User talk:Elonka: Difference between revisions

Talk:Circumcision

Given that your actions were referred to in this edit, I'd appreciate a clarification or a comment from you if possible. Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have had no response to my recent offer of a possible "olive branch" solution. Consequently I am afraid I am left with no choice but to formalise a request for comment on your recent actions and similar issues concerning other articles. You may see the RfC and respond to it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you receive my email? --Elonka 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you receive mine? :-) I'm not sure if you've not replied because you've not received it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The last email I received from you, was where you were hinting about de-sysopping me. And I did reply to that. BTW, for a User Conduct RfC to stick, it needs to be certified by two users who tried to resolve the same issue. So, who exactly is going to certify this? To my knowledge, the only person who was concerned about the restriction that I placed on you, was you. No one else has expressed any issues with the ban. --Elonka 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not the ban, it's your general judgment concerning that and other articles - hence the citation of several actions, not just the immediate issue of the ban. As I said in the RfC, multiple editors and admins have expressed concerns about your actions across multiple articles. As for the e-mail, I certainly haven't hinted about de-sysopping you - I said that I was aware that some people were suggesting that you be desysopped and explicitly said that I did not support such a course of action. If I did, I would have triggered a recall, not an RfC. Finally, you might want to have a look at the very informative comments left by JackSchmidt on my talk page [1]. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of his comments, especially that you are more interested with content, and I am more interested with conduct. Which is as it should be. For example, if anyone files a case at ArbCom to decide on content, they will quickly find out that ArbCom does not issue rulings on content, they only issue rulings on user conduct. The conduct rules that are in place at Muhammad al-Durrah are simple: Be civil, don't delete citations to reliable sources, don't undo/rollback other editors, but you are allowed to change their work. Within those rules, you can do pretty much anything you want. If you see someone adding a large section which you feel violates WP:UNDUE, then edit it down to a single sentence (but keep the citations intact!). If you see someone add information from a reliable source, which does not accurately portray what is in the source, then do change the text so it reflects what is in the source. But don't just delete the entire section as "wrong". If you feel that the article is not in accordance with WP:NPOV, do change it! But don't attack other editors and say, "you adding something non-neutral, I am now going to harass you off Wikipedia." If a new editor makes a mistake, well, that's what new editors do! In those cases, we correct their work, we mentor them on how to do better. We don't stamp a big red "TROLL" word on their forehead and toss them onto the scrap heap. On Wikipedia we start by assuming good faith, we mentor new users, we treat people (even vandals) with civility. Bottom line: If you can stay civil, avoid deleting citations to reliable sources, and concentrate on changing other people's work instead of just deleting it, you're not going to get banned. In that case, feel free to edit up a storm. --Elonka 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and for a definition on what the word "troll" really means, check here:[2] --Elonka 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't think your response to the RfC does you much credit. However, I hope you will take the responsible course of considering the feedback you received and acting upon it in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I know that you can see the deleted page with your admin access... Are you taking anything away from this? Sure, some of the people that I have cautioned, banned, and blocked, were in there agreeing with you. But there were also many criticisms of your actions (and endorsements of mine) by uninvolved editors and administrators. Did you hear what they were saying? What did you learn? Are you planning on modifying your behavior accordingly, per the will of the community?

In the meantime, you are still welcome to participate at the talkpage of Muhammad al-Durrah, you are still welcome to work on a rewrite of the article in your userspace, and you will be able to return to editing the live article at the end of the month. As long as you stay in accordance with the conditions for editing, I think everything will go smoothly, and you will be able to rewrite the article as much as you want. --Elonka 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lynch mob

I would like you to give a vary careful explanation with diffs of your reason for using this epithet on Cailil's RfA , repeated on Moreschi's talk page. Elonka you must realize that these are extremely serious allegations that you have made. Since your close wiki friend Shell Kinney seemed to be in complete agreement with you on ANI, perhaps she too would like to provide recent diffs to support this allegation. Perhaps what you both wrote was in fact just a careless error. If that is the case, can you please both be more careful in the future, as you are both likely to cause needless offence to many editors and administrators of long standing. Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, you have already been cautioned about personal attacks,[3][4][5][6] aggressive behavior,[7] and this ongoing grudge that you seem to have against me.[8][9][10] You have even been blocked for harassment.[11] As for what you are asking about, as I am sure you know, I have posted extensive diffs,[12] at multiple talkpages about my concerns. There are multiple replies at your talkpage, at Cailil's talkpage, at Moreschi's talkpage, and others. Please, at some point you just have to let this go. --Elonka 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka: please explain what you mean by "lynch mob". As far as I am aware, I did not ask you to try to carry out a character assassination on me. In fact I think my currrent mainspace editing record is considerably better than yours, for what it's worth. Even in administrative matters, you did little to help with the problems on Michael Atiyah's BLP. The meatpuppet whom you failed to caution is now indefinitely banned. I contacted FT2, Nishkid64, Slrubenstein, Jehochman and Charles Matthews (a former colleague), and bit by bit the problem was resolved.

Please explain what you meant by "lynch mob". It is extremely offensive and you should be more careful about using such language on this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW diffs for one day on which you failed to recognize Koalorka's history of systematic anti-Turkish POV-pushing and when your friends Shell and WjBscribe cornered me on my talk page, possibly summoned there by you, are not really representative. Please find some other days and some other diffs. You're really clutching at straws, Elonka. Here on WP editors are generally judged by the quality of their edits. Mathsci (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bye

As far as I'm concerned Wikipedia is just an excuse for some to rewrite history. GIGO--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You should waive certification of the RFC.

Elonka, as I think you know I'm utterly uninvolved in any side of this dispute. It seems to me that a number of admins are concerned that the RFC has been deleted. Fundamentally, it's an RFC. It's presence does not harm anyone or anything. I'd therefore like to ask you, formally, to waive the certification requirements so the RFC can be un-deleted and proceed. That seems, to me, to be the way forward with the least amount of drama. Your thoughts? Nandesuka (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at the talkpage. Though be aware that a few of the admins and other editors who are expressing concerns, are definitely not uninvolved. If you check talkpage history, you may even see warnings for harassment. I'd say that the majority of the people participating at the RfC, were involved in various disputes, and the polarized camps were showing up pretty clearly. There were definitely a few thoughtful and uninvolved opinions, and I listened carefully to them (and to the other comments). But I stand by my assertion that if someone has trouble with my admin actions (or anything I do), that per WP:DR, the first thing to try is to talk to the person involved, and genuinely try to work things out. If talking in good faith, truly does not bring about any resolution, then an RfC may be an option. But steps need to be followed in order. --Elonka 17:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's best for you to undelete this, quickly and easily. Will you do it? I don't see how dragging out the deletion review is helpful, and if it's you who overturns it, I can't see how anyone could complain. Friday (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my comments at the talkpage. When an admin takes an action that someone disagrees with, the first recourse, per WP:DR, is for people to talk to the admin, not to forum-shop. Even now, no one, not a single person, has posted to my talkpage with any good-faith concerns about whether or not ChrisO should have been banned. Except of course for ChrisO. The point of an RfC is to address a dispute when other methods have not worked. But the other methods have not even been tried. ArbCom has tasked me, and other members of the Working group, with analyzing dispute resolution procedures. One of the things that I stand behind, is that the first course of action is to try talking, not to jump to a conduct RfC. --Elonka 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand why ArbCom members are jumping out of the woodwork to defend you. If your actions are questioned it could make their judgment look questionable and put that initiative at risk. Listen, I don't want to cause that problem. Why don't we consider this RFC, which seems likely to be resurrected at deletion review, as a podium from which you can inform people about these initiatives? I bet if you provide a better explanation of what you are doing and why, you can build a lot of support. Maybe the reason people are opposing you is that you are doing something new and bold. They just don't get it yet, but they could if you take the time to explain all the thought that has gone into this.

One additional very important thing: you must extraordinarily careful when conducting experiments on human beings. It is not fair to ChrisO, who had a certain set of expectations, to suddenly be struck with a new regime of article editing conditions that few of us have ever seen before. People have feelings which count for something. Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that communication is important. And I feel that I went to extraordinary lengths to communicate the new expectations to him. I gave him many many many warnings, graduating from explanations, to gentle nudges, to multiple "last chances". Feel free to review the history of his talkpage. Ultimately, he was still being uncivil, he was still deleting citations to reliable sources, and he was still reverting other editors, rather than trying to change their work. And of most concern, he openly admitted that he was going to keep right on doing more of the same, and that he was going to do it "as an admin". Trust me, I didn't want to ban him. But I did insist that the editors there at that page had to stay civil, had to avoid reverts, and had to avoid deleting citations. Do you feel that those conditions were unreasonable? --Elonka 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've explained it to me, it sounds like you did the right thing. If you run into a situation like that again, feel free to ask me for a second opinion. I am keenly interested in such problems. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, she didn't, and it's sad that she's resorting to such blatant misrepresentations to bolster her already weak case. Case in point: the claim above that I "openly admitted that he was going to keep right on doing more of the same". Take a look at what I actually wrote here. Do you think that sounds like disruptive conduct? The ironic thing is that I made a point of explaining what I was doing and why, in advance, so that Elonka wouldn't misunderstand. But as this RfC has shown, she simply doesn't listen and hears only what she wants to hear, like the Far Side cartoon. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there was a depth of warnings issued, and that Elonka may have been losing patience. What was probably needed was a breadth of warnings. Getting a few editors/administrators to review the situation and having each provide feedback to ChrisO might have helped avoid the need for sanctions. Wikipedia has unwritten social rules. It is highly undesirable to block or sanction another administrator. I personally would never do it without doing a sanity check with two or three uninvolved administrators. ChrisO, it would be really nice if you turned down the heat on Elonka. Elonka, it would be great if you discussed those editing conditions with ChrisO, Ned Scott and other interested parties to help refine them. That discussion could be part of the RFC, or elsewhere. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, did you read ChrisO's appeal, which was rejected by ArbCom?[13] Multiple statements from editors and admins, as well as arbitrators, that the ban was appropriate. How much more "breadth" of warnings is reasonable? --Elonka 21:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good feedback, but it would be optimal for him to hear that prior to the ban, rather than during an appeal. Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of original timing, the feedback and multiple statements were still there for his review. But then when his ban was up, he came back to the Muhammad al-Durrah article, and was disruptive again, leading to a second ban. So I think the "communication" requirement has been well met at this point. But ChrisO still is not hearing what the community is saying, and he is still forum-shopping. --Elonka 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly took away the lesson that I needed to communicate better, which was exactly the point of explaining in advance to you what I was doing so that you wouldn't misunderstand. (I evidently hadn't counted on wilful misunderstanding.) Bear in mind that communication has to go both ways: it's no good me communicating if you don't listen. A example: in your ban message on my talk page, you referred to "your comments that you are planning to further ignore the conditions and continue to remove other sources". But I had said nothing of the sort. I very specifically stated that I was reviewing and replacing unreliable sources, exactly as WP:V requires. This also shows the other problem here - you've completely failed/refused to recognize that there might be any need to replace or remove sources. An editing rule that forces editors to do nothing about unreliable sources totally contradicts policy. WP:V doesn't have an "Elonka exception". That's what I meant by you prioritizing your restrictions above fundamental policies.

Jehochman, right now the heat isn't coming from me, it's coming from the community. Trying to get the RfC deleted on a disputed technicality was probably the worst possible thing Elonka could have done. The best possible thing to do right now would be to work towards some sort of compromise and, you know, actually deal with the issues. I've always been open to that and I want to get on with it, not spend time arguing over semantics. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The conditions for editing already provide a mechanism for removing sources: Tag them as potentially unreliable, and bring them up at the talkpage. If there is consensus for their removal, it is simple to proceed. But it is not acceptable for one editor to arbitrarily say, "I don't like that source," and then remove it. Even if they are operating in good faith, it's still disruptive, because it comes down to one editor saying, "I think this is a good source," and another editor saying, "No, that's not a good source." So the way to deal with those disagreements is through identification and talkpage discussion, not through edit-warring. --Elonka 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Society Barnstar, Congrats

		Society Barnstar
		For mediating and seeing through to the end issues regarding George Thomas Coker, I salute and thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome.  :) Looking over it, I started as an uninvolved admin at that page on June 18.[14] The "before"[15] and "today"[16] diffs of the article are quite striking. The article has really improved dramatically because of everyone's efforts and pursuit of compromise, and today, the article is an excellent reflection on Wikipedia. You should all be proud. :) --Elonka 14:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka RfC

Hey. Just wondering if you'd have any objections to me closing the rfc and making a final decision on it when the time comes (whether it's a month down the line or whenever). I ask since I'm somewhat involved in the general matter and wasn't sure if there'd be problems. Wizardman 02:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it would just be automatically closed by the RfC bot after 30 days? Or is that only for content RfCs? --Elonka 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U discussions are the only ones not automatically archived. Hence I do them. Wizardman 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman's talk page

Thanks for your response there. :) Acalamari 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Recall Proposal

I propose to recall Elonka's adminship. My reasons for requesting reconfirmation are 1/ a significant number of editors think Elonka has exercised poor administrative judgment, as evidenced by the critical views at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka‎; 2/ Elonka argued, against a very strong consensus, to have that page deleted; and 3/ Elonka has attempted to scare off critics from commenting at the RFC. [17] I very much regret that it has come to this. I had hoped Elonka would listen to feedback and that recall would not be necessary. Her attempts to intimidate me are completely unacceptable.

Endorsed by

Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Sarah asked me to strike. I will, out of respect for her, even though I do not agree with her assessment of the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Her conduct in conflicts is not what we want from an admin. Friday (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm reasonably new but I think I'm of good standing. Verbal chat 18:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorsed for the reasons given by Jehochman. Also because Elonka's insinuation against my own admin integrity here is another outrageous attempt to confine the RFC to her actual supporters, and to exclude the neutral. Note the edit summary (pah!). For my admin actions w r t the RFC, please see my reply to Elonka here. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
4. Endorsed. The secret report has no support for 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse. Why not? what's she got to lose? Numerous editors think she's displayed poor judgment, why shouldn't she be happy to go through another request for adminship? She stated that she would if six editors asked her to, if she succeeds it strengthens her. I don't really see why anyone should be an "admin for life". Alun (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
6. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
7. After reading the draft report of the Working Group for the second time, I don't see that it empowered Elonka to act as she did. She was cautioned several times by both admins and editors that some of her actions were at odds with Wikipedia's core policies, but chose to question the credibility of her critics (in fact, to harshly criticize them in turn) rather than to try to address their concerns as being legitimate. This is not an attitude we can afford from an admin. It is with sorrow that I join the request for her recall.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Amen.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Endorse. Clearly a significant number of editors have concerns about Elonka's suitability to be an Admin. The fact the RfC is still ongoing is irrelevant to the recall procedure. If Elonka really wants to know if the community at large still trusts her with 'the buttons', then a reconfirmation RfA is the way to go. I just hope she'll honour her recall committment and not try to wriggle out of it. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Endorse, reluctantly, only after reading the admission that Elonka is concerned with conduct, ChrisO with content. All power conferred democratically requires, optimally, diplomatic humility in its exercise, a sensitivity to dissent and its reasons, a predilection for substance over form and above all, a readiness to submit to what Renan called the daily plebiscite. In the original casus belli, on the Mohammad al-Durrah article, the benefits of the exercise of her undisputed gifts were overshadowed by an extreme formalism, and excessive self-confidence in her judgement, judgements on conduct that consistently ignored the obvious fact that conduct is a means towards collaboration, while the fundamental point of encyclopedicity is secured by the quality of the content.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Six signatures are required. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposed by:

1. The RfC is nothing more than a heated rant by Chris0 over his unexcusable behavior towards editing. Despite being tied by editing restrictions that benefit the article as a whole, Chris0 has an attitude that it is "his way or the highway" for any other editors that may be involved with the article's point-of-view. The RfC is so broad that it now encompasses a broad spectrum that has now involved editors not even involved in the original dispute. It is a free-for-all for anyone who may oppose Elonka for whatever reason. seicer | talk | contribs 19:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

   _{See comment below for clarification.} seicer | talk | contribs 20:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Absolutely not. Top admin, and this recall reads as much like a political vendetta as anything else. No serious evidence exists that she is a bad admin, in fact I'm getting just the opposite impression. Every admin has moments when they could've acted "better", but each incident can be dealt with on its own, and even with that being said, the cumulative impression I'm getting is still very positive. I get the feeling Elonka was in any case bullied into choosing recall because of the charmingly idiosyncratic circumstances surrounding her RfAs, and would encourage her to remove her name from this as it is clearly only going to be used in future to attempt to prevent her doing her job. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
5. See my reasons below. Acalamari 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
6. As I stated below, I find this recall petition premature and largely unfounded. - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Slow down, everyone. -- Ned Scott 20:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
8. With an RfC already in progress, it would seem that the proper action would be to see what the community response is there before passing judgment on a recall. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Premature. Aren't there other steps in the dispute resolution process beyond an RfC that should be attempted first? AniMate 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Absolutely not, see reasons below. --Leifern (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
11. This is starting to look too much like a mob attacking Elonka.--   Avg    21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose, this is absolutely ridiculous for all the reasons that have already been stated. This is just more game-playing by certain people. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

At her RFA, Elonka said, "If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship. --Elonka 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)".[18] Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Elonka's response is the most endorsed in the RFC. Additionally, JEH, you might want to step back. Of your past hundred contributions spread over several days, around seventy have been about Elonka. I think all of your last fifty have been about her. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am free to comment however I like, thank you very much. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed. But talking too much about someone looks suspect. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is my style to concentrate on one problem at a time. Some people like to multitask. To each their own. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Will and I've advised Elonka to not entertain any recall involving Jehochman. Sarah 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd. As I said below, if Elonka wants to remove her "subject to recall" status, there's no penalty, but that amounts to asserting that Jehochman is not an "editor in good standing", which is a clear NPA violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now Arthur Rubin. Stating somebody is not an "editor in good standing" isn't even remotely close to a personal attack. That's a serious stretch. - auburnpilot talk 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's a stretch. It's an accusation. (By Sarah, if not by Will.) It could be made in good faith, but it should not be made except in a venue where evidence is provided. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman has been obsessively following Elonka around for months now. A crat recently threatened to start an RfC against him precisely because of his behaviour towards Elonka both on and off-site. He is not an appropriate person to recall her. I don't care if you take that as a personal attack or not, it is a statement of fact. Sarah 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That 'crat is WJBScribe. He is a close friend of Elonka's. His email to me was very partisan, and repeated the character attacks originally made against me by Elonka. If you would get a review of this matter by somebody open minded, I would very much appreciate that. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "6 editors in good standing" 6 net editors? Avruch ^T 18:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense. If she wants to revoke her "subject to recall" status, there's no penalty, but that interpretation is even more implausible than her interpretation of 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Six net editors makes sense. Acalamari 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused about this. I've not followed a recall before so I may be missing something. Has Elonka actually said "6 net" anywhere? If not I assume she would be bound by Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Default process, which requires "at least six editors each having over 500 edits and over one month of tenure". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It didn't come from anywhere, it just occurred to me as a potential loophole. Anyway - Elonka didn't commit to the default process, she outlined her own criteria. In this case the default process is irrelevant unless she agrees to follow it at some point in the future. Avruch ^T 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the criteria you refer to the ones that Jehochman quoted above? "If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship." [19] Actually that's a more liberal criterion than the default policy, which requires "over 500 edits and over one month of tenure". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's more liberal in a sense, but it is also (obviously) less well defined than the default process. Which is why there is the question over net eds vs. any eds. Avruch ^T 22:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with a recall at this stage, to be honest. I hoped that we would have waited until the RfC had ended and complete that line of dispute resolution before initiating any recalls. I agree with what Sceptre said above about Elonka's view on the RfC being the most endorsed, and note that it has endorsements by past opponents of Elonka. I think we should stop this recall, and continue with and finish the RfC. I don't think this is helping the current situation. Acalamari 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My reasons have been stated. Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If the WP:WORKINGGROUP report is to be released tommorrow, I'll defer my endorsement of this until then. If she's misinterpreting a secret document, in addition to the other activities, that's a clear reason to desysop. If the document supports her errors, then an appropriate venue is an ArbComm appeal of the committee findings, and her actions might be excusable, albeit wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Although I haven't participated in the RfC, I have been following along, and this recall seems premature (I'd quite frankly advise Elonka to ignore it). It seems very "I'm not getting my way in the RfC, so I'll get it this way". I know that's not Jehochman's intentions, really I do, but this isn't the right move. - auburnpilot talk 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, many people concern about Elonka's ability as admin, but it would be much better that Jehochmann should not raised the recall request here, given these conflicts between him and her.[20][21][22][23]--Besides, I could not find his name on the open call list. The RFC is still actively ongoing, so this request looks quite not "good".Caspian blue (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If she's "open to recall", then she should be open to recall, regardless of whether her standing is subject to other potential sanctions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I believe it's a bit inappropriate to say that this or that editor shouldn't be asking for recall for either reasons of past conflicts with Elonka, because they themselves aren't open to recall, or for any other reasons except that they are not an editor in good standing. That would be contrary to the very wording of the recall clause, and would undermine its legitimacy (i.e., the recall clause is there but it's not a real option). If editors want to add or remove their name from the list, they should certainly be able to do so freely. Personnally I'll reserve judgment until the WP:WORKINGGROUP's report is finalized.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the working group's report is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with why the recall was proposed. Alun (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If the working group had explicitly endorsed 0RR, then her attempts to apply it might be reasonable. My statement that it cannot be applied neutrally would have to be directed to the group or ArbComm, rather than to Elonka. But, as it stands, 0RR seems to be Elonka's idea, so applying it in spite of clear violation of the WP:PILLARS is relevant to her adminship. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is a bit of a mess. Has Jehochman withdrawn his recall request? Are any of the signatories taking forward the recall, if so? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

He appears to have withdrawn his endorsement but not the request. Verbal chat 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct. There is a statement, signed by various people, no longer signed by me. Those people have endorsed the statement. Who drafted the statement should not matter. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The default process, which I don't know if Elonka is using, says

“ To allow time for cooling off and to facilitate discussion and compromise, petitions remain open for seven days. Petitioners may strike out their signatures at any time. A petition may be closed early as successful at the admin's discretion, but not as unsuccessful. ”

I don't know her definition of in good standing either. The default process has a definition.

Personally, I think it is unwise to recall an admin over actions that an RFC is simultaneously reviewing when that RFC shows more support for the actions than it does opposition to them. It is doubly unwise before there has been a period for reflection on the input received by the admin whose actions being discussed. So I consider this petition, at this time, unwise. Even if it fails, the long run effect will not be good for the encyclopedia - and if it succeeds it will be even worse. GRBerry 19:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think WP will survive whatever happens here - much worse has happened and people still contribute and wikipedia is still getting better... Verbal chat 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see the fate of Wikipedia inextricably linked to Elonka's adminship. By the way, what's the point of "oppose"? The criterion for recall was six people asking for it, it's irrelevant how many people write "oppose", it is pointless. If they feel strongly, then they can vote for her when she re-applies for adminship, but as far as I can see there are six names recalling her, and she said she's step down if this happened. Writing "oppose" doesn't cancel out any of the endorsements, it's not a vote. Alun (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to seicer (please feel free to delete after reading): This isn't the RfC. Verbal chat

Comment: Seicer, can you please refactor? Your opposition reads like a direct, personal attack towards ChrisO rather than an opposition to recall. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not meant in that way, so I apologize if it came off sounding like that. I normally don't strike comments, but I will reword what I meant: the actions of the RfC is leading some to believe that Elonka needs to be desysoped, and I am making the comment that the RfC was constructed not in bad-faith, but in a broad sense that it cannot hold certification. A new RfC needs to be filed, and it needs to be made more specific, and only parties that are truely vested in the RfC should be alloted the time to construct the comments -- not every user who may have held a grudge against Elonka in the past (especially those who opposed her RfC). seicer | talk | contribs 20:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncommitted on the recall issue, but the fact that Elonka's response has the most endorsements of the RfC is a bit of a (unintentional I'm sure) red herring in a couple of ways. A number of factors, including the inevitable self selection bias, influence the endorsement numbers (true in any RfC, of course). Notification is certainly an issue, in this particular case. Additionally, I would say that the more numerous endorsements of Elonka's response don't constitute a consensus, just a plurality - and so not material to the recall.

Another factor is that Elonka's response is criticism of the filer of the RfC, as opposed to an actual response to the substance of the criticism directed at her. Personally, I'd like to see Elonka respond directly to the substance of the complaint as well as to those who believe she erred in arguing for its deletion. I've noticed, in her comments surrounding this event as well as some pointed out by iridescent, a troubling tendency to deflect criticism by attacking the critics and accusing them of lying and fabrication. An acknowledgment of valid concerns would be nice, even if she doesn't agree wholly. In any case, the plain meaning of her recall requirements seems to have been satisfied. Elonka should clarify whether the 6 editors required is 6 net editors, or any 6. Avruch ^T 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of Avruch's comments above. Elonka has these troubling tendencies in how she reacts to criticism. This makes her unsuited to the job of admin. The recall petition is about whether she should be an admin. I've seen enough to conclude that she should not. There are many things being discussed at the RFC- this can go on regardless of the outcome of the recall. They're separate issues; let's not blend them together. Friday (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Avruch, that's exactly the point I was trying to make in the RfC. Would it be possible to ask Elonka to address directly the criticisms and answer them rather than question the credibility of the critics? That may go a long way towards helping some resolution of the RfC, as it currently comes across as a dialogue de sourds (not sure what the right English expression would be- transliterates as "deaf people having a conversation").--Ramdrake (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a very similar expression in English, "dialogue of the deaf". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Disclaimer: I have met Elonka in the "real" world, but bear with me here. The question is probably best phrased as Is Wikipedia better off with Elonka as an admin or worse off? I'm coming to the conclusion that anyone who actually wants to be an admin is nuts (sorry Elonka, and every other admin out there). I also believe that the more diverse the group of admins, the better Wikipedia is in general. By any measure I've observed over a couple of years of modest contributions, Elonka is not even close to being the "typical" admin. You want blandness? Dump her butt. I have to state that I also don't follow her battles with editors except in passing and in (unfortunate) amusement. But I can speak of her technical skills, and can vouch for them as being an incredibly positive. I was recently inadvertently blocked for technical reasons and without the expertise and intervention of Elonka would be a confirmed EX-WIKIPEDIAN for life. I think admins are janitors. And anyone who wants to get rid of this janitor, should be prepared to clean up more crap. I would speak of her personally, but knowing her, that wouldn't be appropriate. Read what I've written and weigh it as you wish. I'm going to continue to contribute to the greater good (as I see fit), in any case. And that includes staying away from the John McCain and Barack Obama articles for life! --Quartermaster (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have often shook my head at decisions made by some editors wearing their admin hats. Some of them have an inflated view of their own judgment and knowledge, take a supercilious in their treatment of issues, and are thinly veiled POV warriors. And the worst of those who are outright dismissive of any criticism. But I will any day take an admin who takes chances while trying to do his/her best and is intellectually honest; over someone who sticks to narrow interpretations and narrowly stays on the correct side of the most technical interpretation of policy and guidelines. Elonka is clearly in the former category. If she loses her adminship over this, I am sure she'd be happy to find other things to do with her time, and Wikipedia would be worse off for it. And the bad guys would have won. --Leifern (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The bad guys? Verbal chat

Warning

I'm starting to feel like a grammophone record the way I keep wanting to use the word "outrageous" about your actions, but your attacks on Jehochman on his page, about "multiple" cautions for harassment and untruthfulness is the worst I've seen yet. And to a guy who has kept defending you...! Elonka, do you seriously not know about evidence ? Examples ? Diffs? You simply don't get to say stuff like that without proof. It's not "uncivil bla bla"; it's vicious. Now either go find some diffs for those accusations or withdraw them. Those are your options. This is a warning. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

P. S. to warning

Since this amounts to telling you to do something (as opposed to the more usual warning to stop doing something), it strikes me that I ought to give you a timeframe. Prove the accusations or withdraw them within 24 hours from now (or else give me a good excuse for why you need more time). Otherwise you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC).