslav Partisans was a terrorist organisation. Rather than doing a quick google search of the topic which would've instantly revealed what rubbish Gennarous was throwing into the article, Elonka decided that the "material in this article is obviously very difficult to write about in a neutral way" and "this topic is a really tough one". I started a thread at AN/I about Gennarous' personal attacks, incivil and abusive edits/edit summaries which Elonka viewed as a "content dispute". After some revert warring at Rab concentration camp between Gennarous and on one side and three or four other editors (namely, the consensus) on the other, I took the article to RPP, a request Elonka granted when she logged on. She continued to urge us to compromise, asking "Is it really your opinion that all of Gennarous's changes are bad? Is there anything worth keeping, or can someone suggest some compromise wording that might satisfy both sides?" . She cautioned Gennarous and DIREKTOR  but found her warnings falling on deaf ears and had to block Gennarous for 24 hours, while remaining on hand to offer encouraging advice to him  and to urge us to incorporate his stuff into the article  . She carried on in the same vein, entirely ignoring the fact that Gennarous was saying, without any sources at all, that Rab was a POW camp. When I once again pointed this out to her directly she accused me of being biased . The edit war stopped when Gennarous went somewhere else and didn't try to edit the article anymore. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) That's very interesting. The special treatment of User:Gennarous does seem somewhat similar to that of User:Jagz and others. I wonder what would have happened if Elonka had been an administrator while User:Fourdee was still in our midst? Mathsci (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget the annoying "mother goose" attitude... drove me nuts... :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds very similar to what has been going on for some time with . Last month, Tundrabuggy removed some material that I had added to Muhammad al-Durrah on the grounds that he thought the source (a reporter for the Australian newspaper The Age) was "biased". I raised this with Elonka, pointing out that it was a blatant violation of her own editing conditions. Her response was dismissive, very much like your experience when you raised concerns about Gennarous. I protested her refusal to deal with the NPOV violations and breach of her own editing conditions, only to receive another dismissive response. My perception was and is that she was giving special treatment to Tundrabuggy, refusing to deal with his POV-pushing and overlooking his breaches of her editing conditions. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that that is your perception, Chris, but as of this time, 77 percent of the people who have endorsed either your or Elonka's description/explanation of these events agree with her version, not yours. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, you can look at it another way: comments which contain some criticism of Elonka have garnered 137 endorsements; comments that have nothing but praise for Elonka total 102 endorsements, while totally neutral comments (including one that's off-topic) total 19 endorsements. That's 53% critical endorsements vs 39% support endorsements. My point, though, is very simple: you can make numbers say pretty much what you want, from the right perspective. Your numbers really mean no more than mine.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the underlying implication, that straightforward vote-counting of a self-selected group of often partisan editors can tell us what the facts of a situation are most likely to be, is precisely the same poisonous notion that brought us here in the first place. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake, I was responding to a comment by Chris that dealt with his dispute with Elonka, and therefore I looked at the numbers for the two comments that deal solely with that dispute and have the highest number of "endorsements" on each "side". My method eliminated any "double counting" and any issues of interpretation, which yours obviously does not.  And, I am not advocating a strict vote-counting approach.  At the beginning of this whole thing, Chris said he was going to see what the "community" thinks about the dispute.  Since then, Chris and others have been talking about "themes" from the RfC and otherwise trying to draw conclusions from it.  I think that if you are going to try to draw conclusions from a "Request for Comment" about what the "community" thinks, you cannot ignore the actual comments, or the numbers of people agreeing with the various comments.  6SJ7 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7, ChrisO's comment was a parallel between his situation and another one raised with regard to Elonka, rather than solely about his dispute. I will not get into a pissing contest with you regarding what's the best way to "count" endorsements in an RfC, because simply, you don't. Any concern raised which garners a significant endorsement needs to be addressed; you seem to see this as some kind of match where whoever gets the most endorsements wins; that's not at all the case. Each argument needs to be weighted, to get a sense of the concerns being raised and of their importance, please remember that, as in any Wikipedia debate, the arguments presented take precedence over the !votes.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Rab concentration camp article. I just went over and had a look. I noticed that YadVashem which is considered a reliable source on concentration camps calls it an "internment" camp and not a "concentration" camp and that the YadVashem link is up there for reference.  Also the Rab article contains a sourced assertion that the death rate at Buchenwald was 15%, while the Buchenwald article claims a source stating the death rate was 24%.  Clearly there are issues here that were/are not as cut-and-dried as some would have us think. --18:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tundrabuggy (you didn't sign your above remark, but the edit history reveals it is yours), nice try, but the official name of the camp, was Campo di concentramento per internati civili di Guerra – Arbe. How much more cut-and-dried do you want it? 'Clearly', if I may borrow your adverb, you perhaps need to read the article in question slightly more carefully. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, AlasdairGreen27, I guess I missed one of the squigglies at the end. I was not intentionally hiding.  I see where YadVashem refers to the official name as you wrote it.  YadVashem, a highly respected source in relation to these matters, refers to it this way in its report on Rab:  "Italian internment camp on the Yugoslav island of Rab, located in the Italian occupied zone of Yugoslavia.  Rab was established in July 1942 for the detention of Slovenians who opposed the Italian occupation. The Slovenians were treated very harshly; some 4,000 died."  It is interesting to note that WP itself does not carry an article on "concentration camps" but rather re-directs to an article entitled Internment which notes the difference.  The wiki article  explains that "a camp for the concentration of civilians" had always had the meaning of "internment camp" prior to the discovery of the Nazi death camps.  Since then, as wiki points out, the term "concentration camp" has become virtually indistinguishable from "death camp" in the popular mind-- though technically it is not the same. To my mind, and certainly others, to refer to an internment camp (harsh conditions aside) as a "concentration camp" immediately prejudices the reader.   Thus I can understand that other people might not consider the issue as cut-and-dried as you apparently do.  You did not speak to the difference between the death rate numbers in the Buchenwald article versus the Rab article?  Do you have a opinion on that?  Basically what I was trying to say is that the article had problems to begin with, (and still does apparently) just as did/does the Al-Durrah article, and the fault was most probably not with one editor nor with the admin (Elonka) who tried to stop the edit-warring.  signing carefully this time!  Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, spending more time and thought on that article, I see the whole first section is mostly devoted to (thinly sourced!) how much better Jews had it than Slavs, rather than much at all about camp conditions or the camp itself or the Slovenians. According to this article some 2200 died from starvation and weather. According to VadYashem, it was more like 4000. Doing a percentage comparison to Buchenwald, as the article does, is a bit odd, considering that some 34,000-55,000 (different numbers from differing sources) Jews are considered to have died there. What do we learn from saying that 19% of Slovenians died in Rab, as opposed to (only) 15% of Jews in Buchenwald? What does that tell us? That Buchenwald wasn't so bad for Jews after all, or that Rab was worse for Slovenians than Buchenwald was for Jews? Whose perspective is that? Was that the perspective pushed by Gennarous? Or was that someone else? I haven't checked the history, maybe you can help. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not clear exactly where Gennarous was coming from, but judging by some of the comments Elonka left on his talk page he seems to have been rabidly anti-communist - which I guess explains his hostility to the (communist) Yugoslav partisans in his proposed version of the article. What I find particularly striking about Elonka's response (at User talk:Gennarous) is that she doesn't even mention the obvious POV, OR and sourcing problems; she ignores them completely and focuses exclusively on civility. It seems that creating a badly written, unsourced, POV-infested article is just fine, as long as the author is civil. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as is obvious from this whole bureaucratic red tape that you have instigated here, one man's "badly written, unsourced, POV-infested article" may well another's "well-written, sourced, NPOV" article. A little civility could have prevented all of this negativity and (in the main) a huge waste of peoples' valuable time and energy. If the issue has to do with how much weight one attributes to civility and how much to content, that is a discussion that should have taken place apart from the article, as in an RfC on the idea, not one that should be addressed by trying to trample individuals' reputations (mine included) in various forums throughout wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tundrabuggy, I very much doubt this is the proper place to discuss this article. I look forward to seeing you at the article talk page if you wish. To address your points above, please see this source  . The reason this article is being discussed here is nothing to do with any of the issues you raise. The problem in question is that Gennarous was editing it to say something that was absolutely, entirely false, namely that Rab was a POW camp. He was then going on to say that the POWs in question were members of an organisation that was just a bunch of murderous savages. The reason that Elonka's arbitration of Gennarous vs. consensus has been questioned is because she did not trouble herself to check any of the available sources yet repeatedly urged the consensus to compromise with a POV pushing sourceless fanatic (who, by the way, was in the habit of edit warring to say that Mussolini was murdered     ), whose behaviour she had been well aware of for some time. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this isn't the proper place to discuss this article, and will just mention that I did not instigate it. My point is simply that what one person considers "absolutely, entirely false" may not seem so to someone else.  For example, while I am not sympathetic to Mussolini, he really was killed by a mob without a real trial,  which to some people could be considered "murder."  Surely with some civility, the proper use of DR practices, the issue could have been compromised and lessons in patience and hard work learned, all for the eventual benefit of the article itself and WP.  --Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh... Tundrabuggy, (clear throat) . .just be a good chap and reread your link, and then look at when it was reported. You'll never find a reliable source that says 'he really was 'killed by a mob without a real trial'. The events near Dongo, his execution, under orders, by partisans in a war is one thing, the crowd in Piazzale Loreto in Milan abusing his corpse another. In Italy, at least until recently, everybody knew this, and never required either to google around, or read reliable sources, to distinguish the two events.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No you are quite right. I was going by faulty memory. I just checked Christopher Hibbert's biography of Mussolini, The Rise and Fall of il Duce and see I was mistaken. He was executed on orders.  He was machine-gunned down, he and Claretta.  The mob abused the corpses.  --Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Looking again at Gennarous's contributions, he seems to have been pushing some sort of pro-fascist/far-right POV . I guess that accounts for his rabid anti-communism and belief that Mussolini was "murdered"; I believe the "murdered" POV is one that is particularly associated with the neo-fascist Italian right. Tundrabuggy, are you really sure you want to defend this? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * see my answer to Nishidani above. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * waves a white flag - could this be moved to the article talk or someone's talk page? I think its gotten a bit far off track as far as the RfC goes at this point. Thanks guys. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

General question on admin-imposed conditions
This request for comments continuously writes about conditions (which were being violated) enforced with (threats of) bans and/or blocks. Some questions about that: User:Krator (t c) 16:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Am I right in this description?
 * 2) Is this "imposing of conditions" reserved to administrators only? This seems very much contrary to the current approach to adminship often seen at WP:RFA where it is seen as "just some buttons".
 * The conditions are authorized by the Arbitration Committee in certain topic areas of high conflict, such as Israeli-Palestinian articles, Homeopathy articles, Eastern European articles, and so forth. See General sanctions and Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. The specific conditions that ChrisO has concerns about, are at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, which were imposed in June.  Personally, I think the conditions did an excellent job:  Prior to the conditions, the article was in a pretty much constant state of edit-warring and page protection.  After the imposition of the conditions, the article stabilized.  No further page protection has been required, and no one needed to be blocked, though a few brief page bans were imposed (see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah), all of which have expired at this point.  As for who can impose the conditions, ArbCom has designated that this can be done by uninvolved admins.  See WP:UNINVOLVED.  In certain cases, "uninvolved" also means admins who are not members of certain WikiProjects. For example, see Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, though that's a different case.  For the situation with ChrisO and the Muhammad al-Durrah article, the restrictions are authorized via WP:ARBPIA, for the Israel/Palestine topic area.  See Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. --Elonka 18:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Though as has been pointed out by other users on that article, the main reason that conflict has ended is because virtually everyone has given up on editing the article, or has been driven away from it, or sees Elonka's editing conditions as an arbitrarily managed minefield. Nearly all of the edits in the last month and a half - over 100 - have been the work of a single editor whose policy violations Elonka has repeatedly declined to deal with (another point I raised in the RfC). Somehow I don't think the ArbCom meant for editing disputes to be resolved by discouraging everyone from editing a disputed article. Elonka probably wouldn't agree with this assessment, but the fact is that's the outcome of her experiment with this particular article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not everyone agrees with ChrisO. In any case, this is already being discussed at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, so we probably don't need to repeat all the comments here. --Elonka 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But the evidence agrees. The same thing happened at Quackwatch once Elonka went a little bit power crazy.  Shot info (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the evidence disagrees with you, Shot info. Quackwatch was a frequently protected article due to edit warring. In the months leading up to Elonka's arrival, the article was protected 6 or 7 times! Since Elonka's arrival and subsequent edit conditions, the article has not been protected in months and edit warring has all but stopped. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We're here to write encyclopedia articles, not to baby-sit disruptive edit warriors. The editing restrictions have  hurt the goal of improving the article.  Sadly, too many editors don't care, especially the disruptive editors. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're here to write encyclopedia articles. However, too often, disruptive edit warriors make that goal difficult. That's when we need responsible admins to step in and attempt to rectify the situation. By effectively handling the situation (imposing edit conditions, blocking a few of the more egregious edit warriors, etc.), Elonka has brought some semblance of peace to a tortured article. In effect, she has made it easier for Wikipedians to fulfill our goal of writing encyclopedia articles, free from the disturbance of disruptive edit warriors. Brava, Elonka! Brava! -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 04:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Levine, but the evidence disagrees with you as well. But your response is not unexpected.  Killing off all the editors stops this thing called editing, but you already know that don't you...  Shot info (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Only intelligent comments will merit an actual response. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So your response is not an "actual response"? Shot info (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Levine2112, Shot info: please comment on editors only insofar as is directly relevant to the RfC. Coppertwig (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undented) The amount of edits were attempted to be looked at above. Though there were questions of how the breakdown of edits before and after the restrictions were done in different ways, I think it showed that the edits and amount of editors had dropped a lot. I know that a lot editors just gave up on editing at QW with the new restrictions and the way that the restrictions seemed to be applied differently. I have to agree with Ronz and Shot_info that the restrictions changed the editing to almost nothing. I hope this helps, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I count close to 200 edits since Elonka and the other imposed the edit restriction; however you say the editing has changed to almost nothing. It's weird how two people can look at the same evidence and each see something different. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some corrections: To my knowledge, I issued no blocks, or even bans, related to the Quackwatch article.  I did establish some "no reverting except for vandalism" editing conditions, and issued a few cautions, as did Admin .  See Talk:Quackwatch.  As for why people are editing less, well, I see it sort of like people driving their cars fast on a highway.  Then if anyone spots a cop, suddenly everyone slows down, because everyone knows what the speed limit is supposed to be, but they just tend to ignore it unless there's an authority figure around.  So often, all that is needed at an article in dispute is for an admin to show up and say, "Hi, I'm an admin." Then (frequently) the disruption will quiet right down, regardless of whether or not the admin actually does anything! --Elonka 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe just one editor was topic banned for a week. That seemed to have resolved the behavioral issues with that editor in terms of this specific article. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, the talk page clearly shows that Elonka's fantasies on what is happening are just that: fantasies. Meanwhile, we still have the disruptive editors to deal with as they find other articles to disrupt. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If they truly are disruptive, you have to have faith that they will be dealt with. Just go on writing the encyclopedia and try not to get caught up in these little melodramas. That's the best advice I can give. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's usually best to just ignore them per WP:DNFT. Eventually though, they have to be dealt with.  Elonka's strategy appears to be aimed at reducing the amount of quality editing so that editors don't have to do the hard work of identifying and dealing with disruptive editors.  It's a lose-lose solution. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with the idea that more editors and more edits is necessarily going to improve an article. The test is quality editing, not numbers. In an edit war one can have a dozen edits and still end up where you were in the beginning. More people participating in an edit war may well mean less quality than one person editing alone. Of course everyone assumes his own work is "quality editing" and anyone who doesn't appreciate our quality editing is a damned fool. ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So right on, Tundrabuggy. Well said. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Tundrabuggy, I agree that more editors and more editing does not always mean good additions to articles. But when editors leave an article completely that used to add meaningful additions to an article do to WP:TE or stalling the editing to make a Point this is a problem which I believe has happened in the Qw article just to name one article.  Tendentious editors have to be dealt with or they move on to others articles and the stalling and talking in circles continues throughout their editing.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing
Just to comment that I will be looking through all the different views and comments over the next couple weeks, and will write up a conclusion on this RfC. Due to the sheer size and scope of the RfC I can't write a simple one paragraph conclusion, so this will take me a while (I'm not one that's verbose). Hopefully all parties will accept the conclusion, or at least understand it. Wizardman 16:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sockpuppet edits
Tundrabuggy has been identified as a sockpuppet of a banned user. . Tundrabuggy's comments in the RfC have therefore been struck out. . I agree with MastCell's comments here and therefore I oppose this edit which reverts and unstrikes the comments. Please allow MastCell's version to be restored. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please show me the rule that says it is mandatory to come into an RFC that has been closed and archived for many months, with a sign in bold red letters saying Please do not modify it., and cross out big chunks of it, just because a participant was apparently a sockpuppet. The change defaced the entire RFC and made it very confusing for someone who tries to read it.  This change should not be made.  The sockpuppetry does not change the result, and it should not change the text -- just like it says in the bold red letters.  6SJ7 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, nothing is "mandatory". As a matter of common practice, we update archived material (or de-archive it) from time to time, when it seems reasonable to do so. It seemed reasonable to me - given that one of the most vocal participants in the RfC was an admitted (not "apparent") sockpuppet violating a topic ban - to note that for future reference, so that future readers of the RfC are left with an accurate understanding. If it seems unreasonable to you, perhaps you could say as much without immediate recourse to excessive rhetoric. MastCell Talk 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you think it made it confusing. The text was merely struck out; it could still be read, so anything that made sense before should still be able to be understood.  Anyone who wants to can pretend the material isn't struck out and just read it along with the rest.  The striking out adds information (informing the reader about the sockpuppet) without removing any information. If the template asking people not to modify the page is a rule, then I think MastCell has applied WP:IAR properly here: the reasons for not modifying the page don't seem to me to apply to this particular situation.  The reason is that the discussion is over so nobody is supposed to add to it.  Striking out sockpuppet edits doesn't have the effect of restarting the discussion. If you're impressed by signs in bold red letters, how about this:   Please don't revert MastCell's edit again.  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: striking the comments (by the sock) of a banned editor is entirely reasonable. Support MastCell's edits to this archived RfC. R. Baley (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think unstriking them is entirely reasonable, in this case, as well. 6SJ7 would want to be careful in terms of whether he was replacing text that was somehow bad or wrong. But as long as that's not the case, it's fine for him to do. IronDuke  00:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If this were an article and the edits by a banned user were in themselves productive edits, they could be restored. However, here we have an RfC with the purpose of finding the opinion of the community.  The sockpuppetting user was not properly part of the community, and many of the comments are along the lines of stating endorsement or agreement with various positions.  I don't think it's reasonable to restore such comments under the circumstances, even if one happens to agree with them.  A user who agrees with the statements could have put their opinion in over their own signature while the RfC was open; now it's too late. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I think the idea here is that 6SJ7 is endorsing what TB wrote. TV wasn't just !voting, s/he was making comments. Unless there was something otherwsie objectionable about the comments, I cannot see how going back into an archived discussion and striking them out is justified. And even if it were, if 6SJ7 wants to restore them, that is his right. IronDuke  02:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the striking of these edits (per MastCell, coppertwig, etc). It is important to see quickly if this page is referred to in future that these edits were out of process and invalid. Verbal  chat  09:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I also support the striking out the comments made by the banned sockpuppet. RFC are used for historical reasons and editors may refer to this in the future.  The excessive amounts of comments made should not be there for this reason.  Some editors may just look at the counts under each discussions without reading everything in full which is another reason it should be struck, as pointed out by Mastcell to me.  Please keep it struck if it is not, I have to go look again.  I would also bring to the attention of the editors here that Tundrabuggy also had excessively commented on the recall that was started during this.  This editor made lots of comments on User:Elonka talk page and recall. I would let Elonka know but as far as I am aware she is still on a wikibreak.  He fooled a lot of people for a very long time and it's time to change that now IMHO.  Thanks for listening, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  09:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IronDuke, I don't understand your reasoning. You say you don't see how it's justified: but the justification has been given: it's that they are edits by a sockpuppet of a banned user, which justifies not only striking but deleting (Banning policy).  You haven't said anything to justify your statement that 6SJ7 has a "right" to remove the unstriking; on the contrary, the link I just gave says "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry".  You haven't addressed the arguments I presented above about the purpose of the RfC, the nature of some of the struck comments, and (further above) about the presence of information for the reader. I argue that the struck version is the NPOV version, since it gives the reader the choice to read the comments or not; while the reverted version withholds information from the reader, i.e. the information that the comments were by a sockpuppet. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strike or delete. As TB should not have been editing, I'd prefer deleting with a note saying that a sockpuppet of a banned editor's edits have been removed but can be seen in the history. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that if someone wishes to delete the comments, they are supported by the policy I cited, and that the same policy (as I quoted above) would then also discourage users from restoring the deleted comments. Some of the arguments I give above would also apply to deletion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion is the norm, and I wouldn't oppose. I thought striking was a measured response that keeps the readability of the archive intact.  Had this been discovered at any point during the RfC (or even shortly thereafter, perhaps) I would have favored removal altogether.  At this point, though, it would seem that striking the comments (with a note) is the most informative way to go.  R. Baley (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that knowing that the comments came from a banned user is important information for those who come later and may not have the context we do. Deletion is justifiable. Striking them out (with a note on the first strike as to why) seems a good compromise to me, and those who oppose even striking them out... strike me as disruptive. That's just my impression of their actions, even if I assume the customary amount of good faith. Repeated reversion in the face of apparent consensus strikes me as cause for a block, as per usual. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this sensible comment. I certainly would appreciate knowing that some of the commentary in archived material I go back to read later is not from an editor in good standing.  The knowledge helps give a proper perspective on their comments; left as is, the information is misleading. I don't care if it's deleted or struck, although I think striking gives more information than just not having the comment there at all.  The stricken comment shows the level of interest the banned user took in the matter, which might possibly be useful for future reference Woonpton (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Lar re the striking out, except to say that Tundrabuggy's own comment - that attracted no other endorsement and formed no impression (from a quick review) of the then process could easily be removed entirely. As TB's comments on other peoples views did, in some cases, potentially effect the judgement of others and may have been included in the "count" during the conclusions then the record needs to remain but struck through as being acknowledged as having been made by a ban evading sock. I agree that this appears to be the best option under these particular and peculiar circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the editors above make good common sense comments about striking vs deleting vs leaving it all as it was archived. I think personally striking is the best action since TB is mentioned in other editors comments during the RFC so it shows how involved s/he was during all of this while socking.  I think LessHeard vanU has a good point to possibly delete the comments by TB with a note but leaving it there with it struck out as a sock puppet allows future editors who may look at this RFC get more context in the issues that caused the RFC to begin with.  Question though, TB was very active on Elonka's user page and the recall that was initiated.  Should any of these be struck or deleted?  He was very active at the recall if I remember correctly which had to make others at least think about what s/he was saying prior to making their own comments.  I haven't looked at the recall recently but I think I will try to hunt it down to see if this editor made a difference or not.  I don't know if Elonka is still inactive but should someone notify her of all of this?   Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Updating my comment: TB voted as #14 and made a rather benign comment.  Sorry I should have refreshed my memory first before I said s/he was active there.  Please feel free if you are uncomfortable with that being there at all to delete what I struck out.  Sorry again, I usually try to be sure of what I am saying but I blew it this time.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I recall, Tundrabuggy was centrally involved in the dispute that led to the RfC in the first place. It's literally true to say that the dispute and the RfC would not have happened if the Tundrabuggy account had not been created. This does raise some complex issues about what exactly we should do about Tundrabuggy's edits in this context. (BTW, Chronie, Tundrabuggy is a she.) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for getting involved, especially if this is considered bad form, but may I comment? I am a completely new user: I have no contributions to any part of Wikipedia apart from messing about with my User space to try and get my feet wet before I try and find an area where I can contribute in a meaningful fashion. To try and acclimate, I have been lurking in RFA'a, the AN/I board, RFC's and the like to try and understand what is acceptable and what is not. When I read this page, I put weight in what each editor added to the discussion without looking at each person's bio or contributions to discover what weight I should giver their opinion. When I read the discussion, had I known several of the comments should be read as those from a sockpuppet, I likely would have had a different opinion from my original. As a new user, I am not well versed enough to comfortably read "diffs" and history logs in order to piece the conversation back together if those comments were stricken completely. For whatever weight you may give a newbie's opinion, I would have garnered much more if the offending statements had been stricken through, which would have given me a visual clue to what I was reading and been a clue there was something more to the story than just the words on the page. Again - sorry if I am not supposed to be donating my five cents in this. I return you to your ongoing conversation. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">Garyww67 ☎  ☸ 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your perspective. It's important that we keep new users in mind as well as old hands, so I'm glad you spoke up. Best wishes in your future edits. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a mountain out of a molehill in the making. The RFC was over and archived. Elonka has been very inactive since then. I think a better handling would be to put a note at the top about Tundrabuggy and strike through his comments. Then full protect the page.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except for the note at the top, that seems to be the hole we're coming out of. Absent IronDuke and 6SJ7, everyone else seems in favour of striking. A note at the top doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, either, actually, and I'd favour it as well... but perhaps the strike (with a comment after the very first one) is enough? Either of those works for me. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Or even better: rather than protecting the page, someone can just mark this discussion as closed. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Striking is what was done. For all the talk, 6SJ7 only reverted once, and then I did. A note at the top might not be a bad idea.  Not sure protection is called for since the consensus seems to support the current state of things and there isn't any edit warring going on. (add: support thread closure).  R. Baley (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)