User talk:Elonka/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Elonka's promise repeated

Elonka promised that if six good faith editors ask her to step down she will. Well, we are waiting. Let her stick to her word [1]. Itis time to step down. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that need to be said 200 hundred times (yes, exaggerated)? This is beginning to border on harassment excessive annoyance. - auburnpilot talk 21:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It really is not bordering on harassment. Lets not throw that word around. Avruch ^T 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. I've struck that. - auburnpilot talk 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as this point is ignored,I will bring it up. When Elonka fulfils her promise, or explaoms why she has decided to break her promise and why, I will respond appropriately. It is not harassment to abut somethng wh wrote when seking to be admin. It is rude not to answer a fair question. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not be harassment (yet), but it certainly is disruptive (and perhaps a WP:POINT violation) to start a second consecutive section on someone else's talk page with the same heading and text -- even the same typo. (Though, if you do it a third time, fixing the typo would make it no less disruptive.) 6SJ7 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the typo. It is not disruptive because she did not repond to the original query. Instead a lot of other people commented - on her own talk page yet! - in effect burrying the request/question. I am reposting it so that she can respond before several others pile on and again obscure the question. Let's give her time to answer. If she does not and the discussion moves on in other directions, I will ask the question again until we get an answer. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that people aren't pointing out abuse of the admin tools. To get pissy that she's working in these contentious areas after saying in her RFA that she'd be boring, well, maybe it has something to do with ArbCom asking her to. Just my guess. So I'm assuming she didn't foresee that during her RFA. Repeating yourself isn't productive. It is, in fact, disruptive. ~Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, does that diff point to arbcom asking her? Sorry if I'm just being dense. - brenneman 12:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the diff of her accepting. FT2 adding her name to the project page as pending confirmation is seen here. Sorry for the confusion there. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I have pointed out several times on several pages incuded the RfC how Elonka has abused her aministrative privileges. That is MathSci and other's point! It is what this is all about!Slrubenstein | Talk 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Elonka is operating according to the policy statement on "tag teams" contained in this draft report and is applying it indiscriminately wherever she pleases. The policy is ill-conceived and seems like a rather misguided attempt to justify her own "experiments". Has any other administrator agreed with her comments there? The document looks like a way of rubber stamping administrators' favourite conspiracy theories. Perhaps similar guidelines were drawn up in Salem, Massachusetts. If this is the case, then she has abused her role as an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, see the endorsements for admins and editors who endorsed that report. Sarah 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On August 5th. Are you suggesting that Elonka's attempt to use this in totally unrelated and dissimilar circumstances was justified? To articles that were about science and anthropology, like Race and intelligence ? Surely you must be joking? Mathsci (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any such thing. I just answered your question who agreed with the report. And that's it. If you want to know anything else about the report you'll have to ask those people who were involved with it. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to credit me with things I've never said. Thanks. Sarah 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MastCell has analysed the "tag teams" point in the present context very well on the RfC. Do you in fact think that Elonka was applying this "tag teams" policy on Race and intelligence a month or two ago and, if so, do you think it was appropriate? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A plea for patience

I have no particular view of the particulars of this particular matter.  :) I see voices I respect and trust taking up positions pro and anti, and I don't know all the details, and it's sheerest cabalism to take sides based on who is on what side... so my interest is more in that what goes down here be orderly and polite and well mannered, and not reflect badly on the notion of voluntary recall.

So consider this a plea for patience. I mailed Elonka asking for clarification on a few points. She mailed me back. In her mail she indicated this weekend is a very hectic time for her, and led me to believe that she will comment further when things are less hectic. Can people throttle back a bit and wait to see what develops... there's no rush after all. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just when answers are required it's strange that for the first time in almost 3 months Elonka hasn't edited for over 48 hours. She does a disappearing act at the moment when her presence is most pertinent. Yet she can find the time to reply to your email but not the time to reply to the questions on her talk page. I just hope she isn't using this convenient breathing space to wiki-lawyer her way out of her recall committment. Time will tell whether Elonka is a person of honour or not. RMHED (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think that is the kind of "patience" Lar was asking for. I would second Lar's request. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to her waiting the 7 days in the "default" "open to recall" clause before requesting reconfirmation as an admin. However, if 6 editors remain at the end of that time, I'd expect her to request reconfirmation — or remove herself from the "open to recall" list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RMHED, it is that kind of jumping to conclusions that erode the credibility of the posse assailing Elonka. The amount of info being slapped onto this page would overwhelm anyone, it's a lot easier to answer an email than address a series of comments. — TAnthony^Talk 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony, your choice of words to describe Elonka's critics doesn't help the credibility of those who support her, either. Shall both sides drop the unnecessary epithets and needless characterizations, please?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No the important answer required is simple, does she intent to honour her recall committment or not. RMHED (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)(To Athur:)Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Lar made a generalized plea for patience, not one that is pigeonholed within numbers of days and editors. Let's all chill out, in other words. Can't we do that? 6SJ7 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- having a few days to dial down the heat would be a good thing. IronDuke 01:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Elonka has gone on vacation, or taken a couple of days off. Meantime maybe you could go find some other place to vent your spleen for a week or two. Get a job. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is taking a wiki-break at the moment, and I talked to her yesterday, in an effort to diffuse the situation and to allow the discussion to continue at RfC. Please stop this badgering at her talk page and please assume good faith and show a little bit of patience. _{Not in reply to Lar.} seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The simplest possible way to relax and diffuse the situation would be for her to take five minutes and make good on her commitment. I believe a note to a steward is about all that's required. This would be quick, painless, and drama-free compared to any alternative. The RFC discussion won't magically stop just because the recall business gets finished up- that's just a not-very-realistic straw man. I realize there are several who object to the recall- hell, I don't think the promise she made at RFA was all that sensible, but she did make it, with very clear terms. But, since the recall commitment is probably why she managed to squeak through, it'd be quite a slap in the face to the community to back out on it now. Her credibility is at stake. Some claim she's already lost it, but her next move here could do much to restore (or tarnish) it. It's up to her, and either choice takes only a few minutes. Friday (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to forget that if she accepts recall, she can resubmit for RfA right away, without having to wait. If the majority of the community supports her actions, reconfirmation should be only a formality. That would also be an occasion to open a limited verdict to a wider audience, something she has advocated more than once in the past (such as for the Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations AfD).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To Friday: It seems kind of odd to say that her failure to resign would be "a slap in the face to the community" when a large majority of those who have commented on the recall are opposed to it. Some people will no doubt be upset if Elonka remains an admin, but "the community" as a whole will not. To Ramdrake: How about if all admins had to stand for reconfirmation? That would be much more fair, and it would be very interesting to see how many admins retained their position. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pointedly, if a large majority of the community supports her, reconfirmation is indeed just a formality to pass. To 6SJ7, I am not asking for all admins to stand for reconfirmation. I am asking for those admins who have been the subject of a recall procedure by their own rules to submit to reconfirmation. If Elonka's rules on recall have changed, she should say so. So far, I haven't seen any indication from her that this is the case. There is no point to ask admins who have not been recalled to stand for recall as well (and BTW - I'm not an admin, in case you might be wondering).--Ramdrake (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not asking anyone to do anything -- except to second Lar's request that everybody relax, and to not expect that what you want to happen is going to happen immediately, just because you think it should. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If Elonka wants to wait the full seven days before closing the recall process, that's entirely her prerogative. However, I honestly think she needs to address the concerns of her critics and she needs to eventually (i.e. within seven days) respect her pledge of recall, or explain why she is withdrawing her pledge.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I see. Ok. I took my time off :) --Rembaoud (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral admins are just too valuable

Hi Elonka. I don't think we've ever communicated directly, but I'm assuming from some of your posts that you are familiar with me. I've been following this unofficial "community" desysopping masquerading as a recall, and I wanted to share a few thoughts with you. I'm really hoping you'll reconsider your pledge to resign the tools if only six essentially random editors shop up and ask you to. On a technical level, if all admins agreed to this, I feel quite confident that I could destroy any administrator – with ease. Forgetting about how easily people seem to be able to gin up legit-looking sock puppets after only a few months (NB: I do not now have, nor ever have had, nor want ever to have, any sock puppets of any variety), merely pestering you (pseudo-politely) over the course of a few weeks might be enough to get a mildly exasperated reaction from you, which might attract more critics, which might make you feel even more defensive. It's just too easy to game. In fact, a variation of this is going on now.

But the main reason I'd oppose your resignation is this: I spend a lot of time on articles related to the IP conflict. Like a lot of areas that involve war and dueling nationalisms, a lot of ugly stuff goes on, on both sides. What is desperately needed are truly neutral admins, an incredibly rare commodity (I think the reason for the rarity is that Israelis and Palestinians each represent a kind of magnetic pole, and tend to pull people quite firmly towards one or the other. Why this is the case, I cannot say). I have seen people beg off looking at these articles, content RfC's where there is scant or no participation, because nobody wants to come in with a comment or edit and get flamed – which they automatically will by one side or the other. If you allow yourself to become a victim of this same dynamic, you make it that much harder for future, truly neutral admins to come in and make all the kiddies play nicely.

However, if you insist on going forward with your pledge, I'd also suggest that you ignore any editors who have had a previous beef with you, as well as editors who can reasonably said to be friends with the editor who started this whole recall process. I trust you know who these people are (not sure I know all of them). This is not to say that those people are wrong, mind you, merely that being "uninvolved" is crucial here.

I hope this is all helpful. Feel free to respond publicly or privately, or not at all. I would guess you must be going through a lot of stress right now – I have no doubt you can weather it. IronDuke 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Very well put. I second it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to comment, but agressively neutral admins, to the point of ignoring the content and consensus, are not needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "Aggressively neutral" is an oxymoron.--Abd (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It's a question of which policies she's neutral in favor of; ignoring the fact that some of the reverts she's claiming as violation of 0RR are reverts of WP:BLP violations, or reverts of clear reverts (also in violation of 0RR). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has no right to make this decision by herself

To recall has to be subject to the community. The community is not merely one side in this issue. It would be a wrong to the majority of editors if she agrees to step down simply because 6 editors can be found who would like to see her do that. It is not fair for the participants in this process to thwart the will of the community, and the will of the community is the majority view. It would not be fair of Elonka not to listen to the voices of the community, but listen instead to a minority view.

This is a community decision and it must be resolved by the community, not by some arbitrary number of people, half of which have an axe to grind. Nor can it be usurped by the individual-- Elonka cannot agree to this recall without at least having a majority of editors that agree to it.

IronDuke is absolutely right, that 6 editors can be got to dump virtually anyone, Jimmy Wales included. The recall process, if this is what it is, needs an overhaul, bigtime. The recall process must be uniform and apply to everyone equally. It should apply to all admins or to none. No tenure or grandfathering clauses. WP is not a dictatorship - it is not ruled by the Politburo. At the very least, every recall should be done with a majority. Under many circumstances in real life, a vote for recall requires a 2/3 majority, but always at least a majority. Elonka cannot hand a victory to minority of voices in this community by allowing herself to be recalled by a handful of individuals. That isn't what Wiki is supposed to be about. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I will oppose making recall mandatory. I'll also oppose imposition of a process I didn't agree to. My process is not gamable. I think maybe you haven't studied processes and past recalls closely enough yet. ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, it's a bit unfair to say that the recall system needs an overhaul when there isn't an actual process in place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka failed to specify exactly what the process she will use, well in advance. When I look at the last few recalls that were bumpy, that's a common theme, Mercury didn't. Durova didn't. Bumpage. SirFozzie did. GRBerry did. Keilana did. No bumpage. I went round and reminded everyone in the category to please please please specify their process a few months back. And many did (see here). But some did not. That's not a failure of the idea, it's a failure in execution on their part. In my view the default process is gamable. My process is pretty tight I think, and not subject to gaming by random editors that don't like me. (I'll go farther than I've ever went before in making that claim, actually... if you think you can game the process with me... go ahead, give it a try. You won't get very far, I guarantee it.) But if you think the concept of voluntary recall is flawed, or needs changing, or whatever, bring it up on the talk page... Because this isn't the place. (note however that this is Elonka's second time round being called for recall. You'd think she would have learned from the first time and put a process in place. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar, a couple of corrections are necessary: I did specify the terms of my recall. What no one could reasonably have anticipated was that RFC would become obsolete in 12 hours when an arbitrator initiated RFAR. Then arbitration denied me fair opportunity to present evidence by proceeding to voting in under 24 hours with a motion to send me to an immediate mandatory RFA garnering unanimous support. After they ignored my requests for time to defend myself and continued voting, the only dignified and drama-reducing option left to me was resignation. The voluntary nature of the program you initiated has already been undermined by ArbCom itself. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here you have a admin that voluntarily gets involved in contentious issues, and she can be recalled by a half dozen editors who have a gripe? How is that fair to her or to those who believe they have benefited from her involvement and her adminship? Esp a recall that is an outgrowth of an RfC that hasn't even been resolved? This recall should not even have been allowed to go forward while an RfC is in process. A recall is not supposed to be something that a handful of people with a gripe can do. As it stands so far, it sounds like a lot of non-democratic bureaucratic red tape to me. If we followed this process in the real world there would be no administrators at all. As for going to talk about it somewhere else, there is plenty on this page that ought to be somewhere else. A little more won't hurt. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to criticize the concept. "I think maybe you haven't studied processes and past recalls closely enough yet" bears repeating. A recall PETITION is only the first step in the process that many admins use. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has not only the right but the responsibility to make this decision herself. She will wisely consider the opinions and views and analysis of other editors, but, in the end, it's her action and choice to resign or not, and if she makes the wrong decision, the community or ArbComm will correct her. I'd say that any decision that results in her desysopping would properly consider the behavior of other involved editors, and I think there might be more than one bit rolling around on the floor after such process, I'd not advise being eager to propose desysopping here. I'm claiming that, in deciding this, she should consider the welfare of the project first; hence the majority opinion shown so far that her actions were proper should weigh strongly in her decision I'd advise. Against that, she should balance the damage from an apparent promise not kept. However, given the poor design of administrative recall, I would suggest consideration, elsewhere, of a better means of temporary -- involuntary but not punitive -- recall pending review, I have some ideas about that. The problem with the existing recall/reRfA process is the severe hysteresis. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the recall criteria binding?

There is definitely an issue raised by the recall criteria. However, I do not see them as binding Elonka in this case, for two main reasons, which are separable.

1. When the recall criteria were accepted by Elonka, as she explains above -- and it is reasonable -- there was a restricted application: the dispute must involve an actual use of admin tools. It is not merely a general disagreement, or about other editing activities. Who decides what the disagreement is, if it isn't totally obvious? Was there an incident of the improper use of admin tools? There might have been, if, say, an editor had violated an improper ban on her part, but the ban itself does not involve the use of admin tools, so we have here a technical exception. And if we are going to firmly bind someone to a promise, the exact nature of the promise becomes important. The present situation was not anticipated in the promise, that's obvious, and administrative recall, under the naive terms originally used by Elonka and others, is seriously risky, damaging the ability of the community to deal with factions of mutual support that are larger than six editors (plus once there is some major flap, it would theoretically be possible to dredge up quite a bit more than six, as we see here.) Six editors, in the middle of a highly contentious and very visible RfC, AN/I reports, etc.... that's very small! Any administrator worth their salt has offended more than six editors "in good standing"!
2. However, suppose we consider the promise clear and that she promised to resign under the current conditions. Rule Number One remains in place. A promise is a kind of rule (i.e., there is a social rule, keep your promises). In my RfA, I was asked what the most important rule was, and I answered "Rule Number One," for which I took a lot of flack. However, Ignore All Rules remains rule number one, so what does that rule suggest here? The action of resignation or refraining from it is Elonka's decision, but I will assert that the welfare of the project suggests she abrogate the promise, explicitly, at least as it applies in a situation like this, and I will argue in detail elsewhere on this point. It says in the Qur'an that "God will not hold you to your foolish promises, do not let your foolish promises keep you from doing good." Perhaps I'm biased, but I'd say that is good advice.--Abd (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see either of these arguments as sensible.

1. Although there is some dispute as to whether she has agreed only to questions of misuse of the admin tools (in her RfA) or any dispute with 6 editors "in good standing" (originally on this page), the application of 0RR and article restrictions and bans are clearly threats to use admin tools, and so should qualify. Or are you saying that admin who threatens to block someone for no apparent reason, and then convinces another admin to actually do the block, is not misusing the admin tools?
2. (I wrote a longer missive than yours, but an edit conflict deleted it). Suffice it to say that, if WP:IAR was policy, I would have blocked User:Elonka for misuse of 0RR on Quackwatch. She has become an involved editor by choosing which side to be "neutral" in favor of. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about your missive, AR, use a browser that keeps the edit stuff when you go back. You seem to have created several oxymorons on this page, "neutral in favor of" is another. It is normal for a neutral decision, in effect, and as seen by the participants and others who are not neutral, to seem to favor one side. Plus, of course, there are errors, unconscious bias, and, then again, the problem we'd be most concerned about, a bias that should be recognized and which should properly lead an admin to disqualify himself or herself. WP:IAR is policy, and it is the foundation of policy, and I'm astonished that an administrator would not know that. If you actually believe that an admin should be blocked for a good-faith action, then, yes, you should have blocked her and we should, then, probably, have removed your sysop bit unless you managed to show that your action was reasonable. We remove the bit for two reasons: bad faith use, and incompetence. Absolutely, if you believe that the project would be best served by blocking Elonka, IAR requires you to do it. Of course, your decision will also consider how the community would respond, possible disruption, and all the rest, not just Elonka in isolation. I'm amazed at how much argument I get against WP:IAR, it's routine. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If she showed some indication that she believed that some of the arguments made here and at the RfC were made in good faith and require discussion, I'd vote for her in a new RfA. However, that has not yet happened. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about, then, reading her Response above. For your convenience, Arthur, here is an excerpt:

I encourage further discussion on this, especially at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. Personally, I still remain committed to being the best administrator that I can be, because I strongly believe in the Wikipedia project. I have no intention of misusing admin access, and seek only to help the project move forward in its process of creating high quality articles. However, if anyone still feels that I have genuinely misused admin tools, I encourage you to either bring up specific diffs here, post at the RfC, or to take the concerns to ArbCom. Thanks, Elonka 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no indication that she does not believe that "some of the arguments made ... were made in good faith and require discussion," and she specifically encourages discussion at the appropriate place, the RfC. So, given that WP:AGF would be policy if it were enforceable (it should be policy anyway, like IAR, which similarly is not enforceable), I'd say you are now required to assume the conditions that would make you vote for her in a new RfA, and if you believe that, surely it would involve less fuss for the community to simply keep her admin bit.

Here is the problem, though. !Votes are running in the RfC with the greatest count for Elonka's response being endorsed by 35. The next highest endorsements are for MastCell's rather neutral comment that simply asks Elonka to take certain things into consideration, and for MathSci's somewhat critical, somewhat favorable comment, both with 21 endorsements. Then comes Leifer, who clearly supported Elonka, with 20 endorsements. Sir Rubenstein's comment gathered the most endorsements of any truly critical comment, 18 votes. Then Shell Kinney supported the concept of admin neutrality, effectively supporting Elonka in this, with 17 endorsements. The truly critical comments, such as the original request itself, have low endorsements, with the complaint summary obtaining 10 endorsements. It's really close: if she resigns, it's possible that it could be difficult obtaining the 3/4 ratio required. Let me translate "difficult:" Disruptive, with lots of editors pouring in and more tendentious and increasingly uncivil argument. It seems clear to me that if a supermajority of editors (like 2/3) do not support desysopping, it shouldn't happen unless reasons are clear. There is currently a quite decent rough consensus that she did not abuse the tools, or the threat of usage of the tools, and supporting her actions with the articles in question. But clearly there is a substantial segment of the community that opposes her on overall policy (i.e., the philosophical grounds underlying how admins should act). Not a majority, but quite likely more than 1/4 of those sufficiently knowledgeable to have an opinion. And if that 1/4+ can prevail at RfA, they will have shown what a determined minority like that can do. There are very, very important policy decisions to be made here, and, I'd suggest, they should be made by ArbComm, or by other process supported by ArbComm, which I've seen hints is happening, rather than through a community process like an RfA. For now, Elonka has sufficient confidence from the community that I'd say she should continue, pending review by ArbComm -- if anyone takes it there.--Abd (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good summary of the situation at the RfC, and I agree with the conclusion as well. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe that Wikipedia would be best improved if she would step down from WP:WORKINGGROUP and from any "special enforcement" activity, and from any activity which requires determining WP:CONSENSUS. If desysoping is necessary for that, then that would be the appropriate action. She seems unable to distinguish between editors being a tag team and being a consensus opposed to her opinion. If she believes that "special enforcement" activities are required to prevent tag teams from taking over an article, she's made it clear she's willing to avoid having consensus take over the article, which is clearly bad for Wikipedia. As for WP:IAR being policy, it doesn't trump the first two WP:PILLARS, which is what her actions are doing. I suppose this RfC should be terminated as having brought up all the relevant data, and going directly to WP:RfAr, with the additional note that if Elonka is not restricted, we'll lose most of our subject experts in contraversial articles. Yes, WP:IAR suggests we should bring up the question of whether Elonka should be banned.

WP:IAR also suggests she should be temporarily desysopped immediately, but I'm not a WP:CRAT or a WP:STEWARD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I assure you, trying to use WP:IAR in conjunction with a desysopping request would remind Sisyphus of his boulder. That's quite simply not what it's for (and, for what it's worth, any desysopping would be done by a steward). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to use WP:IAR in conjuction with any of this is not a good idea. But I wasn't the one to bring it up. Applying WP:IAR to justify the article restrictions which Elonka has imposed is also not a good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion raises some substantive issues about policies at Wikipedia, but let us stick to the topic: Are the recall criteria binding? I agree fully with AR that the imposition of a 0RR is a threat to use admin. tools. Moreover, her unblocking of Jagz on 17:22, June 16, 2008 was a use of admin tools that demonstrated very very poor judgement - her mentoring of Jagz culminated his calling MastCell a "fucking asshole" [2] - and I feel very strongly that we need to look at her use of admin tools such as unblocking someone who had been community banned in relation to her judgement which in this case was demonstrably very poor. But there is a bigger issue that concerns me, which is the relationship between administrator tools and administrator authority. In my field, authority is very much tied up with the threat to use or the claim to the legitimate monopoly on certain critical tools. I believe that as soon as Elonka intervenes in a conflict among editors not because she is just another well-intentioned editor, and not because she has been invited to act as mediator, but precisely because she is an administrator, we have an abuse of power. The principal complaints against Elonka center on her claiming authority over other editors because she is an administrator. The threat to use administrator tools is necessarily implicit in such a gesture. After all, what the heck is an administrator, if not an editor who has certain tools?

I have been involved in conflicts with others and I never mention that I am an administrator because I have no intention of using the tools at my disposal as administrator; thus my being an administrator is a non-issue.

But Elonka has gone out of her way to emphasize that people should do what she says because she is an administrator. As soon as she makes such a claim, she is bringing the sysop tools into play because the only important meaning of "I am an administrator" is "I have these tools I can use."

Thee is no need for me to provide additional edit-difs; these are matters of fact Elonka herself would agree to because she has made a point of emphasizing these things publically. I consider her using her posesion of these tools as a means for elevating herself above all other editors to be a betrayal of trust and an abuse of power. This is the issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish death camp controversy

As an Administrator who is from the Polish Wiki Project, you may be able to clarify if there was indeed a controversy over the use of the term 'Polish death camps' instead of Nazi death/extermination camps in Poland in WWII here: Polish death camp controversy There is an AfD discussion on it. Personally, I am sure there was a controversy but some editors think the word controversy is exaggerated. Artene50 (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This can't be right

MartinPhi has just returned to editing but he has met with this:[3], [4]

and this was added: [5]

I'd like him to stay around but this doesn't encourage in anyway. How can this be fair? It looks like baiting to me, at the very least.

I have also notified Vassyana because he has been familiar with the situation, but he may not be around.(olive (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Should this be added to something in progress. This is new ground for me.(olive (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC))/

Thanks. I've gone to SA's mentor. I don't often feel this kind of concern, but enough is enough.(olive (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

User subpage cleanup

Hi there. Sorry this isn't related to the huge kerfuffle going on above (I have no idea what all that's about, actually...). I just discovered this orphaned talkpage for a deleted user subpage of yours: User talk:Elonka/RfA ponderings. Is it serving any useful purpose? If not, it should probably be deleted as general cleanup. I will notify the only other contributor, User:Electrawn, of this as well, but I doubt that either of you have much reason to keep this two-year-old talkpage. Terraxos (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gone, thanks.  :) --Elonka 03:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin tools vs admin authority?

I've been sitting out this recall bid so far, neither endorsing nor opposing. However, I'm uneasy about one point that Elonka mentions in her response above. She's intervened as an "uninvolved administrator" on a number of articles that are covered by several arbitration cases - Homeopathy, Balkans and Arab-Israeli conflict. She's blocked a number of editors - using her admin tools - though I haven't seen anyone on the RfC disputing her blocks. However, she's also used her admin authority - derived from her admin tools - to impose indefinite 0RRs and other editing conditions on a number of articles, as well as issuing editing bans backed up by the threat of blocks. It's in this regard, the use of her admin authority, that the RfC has questioned her judgment.

I'm not convinced that you can separate admin authority from admin tools, given that the former is dependent on the latter. Anyone can threaten punitive action, but only an admin can actually do it. The imposition of 0RRs, editing conditions and bans depends on one's ability to back up those measures with enforcement action. It's like pointing a gun at someone to make them take a particular course of action. You're not actually firing the gun, but you're using it to make your compulsion credible. If you're relying on your admin tools to back up an assertion of admin authority, that seems to me to be an implicit use of the tools. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually ChrisO, now that people have mentioned this sort of thing, it occurred to me - aren't the ArbCom sanctions written in such a way that they specifically note that only admins are supposed to create sanctions? Granted, I'm still not convinced recall is appropriate here, but I do think we're talking about something that's out of the realm of possibility for non-admins. One thing that still concerns me with this current process is that aside from a few comments made directly by Elonka, there seems to be a lot of assuming about what Elonka thinks or will do. I think good points and good questions are getting lost in the ocean of discussion because instead of waiting for Elonka to reply or comment, someone else stops by and answers things.

I was wondering if it might make sense to create a subpage (or subsection here) where people can ask questions and Elonka can answer - other editors could still discuss the questions or answers elsewhere. I think despite our best intentions, we're not going to get an accurate picture by using our best guess of what Elonka would do or say and I think it makes sense for her to be more involved in this process instead of just being commented about. Shell ^babelfish 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agreed with Shell and Chris here. Let's make a subpage with all our questions, and let's just wait for Elonka to answer them. Sounds most reasonable to me.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. Would Ramdrake be willing to refactor? It seems to me that thee are a number of ways to organize people's concerns - around distinct cases/conflicts/articles, but also some have to do with how she interprets policy, some with hw she did or did not violate pledges when she was seeking adminship, some with how she deals with editors, wome with how she deals with fellow admins - there are a variety of ways to organize this material but it is a mess and definitely needs some kind of organization for anyone to follow it. I am one who wishes Elonka would provide cogent answers to some of the questions people has posed to her and reorganizing this into clearly identifiable topics woulod make it easier for her to do so - and make it easier for us to find the answers!! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(Refactored; please see #Questions for Elonka below). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have learned that there is a recall template that we may wish to use to do this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As a curiosity, and as an admin myself, I'm curious re "admin authority" - in my view, no such thing exists. I believe Elonka would have been acting, with regard to the 0RRs etc, as part of the task force set up by ArbCom on disputes of this kind. As an admin, I have no more and no less say than any other editor, and I'm certainly no more right. Orderinchaos 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In many arbitration cases, and in some community sanctions, administrators are given special powers to enact editing restrictions or other remedies (such as 0RR). See Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. The operative phrase is "Any uninvolved administrator may..." When there are special powers granted, available only to administrators, use of these powers is equivalent to hitting the "traditional" administrative buttons (delete, protect, block). Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, what has happened in such cases is that the ArbCom has delegated its own authority to the admin community under the rubric of general (or sometimes discretionary) sanctions. The full list of sanctions is at WP:SANCTIONS. It's worth noting that the authority granted is quite broad but also fairly non-specific. There is, for instance, no endorsement of 0RR, only "restrictions on reverts". Elonka's own "editing conditions" (see e.g. Talk:Quackwatch#Conditions for editing) are, as far as I've been able to work out, something that she's come up with (perhaps as a result of the task force discussions?) which she has implemented by claiming authority under the ArbCom sanctions. They are not specifically endorsed or required by the ArbCom ruling. Another administrator might well have chosen to impose different conditions or - more likely - none at all, other than intervening sporadically to deal with particularly problematic behaviour. Personally, I find that a light touch works better than an authoritarian approach. WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions puts it well: "administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles." The thing that has gone wrong in this particular case is that Elonka has not found an adequate balance between these poles. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tag team

Rather than respond to the points made by Moreschi and MastCell, Elonka has posted this essay on Wikipedia. I could not find a reference to "lynch mobs" in the essay. Elonka shows no signs of any self doubt. Is she now trying to pass off her own offensive and misjudged behaviour as accepted wikipedia policy? Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Great work , if its true. -Bharatveer (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very uneasy about the section at Wikipedia:Tag team#Other identifying characteristics, which seems very self-serving. It currently states:

Tag-teamers may also use intimidation tactics towards administrators, to defend each other against admin actions. For example, when one teammember is blocked, other members may immediate attack the credibility of the blocking admin, and/or start threads at administrator boards to challenge it. Then even if the community backs up the admin's action, tag team members may continue to forum shop, challenging each of the admin's future actions.

Is Elonka implicitly stating that that's what's going on here? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, are you suggesting that it is not? Any merit to this "case" against Elonka is overshadowed by the hordes of 15-year-olds with personal agendas banding together to eliminate a common obstacle. — TAnthony^Talk 04:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Elonka, would you consider userfying this essay please? That is how such things are usually done. In this case, it is loosely based on a draft report that has not been widely discussed and has not yet been formally accepted, so a Wikipedia space essay seems quite premature. Risker (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it say, in re WP essays, that they represent the views of one or more Wikipedians? That is by definiton the case here, unless Elonka disavows the essay herself; I see no reason to move it. IronDuke 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an absolutely excellent essay, which I've been wanting to see for a long time. It is also representative of the sentiment of the community in general, in that gang editing, or tag team editing, is very much against the stated rules and spirit of the encyclopedia. It should stay in mainspace, and frankly I think it needs to be linked from WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. Tag team editing goes on across a huge range of articles, especially in political or ethnic ones. It's a major problem, and deserves a very prominent essay. How about making some prescriptions and upgrading it to a guideline? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My, how unsurprising... Shot info (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

almost as unsurprising as your objections... --Ludwigs2 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of a tag-team... Shot info (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

lol - actually, I'm just a firm believer that one good snark deserves another. all in good fun.  :-) --Ludwigs2 08:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, I agree that tag-team editing falls under WP:MEAT, but the characteristics are — looking for a sufficiently strong word — WP:BOLLOCKS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an essay. What's the big deal? Isn't Elonka entitled to her opinion? 6SJ7 (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and I have no problem with her having an opinion, if she keeps it in her userspace. When it is in Wikipedia space, it is better to reflect a diversity of opinions. Well, the day is young. Risker (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you check Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report, you'll see that the definition has been endorsed by 11 people. --Elonka 03:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there's nothing to stop an editor putting it up for AfD? Alun (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's the fact that it isn't an article. Deletion discussions involving material in Wikipedia space are held at WP:MFD. Risker (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Elonka

(I've taken the liberty of moving this to its own section, as Ramdrake's earlier post and the link are not very visible in the threaded discussion above. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

User_talk:Elonka/Questions. I've transcribed ChrisO's questions on the page (as they were the easiest questions to spot), and added one of my own. Refactoring other questions was a problem, as the signal-to-noise ratio of the discussion (relative to questions) was... rather high. My apologies. I would invite anyone wanting to add questions to do so, with two caveats:

1. Please remain civil at all times.
2. Please refrain from turning these questions into a discussion, or this will get as impossible to answer as the discussion above. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Major concern with Elonka's judgement

On the linked page with questions, Elonka answers one of Aluns thusly: "No, I do not think that an administrator needs to be conversant with the topic matter, to intervene in a dispute." I think this gets at the heart of the problem. The principles at work should be very clear and common-sensicle: if the conflict is primarily one of personal behavior, Elonka is right that the mediator need not know anything about the content, just our personal behavior policies. But if the conflict is about content, there is no way any editor can help mediate a resolution without knowledge of the topic. This gets to the heart of our primary mission, to write encyclopedia articles i.e. articles based on research on substantive topics. If an admin cannot distinguish between these two types of comflicts - personal behavior versus conflict - then the inevitable result is Elonka's response to Alun. And her response to Alun effectively says that how editors talk to one another is more important than the contensts of the article. This is the beginning of the end of the whole project. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what she's saying at all. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be thrilled if I were misreading her, and would welcome clarification from her. I think it is essential that people involve themselves in content disputes, especially if they wish to mediate a conflict, by familiarizing themselves with the actual contents under dispute. This is not a matter of taking some side as to who is right or wront, but it is essential if a mediator is to recognize the difference between mainstram and fringe points of view, between reliable and unreliable sources, etc. Frankly, I feel that Elonka did not take the time to do this when she butted in in the Jagz community ban. I think her failing to have done so led to errors of judgment (in the end the community ban was supported so the result was a major inconvenience but no harm to the encyclopedia ... but in other circumstances realharm to the encyclopedia can occur). If Elonka agrees with me, then I have to admit I am puzzled by her behavior in the Jagz dispute but on the other hand would be reassured. clearly we need to trat personal behavior conflicts and content conflicts differently. But when E. wrote, "No, I do not think that an administrator needs to be conversant with the topic matter, to intervene in a dispute." it seemed she was ignoring the distinction between these different kinds of disputes and how they should be approached and handled. Elonka, did I misunderstand you? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are misreading her or not, since I don't see the reference. But I can say (with great assuredness) that there is a difference between intervening in content and intervening in behavior. administrators take action against editors every day for poor behavior without regard to page content (everything from vandalism to 3rr blocking); there's no reason why they can't do the same within the context of a content dispute. you don't often need to know what two editors are talking about to know if one of them is engaging in crapulence. --Ludwigs2 08:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Then, maybe a possible solution would be that if an admin intervenes in a dispute without any knowledge of the content, maybe they should refrain from applying editing restrictions such as 0RR and just stick with checking for proper behaviour (CIVIL, NPA)? Just a thought here.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we perhaps take Gennarous vs. consensus at Rab concentration camp as an example of what you are discussing, I think the two things are a little difficult to separate. Gennarous was trying to put unsourced nonsense into the article in blatant violation of various core policies. Whether he did so civilly or politely is irrelevant in my view. The exasperated response of another editor, cautioned by Elonka here [6], may be seen as unsurprising under the circumstances. If, on the other hand, an admin arbitrating a dispute looks into the subject just a little, and identifies that a) one POV editor is putting nonsense into an article and b) is doing so without sources, then said admin is then in a fine position to tell the POV shark to stop, and no other editors will post incivil exasperated messages. Just a thought. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right from this perspective. I was just writing from the perspective of the admin who doesn't want to look at the content dispute, even just a little. In this case, editing restrictions may do more harm than good.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you were. My apologies if I was unclear. My post was not a reply to you Ramdrake, more of a general one, since the conversation is about whether content matters and behavioural ones are separable and whether disputes can be arbitrated without knowing anything about the content. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the whole concept of an "uninvolved" editor or administrator: one who doesn't take one side or the other in a content dispute. Some people on the RfC seem to be arguing that this type of neutrality in certain situations is not only unnecessary, but is not allowed. I disagree. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you, but you have to balance uninvolved administrator with the idea that an editor can get upset because there is actually something wrong. Sanctioning the upset party without first checking why they are upset is not a good idea. See also don't overlook legal threats. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor is one who has no partiocular POV to promote. But this should be the stance of all editors, who are not supposed to put their own views into articles. Therefore, the idea of an editor enterning into a content dispute being "uninvolved" is silly. While no editor should put her own POV into an article, editors are supposed to be able to recognize notable POVs from reliable sources. And this is all I have called for: that an editor stepping into a dispute know wnough about the topic to be able to distinguish between notable and non-notable POVs, and between reliable and unreliable sources. This is not forcing an editor to take any side other than that of our core policies. But the idea that any editor can help resolve a dispute in ignorance of the difference between notable and non-notable views, and reliable and unreliable sources is either naive or makes a mockery of the whole project, which is to write an encyclopedia. I have seen others take this approach in the past and in some cases I think that it is out of shere laziness; they get to add edits to their beloved edit count without doing research. Now, settle down, my point is not to impugn people's character. My point is that something that superficially appears to be helpful can turn out to be anything but. This approach elevates some very puritanical notion of civility over research, hard work, and commitment to the encyclopedia. It elevates form over substance. Personal behavior policies are essential for dealing with trolls and vandals and POV pushers. But when good-faith editors are torn over how to develop an article telling them to be civil is not the solution to a conflict, it is just a distractionfrom the actual conflict which requires one - yes, this takes work - to look at the contents and our contents policies and work from them towards a solution to the conflict. This is pretty obvious to me. Fetishizing civil behavior as if this were the point of Wikipedia, rather than writing great encyclopedia articles, just puts the cart before the horse. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I go to the article about the moon, and change the first sentence to say it's made of cheese. I then add several paragraphs of meticulously-sourced scholarly material about cheese. An almighty edit war starts, and at the talk page I put a few beautifully-phrased and unimpeachibly civil posts defending my excellently-researched cheese-related material (skipping over the various complaints about the first sentence), and ignore the incensed flak coming my way. A somewhat "under informed" admin (an "uninvolved" editor or administrator: one who doesn't take one side or the other in a content dispute) on recent changes patrol happens upon our conflagration. Reviewing the talk page posts, he/she decides to arbitrate. He/she identifies a very polite and civil editor who is being called a "bloody cretin", "vandal" and worse by a screaming group of outraged editors. The "under informed" admin admonishes everyone to be as civil as me and to try to find a compromise position. Heaven help the encyclopedia if this is the road we wish to go down. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hell is paved...with green cheese?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See Straw man. The situation you describe is of course absurd. But, to quote GRBerry, "Admins are not idiots". Most admins would be able to tell that someone was using sources that had nothing to do with the core topic of the article. I've actually dealt with disputes like that, especially in the nationalist topic areas, where an editor would try to prove a point by using a source that had nothing to do with the article's exact topic (and sometimes wasn't even about the same century). In those cases, I have cautioned editors to stick to directly relevant (and reliable) sources. In extreme cases, where some editors are accusing other editors of misinterpreting sources, I have taken a look at the source myself if it's online, or asked for editors to provide actual quotes from source material into the Wikipedia footnotes, to assist with verification. This has also been necessary sometimes when dealing with language difficulties. For example, if a Hungarian editor adds information from a Hungarian-language source, and a Slovak editor complains and accuses the Hungarian of misinterpreting the source. In those cases I remind editors of WP:RSUE, and that they should include a quote from the Hungarian source, plus a translated English version of the quote so other editors can understand it. But that's pretty extreme, and a fairly rare situation (in my experience). Mainly I just advise disputing editors to be sure to include a good source with everything they add, and that usually de-escalates (most) disputes. See also Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes#Focus what they're talking about. --Elonka 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the example was a bit too obvious. But replace the "green cheese" and "non-green cheese" factions with something a bit less obvious like the "anthropogenic global warning is happening" faction with the "climate change denial" faction: on both sides you find sources that look at least superficially reliable, you'll even find peer-reviewed papers and organizations on both sides with scientific-sounding names. This is a patently less obvious situation. How do you tell which faction is in fact supporting the mainstream position and which faction is pushing a fringe POV?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I actually recall one dispute where I was drawn to a page because of a flame war between two editors who were arguing about something to do with chemical symbol nomenclature. I read that article several times and still couldn't figure out what they were talking about, but they were obviously upset about it! My techniques there were pretty much the same as other places: I encouraged them to stay civil, to base arguments on sources, and to follow other steps in dispute resolution, such as to request comments from other editors, or try mediation. As I recall, in that particular situation a third opinion was what resolved the matter, something along the lines of, "Yes, the nomenclature is changing but it's not industry standard yet, let's wait until more sources use the new system." And even then I still didn't entirely understand what they were talking about, but at least they weren't edit-warring about it anymore.  ;) So since they appeared to have found a consensus, and were once again working together in a collegial manner, I moved on to other articles. In short: If an article is stable, meaning that the editors who are working on it are happy with it, then it's (usually) not the admin's job to make a decision on whether or not it's neutral. We assume good faith and move on. There's always plenty to do. Heck, in the Navigation box on the lefthand side of the browser, just click on Random article a few times, and there's usually an article needing help within 5 clicks. --Elonka 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess they want admins on their side, or on the other side, whatever this means. They simply can not understand that anything can be judged by not siding with anyone. Therefore they cant deal with you.

Neutrality =/= equal-equal % of A & B & other. Thats the recipe for instant POV. --Rembaoud (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we cannot in fact take Elonka's word for how she acts. After all, before she became an administrator, she completely misrepresented the way she would function. Let's take as an example the incidents that followed my own edits to Richard Lynn, where I added two carefully prepared accounts from JSTOR of a non-notable book mentioned in the article. An administrator who read these accounts would without too much difficulty see that the book provided a reasonable source of data not previously available in one source, but beyond that was not regarded as a great addition to the literature: one reviewer was enthusiastic in speculating where the ideas might lead (Hamilton), other were luke warm, while one raised doubts about the scientific methods (Mckintosh). Now when a fork article with little or no encyclopedic content was subsequently created and was then unsurprisingly merged - because it did not even contain an account of reviews and a separate article could not be justified - Elonka appeared a few days after the merge as the guardian angel of Zero g (now inactive) and proceeded with little or no background knowledge of the subject to POV push on his behalf. This was outrageous behaviour on her part and shows that little or no credence can be given to her claims above. She was being more disruptive than the POV-pusher on whose behalf she edited. What Elonka says she does and what she actually does seem to be two separate things. I do not agree with her own confidence in her own judgement or her assertion that "administrators are not idiots". Administrators can make serious mistakes. Usually they own up to them when other administrators take them to task for it. This is not the case with Elonka. She has gone out of her way to push her maverick conspiracy theories, which fortunately very few administrators indulge in. If they did, wikipedia would be a chaotic anti-intellectual borstal. It is Elonka's lack of self doubt that makes her unsuitable as an administrator. It is foolhardy not to listen to other administrators like MastCell, Moreschi and Slrubenstein. Her preoccupation with minor matters of civility over major content issues is a further indication of her unsuitability. Mathsci (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, given how Elonka is flexible with her word about her recall conditions, why should be assume her words on "admins are not idiots" are correct? Last time I looked, admins were human. Humans make mistakes. One of Elonka's problems with the Community is, she doesn't admit to mistakes and hence, doesn't learn from mistakes. Shot info (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Srubenstein: you're answering as if I was talking about points of view about the subject matter of an article (POV(sm)), when I was talking about points of view about which version of an article is better, i.e. points of view in an editing dispute (POV(ed)). I've seen the phrase "uninvolved administrator" (or sometimes perhaps "uninvolved editor") often used, and I support the continued use of these concepts on Wikipedia. To change that would require a broad community discussion, not just criticism of one administrator using the conventional system. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, by its very nature in a content dispute two different versions of the text express two different views of the subject matter. My comments have to do with content disputes. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you say above that the example I gave about the moon is absurd. Go and check it again. All I was doing was describing the situation we faced at Rab concentration camp, and you were the well meaning "under informed" admin. I just changed the scenario. Except that you didn't happen upon the conflagration at recent changes patrol. You came because Gennarous called you. Gennarous was doing exactly what I described to the first sentence, without a source in sight. He was saying, without sources, it was a POW camp. It was nothing of the kind. A ridiculous assertion, obvious to anyone who checks a source or two. He was then adding sourced material attacking the Yugoslav Partisans, which was entirely irrelevant to the article. Just like the stuff about cheese in the scenario I described above. Your response was not at all as you set it out above. You did the opposite. You repeatedly told everyone else to compromise with Gennarous, without bothering to check a single source. Go and check the diffs as I set them out at the talk page of your RFC and then come back here and reply to this post. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Srubenstein, I don't understand. You said, "An uninvolved editor is one who has no partiocular POV to promote. But this should be the stance of all editors, ..." Since you say you're talking about content disputes, does this mean you believe that an editor shouldn't prefer one version of an article over another? I'm sorry: I'm just not following what you're trying to say. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that all editors should use the same criteria in deciding one version over another: our core content policies, especially NPOV. This requires an editor to distinguish between mainstream and fringe views, and reliable and non-reliable sources. Editors enter into content disputes when they disagre over how to apply these principles, or when some editors have done more research than others. But the only way to collaborate and compromise is by applying these principles. And if another editor wants to help mediate a dispute over conflict, they need to follow the same principles themselves - they need to know or learn the difference between mainstream and fringe views and notable versus unnotable sources. There are some cases where editors accept these principles and do research and in conflicts become incivil and in these cases it can be helpful to remind people to be civil. But in the case i am most familiar with, Jagz, the problem was not incivility although Elonka kept claiming it was. The problem was a troll who was pushing a racist POV; this person had no regard for NPOV or RS. In my questions for Elonka I asked her what to do when WP:DNFTT doesn't work and she said that the person ultimately has to be blocked or banned. Such actions are not in vilation of CIVIL; they are required to remove a disruptive editor. Well, that is precisely what happened to jagz - and then Elonka unblocked him claiming he was a victim of incivility. She was literally careless about the contents of the article and would not take the time to learn about the differences between fringe and mainstream points of view, or reliable and unreliable sources. If she had taken this responsibility seriously maybe she could have helped improve the article. But she wouldn't do this. And in a conflict over content, favoring one editor means favoring that editor's version. In short, there is no way to know if the conflict can be resolved by asking people to be civil until one knows the nature of the conflict. If it is a conflict over content that has been going on for a cople of days in my experience incivility is often the cause. But when a conflict has been going on for a year, in my experience it has to do with a violation of content, not behavior, policies. In these cases one just has to know enough about the contents to be able to understand and thus be able to intervine in the conflict. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these particular situations, but what you say in the above comment makes sense. I still disagree with your earlier comment, however, where you said "Therefore, the idea of an editor enterning into a content dispute being "uninvolved" is silly." When I was helping on the 3RR noticeboard, I was careful to remain neutral in content disputes in many of the situations, although other situations required recognizing vandalism, BLP violations etc.; I still think such remaining neutral is a good thing to do. If one version of the article clearly satisfies policy better than another version, there will generally be enough other editors who recognize that that the article will attain the preferable state if rules such as 3RR are enforced to prevent one editor from dominating. In cases where I involved myself in editing the articles, I refrained from certain roles on the 3RR noticeboard which I deemed to require neutrality (meaning neutrality between POV(ed)s). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am glad we are talking this through because i admitI am struggling to articulate myself clearly. I agree with you 100% that there are situations where a mediator should be neutral with regard to editors, and where the problem is civility, especially as you say when the problem is vandalism and BLP. You make important points. That said, I still believe I am basically right that there are content disputes where such "neutrality" is impossible or undesirable. I think I am trying to say two things. First, i think that even when a mediator is neutral as to WHO she supports, a mediator cannot be neutral about content: content that is encyclopedic and compliant with NPOV, V, and NOR is good; content that is not is bad. The second thing has specificly to do with Elonka who claimed to be neutral but in fact was taking one editor's side (Jagz) and by taking his side, she was implicitly supporting his views. Ultimately, I continue to believe, it is not about taking a person's side, but rather knowing enough about the content to tell the difference betwn a fringe view and a mainstram view, and a reliable and unreliable source when these are at the heart of the dispute. Coppertwig, I think in the end it is a judgment call and instead of a strict rule we need some common sense and perhaps focus on the process. I realize it can be dificult for someone new to the situation to tell the difference between conflicts that have heir origi8ns in violations of personal behavior policies, and other conflicts that have their origins in conflicts oer content policies. I gues i just think our old rule, that all participants in a dispute should agre to mediation, is absolutely key because each participant can then provide their account of the conflict which the mediator must then consider. The problem hee is that Elonka neve did this: she was not invited in o mediate by all paricipants of the dispute; she did not seek all views of the conflict and instead imperiously made her own judgement without investigaing the matter at hand, and took the side of one person, Jagz.Maybe if we just insisted that mediators follow those old rules (everyone must agree, mediator takes into account the actual different views of the conflict) we could solve this problem.Slrubenstein | Talk 05:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)