User:Elonka/Questions

Related discussions:

WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall (closed as keep)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Elonka (rejected)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 53#Proposal: Allow stewards to deadmin based on community consensus (archived)

This page is meant for questions directed at Elonka regarding the ongoing RfC and related events. You are welcome to add questions of your own, but please keep them civil and please keep all discussion on the relevant talk page. Thanks--Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO's questions

A few follow-up questions for Elonka:

1) You've said that you will "listen to concerns". What will you do differently in future?

I am still listening, and thinking about what I'm hearing. I'll come back to this one in a week or two. --El on ka 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2) The main theme of this RfC has been that you have systematically made errors in judgment in relation to editors' violations of NPOV, OR and soapboxing. How do you respond to the specific concerns that MastCell and Moreschi have raised in particular?

That's kind of a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.. Can you try to rephrase? --El on ka 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

3) Are you going to continue to enforce editing restrictions on the articles discussed in the RfC, or are you willing to hand the baton on to someone else? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be delighted for other uninvolved administrators to help out with the managing of the named articles. I am not preventing anyone from participating. Indeed, it is often easier when these articles have multiple administrators. But there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia, and only about 1500 administrators, most of whom are busy with other things than handling discretionary sanctions, so sometimes it is difficult to get more than one admin's attention. --El on ka 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake's questions

1)Please explain how you would differentiate between a "tag team" and a consensus in a controversial situation.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: It depends. :) Longer answer: There is no absolute metric here, it's more like a series of weighted factors. In general, a "tag team" will be defined by the following characteristics: The same editors working in the same topic area, tending to agree with each other in multiple disputes, using aggressive tactics towards their opposition, especially with name-calling and personal attacks, where they seek to discredit their opponents' character or motivations. Tag-teamers may also engage in harassment tactics, showing up on multiple articles on an opponent's watchlist, or barraging talkpages in attempts to provoke opponents to incivility or other rash actions. Tag teamers tend to "appear" at disputes where one of their teammembers may be engaged, even if they have never edited that article, and have not been visibly notified or invited. Tag-teamers are usually loathe to compromise, and are opposed to getting opinions from the wider community. Some teammembers may noticeably have very few actual article edits, and their contribs may instead show that they tend to bounce from talkpage to talkpage, dispute to dispute. Or if they are editing, it may just be edit-warring in support of one of their teammates.

Consensus-seeking editors on the other hand, tend to remain civil, work hard to try and find a compromise, and generally only engage in discussions on articles that they are actually editing at the time, unless they have been notified via a WikiProject announcement, RfC, or other mechanism. They tend to react to challenges in a more thoughtful manner, and keep their discussions focused on the article's content, rather than attacking the motives of an opposing editor. Consensus-seekers are also usually more willing to file an RfC, request mediation, or to seek outside input from other editors.

The above descriptions are definitely not 100% accurate, but they give a general way to distinguish. If you have a question about a more specific situation, please feel free to ask. --El on ka 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to add this now,but I meant to add some questions later

2)In a controversial situation where the claims center around what position is NPOV and possible NPOV violations, how would you go about determining NPOV?--Ramdrake (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries about number of questions, ask as many as you like. :) As for "determining NPOV", that's another question where the short answer is, "It depends". In certain cases, it'll be obvious. For example, if an editor is adding, "OMG, Mary Poppins is the coolest person evah!!", then an admin doesn't really need to check sources to caution that editor about writing in a more neutral way. :) For more subtle cases though, it's probably not the admin's call as to whether or not the article has "become neutral". Instead, it's up to the editors on that page to work out where the marker for NPOV is. If no one's complaining, then consensus has probably been found. I see my job as an admin, not as someone to say, "Okay, the article is neutral now," but instead to facilitate the other editors to resolve their own battles. The main things that I watch for, are whether the editors are using reliable sources, and whether they are interpreting them in a proper way. If an editor is using bad sources, or misinterpreting good sources, then I will probably counsel them on how to find better sources, and how to cite them properly. In most cases, editors respond well to this kind of tutelage, and willingly change their practices, in an effort to find better sources. In cases where they may be using good sources, but are giving undue weight to certain views, I listen to the comments of the other editors on the talkpage. If no one is complaining, then I take that as silent agreement. If people are complaining, then I can nudge an editor to engage in more talkpage discussion. I also encourage the "complaining" editors, to actually go in and edit the article, to try and bring it in accordance with NPOV. Too often I see editors complaining, "The article's wrong! The person working on it must be blocked!" but they never go in and actually edit the article themselves. So when I see an editor crying, "The article's wrong! Admin, do something!" My reaction is usually, "Go in and fix it!" :) The goal of an administrator in dispute resolution is not to impose the administrator's idea of "what the article should be," but instead to facilitate the editing of the page. See also Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. --El on ka 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

3)If a group of people in a contentious situation presents itself as a consensus, but does not behave itself optimally (as per answer #1) with regard to one or more dissenting editors, how would you verify their claim, and more generally, how would you handle the situation?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If a group of editors presents itself as a consensus, but there is a minority of editors who strongly dissent, I would encourage them to follow another step in dispute resolution, such as to file an RfC, or to request mediation. As for "not behaving optimally", if the editing atmosphere had become toxic, I might try and ensure a collegial editing environment, such as to encourage editors to stay civil; to focus their comments on the article content, rather than on other editors; and to keep comments source-based, rather than idea-based. --El on ka 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

4)Elonka, this passage applies specifically to deletion discussion, which isn't the same as merging. Can you point to a similar policy for merge discussions?--Ramdrake (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) originally in reference to the discussion here

It's pretty much standard practice on Wikipedia, that the closer should be someone who is impartial on the matter. See WP:DGFA, Wikipedia:Administrators, WP:UNINVOLVED, WP:DPR, etc.: "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest." For merges, the relevant guideline is at WP:MERGE, which suggests listing controversial merges at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. That is an excellent way to ensure that an "obscure" merge benefits from wider participation. Other options to gain wider community awareness of a controversial discussion are to file an RfC, or to mention the merge at the appropriate WikiProject talkpages.

5)Elonka, I was the one who brought the matter to ANI, and I can honestly tell you it was in order for a third party to tell Zero g to stop reverting and respect the merger decision; I had no intention to see him blocked (or else I would have brought the matter to AN/3RR, where his actions did indeed qualify). Again, it looks like you're assuming to know people's intention, but you give them less than good-faith intentions. And the suggestion to bring the issue to WP:Proposed mergers is for controversial merges; in this case there was a single editor opposing, so again, how is that construed as "controversial"? By this measuring stick, 99% of all proposals at Wikipedia should be considered "controversial".--Ramdrake (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC) originally in reference to the discussion here - question seconded by Mathsci User_talk:Elonka/Questions

ANI should only be used for urgent situations, or conflicts where other mechanisms to resolve a dispute have not worked. In the case of the merge, the other mechanisms were not tried. There was just a small, un-advertised merge discussion on one talkpage, opened and closed by the same editor in a short period of time. Objections were ignored, attacked, or discounted. Then when "the decision" was protested, the first reaction was to go to ANI. But that's skipping steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. A better way through the conflict, that would not have required an administrator, would have been to file an RfC, AfD, or to post a note at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. As it was, when a wider community discussion was finally initiated (by the AfD), it settled the matter, and the disruption stopped. The matter did not require an ANI thread, it just required input from the wider community. --El on ka 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's Questions

It is usually easy for an admin to know how to act, uncontroversially, when confronted with a vandal or someone who has violated 3RR after a warning. But trolling can take much more complex and subtle forms, which is why the standard and usually best way to deal with a troll is WP:DNFTT. But what would you do if this does not work? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that we are talking about the standard definition of trolls, meaning "someone who is deliberately trying to disrupt the project", I would give them one or two good faith warnings, explaining to them how their behavior needed to change, and what would happen if their behavior did not change. If they continued with disruption, I would proceed to a ban or a block. Also, I'd like to say that I think some editors misuse the terms "troll" and "vandal", to refer to any editor who is doing something that they disagree with. However, there is a clear difference between "trolls" and "POV-pushers". Just because someone has strong opinions on a particular topic, or temporarily loses their temper, does not make them a troll. To be "trolling", someone has to be knowingly trying to antagonize and disrupt. For an excellent definition of what trolling really is, see the recent NY Times article, "The Trolls Among Us".--El on ka 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin's questions

1) My preliminary analysis of the operation of 0RR leads to the conclusion that it encourages sock puppets even more than the 3RR warring.

Puppet A1 inserts POV "information". He may or may not be warned or blocked, especially if he's creative in phrasing (or spelling, I suppose).
Sensible editor B reverts the change. He will be warned or blocked.
Puppet A2 inserts slightly different POV "information".
"B", not wanting to be blocked for acting reasonably, asks friend "C" for help. (I suppose asking on the appropriate noticeboard, which is clearly appropriate, might not be noticed by the monitoring admin.)
"C" reverts.
IP .A.B.C.A3 inserts yet another piece of POV "information".
"D", having seen the noticeboard, reverts.
"E" applys sanctions to "B", "C", and "D", noting they are a "tag team". As "A1", "A2", and "A3" have applied slightly different edits, or reverted the section to a version before "E" was involved, he may not notice.

However, puppets are "cheaper" than real persons, so the puppeteer wins, in most cases, unless "E" is very careful, and familiar with the topic and noticeboards. I really don't see a way around this. 1RR or 0RWD (no reverts without discussion) might produce a more stable article; but I really don't see a way 0RR can work. Do you? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a fairly extreme example, and I'm not aware of any article where things have worked like that, though if you could point out something specific, I'd be happy to take a look. --El on ka 01:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2) As for specifics, on Quackwatch, there seem to be two basic sides.

The WP:SPOV (Scientific Point of View) side, which probably would have a consensus, if the actions of SA and QG were disregarded.
The WP:FPOV (Fringe Point of View), who are mostly polite, and better at forum shopping than the SPOV side. (There are a few troublesome or banned editors on that side, also, although only IR and I'C come to mind.)

There may be a few editors actually trying to support WP:NPOV, but I can't name any. (Well, I'm trying, but I don't see much hope, either before or after the 0RR. I suppose that I try to disregard fringe pseudoscientific papers presented on both sides, but there seem to be more of them on the FPOV side.)

However, the WP:SPOV side looks like a tag team by your standards. Clearly, they're not; they are just editors with a common point of view who are all watching the article. But, unless you trace back their edits a number of months, they'll meet your criteria.

At least, that's my interpretation of the dynamics at that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what was the question? --El on ka 01:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly no tag team there, but you seem to be treating the SPOV editors as if they were a tag team, rather than representing a weak consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

At the Quackwatch article, the primary uninvolved administrators there are myself and User:GRBerry. Could you perhaps give an example of a specific administrative action which you have a question about? Specific logs are here: Talk:Quackwatch#Admin log. --El on ka 03:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alun's question

Part 1. How do you define "significant opposition"? On the AN/I discussion about the consensus merge for "Dysgenics:Genetic deterioration in modern populations" into Richard Lynn you claimed that a single editor dissenting was "significant opposition". On "Rab concentration camp" the evidence suggests that you were prepared to support a single editor who lacked sources against a consensus that had WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV on their side. On the recall and the RfC you claim that the community is supporting you even though there is significant concern expressed about your conduct. Can you explain how, in some instances, a single editor, opposed to five or six editors, is considered "significant opposition" but in other instances many tens of editors are not considered significant?

At Richard Lynn, in the initial discussion of the merge, it was a case of a very few editors having a very limited discussion on one talkpage. Further, most of those in the small group of editors who were supporting the merge over opposition, had already been working in concert on multiple pages in that topic area. They had also been engaging in personal attacks, intimidation tactics, and were resistant to getting input from the wider community. Some of the editors may have been acting in good faith, but taken as a group, they were looking like "tag team" behavior. Better would have been if someone simply filed an RfC, AfD, or something at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. At least one of the editors who opposed the merge did want to file an AfD, but didn't know how. Someone could have explained the procedure to him, or done it for him, per WP:BITE. But instead there were a series of personal attacks issued, and attempts to get a ban or block on the dissenting editor via an ANI thread. It seemed fairly disruptive to me, that the group of apparent tag-team editors was willing to file an ANI thread, but wasn't willing to file an AfD. So eventually I filed the AfD myself. The consensus was then clear at the AfD, the matter was settled within a week, and the disruption stopped.

I'd like to see evidence of personal attacks against Zero g (or any editor) on the "Dysgenics:Genetic deterioration of modern populations" merge proposal here. You can't make this claim without support. What intimidating "tactics" were used? Be specific, how are they "tactics", what are the criteria for defining an "intimidating tactic"? Could not any consensus against inclusion of a minority pov be considered an "intimidating tactic"? If five editors say "merge" and give good arguments and a single editor says "oppose" is that intimidation? What evidence is there that they were "resistant to getting input from the wider community", my recollection is that the consensus was that, for editors involved int he article a merge was appropriate due to the non-notability of the book, and that overturning a consensus for the simple sake of pacifying a single editor acting against consensus was creating unnecessary Wikidrama. I don't know what a "tag-team" is, but I see no relevant Wikipedia policy about this, only a very vague essay that poorly defines a "tag-team" as just about any consensus with a tiny minority pov opposing. When did essays become policy? In this instance any consensus can be claimed to be a "tag-team". Your definition of a "tag-team" seems to be if two or more editors happen to share an interest in a specific subject and also share the same point of view. So a "tag-team" amounts to any two editors who are knowledgeable about a subject and apply that knowledge to an article against a minority pov. You also need to demonstrate that the "tag-team" is disruptive according to the essay, you chose to see the consensus as disruptive and not the single editor who was acting against consensus as disruptive, I find that a very biased stance for a so called "uninvolved admin" to take. Also the "tag-team" essay claims that "tag-teams" are involved in "consensus blocking": "Consensus-blocking. Tag-teamers are usually reluctant to compromise, or consider sourced perspectives or arguments with which they disagree on principle," but in this instance it was a single editor who was blocking consensus. Besides to make claims of "tag-teaming" you need to provide evidence that that this is indeed a "tag-team" and you specifically need to state who the members of the "tag-team" are. Otherwise it's just unsupported speculation. Invoking WP:BITE is scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, you are referring to Zero g (talk · contribs) who has been editing since June 2006, and has over 750 edits [1] hardly a "newbie". Besides it was User:Richard001, who accepted the merge, who stated that he would have preferred an AfD,[2] and Richard001 has ove 18,000 edits [3] so your BITE clim is clearly invalid. At this point Zero g claimed that consensus had not been reached because two editors opposed a "merge",[4] but clearly Richard001 did not oppose a merge, he did not vote one way or the other and with 18,000 edits he could easily have started an AfD had he wanted to, all he said was that he would have preferred an AfD. Richard001 did not engage in edit warring against consensus. But here's the point, Zero g is perfectly capable of putting an article up for deletion by himself, the first time I did it (and I think I've only done it once or twice) no one helpped me, and it wasn't such a difficult thing to do, there are instructions about how to do this and they are easy to follow. I find your response unacceptable, it's based on innuendo, you have assumed bad faith on the part of a group of editors you have claimed are a "tag-team", but you have refused to name those editors or provide evidence of "tag-team" behaviour. Furthermore many of the editors you have implied are a "tag-team" are long standing editors who are committed to our core policies, make a specific accusation and start an RfC (I've specifically asked you in the past to start an RfC against me if you have specific problems with me) or stop throwing accusations about, this sort of innuendo is totally unacceptable. Now answer the question, what is "significant opposition"? Alun (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is, that there was disruption, and disagreement about the best way to handle things. Filing an AfD clarified the consensus, and the disruption stopped. If going that extra step in dispute resolution helps to reduce disruption, I think it's worthwhile. --El on ka 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Or you could have just left a message on the talk page stating that consensus was against Zero g and left it at that. Then you could have left him a message on his talk page about abiding by consensus decisions Alun (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At Rab concentration camp, I was not at all doing what you describe, though if you have a specific diff, I'll be happy to review it.

I don't believe that I've ever said that one editor against many tens was "significant opposition", though if you have a specific diff, I'll be happy to review it. --El on ka 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer the question please, can you please explain what "significant opposition" is, considering that you have claimed that a single editor represents "significant" opposition? The evidence abot Rab concentration camp was provided by User:AlasdairGreen27 at your RfC, he also made the claim at AN/I several months ago. I'm not interested in your justifications for these actions, I'm interested in how you came to the conclusion that a single editor is "significant opposition" in these two instances, because I don't think Wikipedia normally considers a single editor "significant opposition", we work by consensus, and when there is a consensus against a single editor it does not represent a "tag-team". Alun (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a mix of multiple situations, so it's hard to give a single reply. In the case of Rab concentration camp, there were very few editors participating, so consensus was difficult to determine. The situation was also complex, because there were personal attacks going in both directions, as editors were leveling accusations at other editors, rather than sticking to discussions about the article content. At the Rab article, it looked to me like one editor (who granted was being disruptive in other ways) was trying to make changes to the article, and every single change that he attempted, was being reverted, even when he had sources. It would have been better if the editors worked towards a compromise, rather than rejecting out of hand every edit made by a specific editor as "he must be POV-pushing". --El on ka 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But fundamentally he was acting alone against consensus. Having his edits reverted was therefore not per se disruptive but countering someone who was in breach of the consensus reached. The disruption was in fact on the part of the single editor, so the appropriate action would have been to give him a short cooling down block, and explain to him that he can't force his opinion into the article, but that he needs to argue constructively on the talk page. Ultimately if he had tried this, and still had consensus against him then he needed to accept that consensus and move on. That's how it normally works in my experience. It's better to block the disruptive editor for pov-pushing (which you can do) or edit warring (which you can also do) than try to mediate a situation that didn't need mediation. Alun (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Cool down" blocks are against Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --El on ka 21:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that, I've seen editors blocked for 12 or 24 hours with an edit summary "you need to cool down". Besides isn't blocking for edit warring effectively a "cool down" block? Alun (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Part 2. How do you defend your violation of Wikipedia core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR by your insistence that povs that breach these core policies be included in articles?

That's a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. If you would like to ask something more specific, preferably with an actual diff, please do so. --El on ka 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK sorry this is my first time asking these sorts of questions. Alun (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Part 3. Do you not think that for anyone to be able to fairly intervene in a dispute then that person needs to be prepared to at least attain a basic level of understanding of the issues involved? How do you suppose "admins" can intervene a dispute if they cannot identify a reliable source or an unsourced claim? Shouldn't admins who intervene at least ask for sources, and if one is forthcoming try to determine the reliability of such sources?

No, I do not think that an administrator needs to be conversant with the topic matter, to intervene in a dispute. Indeed, it can sometimes be better if the administrator is completely unaware of the topic, because that helps them to stay neutral. Just like if an issue is taken to WP:ARBCOM, the Committee is not going to make a decision on article content, they are going to base their decision on user conduct. So administrators can help to do things such as ensure a collegial editing environment, keep a discussion focused on the article content instead of the editors, and ensure that editors are making their arguments based on sources instead of opinions. As for judging the reliability of sources, in some cases this is going to be obvious, such as using the Encyclopedia Britannica, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. If there is a disagreement though about whether or not a source is reliable, the proper venue to resolve that, is to file a report at the reliable sources noticeboard. I generally advise editors to tag any questionable sources in an article with a {{vc}} tag, and then discuss it on the talkpage or at a noticeboard. --El on ka 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But you have affected content by imposing a 0rr rule, which effectively allows unsourced or poorly sources content to stay in an article, this seems to me to be adversely affecting the neutrality of Wikipedia. If "admins" are going to impost 0rr, stop editors from reverting tiny minority povs, then you are affecting content. Effectively you are compromising our core policies. there seems to be some evidence that you have a habit of taking "sides" in these disputes, especially taking the "side" of the tiny minority of editors who are pushing a fringe pov, without considering that the minority may be in the minority because they are pushing a fringe pov. I get the impression that you think that NPOV applies to editors and not to content. I remind you that NPOV does not call for all points of view to be included, and does not assume that all points of view are equal. The treatment of all editors as equal and all povs as equal is damaging to Wikipedia. Stability is a red herring, I'd rather have an unstable article that is neutral some of the time than an article that is non-neutral all of the time. I suggest that you rethink your approach and try to understand out policy on NPOV and apply it to content and not assume all edits are equal. Alun (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reply below about how I use 0RR. And I think my understanding of WP:NPOV is just fine. If you have proof otherwise, please provide it. --El on ka 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Part 4. Do you consider the purpose of intervention simply as a way to prevent edit wars and impose "peace"? Should Wikipedia compromise reliable content by pandering to pov-pushers by allowing them to include poorly sourced or unsourced opinion? Is stability more important than reliable content? Should we dispence with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR in the pursuit of "peace" by giving every unsupported opinion space?

I see the purpose of administrator intervention as being to reduce disruption to the project, so that we can return to our main tasks of building an encyclopedia. Our goal is high quality articles which reflect positively on the project. --El on ka 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But sometimes "reducing disruption" leads directly to the inclusion of unsupported material that reduces the quality of articles, especially when an article is locked down by the imposition of 0rr. There's a fallacy here, and a big one, which is that the inposition of "martial law" on an article somehow improves it. I disagree strongly, the actions of a "admin" should always produce a better article, if the "admin" imposes a 0rr and then a pov-pusher introduces speculative personal opinion, this cannot be reverted, and yet you claim that this produces "high quality articles"? My personal goal is certainly "high quality articles", but this is achieved by understanding the subject matter at hand and citing from reliable sources. It is not achieved by pushing for the inclusion of tiny minority povs just because you think that a small group of editors, acting against consensus, are being "ganged up on" by the consensus. You should at least ask yourself why the consensus is against the tiny minority, and entertain the conclusion that it is because they are promoting more academically representative points of view. Alun (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the rare situations that I have imposed 0RR, it was not imposed in a vacuum, but as only one of several other clarifying conditions. It cannot be used to force personal opinions into articles, because the other conditions prevent it. For example, editors are still required to use sources whenever adding something to an article. If an editor is adding unsourced information, that is going to be considered a violation of the editing conditions. If someone adds something that is obviously vandalistic, it can be reverted by any other editor. If someone adds something that is plausible but not properly sourced, other editors are instructed to add a {{fact}} tag to the statement. If no source is produced in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be deleted. Editors are also welcome to change information in the article, to better reflect what is in the actual sources. If one editor adds information that gives too much weight to a minority view, other editors can condense the section down to a more reasonable size. The only thing they can't do, is delete citations from reliable sources. They can condense the information from that source, but the citation stays, unless there is consensus to remove it. --El on ka 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense, as long as the conditions are equally applied to all editors. I still disagree with 0rr fundamentally, but as long as there's still a mechanism to remove pov-pushing from the article then that mechanism needs to work well. I get the impression that the mechanism has not worked well in the past, or why else are we having this discussion.Alun (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, in my opinion, we are having this discussion because some editors have been accusing me of bad administrative judgment, but have been unable to actually provide diffs of any cases where I made a bad call. ;) It's an unfortunately successful tactic on Wikipedia, that some editors realize that they can stir up trouble by making a bunch of false accusations, without any proof whatsoever. Then if other people start repeating those accusations, the more people that repeat it, the more it "sounds" like it must be true. Then other editors come along, know nothing about the situation, but see all these accusations being thrown around, and figure that where there's so much smoke, there must be fire, and so they jump on the bandwagon. But in actuality, no, it's mostly just smoke (and some editors are really good at generating large amounts of noxious gas). So, here's some advice for navigating Wikipedia disputes: When you see someone make an accusation, don't believe it unless they've actually provided a diff. And check the diff for yourself, to make sure it really says what they're charging. Further, check whose edit is in the diff! For example, if someone says, "Joe was uncivil", and then provides a diff of Mary saying, 'Joe was uncivil', that's not proof. Instead, they need to provide a diff of Joe being uncivil. If there's no diff, then ask for a diff, or, write the entire thing off as smoke. :) --El on ka 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree about diffs and I'm going to remove my name from the recall list because you have answered my questions here and shown good faith in doing so, and because I'm not "out to get you". But I'd like you to think about this, you called a group of editors on "Race and intelligence" a "tag-team" on AN/I without establishing this or providing diffs, and above in your answer to Part 1, you claimed that there had been personal attacks against Zero g during the "Dysgenics (book)" merge discussion, when there clearly weren't, again there were no diffs. I think you were confusing the situation with Jagz on Race and intelligence, where there were personal attacks on both sides, with the merge proposal on "Dysgenics (book)". I just ask that you are more careful in future when it comes to identifying "tag-teams" and don't assume that a group of editors who are acting collaboratively to get a consensus are a "tag-team". I'm thinking that because you have been so involved with some quite difficult disputes with ethnic and nationalistic issues you may have become oversensitised to these issues. I also think that, especially on science related articles, there is more likely to be a mainstream scientific view, and in these instances we need to take content into account much more when it comes to dispute resolution. Thanks for replying though. Alun (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to reconsider your opinion, I appreciate that quality in a person. :) As for the personal attacks on Zero g, I'm talking about comments as were made in this ANI thread,[5] where he was called a SPA, other negative personal comments were made about his probable political leanings, and there were calls for administrative action to block him as a POV-pusher. My feeling was that an ANI thread was premature, and that there should have instead been an attempt to seek wider community input for the merge. As for me calling people a tag team, perhaps the term may have been a bit strong, but perhaps we could agree that there were "Tag-teamish" behaviors going on? There definitely seemed (at least to a neutral outside observer) to be some ganging up in process, along with personal attacks, and a resistance to seeking more input from the outside community. The merge "poll" had multiple irregularities, including the fact that it wasn't bannered outside the talkpage, and that it was opened and closed by the same editor, in a very short period of time. Generally when someone starts a poll, they shouldn't also close it. Instead, an uninvolved editor or administrator should make that decision. And as you saw, all of this was resolved by simply following another step in dispute resolution, an AfD. That made the consensus crystal clear, and there was no further disruption. Believe me, if Zero g would have continued edit-warring after the consensus of that AfD, I would have blocked him myself! But as near as I can tell, the articles have been much more stable since then. Would you agree? --El on ka 13:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Part 5. Do you always consider that a group of editors who have formed a consensus are a "tag-team" if they refuse to allow a single editor from including unreliable or tiny minority povs into an article in breach of that consensus? If so are you in favour of dispencing with WP:CON for the adoption of a guideline or policy that demands that all content be included and treated equally however little support there is for that pov in an article?

See above about "beating your wife". --El on ka 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again. Alun (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Part 6. In the past you have argued that "admins" should be held to a higher behavioural standard than other Wikipedians because the community has given them a position of trust (on Slrubenstein's talk page for example). Do these higher standards also apply to your behaviour as an "admin"? If you believe they do, then how do you reconcile this with your refusal to honour your commitment to submit to recall? Does not being held to a higher behavioural standard include accepting a recall, even if you think you have done nothing wrong?

I have already responded about the recall.[6] As for admin behavior, I do believe that administrators are held to a higher behavioral standard, yes. See also this ArbCom case, where the Committee said, Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. That is one of the reasons I have repeatedly cautioned Slrubenstein about the need to be civil, and to stop with the name-calling of other editors. --El on ka 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

When have I called another editor a name? I did call Jagz a racist, but that is because he is a racist. I see no way to identify disruptive POV pushers without naming the POV they are pushing. I also called him a troll but how on earth can anyone invoke WP:DNFTT without saying someone is a troll? You seem to be contradicting your answer to my questiojn in which you seem to agree that trolls ought not to be tolerated. Which one is it? Tolerate them, or do not tolerate them? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But Elonka you have been "name calling", you have claimed that those in the RfC who have not supported you have a grudge against you and that they are out for revenge. You have implied that there was a "tag-team" at Race and intelligence" and at "Dysgenics: Genetic deterioration of modern populations". You have refused to name the members of this "tag-team" or provide evidence that it exists, but it still amounts to a blackening of the reputations of those implied to be involved. This is clearly not a high standard of behaviour. You have not assumed good faith. You have made what I consider to be quite nasty accusations and insinuations in your answer to Part 1 of my question, but have done so without overtly naming any editors or providing evidence. I don' think this can be considered a high standard of behaviour. You cannot possibly think that I have a grudge against you, you have never blocked me or reported me to AN/I or indeed used your "admin" tools against me in any way. We have had disagreements, and we still disagree. You warned me to be more civil, and I accepted that it was a fair warning. But there really does seem to be a double standard here, one that you hold everyone else to, and a different one that you apply to yourself. Had you resubmitted yourself for adminship I would have voted for you for the simple reason that you would have demonstrated that you hold yourself accountable to the community and that you hold the "admin" tools as of little importance. Now I get the impression that you never intended to re-apply for adminship, even when you pledged to be open to recall, it was a device to sway those who were wavering. I also get the impression that you hold "adminship" as a authority position and that you count "admins" as superior editors and a "policing" force. I also get the impression that you want admins to "take over" certain article and "impose" conditions. I find this unacceptable. We resolve disputes by discussion and not by imposition of unfair and damaging "conditions" from "above". I think we need a policy for the recall of any and all "admins" which is binding to all "admins". I think that this policy should be simple and should require a specific number of Wikipedians to start, say ten, then there should be a new request for adminship that has the same criteria as any original request. It's the only way to make "admins" accountable to the community. To be fair most "admins" do an exceptional job, but they need to be more accountable to the community and the community needs to be able to take back it's "authority" from those "admins" who appear to be placing themselves above the community and arbitrarily imposing "police actions" on articles and taking "sides" in disputes. Alun (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For best results here, please keep your replies short, and focused on a specific question. When you ask several in one paragraph, I'll probably only answer one. Picking one comment at random from your above paragraph, I'll say that I agree that admins need to be accountable to the community, and I don't believe that I was taking sides in any dispute. When I saw multiple editors being disruptive, I tried to issue cautions evenly, regardless of which "side" they were on. If you think I was doing otherwise, please provide an example. Thanks, --El on ka 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong, or acting in bad faith, but I was involved in a minor disagreement with you where you labelled a group of editors a "tag-team", the problem was that you did not provide evidence to justify this label, nor did you name the members of the so called "tag-team". As someone who felt that they were probably part of this so called "tag-team" I found the accusation offensive and unfounded. Indeed I felt as if I had been indirectly accused of doing something underhand, when in fact I had done nothing of the sort, but that I couldn't properly respond because the accusation was not directly made. I suggest in future if you are going to make such claims you provide evidence and name the members of the team openly so they can defend themselves. To take actions against what you think is a "tag-team" but not to identify those members or have a proper process to ascertain if this really is a "tag-team" is unfair. In this case you claimed on AN/I that you were acting against a "tag-team" to justify your actions, but it's not what I would call assuming good faith for you to have been the prosecution, jury and judge in that case. I suggest that you refrain from making "tag-team" accusations in future unless you have direct evidence and a community consensus that this is indeed the case. We don't go around calling other editors sockpuppets without evidence, and even if we provide evidence it can be wrong. I've seen many sock puppet allegations with convincing evidence that have been made in good faith, that have still been shown to be incorrect. Alun (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight's question

The version of events that I consider has occurred is that you have made some questionable decisions without sufficient on-wiki discussion with other admins, and because of this is you have received some good faith criticism. Your response has been to reject the criticism, and declare that virtually anybody criticizing you is acting in bad faith. This has resulted in a recall petition, which you have rejected, again with accusations of bad faith.

Your version of events, in so far as I understand what you are saying, is that for reasons I'm unclear about, a large number of editors hold grudges against you.

Could you clarify whether that is what you are saying, and if so could you explain why so many editors hold grudges against you? More importantly, is there any way you could be persuaded that your version of events isn't correct? PhilKnight (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If any admins had questions about my decisions, they could have questioned them. :) In all of the cases where I have imposed discretionary sanctions, I cannot think of any cases where an uninvolved admin came to my talkpage and said, "Hey, I disagree with this decision." Indeed, in several cases, when I felt a decision might in any way require further review, I went out and actively sought additional opinions. I even created the {{2O}} template to get second opinions for the Hungarian/Slovakian disputes. In all cases that I can think of, other admins agreed with the actions that I was taking. This was backed up at WP:AN, WP:ANI, ArbCom, and multiple other pages where I logged administrative decisions. So, when you say I made questionable decisions, could you please indicate which decisions? Then I can either go into more detail, or perhaps point you at places where those decisions were already reviewed. Thanks, El on ka 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, to reiterate what I have said in your rfc, I consider the strict imposition of 0RR, and the ban of Ronz and SA to be questionable. However, I have a great deal of respect for the editors who have raised concerns about your intervention in race articles. Also, nobody in your rfc raised concerns about your work in the Hungarian/Slovakian dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The ban of SA was upheld at ANI.[7] What was your own concern about it? ScienceApologist had already been blocked four times in one month. I considered the imposition of a mild ban, asking him to avoid one article for one week, to be considerably more lenient than a block. Or do you feel that it would have been better to simply block him again? --El on ka 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened was Jehochman criticized your judgment, and your reaction was to accuse him of acting in bad faith. I gather that Jehochman is currently organizing adoption for SA, which I think is a preferable solution. PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Jehochman. I'm talking about multiple uninvolved admins who commented in that ANI thread, who supported the ban of ScienceApologist. --El on ka 22:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the context of you accusing Jehochman of acting in bad faith, I decided not to comment on the noticeboard and wait for the inevitable rfc. I don't know if I was the only editor who decided to take this course of action, however it would explain the difference in the proportion of editors supporting / opposing your actions on the noticeboard compared to your rfc. Also, there is a distinction between what is allowable under the editing restrictions, and what constitutes good judgment, which again I mentioned in the rfc. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm saying you have shown questionable judgment, not that you have broken the rules. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Which of my comments in that thread are you referring to? --El on ka 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there was a ban of SA, and later a block, and I'm obviously confusing them. Could you answer my original question now? PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but which question? Also, I'm still confused about which statement of mine regarding Jehochman that you are referring to. --El on ka 13:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Original question

The version of events that I consider has occurred is that you have made some questionable decisions without sufficient on-wiki discussion with other admins, and because of this is you have received some good faith criticism. Your response has been to reject the criticism, and declare that virtually anybody criticizing you is acting in bad faith. This has resulted in a recall petition, which you have rejected, again with accusations of bad faith.

Your version of events, in so far as I understand what you are saying, is that for reasons I'm unclear about, a large number of editors hold grudges against you.

Could you clarify whether that is what you are saying, and if so could you explain why so many editors hold grudges against you? More importantly, is there any way you could be persuaded that your version of events isn't correct? reposted by PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said above: If any admins had questions about my decisions, they could have questioned them. Instead, in all of the cases where I have imposed discretionary sanctions, I cannot think of any cases where an uninvolved admin came to my talkpage and said, "Hey, I disagree with this decision." Indeed, in several cases, when I felt a decision might in any way require further review, I went out and actively sought additional opinions. I even created the {{2O}} template to get second opinions for the Hungarian/Slovakian disputes. In all cases that I can think of, other admins agreed with the actions that I was taking. This was backed up at WP:AN, WP:ANI, ArbCom, and multiple other pages where I logged administrative decisions. So, when you say I made questionable decisions, could you please indicate which decisions? Then I can either go into more detail, or perhaps point you at places where those decisions were already reviewed. Or even better: If you had questions about any of the decisions, would it not have been better for you to have spoken up at the time? Going from complete silence to "I think Elonka should resign" seems like a bit of an over-reaction, in my opinion. --El on ka 20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, when Jehochman raised concerns about your judgment, you accused him of acting in bad faith. In this context, it's unsurprising there was an rfc. In the rfc, you said those editors who criticized you were acting in bad faith. Unsurprisingly, there was a recall petition, and yet again, you made accusations of bad faith. None of this was an over-reaction, the problem is your tendency to accuse anybody who questions your judgment of acting in bad faith. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty sweeping statement. Care to provide some diffs of those accusations? --El on ka 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the diffs. PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Okay, to be clear, I am not accusing everyone who criticizes me of bad faith. There are, however, a few people who are endorsing my recall, who have been specifically warned for inappropriate behavior. At least three have been warned in the past for harassment, and one of those is Jehochman.[8] Feel free to look at his contribs (and talkpage) for yourself. As for the other comments, I am doing my best to listen to everyone's concerns, even in those cases where they are clearly not "editors in good standing" (editors with long block logs, under ArbCom sanctions, desysopped admins, etc.) But I'm still trying to listen to what everyone is saying. --El on ka 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, in the interest of complete clarity, can you provide diffs of the actual harassing behaviour?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's alright, I'd rather not turn this page into an RfC on Jehochman. Though there may be an RfC in his own future (as Sarah indicated),[9] there are better venues for dealing with those concerns than here in my userspace. If I just start piling up diffs on other people's behavior here, then we're going to run afoul of WP:ATP, plus anyone I speak up about would probably (justifiably) want to come in and defend themselves, and the entire Q&A process here would be derailed. So I'd rather just stick with stating that, when I say that someone was warned for harassment, it's true, and I can provide proof of the warnings, but I'd rather not go further into it than that. --El on ka 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Elonka's previous post) Ok, given that you aren't accusing everyone who criticizes you of bad faith, I agree with Alun's suggestion of providing more evidence and naming the editors openly, so they can defend themselves. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the criticism leveled at you (above, by PhilKnight) was that you kept accusing your critics of bad faith. You supplied diffs of a warning to an editor for harassment, but no diff that showed cause. That is precisely the problem we are talking about. Without a diff showing that there was a comment made that justified a warning of harassment, this supports rather than refutes PhilKnight's criticism.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, considering that uninvolved editors have been accusing him of harassment, I would say that that would be better proof than me simply providing a link of what I thought was harassment. That it's Sarah who said those things is also pretty solid, considering that she opposed my RfA, and even nominated Jehochman for adminship, but is now leveling these criticisms at him, telling him to back off, and bringing up the possibility that an RfC is needed on his behavior.[10] So, sorry gentlemen, but I'm just not going to go further into this, except to say that this diff made me laugh.[11] Now, did anyone wish to resume asking actual questions that had to do with my administrative actions? --El on ka 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wsiegmund's question

On July 20, you said (at WP:ANI), "It is extremely bad form for a nominator to close their own discussion" regarding my closure of the Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations merge discussion.[12] Would it have been appropriate to have brought this to my attention on my talk page when you became aware of this discussion on July 16?[13]
I have been unable to find a source for your assertion that I quote above. When you harshly criticize the actions of editors, would it be helpful to cite the appropriate policy or guideline page?
Not a question, but I should like to note that I was hurt and disappointed by your public criticism of my work that was intended to improve Wikipedia. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I assumed that you were already following the thread. I generally try not to immediately rush to someone's talkpage with concerns, unless I see (a) a pattern that needs to be addressed; (b) they request specific feedback; or (c) I'm closely monitoring an article that is in a probationary status, per Wikipedia:General sanctions. As for a link to the appropriate guideline, it's pretty much standard practice on Wikipedia, that the closer should be someone who is impartial on the matter. See WP:DGFA, Wikipedia:Administrators, WP:UNINVOLVED, WP:DPR, etc.: "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest." --El on ka 00:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is my opinion that it is unworkable to wait for someone who is not involved to close an obscure merge discussion. My experience is that they are soon buried under subsequent discussions. They are not like deletion discussions that have a specified discussion interval and tend to receive attention when they get stale. Please see Dysgenics into Eugenics where the discussion languished for weeks.

I note that you cite guidance for administrators, with which, as a non-administrator on Wikipedia, you should not expect me to be familiar. Also, you reference the guideline for deletion discussions, which most would agree are distinct from merge discussions. I hope you can understand my disappointment with your harsh public criticism of my actions that appear to have been the result of a personal, and perhaps, idiosyncratic, interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wsiegmund, I did not mean to imply that your action was a policy violation. As I recall, I simply said that it was "bad form" for a nominator to close their own discussion. As for getting wider community input, for merge discussions, the guideline is at WP:MERGE, which suggests listing controversial merges at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. That is an excellent way to ensure that an "obscure" merge benefits from wider participation. Other options to gain wider community awareness of a controversial discussion are to file an RfC, or to mention the merge at the appropriate WikiProject talkpages. If those steps would have been followed, the situation would have been easier to deal with, and probably would not have resulted in as much disruption. I still maintain that filing an RfC, AfD, or proposed merger, would have been preferable to filing an ANI thread which was targeted at getting a dissenting editor blocked. Don't get me wrong, if an editor is being disruptive and is repeatedly ignoring talkpage consensus, I would have no trouble with warning and blocking such a tendentious editor. However, before doing this, I would want assurance that there really was a consensus. That's why it's usually better to go through that extra step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Too often I see cases where two or three editors "guard" an article, and insist that they have a consensus, and they want anyone who disagrees with them to be reverted and blocked. It takes some judgment sometimes for an observing administrator to tell the difference between a genuine consensus, or a tag team of editors who are trying to own an article. There are certain markers to tell the difference, such as: Are discussions civil, are discussions source-based, are dispute resolution procedures being followed, are the participant editors "good conduct" established editors, or are there problems in their contrib list, are they open to outside comments or have they gone into a "bunker" mentality, etc. Where there is doubt about who is in the right, it is usually better to take that extra step in dispute resolution. After all, why not? Wouldn't it have been better to just take that extra step of requesting comments, as opposed to filing an ANI thread? --El on ka 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may, your words were, "It is extremely bad form for a nominator to close their own discussion."[14] I think most people would characterize that as harsh criticism. I've pointed out above that my experience is that merge discussions are often never closed if one waits for an uninvolved party to do so.

I didn't bring the matter to WP:ANI and I was not aware of the decision to do so, although it does seem to me to be an appropriate use of ANI. I did not participate in the discussion at ANI, mostly because others made the points that I would have made. I completely and categorically deny being a member of any tag team. Other than a one sentence email from another editor informing me of the ANI discussion, with no other content, I have had no contact with the other editors involved with this incident outside of Wikipedia Talk pages.

My interest in Dysgenics and related articles is that they not be an embarrassment to the project. With the sentence, "On the basis of numerous studies carried out over the past few decades, genotypic IQ is estimated to be declining at a rate between 0.57 and 1.6 points per generation throughout the United States (and possibly faster throughout the African-American subpopulation)", in the lede, the version favored by Zero g and Jagz was just that and would have received a very unfavorable review by an independent panel of scientists, in my opinion.[15]

I am a physical scientist, but I have an interest in the biological sciences and I am able to read, understand and evaluate much of the biological science literature. Also, I am an established editor and have contributed to a broad range of articles including three featured articles. Especially in light of the criteria you cite, I remain disappointed that you chose to criticize my work so harshly in such a public manner. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)