User talk:Elonka

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. [1] 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) PS. to those who think the recall is premature because the RFC is ongoing.. I don't get it. She should not have the tools, and she should also learn some lessons from the RFC. Doing one of these things does not interfere with doing the other. Friday (talk) 02:30, 8 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)

   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)

5. Consistently poor judgment in use of admin privileges related to ArbCom enforcement. Also, response to criticism has been far below the standard expected. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
6. 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)
7. Amen.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
8. 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)

   To clarify, I consider myself totally uninvolved, I have never had any interaction with Elonka. I just believe that if somebody has a recall committment that they should abide by it. Either they keep their word or they don't, or to put it bluntly, can they be trusted or not. If Elonka truly wants to know if the community still trusts her then a reconfirmation RfA will settle that and as far as I'm concerned the RfC would then be irrelevant. RMHED (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

9. 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)
10. Endorse... She ran for admin multiple times before finally being approved, and earlier failures were based upon concerns that she would use the power controversially, based upon her earlier instance of creating and egging on controversy. The last time she ran she promised that should would not make controversial edits as admin and step down if six or more editors certified that she'd overstepped her bounds. Instead, when more than six editors endorsed the RFC pointing out such concerns, she wikilawyered and encouraged an admin willing to ignore other admins' rulings and delete the RFC and its talk page instead of dealing with the issue. On top of that she responded with personal attacks, thinly veiled threats, and apparent total disdain for being held accountable for her behavior. She needs to step down, especially since her application for admin status and votes for her were largely based upon these promises. DreamGuy (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

    Re "find an admin willing to delete the RfC": I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Elonka asked Thebainer to delete the RfC. From the discussion on User talk:Thebainer it gives me very much the impression that Thebainer (TB) deleted it on TB's own initiative or based on discussion with others, not as a result of any communication with Elonka. Apparently after the RfC was deleted Elonka suggested that TB might want to also delete the talkpage. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

    That part is speculative based upon her documented previous actions of contacting other people through email or IRC and certainly in line with the evidence on that page, but overall insignificant to the greater picture. She did of course wholeheartedly support the deletion and argued strongly against the undeletion both of the talk page and the RFC itself, which proves that her intent was to try to make it disappear instead of accepting it and fairly working to resolve the conflict. She wikilawyers and games the system instead of following policy. And on top of that, if she weren't a liar she would have already voluntarily stepped down as she promised to do. DreamGuy (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

    I would appreciate it if you would modify your endorsement so that any pieces of speculation are indicated as such, rather than giving the impression that you're asserting them as if they're facts. I would also appreciate it if you would strike out the word "liar", since no evidence has been presented that when Elonka made the statement on her RfA that she didn't at that time have the intention of following through. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

    You have to be kidding me. Her intention at the time isn't the point. She made a promise to step down. She refuses to now, and was already refusing to when the RFC was up and people mentioned her pledge. That means she purposefully ignored her promise, which makes her a liar. If she hadn't been a liar when she made the promise (although, really, she has lied in the past as well), her recent actions have turned her into a liar. On top of that, she has accused whole groups of people of making these actions out of bad faith instead of a genuine concern about her editing, because she refuses to admit any wrongdoing. You seem to want to engage in rather pointless attempts at wikilawyering on her behalf. But just to be 100% clear I modified those parts of my endorsement that could potentially be wikilawyered on rather self-serving interpretations of certain words (for those people who want to look for loopholes instead of dealing with the real situation). So now instead of saying she shopped around (which is, again, well in line with her standard history of actions here) I said she encouraged it to be deleted, as she certainly did, both on that talk page, on ANI, and elsewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

11. Endorse. Elonka in reply to the 4th question on her 3rd RfA said that she was open to recall. She does not seem to be clear-headed enough to be an administrator: her stubbornness and her unswerving conviction that she can assess complex situations accurately on her own, against the advice of other administrators, lead to serious errors of judgement and prevent her from interacting in a constructive way with editors or administrators of long standing. At times she seems to be playing games behind the scenes, something that is not at all helpful for producing a scholarly encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Endorse. This seals it for me. Too bad. -- Fyslee / talk 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Endorse. This I saw this also, along with diffs about here and others that at least in my opinion is very uncivil to attemp to get others not to be involved in resolving any of this. I feel that if the garden variety editor behaved like this the 'block' button would have been hit for an indefinite and the drama would be swept away. I don't believe this is the behavior an administrator, any administrator or editor should be taking. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Endorse. This Admin has demonstrated very poor judgment in issues pertaining to WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Endorse. A year after the fact, if I had it to do over again I would not have conominated Elonka's second RFA. A great editor, not suited to administratorship. I held by my pledge. Please hold by yours. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Endorse, reluctantly. Please listen to Durova. Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
17. [2] —Giggy 05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
18. I had not previously commented here, as I saw no need at the time to pile on after the required six editor threshold was met. I had assumed that Elonka would keep her promise, but it now seems that I was wrong. I request that Elonka immediately relinquish her administrative tools before she brings further disrepute to herself and the project. At this point, I have no confidence in her as an editor, let alone an administrator. Keep your promise. HiDrNick! 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
19. When I first heard of his Elonka RFC business, my thought was that ChrisO was jumping the gun and that Jehochman maybe needed to disengage from the situation, after seeing Elonka's response to the RfC, my support dropped to around 50% from near 100% before, after today's response, I'd say my trust in Elonka's judgement is hovering around 0. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Per today's response. naerii 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Endorse per this, and this, and for abusing her position as administrator. Cardamon (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
22. I'm afraid I have to endorse due to mainly to her response below. Had Elonka stepped down and stood again for RfA, I probably would have voted her back into adminshop. Had she just unilaterally released herself from her recall pledge - while admitting that she had done so - I probably would have let it slide. But her response was so totally inadequate - dishonest, even - that I feel it's obvious that she can't be trusted with authority here. Those who side with her are a "consensus" or even "the community;" those who side against are a "tag team" and a "lynch mob." Their objections are in bad faith, invalid, not really premised on misuse of admin powers, and not genuine. Neither evidence nor argument is offered in support of these propositions; there is no acknowledgment of even the possibility that she may have made mistakes or exercised questionable judgment. I am quite disgusted. <eleland/talkedits> 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Endorse per the substantial evidence of clearly improper behavior in the most recent RFC. I'm sorry to say it, but the project would be better off with her not having the tools. Steven Walling (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Endorse Dlabtot (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
25. In looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3, which passed by a very slim margin, around 5% clearly supported based on the recall pledge as stated at 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC), and her updated criteria that mentioned tool use was made at 08:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC), closer to the end of the RFA. No doubt a greater percentage supported at least somewhat based on the Dec 7 statement. So, her tools were obtained based on a pledge that she has not honoured. Endorse recall. –xeno (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
26. Endorse per numerous comments above with which I agree (inc. the response to the RfC) Coldmachine^Talk 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Endorse: in good faith, I hereby complain about Elonka's use of tools in the case of PHG (in which I was personally involved), that of ChrisO, and the present case as well. Retaining those tools in the light of the above, whether or not she believes her shifting standard has been met, is also abuse of tools IMHO. Not linking at this time. JJB 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Endorse whilst saying it may not entirely be Elonka's fault (not that I know much about it.) What I mean is, someone who had gained RfA on the basis of staying uncontroversial for a while was then encouraged/enabled to work for the "working group on ethical and cultural something-or-others." which according to Elonka herself involved terrible edit wars and was very contentious. They should never have been (I assume using the mop- so yes this is about the tools) involved in that given the comments in their RfA. Also accusing critics of 'stalking' etc to scare them off is nasty. Sticky Parkin 14:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Endorse' - it's not the conduct that led to the recall proposal that disturbs me, but the lawyering and refusal to face the community's will, after promising to do so in order to gain the tools. Kelly ^hi! 21:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

break in the endorse section

Actually it is: "six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage, and I will voluntarily resign". I don't see what this straw poll has to do with the use of admins tools, as the opposition to this idea has pointed out in abundance. Chillum 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, while we may not be looking at admin "buttons" per se, it seems fairly clear that her use of her authority as an admin (in enacting special editing restrictions, in placing topic/page bans, which are both actions restricted to admins) is being contested. To say that this is not "using admin tools" is again, I'm afraid, moving the goalposts.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The pledge specifically mentions "admin tools" as a condition. To say that actions not using admin tools are admin tools is moving the goalpost. There are more traditional venues to air a grievance with general admin activities, but this does not seem to meet Elonka's voluntary recall requirements. Chillum 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Elonks also stated My standards will be pretty straightforward. If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship. there's no mention of admin tools in that statement. Take your pick of which suits you better, but the statement I link to does allow six editors in good standing to ask for recall, irrespective of admin tools. Alun (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See my endorsement above. The more stringent statement was made towards the end of the RFA, the earlier statement should be the binding one, since that's what the majority of people supported based upon. –xeno (talk) 19:00, 18 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)

   I have opposed below, but this comment is particularly well-put! — TAnthony^Talk 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
3. None of the reasons for this recall petition are valid per her promise that "if six editors endorse a recall petition because I misused the tools". There is no misuse of the tools here. The reasoning for this petition is invalid per her promise. 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)

   Just as a clarification, Elonka may have some apologizing to do, but I haven't seen anything that requires her to relinquish her tools. The information from the RfC certainly doesn't qualify her for removal of the bit. And frankly, if not apologizing for rude comments, making insinuations about others without diffs to back them up, or pissing large groups of people off are grounds for removal of the tools, then more than one admin who has posted here should relinquish their tools immediately. AniMate 05:19, 7 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)

    WP:AGF - by your reasoning, the more people who support a recall, the less reason to recall an administrator because it would just be a bigger lynch mob. This is absurd. The more people who endorse a recall, the more concerned we ought to be that there is a serious problem here, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    I'm afraid you probably misunderstood the reason I called this the way I did. I'm referring to the action of starting an RfC and at the same time asking for desysopping, forcing Elonka to battle in two different fronts.--   Avg    17:27, 13 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)
13. Oppose. This is really out of hand, the evidence presented does not add up to squat. This is why admin recall based on voting is a damaging idea. Desysoped for arguing in a DRV?? No. Chillum 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. As per all above reasons. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Though a couple of the people asking for recall are people I hold in high regard, some are people pursuing old grudges that have nothing to do with her use of admin tools and some yet are people who passionately tried to stop her becoming an admin in the first place. I feel this recall is just wrong in so many ways. I have never been an Elonka "fan" or an Elonka apologist. I argued strongly against her in all her RfAs I participated in. But Elonka's response on the RfC is the most endorsed view on that page. I don't believe there is general community support for this recall and I recommend Elonka ignore it, and refine her recall criteria or consider withdrawing from the category altogether as jehochman has done and implement some other way for someone she trusts to give her a tap on the shoulder when and if it's time for her to stand down. Sarah 00:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

    Note, Jehochman is currently an admin open to recall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, he is now because I complained that it wasn't fair that he was holding Elonka to her RfA statement while he quietly removed himself from the category long ago despite his own RfA promises. So he added himself back into the category earlier. [3] Sarah 09:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

    The condition for me recusing myself from this conversation is that I am not subject to further criticism here. If anybody talks about me, I will respond. Sarah, are you in the category? No, you are not. I don't like it much either. My recall criteria has been published since about Jan 22, 2008, with a link on my user page. I had removed myself from the category because I dislike the category and the way people are compelled to join even if they don't want to. However, at all times I have unequivocally stood by my pledge to resign if the community loses faith in me. I have no desire to cling to power or be a lame duck admin. Sarah, I request you to remove your comment and also this one. If you want to move this discussion to my talk page or yours, we can continue there. That will be better for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

    SandyGeorgia's comments are shameful, and SG should just strike them out - otherwise they disgrace Wikipedia. Any admin is open to recall and at least a few people think that Elonka is doing a capable job of defending herself and support her. That we have this process of recall is one of the things that makes Wikipedia transparent and democratic. Do you disagree with the recall? Fine! Say so! But to try to bully the editor who intiiated the recall, to try to intimidate a fellow Wikipedia for using an appropriate process - you should be ashamed of yourself. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

16. Hideous. IronDuke 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose. No evidence of tool abuse. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Absolutely not! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Application of Arb sanctions isn't tool abuse; discussion can resolve this issue. Shell ^babelfish 06:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Definitely oppose (?), although I do not approve of her comment in Jehochman's talk page. (Not sure any more. Her response here is not exactly what I expected (and it was the second problematic intervention of hers in a row after her comment in Jenochman's page), and Durova seems to have indeed a point on certain issues.)--Yannismarou (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose. -Bharatveer (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose. This sounds more and more like a witch hunt. Ceedjee (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

    WP:AGF - by your reasoning, the more people who support a recall, the less reason to recall an administrator because it would just be a bigger lynch mob. This is absurd. The more people who endorse a recall, the more concerned we ought to be that there is a serious problem here, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

23. Oppose. I think firstly that this lacks community support, and secondly that questioning adminship should reflect an abuse of the tools which simply has not occurred. Elonka has acted appropriately in the situations highlighted - and like some above who have opposed this measure, I argued strongly against her in at least two RfAs. Orderinchaos 09:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Asking for a recall in the middle of having an RfC discussion is silly. We're not in a hurry. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Elonka is being accused of not listening ... to what? Where is the evidence of alleged initial errors on her part? In my comments on the RfC, I refuted the evidence provided by ChrisO, and as far as I've noticed no one has refuted, or even replied to, my refutations. Admins are allowed to make some errors, but I don't see evidence that Elonka has done a single thing that goes against consensus. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. What about the consensus to merge Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations? There was a clear consensus to merge here, but Elonka insisted on having an AfD even though only a single editor was against the merge [4]. She even claimed that there was significant opposition to a merge, so according to Elonka a single editor acting against consensus is "significant opposition". There's your evidence of her acting against consensus. The article of course passed it's AfD by miles. But it amounted to a pointless escalation of the situation and the pointless creation of Wikidrama by Elonka, to what purpose only she knows. Alun (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

    What about it? Any single editor has the right to start an AfD, I believe. It seems to me that it was a good choice in that situation, in order to go from a situation of editwarring with a strongly-opposed editor, to a situation where a clearly-defined process of broad community support had finalized the merge. It's not clear to me that there was a consensus against starting an AfD. Please don't confuse consensus for the merge with broad community consensus against going through the AfD process at all. Starting an AfD is in no way an abuse of admin tools; it's not even an admin action but an action any editor can take. Coppertwig (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not asking for your opinion of whether it was a good choice. You stated that there was no evidence that Elonka had gone against consensus. Whether you accept that evidence or not is irrelevant, the evidence is there, all you need do is look. Likewise there is this evidence from AlasdairGreen27 "[Elonka].. was resolutely impartial throughout. I have highlighted those two words for a reason. She did not, ever, make an effort to familiarise herself with the subject, nor did she factor into her thoughts the fact that there was one editor who was alone, without sources, claiming that Rab was a POW camp, whereas a "group" of other editors, backed by every source available, were of the informed view that it was a concentration camp.". Where she again ignored consensus to give equal weight to the pov of a single editor who lacked sources. Isn't that evidence that she has gone against consensus? Now I don't really care what your opinion of what she did in these situations is, but you stated that you had seen no evidence that she had gone against consensus. I have provided such evidence. You might also like to look at Comments by Antelan. Cheers. Alun (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

26. Oppose. I'm no fan of Elonka's but AFAIK ever the strongest detractors haven't pointed out a single alleged abuse of admin powers. – iridescent 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose - What admin tools has she abused? And the people asking for her recall because she feels that Jehochman is following her around giving her grief ought to be ashamed of yourselves, and that includes you, Bishonen. Too much over-sensitivity going around. Everyone needs to suck it up and watch yourselves before you turn into a kettle. Put away your torches and pitchforks and start gathering your diffs of admin tool abuse, otherwise, sit down and get back to work. (Formerly LaraLove) ~Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose, per my RfC comments here. This is ludicrous, children unhappy with their bedtime throwing their oatmeal at the wall. — TAnthony^Talk 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: There is absolutely no need to be uncivil to those who hold a differing view to your own on this matter. Coldmachine^Talk 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

    Uh, it's called a metaphor. Sorry if I sounded too snarky, but I'm not even saying she did or didn't abuse her position. I just find it absolutely shocking how massive and meandering this has become over ... what again? It pains me to think of all the editing that could be happening instead of this. — TAnthony^Talk 03:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    So if that was a metaphor, then what was this? I realise it's a heated issue but as I say, no need for comments like those. Coldmachine^Talk 13:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

29. Oppose - I appreciate any administrator who enters an article that has been controversial since the conception of wikipedia and is able to quiet the drama there. Personally I think there should be one appointed for every controversial article. Unfortunately, she seems to have struck the beehive and since the bees have nothing left to do, she's the target. The only editors that would have a problem with 0RR or 1RR would be those that intend to edit war. I'm not convinced that Elonka is getting in the way of creating a good article. These articles have not changed significantly in 6 years, they just go back and forth. Elonka just got them to stay in one spot for a little longer. Good for you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose - Hell no. Classic witch hunt. - Merzbow (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

    WP:AGF - by your reasoning, the more people who support a recall, the less reason to recall an administrator because it would just be a bigger lynch mob. This is absurd. The more people who endorse a recall, the more concerned we ought to be that there is a serious problem here, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

31. Oppose - In an ongoing Rfc the community endorsed many views with Elonka's view being the most endorsed. Considering the majority position was just expressed a short time ago the timing of this is inappropriate and forcing people to restate the same views they just expressed in the Rfc. Hobartimus (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose Ah, I was asked about voluntary recall in my last RfA (unsuccessful because I only had about 1400 edits at the time), and I said that I didn't think it was sufficiently well-formed as a concept. Six editors? Sure, that's fine if you don't run afoul of a substantial faction of editors, but do something truly courageous, this would be automatic desysop and the RfC and this request here show that. I've disagreed strongly with some of Elonka's activities, but, in fact, they did not involve use of admin tools. --Abd (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you, Abd, for telling me and every other single person still on the recall list we lack "courage." As this appears to be the only possible way to interpret the continued adminship of those who have not been recalled, I mean. - brenneman 02:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    In a previous ArbComm decision, when one admin responded to comment as I'd be tempted to respond to this, using colorful language, it was determined to be not blockworthy, being about the argument, not the person, however, there was some opinion that it still wasn't civil, so I'll refrain. I'll simply say, no, that isn't what I said, it isn't what I implied, and it is a strange stretch to make it into that. Indeed, you may have courage for being open to recall upon the request of six editors, if you are, but it could also be a foolish courage, given a situation like this. Quite simply, situations like this don't come along every day, so ... if you are courageous, you've been lucky. You have not had occasion to offend, with your actions, so many editors, while at the same time maintaining the support of an apparent majority of the community. --Abd (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    Ahhh... So it's not that I'm too timid to have stepped on this land-mine-ish aspect of recall, just "lucky." Thank for clearing that up. I'll go back to editing safe, noncontroversial articles like pederasty now, and hope my luck holds out. - brenneman 03:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

33. Oppose - as per both Sarah and Seicer, who put it better than I could have. Enough with the vendettas, already. Do folk really think we cannot see them for what they are? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose As a veteran of the QW-NCAHF-SJB articles' "Sargasso Sea space of history", I applaud Elonka's efforts. I quietly supported the time & effort of JzG's attempts at resolutions that dealt with difficult problems, where I might disagree with JzG, but respected his efforts and intent as an admin. Those methods finally led to burnout, one-off limitations, mass dissention and some fundamental contradictions w/o resolving spaces like Quackwatch but did handle many difficult cases and made progress for a while. So I am going to suggest that Elonka be given some of the AGF support and patience that many gave during JzG's prime time to try to develop a more polished management method. One step forward at a time, Elonka should be given time & support for developing her methods. I support a level playing field that encourages or requires added value to content (including scholarship in Talk).--TheNautilus (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose — In my experience Elonka is a singularly disinterested and intelligent arbiter. It would be a great pity if so valuable a person's concern with the quality of Wikipedia articles and with responsible and polite editing by participants were to be lost due to this attack on her. Masalai (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose - in fact, Elonka deserves a barnstar for helping me recently with constructive criticism! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose. This is a very disappointing situation which significantly damages trust in the concept of having a recall process. I have had no personal interactions with this administrator that I can think of offhand, but looking over the "evidence" here merits nothing even remotely close to a recall. Put down your pitchforks and go home.   user:j    (aka justen)   04:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose. --Fat Cigar 05:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Oppose per above. --David Shankbone 13:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Per j. Looking at the three reasons given for recall. 1/ It presents a very one-sided view of the RFC. A significant number of editors disagreed as well. We're using a failure to reach consensus as evidence against? That hardly seems fair. 2/ Arguing against the majority is a crime now? When did that happen? 3/ This is the most polite "intimidation" that I've ever seen. Even trying to read between the lines, I don't see that as a threat. Mr.Z-man 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose Maybe there are some actions taken by Elonka that I am missing here (feel free to enlighten me), but the talk diffs that everyone is linking are not the least bit concerning to me, in the sense of conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Even if you don't like what she said to Jehochman and others, she did so in a fairly civil, impersonal manner befitting a good sysop. I see no issues requiring recall here. Steven Walling (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind after reading the RFC. See my new vote above. Steven Walling (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

42. Oppose per many above. — Catherine\^talk 17:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
43. I realise that I'm coming to this late, but I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said above [in your #Response]. I may have opposed your RfAs, but you've been a perfectly good administrator in recent months as far as I can see, and I think you've done exactly the right thing in standing your ground when it's a recall motion based in having tried to do something about some of the ongoing battlegrounds on the project. I avoid them the damn plague; you deserve congratulations for having a try, not this bollocks drama. Rebecca (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
44. Oppose. I also realize that I'm coming into this late, but just to show my support of what a great editor and administrator I feel that Elonka is, I am here. Everyone in this oppose section has pretty much already summed up everything for me about this, and there is little for me to add on to. What I do know is that when the community promoted Elonka to administrative position, it was the right decision... And so far, I have not seen any reason to "un-promote" her. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Oppose per Rebecca. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Oppose, on the grounds of pure, unadulterated silliness. the case has no merits, its proponents have no grounds, and the whole thing is a drummed up exercise in hypersensitivity and overreaction. I swear, Wikipedia is becoming more like the US Senate every day (and that is decidedly not a compliment). --Ludwigs2 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Oppose per Seicer. - DigitalC (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. Neutral - What I see here is Elonka has said something and her very words have effectively snookered her. After all, if she doesn't fall on her sword based on her own words, then is her word in the future to be trusted? Unfortunately this is something that can be seen with Elonka is that she does not follow her own rules (any apparently) consistently. While she is only human, her failure to even acknowledge that she could just possibly make a mistake rankles a lot of editors. It is also clear that there has been a distinct drop in the level of confidence in her ability to be an admin, compared to her 3rd RfA. So she needs to ask herself what has changed in that time? If she ends up with the answer "Because I am doing something right" then she should immediately resign the tools. It's clear that she should review and understand Wikipedia policy first rather than ignoring those Community rules and forging off with her own poorly thought out experiments. In saying all this, I am neutral with regard to her desyopping at this point in time. I would personally like to see Elonka, like any editor with a RfC, to learn something from that RfC and become a better editor and admin. However if she decides that she has done nothing wrong, then she should follow the rules of her own creation and since six editors have recalled her, she should step down. This choice is hers however but how she acts in this regard will have consequences with her ability to function as an admin in the future. Shot info (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

   There has been a distinct drop? It'd be interesting to conduct a survey of those who voted in the RfA, I'd say it would be the same level or slightly higher as she has assuaged some doubters while, no doubt, alienating a few supporters as anyone does as an admin. Orderinchaos 10:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

   It is also clear that there has been a distinct drop in the level of confidence in her ability to be an admin, compared to her 3rd RfA. There was a level of confidence about her becoming an admin at her 3rd RFA. There is a level of confidence above. The two levels of confidence in Elonka's admin ability are different. It isn't about looking at the level of confidence that those voters in her 3rd RFA have now. Of course you can perform that exercise if you wish, but an easier option would be for the Admin in question to resign the tools, then reseek nomination. That would provide an immediate and superior answer to your question. Shot info (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Given that there are sufficient users in good standing still endorsing this recall RFA, I can see that it is appropriate to have a recall RFA. I dont endorse Jehochman's request as I believe it is in error, and I personally believe that Elonka has broad support for her to continued use of the extra buttons on a day to day in the fashion she usually does. As a result I would prefer that those endorsing this recall withdraw their recall request, and instead focus on the RFC. The other options are to have 1) a recall RFA initiated while an RFC is also active, or 2) a recall RFA initated and the RFC shutdown, and those two options dont feel right to me. I would like everyone who has endorsed this recall to ask themselves whether they would prefer a recall RFA or to let the RFC proceed; or, have their cake and eat it too. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
3. I agree with John here: hosting a recall, no matter how legitimate or warranted, doesn't seem to be the right thing to do here. We should be focussing on the RFC and giving that a chance to "do its thing"... When or if it becomes apparent that the request for comment has not served to facilitate any substantial, positive impact on Elonka's conduct, then a recall may be in order. But let's not jump the gun. Anthøny 13:35, 7 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)".[5] 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)

You did what? Her promise to step down voluntarily did not include an escape clause so open to abuse that merely assuming bad faith and making accusations of harassment means you could ignore it. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 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 definitely is a personal attack (you are nto above the rules here), and WJBScribe might as well be deemed a meatpuppet and blocked from taking any action in favor of Elonka for how often he shows up to do her bidding. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Then DreamGuy, you are most welcome to find an uninvolved admin and ask them to block me because I absolutely stand by everything I have said. I don't think I could be classified as a meatpuppet of Elonka, hmmm? I opposed rather strongly all her RfAs I participated in, I voted to delete all her family articles I commented on at XfD and I took your side over hers in your dispute with her. Sarah 00:37, 7 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)

When she made the promise she didn't say net. More wikilawyering. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

By that standard, the entire recall system and every individual administrator's recall standards (with a few, notable exceptions) are wikilawyering: by the very nature of the scheme, precise metric criterion are required in order for a line (whereby a recall discussion can be deemed to have a consensus for or against recalling the administrator) to be drawn. Yardsticks require some sort of scale, do they not? Wikilawyering may it be or not. Anthøny 13:44, 7 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." [6] 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)

Not sure about "less well defined" - the only point which seems ambiguous to me is what "good standing" constitutes. "Not blocked", I would imagine. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am 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)

So you encourage people to ignore their promises? That's pretty pointless. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 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.[7][8][9][10]--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)

A janitor should clean up more messes than she makes. Getting rid of her as a janitor would mean less work for others, not more.DreamGuy (talk) 22:50, 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

When you said "the former" I at first thought you meant "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." as that's pretty much a spot on description, in my opinion, and as proven in her refusing to honor her promise to step down and her attempts to wikilawyer a valid RFC away. You either have a bizarre idea of what bad guys are or you don't know Elonka at all. DreamGuy (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have commented at the RfC and can recapitulate my comments here if anyone wishes, but I do want to respond to two comments, above. First, one person opposed to this recall says it is just part of some vendetta by ChrisO. This is a severe misreading of the recall. MathSci and I both commented at the RfC on matters having nothing to do with ChrisO's specific complaints, and many editors endorsed our comments. This RfC is about a pattern of authoritarian behavior in a number of situations, and not about a specific conflict between Elonka and ChrisO. Second comment: someone above comments that someone has to be nuts to become an administrator. This comment gets at the crux of this entire issue, because it raises the question of what is an administrator. If being an administrator means taking on the responsibility unilaterally to mediate conflicts or to dictate behavior, well, yes, I guess one would have to be nuts to become an administrator. And this certainly comes close to the behavior of Elonka. But the point of the recall is, this is not the role of an administrator. And admin is someone trusted with certain technical abilities necessary to enforce Wikipedia policies that everyone would without doubt agree have been violated - like vandalism or 3RR - or to enforce community decisions that have wide support. Now, no one need be crazy to take on this role; it does require some vigilance but almost never invites any conflict. Elonka's behavior has led to a recall not because she was acting like the ideal administrator but precisely because she has not been acting like an ideal administrator - in once case subverting a community ban, in one case subverting a consensus to merge pages, she has sought to assume powers and privileges no administrator ought to have. This is what is at stake here. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re "in one case subverting a consensus to merge pages": I disagree with this description of what happened. In the case I think you're talking about, I think what she did was to arrange for a clear, undeniable expression of community consensus (which happened to be in favour of the merge, as it turned out) to stop the editwarring. I would call that facilitating the expression of community consensus, not "subverting" it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, there already had been a merge proposal, which was endorsed 5-1-1. The merge proceeded as is normal, and several days after the merge the lone dissenter started systematically undoing the merge. Elonka qualified this as a controversial merge; I would suggest WP:POINT disruption by a single editor to be closer to the mark. Several other editors and admins seemed to agree on this point.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a damn fine demonstration of how "recall" turns into a circus. We have dispute resolution, we have people that will review evidence, we have all that but instead we are just voting on it. There is too much mob and pitchfork mentality going on here. Chillum 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused. What is Elonka's process? Did she ever say? This is a damn fine demonstration of why not having a crisply defined process, stated well before anything comes up, including statements about timing (concurrency with other dispute resolution processes, for instance), who can endorse, who can't, whether it's supports for the recall or net supports, and a host of other things, can lead to confusion and acrimony. I went round and reminded a fair few people they needed to get a process down on paper and committed to BEFORE they got recalled. Some did. (see Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria) and some did not. I can't now remember whether I gave Elonka that advice, but if I didn't I should have, and if I did, perhaps she should have taken it. Has she asked someone to try to help her keep straight what all is going on? ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a penalty. I respectfully have to disagree with Arthur Rubin when he says that: "If she wants to revoke her "subject to recall" status, there's no penalty,..." There is a huge penalty! Her credibility gets a huge scar. Our credibility is our currency here. She will be crippled. -- Fyslee / talk 04:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly if Elonka does not now resign her adminship and re-apply, her credibility is crippled. She can claim that there are not six "net" endorsers for recall, but that was never clearly stipulated, and clearly many more than six have endorsed recall. Interpreting the rules in this way damages her credibility because it looks like moving the goalposts. Attacking those who have supported recall does not help her, it damages her because it is an ad hominem attack, besides she can't legitimately claim that everyone here who supports recall is "out to get her". So what choice does she have? Become damaged or resign with dignity and re apply for adminship. She will gain far more sympathy and support if she resigns with dignity and reapplies for adminship. Alun (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Or most people just accept that recall sounds nice on paper, but doesn't really work when tried. That is what's happened in the past when someone has come up for recall. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Recall can be messy and often unfair. Once you get enough users angry at you, a recall is started. Clearly, she's pissed people off, but she hasn't misused the bit. AniMate 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, despite my dislike of the recall process, I have certified a recall request in the past. However, while I had grave questions about the admin, there was clear (at least to me and others involved) misuse of the tools. The misuse included improper closing of a very controversial AfD and an improper protection of a Wikipedia space page where discussion was still actively going on. Elonka hasn't (to my knowledge) done anything anywhere near that. WP:Administrators open to recall is so vague as to be useless, and frankly without clear evidence of the misuse of the bit, this should be stopped. AniMate 08:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What does "the bit" mean? Try to be clear and avoid jargon. I don't think there needs to be evidence of "misuse" of anything for an admin to be recalled, I can't find this condition at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Default process. It simply states Administrators who use this process will submit a re-confirmation RfA or resign (their choice) if asked by six editors with over 500 edits and one month of tenure. If the admin does not add extra conditions as some have done on Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria, but which Elonka has not, then six people are required for recall, then that's cut and dried. People should not sign up for these things if they are not going to stand by them. Claiming that there has to be "misuse" of administrative tools is again simply moving the goalposts. Alun (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The bit is a phrase meaning "administrator status". If somebody has 'the bit', he or she is an administrator; if his or her bit is removed, he or she is removed as an enwiki administrator. Anthøny 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a "bit" in the sense of a 0 or 1 on a computer. If there's a 1 (or 0?) in a certain place near the person's name then the software knows that that person is an administrator and lets them do administrator things. I used to think it meant the kind of bit that's put into a horse' mouth. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, not binary theory. :) Anthøny 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not much theory is needed. A yes/no status, in computers, is often set, for efficiency, as a single "bit," which is, yes, a 0 or a 1, a switch that is on or off. So the bureaucrat "sets the admin bit" for a user (to 1, probably, and the software probably conceals this, i.e., the bureaucrat doesn't see the actual 0 or 1) to enable the user to have administrative privileges, or resets it to 0 to remove those privileges. Because wikis began with knowledgeable computer users, including a lot of software people, this is almost certainly the origin of the term "bit" as we have been using it, and the thing about horses is a coincidence, though an interesting one. --Abd (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about this definition then: "get/take the bit between your teeth (British, American & Australian, American) to start doing something in a very keen way. When the team really gets the bit between their teeth, they are almost impossible to beat." [11] Brou-ha-ha! Narnia and the North! LOL. ☺ Actually, I was thinking of it as more like taking on a harness in order to do some work: similar idea to the mop. The "bit" could represent sensitivity to community consensus. Coppertwig (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the words of a famous lolcat, "Why am I in this handbasket and where are we going?" Shell ^babelfish 16:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

Thanks to everyone that has taken the time to post in this thread. I apologize for taking so long to reply, but I have been enormously busy off-wiki this week,[12] including my company's annual convention.[13] I am still going to be busy for a bit longer, but since I have some time at the moment, I wanted to post about the request for recall, and to clarify the statements which I made at my RfA about my recall standards, specifically, "six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools."[14]

I had thought, evidently being a bit naive at the time, that when I pledged to be open to admin recall, that any such recall would be premised on an actual use (or misuse) of admin tools. I also thought, naively, that those making the request would be doing so in good faith, out of a concern regarding my use of the tools, and after other efforts to communicate with me about my actions had failed.

It is clear now that my assumptions at the time were in error. This was further exacerbated by the fact that when I was going through the nomination process, I genuinely was not planning to get involved in anything controversial, so I did not think that it would even be an issue. However, two months after I became an admin, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee invited me to participate in the Wikipedia working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.[15] When I accepted the invitation for the six-month assignment, this led me into areas of Wikipedia that were some of the most intense "war zones" that we have. It also brought me to investigate some of the discretionary sanctions which had been authorized by ArbCom in controversial topic areas such as Eastern Europe, and Israel-Palestine articles.

Looking back on things in hindsight, I should have updated or at least reaffirmed my standards for recall, especially since I was venturing into tag team territory. As I have learned through the Working Group research, in some topic areas on Wikipedia, it is difficult to hold any kind of administrator role without a number of users arguing against any administrator action which impacts a member of "their side". However, if the recall standards even crossed my mind during this period, I guess I figured that I would still be protected by the "good faith" standard and "use of tools" standard, and I feel that those do still protect me. Everyone should still rest assured though, that I have definitely listened to the concerns of all of those calling for me to voluntarily resign. However, I am also listening to the comments of those saying I should not resign. The will of the community at this time, seems to be that no misuse of tools occurred. A similar consensus appears to be forming at the RfC. So, for now, I am considering whether I should just completely withdraw from the recall category, and/or rework my standards, since it is clear that a plain "any six complaints" makes it very difficult to distinguish valid from invalid concerns.

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

Elonka, I might have advanced a similar argument last fall. When I set up my recall standards I had no reasonable expectation that an RFC would open on Thanksgiving, or become obsolete twelve hours later when RFAR opened, or that arbitration itself would deny me the chance to defend myself by proceeding to voting less than 24 hours after it opened. I had not pledged to be open to recall at my RFA--I joined the program afterward entirely of my own accord and could have withdrawn at any time, yet a promise is a promise and I honored it. You did pledge to be open to recall at RFA; I would not have conominated if you hadn't. After my example you might have revised your terms at any time. You went with this. Now that you have the tools, and an actual recall motion is underway, you attempt to redefine the terms ex post facto in order to avoid a reconfirmation vote. You accepted my trust and the community's when you stood to gain administrative ops; I for one exercised the good faith that you would not resort to parsing the fine print if a reasonable recall movement arose. You still have a majority support; please put it to the test as you promised. This answer undermines the value of the voluntary recall process itself. I urge you in the strongest terms to reconsider. Durova^Charge!

• So basically you're not going to honour your promise to recall? Well, that's definitely shown me that you're not at all untrustworthy! naerii 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Another admin who doesn't honour their word. If you truly believed the community still trusts you, then you'd be ready and willing to run a reconfirmation RfA. This wiki-lawyering your way out of your committment is shameful. You have no honour and are a disgrace. RMHED (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• You know, and I hate to be mean about it, but

  THIS

• is rather unambiguous. However, above, you seem to say, essentially, "I changed my mind, but I just forgot to tell anyone." You say that, at the time of your RFA, which was one of the most closely contested ever, you had it in mind not to edit anywhere where there was powerful controversy, but you almost immediately changed your mind.
• See, that can be very fairly called "deception." The most angelic reader would have to call it criminally unwise, and the most cynical would call it outright lies, but I think the average would say that it's deceptive to decide, for the week of the RFA, to not be in controversial areas and then, the week after, to go into them again.
• As for secretly intending that you would be recalled by allegations of "misuse of tools," that really isn't recall. That's something that RfAr works to remedy. You see, you don't need to endorse statements like the following (only at the head of your RFA #3):

  "Finally, Elonka has stated in the past that she likes the idea of the admin recall system, and plans to place herself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. She also has E-mail enabled, which is handy for users who need to contact her. I do believe that Elonka being an administrator will be a major benefit to the project, and I am honored to nominate her. Acalamari 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"

• to be "open to recall." To be open to recall, you're open to recall. Otherwise, if you blow the tools, you'll find yourself with an RfAr, so to say that now you always meant that you'd be recalled if you had misused tools means that either you or the whole project has serious misprision.
• To be sorry for the way you've been treated is your prerogative, but I have to say that what has bothered me far more than anything else is the use of the name and status of "I am an administrator," which is the one thing I feared most, and the arachnid off-Wiki correspondence to gather up action on controversy. The insults to serious, intelligent, and honest users like user:Friday and user:Bishonen, above, can even be overlooked when someone is drowning, but all of this ethical poverty and deception only moves me from neutral to agreeing with many others: you are not an administrator at Wikipedia, and you are not honorable. Geogre (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec$\times$2) To change one's mind about whether to edit in controversial areas is neither deceptive nor necessarily unwise. The word "criminally" seems excessive here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help but noticed the implied assertion by Elonka that everyone who asked for her recall did so in bad faith: I also thought, naively, that those making the request would be doing so in good faith. How long will she again get away from trouble by accusing her critics of bad faith?--Ramdrake (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a principal reason I conominated her in the first place was because her skills as a cryptologist seemed like a perfect fit for the undermanned suspected sockpuppet noticeboard. She promised me she'd devote her energies there, but has done relatively little for it. Meanwhile she promised the community she'd avoid controversial topics, yet once she had the tools she went there. That's been problematic for a long time, since she needed three tries to pass RFA and made it on a close call the third time around. 0RR puts it over the top for me: obviously that's a use of administrative privilege; it just doesn't happen to generate a log entry. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

People are of course free to criticize Elonka for her decision. However, I would ask people to keep things as civil as they can: if you mean to change Elonka's mind, insults probably won't get the job done. IronDuke 20:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Was that directed at me in some way? I'd gladly refactor any portion that crosses the line of civility. Durova^Charge! 20:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Durova. No it was not directed at you. What I had hoped to do, by omitting specific names, was to lower the temperature, not provoke more name-calling. Thanks for asking me before writing an angry reply, it is much-appreciated (and an example we would all do well to follow). IronDuke 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke I'd advise you to shift that remark to wherever it was intended to be pasted. It clearly does not belong in any way under comments made by Durova. As it stands it insinuates that both incivility and insults are present in her comments, which is of course untrue, and in turn extremely offensive. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the defense, Nishadini. Perhaps it isn't necessary to go quite that far. Let's keep the discussion focused and calm. Durova^Charge! 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the comment was aimed at me. I, however, am notoriously obdurate. I will not obey those who cannot take into account the whole of what I said. Elonka had three RFA's, and Durova co-nominated on the second one. The first two failed. The third succeeded largely because of the "open to recall" clause and because of Elonka's stated desire to avoid controversy. Of course it's speculative of me to say that the RFA would have gone down in flames otherwise, but it is extremely likely, given the extremely narrow margin of the pass. Therefore, having an election day conversion is a betrayal of all of us. Promising to be good only when people are voting and then saying that she never meant it the way any person who knows out processes would is deceptive. My "insults" were assessments that I am forced to stand by. If people do not wish me to have such judgments, then they should go back and unwrite Elonka's explanation that she was open to recall only for a week and secretly meant that she would be open for demotion with an RfAr, same as every other admin. I, for example, hold no truck with the "open to recall" nonsense, but I have rarely had to worry about it. Elonka had to worry about it but seems to have been insincere. Geogre (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right of course, Geogre, and I hope none of my statements about conomination confused or misled anyone. If any had that effect it was purely unintentional. Her second RFA did go better than the first, and it was during the second one that she first made a pledge to be open to recall. The whole thing was touch-and-go and it's fair to say that a number of factors had to line up perfectly to satisfy the community's concerns. A single change of heart afterward could be understandable, but Elonka has had at least three of those. Durova^Charge! 07:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Geogre, I’m not in the habit of demanding people obey me, and even if I were, I have far too much respect for your contributions to demand it of you. In your latest post above, you lay out a perfectly articulate, perfectly reasonable argument as to why Elonka should step down. I have no problem with your doing that. What I have a problem with is raising the drama level for no good reason. I wouldn’t even bother addressing you specifically, if I didn’t have that same afore-mentioned respect, and faith that you are amenable to sense and reason. IronDuke 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but, trust me, I was not intending to raise the drama level. I really was expressing my legitimate dismay that someone would actually announce that she meant it when she said it, but she didn't mean it after. I felt that it was necessary to lay that out in its stark form. I appreciate the respect and the avoiding of naming, but I really wasn't trying to insult. I was saying how I, a person who voted for Elonka's 3rd RFA, felt about the explanation. Geogre (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this does seem to be a common thread - the insinuation that somehow the "opposition" is automatically wrong, uncivil, acts in bad faith and therefore can be discounted. I believe that that there is an expression for this behavour. And it's rather shocking that Elonka has told a few white lies to get her through her 3rd RFA. I'm sure that she isn't the first (and probably not the last) but it seems that her authority as an admin is now fatally comprimised. While she may still have the tools, she probably won't be viewed by the Community as being an admin. Sad, but entirely of her own creation. Shot info (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Shot info, in reply, please see the second sentence of my comment to DreamGuy. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Elonka could please take some time to respond to the points raised by MastCell and Moreschi. Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A few follow-up questions for Elonka:

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

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?

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)

Pardon me for jumping in here, but as for number 2, Elonka may wish to take into consideration that a majority of those posting have not agreed with that "main theme". With respect to the article that started off this whole thing, as of my last look at the RFC, 35 people agreed with Elonka that she acted properly, while only 10 agreed with you, Chris. As for number 3, it's sort of funny that you would ask that question. If she does hand it off, I hope it is to someone who is as evenhanded and courageous as she has been, and who will not let anyone "own" the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Or as Ramdrake pointed out, more people have endorsed comments critisising Elonka (137) at the RfC than endorsing her (102). One can "prove" anything from numbers, depending how one wants to interpret them. Stick to discussing substantive points, Wikipedia is not a democracy, constantly and frequently claiming that Elonka has "won" her RfC because she has all of 35 "votes" while ChrisO has 10 is not helping. This is not a vote to close discussion and you can't call an end to it by proclaiming the same point over and over, it is irrelevant, polling is not a substitute to discussion. Thanks. Alun (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know 6SJ7 would like to make this "all about ChrisO" - that's why he's involved himself in this RfC in the first place (I gave evidence against him in an arbitration case last year and he's been sniping at me ever since). But you can't simply dismiss the fact that multiple editors and admins have reported essentially the same problems on multiple articles - Quackwatch, Race and intelligence, Dysgenics (book), Rab concentration camp and so on. I was aware from user talk pages and suchlike that there seemed to be a problem going much wider than just the article I've been working on. That's what convinced me to bring the RfC in the first place, since appealing Elonka's actions would only have tackled the symptoms, not the syndrome. Also, 6SJ7's focus on the number of "votes" is frankly idiotic. RfCs aren't there to be "won" or "lost" - as WP:RFC itself says, "RfCs are not votes. Try to have a discussion, rather than a "yes/no" segregation." It's an opportunity for people to give feedback in a structured way and (hopefully) for Elonka to listen to what's being said and take appropriate corrective action. So the number of "votes" is completely irrelevant. It's views that count, not "votes". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Idiotic"? Really. You are just digging your own hole deeper, Chris. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to labour the point, but might I suggest that before you comment on an RfC you take the time to learn about how an RfC actually works? Ramdrake's comments here are a good place to start. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As a comment on Elonka's statement above. It now appears that Elonka is fatally compromised as an admin. She claims that "The will of the community at this time, seems to be that no misuse of tools occurred.", well I don't see that at all, how is the "will of the community" apparent to Elonka? How has she measured it? The point is that she promised to step down if six people asked for recall, and now she is reneging on that promise. Indeed some 20 people have asked for recall, while only 32 have supported her, clearly there is no consensus for her not to resign. If, for example six had requested recall and some twenty or thirty had opposed, then Elonka might have a leg to stand on, she could claim a clear consensus opposed recall, now she's claiming there is a "will of the community" that is somehow different to the consensus we usually work with. Clearly she is estimating that she will not get reconfirmed as an admin with this level of support, and I expect she's probably a little shocked that so few have supported her, she clearly would not pass a new request for adminship, so she's not going to resign. It's sad that she thinks it's so "important" to be an admin, it shoud be easy to give it up and if it's not easy to give up one should ask oneself why? As for "A similar consensus appears to be forming at the RfC." I can see no consensus on the RfC whatsoever, clearly Elonka uses a different criterion when it comes to people commenting on her than when it comes to articles. On articles Elonka seems to think that a lone dissenting voice represents "significant opposition" (see Zero g and the merge proposal for Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations where Elonka claimed "significant opposition" at AN/I, or the comments about RAB concentration camp posted by AlasdairGreen27.[16]) Clearly for Elonka a single dissenting voice is enough for our core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V to be discarded, but a simple majority is enough for her to ignore the recall. I think that's hypocricy, if she thinks that a single editor is "significant opposition", then she should be easily ready to resign if twenty odd ask her to. She's fundamentally damaged now, no editor will take her seriously as an admin, and other admins will be brought in to all of the disputes she's dealing with because she just won't be trusted. This recall discussion and the RfC will constantly be cited as evidence that she is not even handed during disputes. She should have asked for reconfirmation for her own peace of mind as much as anything else, I fear she has made life a great deal more difficuly for herself in the future. Alun (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For constructive critcism of me, and for resolving a dispute at Law of Palestine. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck at resolving the remaining issues there. I'm confident that with everyone continuing to discuss things in good faith, we will end up with a stronger article.  :) --Elonka 00:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Recall subpage?

Should all directly recall-related sections be moved to a subpage such as User talk:Elonka/Recall proposal? That subpage could then be clearly referenced at the top of this talk page while the process is ongoing. As it is, the proposal has effectively overtaken this talk page, and since Elonka is continuing to edit, any uninvolved editor arriving here to discuss any unrelated editing concerns might be (more than) a bit overwhelmed by the burgeoning recall discussion...   user:j    (aka justen)   06:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a subpage at User:Elonka/Questions, where anyone who wishes to ask questions of me, may do so. As for the rest of the chatter, I have no trouble with people talking here. I am definitely listening to all of it. And I am continuing to think about all of it, especially in the context of "What will be most helpful to Wikipedia, in the longterm?" I am also thinking about it in the context of other administrators who may wish to help out in tag team areas in the future. Is there a way that the concept of recall can still be used for them, to distinguish valid from invalid concerns? It's an interesting question. --Elonka 18:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

...omg 86.44.27.232 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of "disrepute".

First, some preliminary remarks: I'm not asking for your recall. I have no opinion (and, indeed, no interest) in any of the controversial topics you are involved in. I have not commented on your RFC. I have not taken any sort of "side" in the recent debates that have raged over you.

Furthermore, I think that the whole idea of administrators being open to recall is a bit silly. I'm an administrator, and I never put myself up for recall, and never would. It seems like grandstanding to me. Some admins that I respect disagree with me, and are open for recall. That's fine. Let a million flowers bloom.

In short, had you not stood up, in public, and declared that you intended to put yourself up for recall given certain standards, I would, most likely, have absolutely no opinion on your actions. As it is, you did choose to reap the benefits of what, in hindsight, appears to be base hypocrisy. That you now claim to have changed your mind and moved the goalposts does not make your actions any less shocking. And thus, I do have an opinion: your choices and actions regarding your recall are embarassing and shameful, and you have brought yourself into disrepute. More importantly, you have cast a shadow on all of the other admins in the category, and are bringing them into disrepute as well. I presume that most of those admins are women and men of their word. If I were one of them, I would be angry at you beyond words. Since I am not, I am not angry. I am merely mortified.

You actions have, in short, damaged the reputation of Wikipedia, of Wikipedia's administrators, and most specifically of all of Wikipedia's admins who have claimed to be open to recall. I am deeply disappointed in your choices here, and hope that, someday, you will realize what you have done and, somehow, make it right. Nandesuka (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this reflects poorly on anyone but Elonka. She has now made it clear that the opposers at her RFAs were right all along. This sounds bad, but it's really no big deal. It changes nothing- the opposers already knew this, and most of the supporters don't want to see it, even now. Her disgrace is hers alone. It can't spread to me, even though I'm in the recall category, because I simply refuse to accept it. Why should anyone be angry? Recall is still what it's always been. Elonka is still what she's always been. Life goes on, and while recall may be of little practical value, it'll continue as it has for as long as there are people willing to put themselves in the category. Friday (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you still doing stuff with QW?

If so, please review this edit which is an explicit violation of editing restrictions to that article since it removes material and there was certainly no consensus on the talk page to remove this content. In fact, all I see on the talkpage is an explanation of why this content needs to be there with no one contradicting it. I would add the content back, but I don't want to revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, ScienceApologist. I happened to see your message here and hope you don't mind if I chime in with my opinion. I looked at the thread Talk:Quackwatch#What is Hufford?; let me know if you're referring to a different thread. In my opinion, the edit is not a violation of the editing conditions. The editing conditions don't forbid the removal of material. The edit doesn't remove any source. It merely shortens the material based on the source. In that thread on the talk page, I see no opinions by any third party on inclusion of the material; Shell seems to be acting in the role of a mediator. However, Ludwigs2, the other editor in this dispute, has offered a compromise position. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This was clearly a revert (without a hint of compromise or rewrite) that removed the content added here and here. FWIW, I support the latter two but would not oppose a genuine compromise.

However, I do not accept the editing restrictions which (1) at best, when evenly applied by neutral admins conversant with the article's problems and history, will result in severe article bloat (2) can be applied unevenly and used as a smokescreen allowing any admin to intentionally or accidentally skew balance that should be provided by editors, not admins. I am considering to become more active as an editor again, but will never edit this article as long as I view the editing environment (imposed without editor consensus) as a travesty of the true wiki way that is vital for the building of the encyclopedia. Avb 09:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for giving a hasty opinion above. I didn't know which of the editing conditions it was alleged to violate, and had not studied the page history to see whether it was a revert. In my revised opinion given the above information, the edit in question (by Ludwigs2 on 22:31 (UTC), 16 August 2008) violated the editing conditions in spirit by reverting all of the material added in the two previous edits given by Avb above without substituting alternative compromise wording, although as far as I know it didn't revert cleanly to an exact previous version of the article. At about the same time as that edit, Ludwigs2 also posted to the talk page in part, "I have no problem contextualizing Hufford's perspective, as long as it's presented as a credible academic opinion, not as the opinion of a 'sympathizer', 'apologist', 'advocate', 'proponent' or any other term that is there to evaluate Hufford as a person. rather than to represent Hufford's opinions." This seems to indicate a willingness to compromise, but apparently that willingness wasn't accompanied by active efforts to compromise in the actual article edit.

Since the edit in question was several days ago, I'm not sure whether any action would be taken by administrators about it. ScienceApologist, you had pointed out less than a day later that it was a violation of the editing conditions, but didn't mention the previous edits of which it was arguably a revert under the spirit of the definition in the editing conditions: "Um, your removal of content in the article is a violation of the editing restrictions in this article. Rephrase, don't remove is the name of the game." Shell, one of the uninvolved administrators watching the page, replied supporting the edit as not violating the editing conditions. Removal of content is not forbidden by the editing conditions in general. To establish that it was a violation of the editing conditions, I think the previous edits which added the material needed to be mentioned. (involved unadmin) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch - yes, please mention if its actually a revert - that's a completely different story than simple removal of content. While were at it though, should we have a discussion at Quackwatch about the editing conditions and whether or not they need some changes? Shell ^babelfish 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your promises

• Elonka, I was truely scandalized some months ago when you broke an agreement we had made regarding a compromise wording for the Franco-Mongol alliance article, and I do think your breaking of that agreement really ruined our relation: keeping promises is just a founding element of interpersonal trust. But this time this is not just you and me: this is a promise you made to the whole Wikipedia community that you would step down upon the request of only 6 editors. Many people voted for you pointing out that the conditions for your recall were "ridiculously low". This promise thus represents a contract between you and the Wikipedia community: it is binding, and it is not even a matter of personal choice whether you ought to abide by it or not. If you do not voluntarily abide by your obligations, I trust the Community will deal with it for you anyway.
  
• The turn of events leading to this recall is surprisingly reminescent of the attacks and behaviour you have submitted me to, months after months. I am not surprised to recognize many of the comments above justifying your recall. Through constant attacks, mischaracterization of my work, and on-Wiki and off-Wiki lobbying, you managed to obtain a decision against me at Arbcom, but I think these recent cases clearly reveal on a broader scale the problems of your methods and behaviour.
  
• Lastly, may I ask you to remove from your user page the statement claiming authorship of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. Far from "expanding" or "writting" the article, all you actually did is cut through the 200k of research I had accomplished in more than 6 months [17], tweak content to fit your view of the subject, and then do all you could to discredit me on Wikipedia. It does not seem very fair to try to put me out of the picture, and then claim ownership of most of my work.
• Overall, I am saddened by this turn of events, and wish we could see less conflictual, more collaborative editorial methods. Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a war zone, where some seem to take pleasure in destroying others. Most of us are here to contribute the best we can, in good faith. I would love to find a way so that we can reconcile each other, and so that now, you might also reconcile with a large part of the Community. I don't know what to suggest... Less agressivity? A gracious stepping down from your controversial Administrator responsibilities? More trust towards good-faith contributors such as me? Less implacable drive to "win" in conflicts and arguments at the expense of objectivity? Cheers PHG (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(For anyone else who is wondering what we're talking about, see User:Elonka/Mongol quickref) PHG, in no way do I wish to diminish the quantity of work which you did at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. However, at the same time, please do not diminish my own work either. I too have put in many hours, and many hundreds of edits, expanding the related articles, adding sources, and copyediting everything. I spent scores of hours doing research, tracking down reference books, and even making several visits to the Library of Congress in Washington DC to read some of the more obscure sources.[18] Other editors have helped as well, both working on the article, and participating in discussions at the talkpage, or at the resulting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance ArbCom case. All editors who work on a high-quality article, are allowed to take pride in their work. You definitely deserve credit, and when the article (someday) attains featured status, you will rightly deserve to be proud of it, as will everyone else who worked on it to ensure that it stayed in accordance with Wikipedia policies. --Elonka 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI archive reversion has rebegun

By User:Nabuchodonozor. See for example [19]. --Folantin (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking, though it looks like Verbal has already gotten most of it (thanks). Verbal, it's related to this thread.[20] --Elonka 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. I was just passing by and thought I'd have a crack. Cheers. Verbal chat 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :)

Folantin, the semi-protection at the ANI archive is still active through August 30, but looks like the attackers found more "sleeper" accounts (perhaps fellow students at a computer lab, or patrons at an internet cafe?), so they got the edits through that way. The AfD was attacked as well. Related accounts so far:

• Melkart1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked by Elonka)
• Hibernatus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (warned by Tanthalas39)
• 194.126.21.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked by Elonka)
• Nabuchodonozor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked by Alvestrand)

If you spot any others, let us know! --Elonka 17:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I was just curious to know what was going on. Skulduggery in the world of Lebanese skiing, no doubt. Looks solved for the moment, whatever the cause. --Folantin (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A little something for your efforts

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Awarded for your participation in the dispute over at Talk:Medicine. Your opinion and your ability to handle disputes is really, really appreciated. Cheers :) —[[::User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]] ([[::User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]]) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been far too long since I've given out a barnstar! —[[::User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]] ([[::User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]]) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck getting things straightened out. Perhaps someone could take the initiative, and make the necessary WP:SUMMARY merge of that one section? --Elonka 00:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with a Polish user?

Hi Elonka,

I found you from the Polish noticeboard. We've been having an issue with a very young Polish user over at 2012 Summer Olympics (and the talk page. Attempts to explain in English have failed. There has been a notice put up at ANI which summarizes the situation. Would you be able to help, or find another Polish-speaking admin who can help, explain to this young girl why she is in error, and help her understand how to interact with Wikipedia in a constructive manner? Thank you. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tea vee

Hello! Last night my wife and I were watching the NOVA scienceNOW episode on Kryptos when I practically jumped off the couch and exclaimed, "Hey, I know her! She is a fellow admin on Wikipedia!!" You totally rock!! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks.  :) I've been getting good feedback on it (and traffic to my website has quintupled), but since Wikipedia is one of the primary online communities that I participate in, it's nice to hear that someone on the project enjoyed it.  :) --Elonka 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dragon*Con

For anyone watching this page who may be in Atlanta over the Labor Day Weekend, I will be at the mammoth Dragon*Con convention, giving talks on subjects from the Knights Templar to Kryptos, and on one of my favorite topics, Wikipedia! I'll probably be speaking in multiple tracks, but most of my talks will be in the Electronics track, so check the schedule for exact times.[21] Any fellow Wikipedians who attend, please stop by and say hello! I'd love to meet you.  :) --Elonka 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I won't be able to be there, but don't forget to talk about the Mongols! Cheers PHG (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Elonka, I have filed a request for appeal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I'll be looking forward to your support. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my statement, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by Elonka. --Elonka 00:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request you look at a re-started revert war

Hi Elonka. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#New_Causteau_edits

You helped out before and very similar problems are arising again. After including some small updates from a new article in the literature I've been double reverted again, once again mostly, it seems, on the principle that edits can annoy others, and not on any principle of trying to make the article better. I am not going to act further for the time being but I think it is indisputable that the article is suffering. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, unfortunately your fairly general advice is being interpreted by Causteau as you taking his side, and he has seen that as a signal to start reverting again. I had held off, but I believe at this stage it is most correct to at least reverse those mass reverts until real discussion takes place. I don't know what else to do. It surely can't be the intention that whoever dares to be most aggressive can get their way. I don't think general advice was what was called for to be honest. We need a third person to read the basic type of discussion and make sure both parties are honestly involved in constructive discussion. I do not think they are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's rubbish. Don't believe a word of it, Elonka. What I did, in fact, do was restore the page to the way it was yesterday when you thankfully intervened and before Lancaster's unilateral edits of today. Please have a look at the page history and see for yourself that this is true. Causteau (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

When Causteau says "yesterday", he means he took out some edits I had done yesterday, but left in his from yesterday. There is no discussion of which if any edits involved the matters which were being discussed on the talk page (after I asked them to be). Elonka, I want to point out that the above post by Causteau, plus many others, explain that he choses to interpret his actions as been according to explicit instructions you gave. In particular I mean that I am apparently now not allowed to edit the article anymore in any way, until, well, I do not know what, and secondly, that the reverts by Causteau of other people's edits are judged to be OK, and thus the fact that Causteau's reverted version is now the only version is something you chose and demanded. Given the importance of the way your name is being used here, I believe you now need to state clearly whether this is correct or not. I don't believe that this was your intention at all, but even if it was, I don't think it is an admin's job to give one editor power of an article in this way. Right? In any case I feel that you have to at least reply to the extent that you are now being cited as an authority for very questionable editing. We need more than a "go watch the olympics" or "make sure you cite sources" I am afraid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see if you can agree with this approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Intertested_people.2C_please_check_if_we_have_agreement_on_the_following --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I note your warning on my personal talk page. I appreciate that you are taking a limited approach to the questions raised. But obviously what I believe is happening makes your general advice unhelpful. If you really think you've made a lot of effort and that your interlocutor is refusing all rational discussion, while constantly playing chicken with reverts, what would you do? It is nice to speak to people neutrally, I know. But let's just say for the sake of argument that we had hit a wall? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I have tried to summarize the problem as it now stands. Can you please look at the bits in bold and comment? We certainly need a third voice on these issues, because the article is now dysfunctional. If it would be better to follow another procedure to get such advice, then please let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you mention this example

Elonka, I want to remark on an aspect of your comments on the debate that I think needs caution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Edit-warring where you write:

The next editor to add information that is not accompanied by a source, could also be looking at a block. For example, this sentence is uncited: "Nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1 (defined by M35)." Where is that from? Which source verifies it? Please add an inline citation to it. Thanks, --Elonka 15:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case you are digging up old test, agreed previously, and saying that this needs to be improvement. I have no problem with someone doing that. Improvement is good. But why do you mention this in such a context? There are so many things that can be improved. On the other hand to remove this correct statement would make the article worse. I am confused by this example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just on the practical side anyway, the sentence you are worried about is just a repeat of a comment made in the introduction which is referenced to "Cruciani et. al.'s 2004". Any advice would be fine, but for the time being I am not editing the article. Causteau will revert anything I edit, and he claims you will back him up on that, which is in a practical way what has happened so far because you asked me to stop reverting, and I did so, meaning that Causteau has reverted back to a version that deletes all my recent edits and leaves his in. His own words make it seem certain that he would not have done this if he did not feel he was doing what you specifically wanted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b

Hi Elonka, Lancaster is trying to forcibly insert a new edit into the article without us first agreeing on it. He is extremely rude and condescending and unconcerned with not only Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks, but also those well-thought out guidelines you proposed yesterday. Please have a look. I think he is taking advantage of your absence by trying to turn things personal. Best, Causteau (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Elonka. Thought you'd like to know that Lancaster is now reverting the article under an anonymous IP address. Could you please drop by and insist that he play fair and post under his regular account? Best, Causteau (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you're right Elonka, and I apologize. I will certainly try and tone it down on my part. All I ask is that you demand the same from Lancaster. Causteau (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yelling at each other just makes both of you look bad. I recommend that you take a break and work on something else for awhile. Looking at your contribs, Causteau (talk · contribs), Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs), both of you are much too focused on this one article. Remember, there is no deadline. Spend time working on something else, or take a break from Wikipedia altogether. Turn on the TV and watch the Olympics. I'm looking forward to the closing ceremonies!  :) --Elonka 18:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright Elonka. I tried. I honestly tried to deal politely with this guy, but he is relentless. Lancaster has just posted yet another personal attack and this time once again under an anonymous IP address (and only a few minutes before he posted under his actual account). That abusive paragraph of his that you deleted? Well, he has gone and composed yet another one where he does nothing but discuss me -- disparagingly of course. I'm beginning to think that he seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia's policies only apply to me but not to him despite your expressly having given him a final warning. I'm also certain he's attempting to goad me into lashing out so that I'm punished and he gets of scot-free. I've had it with this guy. Please intervene. Causteau (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but I think the above is a very good example of the problem. I do not know if it can help to comment on it, but I don't know if anything can so...

1. "Lancaster is trying to forcibly a new edit into the article without us first agreeing on it". What's strange about putting in a new edit without prior permission? But, this is the problem: Causteau finds it strange. That is what keeps coming up. It shocks Causteau time after time and Causteau feels that anything is justified to counter such arrogance. The article has a problem because of that.

2. "Thought you'd like to know that Lancaster is now reverting the article". But these are reverts of reverts. OK, I also tell my kids I don't care who started it, but the fact is that it should be possible to edit a Wikipedia article without asking the permission of someone who appointed themselves as its owner.

3. "I'm also certain he's attempting to goad me into lashing out so that I'm punished and he gets of scot-free." I just don't see what my aim would even be in such a scenario. My actions are in any case so boringly consistent - I want them to be comprehensible - that to be tricked into some silly direction by them would be pretty dopey. If Causteau had just a little self control he could "goad" me very easily into another type of situation. I would not mind being goaded into a better place. Better is better, even if someone else helped me get there.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "Lancaster is trying to forcibly a new edit into the article without us first agreeing on it". What's strange about putting in a new edit without prior permission? But, this is the problem: Causteau finds it strange. That is what keeps coming up. It shocks Causteau time after time and Causteau feels that anything is justified to counter such arrogance. The article has a problem because of that.

What's strange about it is that we are in the midst of an edit war in case Lancaster hadn't noticed. It also runs counter to Elonka's own recommendation that we discuss things before implementing them into the text. Causteau (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

2. "Thought you'd like to know that Lancaster is now reverting the article". But these are reverts of reverts. OK, I also tell my kids I don't care who started it, but the fact is that it should be possible to edit a Wikipedia article without asking the permission of someone who appointed themselves as its owner.

No they are not reverts of reverts. Lancaster first reverted my slight modification of his first flurry of edits. I did not start with a full revert as he has been insinuating all along -- he did. But enough he said she said. I know that bugs you Elonka. Still, I ask you, how exactly does one not defend oneself against these constant and patent misrepresentations? Causteau (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3. "I'm also certain he's attempting to goad me into lashing out so that I'm punished and he gets of scot-free." I just don't see what my aim would even be in such a scenario. My actions are in any case so boringly consistent - I want them to be comprehensible - that to be tricked into some silly direction by them would be pretty dopey. If Causteau had just a little self control he could "goad" me very easily into another type of situation. I would not mind being goaded into a better place. Better is better, even if someone else helped me get there.

Lancaster's edits are indeed unfortunately boringly consistent, and this is precisely part of the problem. When expressly told to refrain from engaging in personal attacks and abusive behavior, he persists anyway. It's funny how he deigns to mention "self control" when it's his own inability to contain his aggression that is preventing this matter from resolving itself. Causteau (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Elonka. Please visit the talk page. Lancaster has just written what has got to be his most absurd and long-winded series of personal attacks yet. You specifically requested yesterday that he not discuss me but instead try and resolve the matter at hand. Instead, he has posted not one, not two, but three lengthy diatribes designed to get other editors to turn against me -- this same guy who didn't even have the decency to admit that he inserted unsourced material into the text when I literally quoted him as having done just that! You clearly warned both of us one final time not to engage in personal attacks. I have respected your wishes and not violated that directive. Lancaster yet again has not. He has named section headings after me, headings which he knows full well appear in the table of contents at the top of the talk page (and which you in the past have removed; I appreciate that); he lied about my having used an anonymous IP address like he himself has on at least two separate occasions; he keeps accusing me of having initiated the reverting when this link to the history page clearly shows that he made the first full revert of my modification and rewriting of his initial flurry of edits; he has deliberately misinterpreted my plainly-stated recommendations on what specific changes we ought to implement as a green light to carry out a full revert of the article as it stands despite your expressly having forbidden this; he constantly quotes me out of context and employs straw man arguments rather than respecting what I did actually say in order to give the impression that I hold views that I do not hold (e.g. he just started yet another new section on the talk page where he claims among other things that "Causteau felt the term "sub-Saharan" Africa to be racist" when what I did actually do was correctly point out that his insertion of the term sub-Saharan E-M35 into the text is wrong because it "has a racial connotation, a connotation which, like it or not, is implied nowhere in the study"!); not to mention that he is incredibly condescending and rude. To top things off, in his latest post, he has once again named two section headings of his personal attacks after me (e.g. "Causteau's reading of one sentence, and his general use of innuendo"). You warned both of us to behave but the rules can't apply to just one of us. I have not pulled any of those underhanded, ill-intentioned stunts you told us not to engage in and which Wikipedia's policies specifically forbid. Please do something about this. It's high time Lancaster understood that Wikipedia's policies apply to him too and not just to those who have the audacity to challenge the veracity of his edits. Best, Causteau (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing the situation, and my guess is that some other admins are taking a look too, but the situation is complex, and the more that both of you keep reacting to each other, the more difficult that it is to sort out what is actually going on. If you feel that "something must be done", please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Request assistance at the talkpage of a relevant WikiProject, request a third opinion at WP:3O, file an article request for comment. But I truly think that if you can just rein in the horses, and avoid the article and its talkpage for a day, that it will help matters. That will both make it easier for other editors to make sense of the discussion, and it will give you (both of you) a chance to cool down and try to re-focus on the article instead of each other. Another essay worth reading is WP:MASTODON. My strong recommendation is to just stop reacting to everything that the other person says, and just work on something else on Wikipedia for awhile. Let the dust settle. No major calamities are going to occur in the world, because the article uses one abbreviation or the other. Wikipedia has over two million articles, surely there is something else that would benefit from your time and attention? Try clicking on Special:Random a few times, I usually find something I want to work on (or at least tag as needing sources) within 5 clicks.  :) Anyway, I'm still reading, and if no other admin steps in, I'll try to see what I can do. Do your best to be patient. Articles eventually sort themselves out in the longrun.  :) --Elonka 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I think you really need to consider that the article is now frozen and it will not fix itself unless Causteau changes, but he won't do that because, by his own account, he believes and hopes that he can gets admins to take his side. Specifically he claims or implies to have you behind him, justifying the current version of the article which is a full revert. You have to say whether you really do support that full revert or not, and then you have to say whether you really have forbidden anyone from editing without first getting agreement from Causteau, which is how he is interpreting the situation. It should be easy to say yes or no. Please also note that for several months this article has been a stalemate with intermittent conflict when edits happen: one person making edits and one person shooting them down. The greater public of people interested in this subject know about the situation and I think they just see it as a lost cause now. I've done a lot of the work involved in building up this page, which is not good, but the other point about that is that it takes enormous energy to struggle to get anything into the article, and why should I bother? You imply that people can always comes back to it after a fight dies down, well no that is not how it works. I do not have infinite time available to waste on hitting my head against a wall. Everyone knows that Causteau will act the same way every time someone makes significant edits. That's because he thinks there are Wikipedia powers behind him that he is following. While this illusion remains, this problem will keep getting worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean, Elonka? I have not sought this guy out -- he sought me. When I mention something regarding his edits, I prove it with actual difs. Lancaster cannot do that because the facts are not on his side. All he can do is cast aspersions on my edits, misrepresent what I've actually written as I've demonstrated above, and try and get you to believe that this is an issue of me being possessive over the page... when almost the entire article was written, and re-written, and re-written again and again by Lancaster himself! The categorizing, the actual text, the info box -- all dictated by his edits. Yet he blows a gasket when someone rightly points out that the Henn study he quotes doesn't once mention the "sub-Saharan E-M35" he inserted into the text or label what it specifically identifies as E3b1f-M283 as E-M293 as he has also done? It's all just absurd; utterly preposterous. Causteau (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, I just make my opinion clear in case it helps and in case it was not yet known: Wikipedia has one basic rule and that is the articles should be as good as they can. All other guidelines are subservient to that. That's the main difference between us. I work primarily according to that one rule and I do not like playing around with wikilawyering. Wikipedia is not a country with a legal system, police, etc. All your actions seem to be based on a false idea about what edits should aim at, and what "rules" there are and how they are enforced. Secondly, I have myself not only admitted (you see it is negative) but in fact pointed-out several times that yes, I do the most edits on this article. You don't. You only stuff around with wikilawyering aimed at making editing difficult. So thank me, and let me work. Other people should be helping more, including you. Writing and re-writing and re-writing is what you are supposed to do. It is stunning to see you complain to Elonka several times that "he is posting something again" as if that in itself is a valid complaint. Without me the article would be worse than it is. M293 would not even been in the article at all. Causteau, answer a straight question for once: should we remove all my edits from the page? If not, then please don't complain about the the mere fact that I work hard on the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide verifiable, sourced information just like any other encyclopedia -- something Lancaster has not done and which is precisely the whole cause of the problem we are presently mired in. I can understand why he should feel the need to once again engage in ad hominem since he can't, after all, deny any of the things I have written and proven above with actual difs. Note how he once again attributes a statement to me that I have never made: "he is posting something". I have not told Elonka any such thing. What I have done is written in the paragraph above dated 15:15, 24 August 2008 that "Lancaster has just written what has got to be his most absurd and long-winded series of personal attacks yet", which is indeed true. Note how he also tries to portray my defending myself in the paragraph above against his baseless accusations in the paragraph preceding it as me merely complaining "about the mere fact that [he] works hard on the article"! What, I ask you, is that "work" worth if it's not even supported by the actual source it references? And would the article really have been any better without someone having come along to correct it with information that is actually sourced? I don't think so. Causteau (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You find something of poor quality in an edit of mine then explain it on the discussion page, and be prepared to discuss with me, not to start setting up a law case while you write to admins to come and "intervene" on "this guy".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR notification

Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Hello

Hello, Elonka. It seems like you are going through a tough time on wikipedia at the moment. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for volunteering so many hours for our project. Your contributions as both editor and administrator are appreciated. I regret that political firestorms occur so frequently around here, and that great wikipedians get unwittingly involved in them. I sincerely hope that things go your way, and that if they do not, that you will continue to contribute to the project and community anyway. Sincerely, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with Jerry. You have made a tremendous contribution to the project, and I know there are many who greatly appreciate your commitment.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Elonka/Questions

I hope you don't mind, but I've unofficially "clerked" a bit on the subpage. Since there have been a couple of times where other editors would like to have commented on the on-going discussions, I moved it to a user page, so that the talk is now available for those comments. I've also moved some of the comments from other editors out of Wsiegmund's section and either into that editor's section or to the talk if that editor didn't already have a section themselves. Feel free to undo anything you don't agree with :) Shell ^babelfish 04:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks.  :) Also, FYI, my wiki-time is going to be curtailed a bit this week because of my upcoming tradeshow. I'll still be able to check Wikipedia every day, but I won't be spending as much time here as usual. So if you see anything else that needs clerking, please feel free. --Elonka 17:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Most academics are busy in real life, yet they probably actively participate in this encyclopedia at a level far below their special expertise. If Elonka has problems in her personal life that make her own participation in wikipedia difficult, now might be a time to scale down her activities. She seems to have had serious problems in her interactions with established academics. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some constructive criticism for Elonka? --Fat Cigar 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Suzy Gorman

I see you have restored some material to this article which I deleted per WP:BLP as unsourced praise/criticism (actually one of each). Your restoration mentions one reference but has not made it clear whether all three paragraphs now under section "Reception" are sourceable to the 1995 article. Would you be kind enough to clarify that, please?

I was also disappointed to see that you had restored a lot of text about other family members, which I had deleted as irrelevant to this article, without any reaction to my comments at the talk page. I would be interested to hear why you think the article is improved by that information. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't targeting your edits in particular, I just spot-check the article from time to time, since it's been the target of vandalism in the past. In any case, sure, I'll go ahead and doublecheck the sources, and bring in some inline citations. In the meantime, if you want to re-delete anything, you are welcome to do so, as I won't add it back until I have the citations in hand. --Elonka 19:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the material which is not obviously sourced again per WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. I would suggest that details on the subject's family are not relevant and should not be included however well sourced. WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy also seems relevant here. Presumably if those people are notable, they will have their own articles in due course. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Tag team

Wikipedia:Tag team, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Tag team during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Risker (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the template, Elonka. I don't do a lot of nominating for deletion so tend to rigidly follow the instructions. It occurs to me now that I could just as well have left you a more personal note. Risker (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b #2

Hi Elonka. Just dropped by to thank you for your efforts at re-focusing the discussion to the actual article as opposed to the editors. I have just one more favor to ask of you: Could you please remove Lancaster's comments in the two new sections titled "Starting fresh" and the gratuitous "Request for comment"? They are but the usual personal attacks, and serve no purpose other than to point fingers and misrepresent the issue at hand and my actual edits. One of them even at one point quotes a comment I made during our long-resolved conflict from months ago, back when I was a new user and which you also oversaw! I think you'll agree that that's not really productive, especially in the wake of your latest directives to keep it short, civil, and to the point. If these sections should stay, I will be forced to respond to them in order to defend myself against their misrepresentations, and Lancaster will naturally respond to my reply, and I will once again have to wade through more untruths, etc. ad nauseam. I've already written but not yet posted a response to one of these new personal attacks. I really don't want to have to write a response to the other since that'll only prolong the agony and thwart our latest progress logged in the section titled "Things I'd like to edit if I could edit without being reverted". Please let me know if we can really start afresh. Best, Causteau (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, Elonka can not just go and delete comments at the request of an editor in order to save the editor from being "forced" to do something wrong. You still misunderstand, and your misunderstanding keeps sending you the wrong way. You have to work with anyone else who wants to edit. Admins are not police or judges. True personal attacks as per Wikipedia are not the same as hurting someone's feelings or mentioning their names. If those things were not allowed, all editing would stop.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

Elonka, I was expecting it to be self-evident that someone involved in a dispute over a particular policy should avoid editing the very policy on which they are to be measured. As you, yourself, told Jehochman, [22] it is highly questionable' behavior to edit an article to which one has such a significant dispute resolution COI. I'd say a key policy by which desysoppings are judged by adminship is a "No Go" area for someone who just finished a recall process and has an RFAR pending for things related to adminship and recall.

In any event, I stand by my UNDO, your edit changed the order in such a way as to move the parts on removal for abuse and emphasis on community involvement to the bottom and the parts on uncontroversial desysopping to the top. You should know that WP:RECALLME is at best an essay (even though it is not tagged) and WP:ADMIN is an official policy, usually we work by consensus with such things and discuss radical changes before doing them. Two people talking at a random user subpage does not appear to fit that bill. Happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)