User talk:Elonka

Request for comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lynch mob

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

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

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

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

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

You should waive certification of the RFC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Society Barnstar, Congrats

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

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

Elonka RfC

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

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

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

Wizardman's talk page

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

Recall Proposal

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

Endorsed by

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

1. Her conduct in conflicts is not what we want from an admin. Friday (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 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)
5. Endorse. Why not? what's she got to lose? Numerous editors think she's displayed poor judgment, why shouldn't she be happy to go through another request for adminship? She stated that she would if six editors asked her to, if she succeeds it strengthens her. I don't really see why anyone should be an "admin for life". Alun (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
6. 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)
7. After reading the draft report of the Working Group for the second time, I don't see that it empowered Elonka to act as she did. She was cautioned several times by both admins and editors that some of her actions were at odds with Wikipedia's core policies, but chose to question the credibility of her critics (in fact, to harshly criticize them in turn) rather than to try to address their concerns as being legitimate. This is not an attitude we can afford from an admin. It is with sorrow that I join the request for her recall.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Amen.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Endorse. Clearly a significant number of editors have concerns about Elonka's suitability to be an Admin. The fact the RfC is still ongoing is irrelevant to the recall procedure. If Elonka really wants to know if the community at large still trusts her with 'the buttons', then a reconfirmation RfA is the way to go. I just hope she'll honour her recall committment and not try to wriggle out of it. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

   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)

10. Endorse, reluctantly, only after reading the admission that Elonka is concerned with conduct, ChrisO with content. All power conferred democratically requires, optimally, diplomatic humility in its exercise, a sensitivity to dissent and its reasons, a predilection for substance over form and above all, a readiness to submit to what Renan called the daily plebiscite. In the original casus belli, on the Mohammad al-Durrah article, the benefits of the exercise of her undisputed gifts were overshadowed by an extreme formalism, and excessive self-confidence in her judgement, judgements on conduct that consistently ignored the obvious fact that conduct is a means towards collaboration, while the fundamental point of encyclopedicity is secured by the quality of the content.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
11. 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 managed to find an admin willing to delete the RFC 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)

12. 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)
13. Endorse. This seals it for me. Too bad. -- Fyslee / talk 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
14. 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)
15. Endorse. This Admin has demonstrated very poor judgment in issues pertaining to WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
16. 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)
17. Endorse, reluctantly. Please listen to Durova. Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
18. [18] —Giggy 05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
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. [19] 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)

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.--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)
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 [20]. 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)
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 shoul dbe 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)
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)

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)".[21] 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." [22] 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.[23][24][25][26]--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)

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." [27] 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,[28] including my company's annual convention.[29] 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."[30]

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.[31] 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)

Warning

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

P. S. to warning

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

I don't think a block for this reason would be at all a good thing. Yes, the accusations are a bit over the top, but a block? I don't see how it would help. Friday (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be one of the most ridiculous reasons for a block in the history of Wikipedia. Bishonen, you are in no position to be threatening Elonka with blocks. Don't even consider doing something that foolish. - auburnpilot talk 22:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. What position am I in, according to you? Bishonen | talk 22:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Well let's see. You're an admin who has threatened to block another admin for not providing diffs that you requested to back up claims within a recall/RfC you endorsed. Then of course there's also this comment. But hey, you're not an admin, right? - auburnpilot talk 22:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Sometimes the dino does what I ask, sometimes she doesn't. Let me ask you something, AuburnPilot. Please think about it for a minute or two before you reply. Don't you think those proof-less accusations of Elonka's are appalling behaviour? Really not? Do they even sound likely? Bishonen | talk 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Her behaviour on Jehochman's talk page is similar to that on Moreschi's talk page (Godwin's Law) which neither MastCell nor Moreschi seemed to be able to take seriously. Again baseless, offensive and threatening accusations which she has never made the slightest attempt to justify. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely think Elonka should provide diffs for the accusations she's made, but I would never threaten to block her if she doesn't do so within 24 hours. That is my point of contention (along with your attempted deception of being an admin), but I'm happy to leave it at that. - auburnpilot talk 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My attempted...? Aha, I must have been hoping nobody would ever figure out that my (open and pretty well-known) alternative account had pinched my tools? Attempted... [/me breaks down, falls on the floor, fights for breath. ] I'm sorry, but I simply don't have it in me to feel insulted by that. You're such a kidder. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

And a block from you Bishonen, would result in an immediate overturn. You have my word on that. seicer | talk | contribs 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, why don't you just declare Elonka immune from all rules and enforce it through tag teaming and wheel warring if you are that dead set on ignoring policies? DreamGuy (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

She's not immune to rules, but we don't block people for things like that. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

People are blocked for making personal attacks and breaking rules of civility all the time. I think the timing would be bad in this situation, but certainly the offense is a very clear blocking reason. DreamGuy (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm not an admin, I'm curious to hear from other admins. If I posted something like that to someone's talk page, shouldn't I expect to get blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of turning down the heat, and seeing that Jehochman has already done so, I concur with Bishonen's assessment and request regarding Elonka's statement to Jehochman that, "you have already been cautioned for harassment on multiple occasions. Some of your comments at the RfC have also been, shall we say, not as truthful as they could have been." Without diffs, this amounts to an unfounded character attack. I've seen other editors conduct themselves similarly on Wiki, lobbing unfounded charges and opinions without diffs, and it hasn't gone well for them. I join Bish in requesting that you either strike the comments from Jehochman's talk page or provide supporting diffs. I'm interested to know who has cautioned Jehochman for harassment, and concerned that this statement seems to accuse him of lying. Please consider Bish's request as a means to show good faith, assure those who have expressed concerns about your judgment, and turn down the heat here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have recently issued a warning that if an editor continued to make accusations without diffs [32] I would issue a block for disruption. While I personally would not stretch that quite to the point of saying provide diffs to support previous statements or be blocked, it would certainly be open to debate. Bish could argue that having the words sitting there unrefuted is creating ongoing disruption, for example. For this reason, an immediate unblock would be inappropiate use of admin tools in liue of discussion. - brenneman 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, Aaron. Warning an editor that if she continues to do something she'll be blocked is normal. Warning an editor that she will be blocked after 24 hours if she does nothing is not normal. I would expect such a block to be reversed or it would set a bad precedent. Haukur (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Edited. Haukur (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't block for a personal attack. Hard words are normal things. However, the attempt to spread a rumor about a user, to say, "This person is a well known harasser" or something like it, is defamatory. The rumor gets picked up, referred to in diff after diff, and the ignorant perpetuate it. By this kind of slime, people are labeled and hampered in their good work here. It is wholly unacceptable, the most pernicious sort of malignity. I agree that you, Elonka, should retract, because that sort of behavior is an attempt at removing a good editor and administrator, all without evidence, deliberation, or verdict, and that is a crime. Geogre (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Sandy, as a sysop I wouldn't block Elonka for what she wrote. I think that it is a wrong move, a wrong timing, a wrong vocabulary, and a wrong suggestion towards Jehochman, and I would also prefer to see these comments either concretely grounded or striken, but timeframes and blocking threats by Bishonen is also inappropriate IMO. It looks likes Elonka is interogated and treated like a criminal! And may I ask one thing: What was WP's response for worst cases and incivility and PAs by other established users, and, if you want names, I refer to an editor I higly esteem, Giano; but whenever an adm blocks him for clear incivility or PAs, there are more than one adms ready to unblock him. And this vicious circle continues for ever. Therefore, let's first learn to be a bit consistent here in the way we treat strong cases of PA and incivility, and then articulate such severe block threats and timeframes. Otherwise, we can't be taken seriously in either cases.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to divert attention, but the above statement is logically nihilistic. 1. Elonka was wrong to say that Jehochman was a harasser. 2. You wouldn't block for that, because... 3. Giano is the worst personal attacker in the history of Wikipedia (no diffs supplied, no detail). You have just done exactly the thing you say shouldn't be done by tarring an editor in good standing with a very nasty label, hung a sign around his neck, and not in any way proven the statement. The fact that other administrators disagree with you about what is and is not a personal attack you attribute to... evil?... and therefore tar all of them, too, as a vicious circle? This seems a bit unhelpful. Geogre (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not more unhelpful that putting into my mouth words and characterizations I never said or made, Geogre. And yes, there are disagreements here about many things, including what is a personal attack —as well as what constitutes accusation or criticism, characterization of a person or of an action, incivility, humor or need for space etc.—and how all these things are interpreted in more than one cases. And indeed, what one regards as logically nihilistic may be perceived by somebody else as logically coherent and vice versa. Many things to clarify here in a discussion stretching in various battlefields (don't misunderstand me! I'm writing about wars recently, and I am a bit influenced)!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to move on, since Jehochman turned it into a bit of a moot point by archiving his talk page. And I'm sorry my separate query created a tangent; I was trying to get at the question of whether a novice editor or non-admin would be blocked for writing something similar to another editor (I think they probably might, but that's a different matter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Word of caution from a friend

Cross-posted from user talk:Jehochman#Diversification^[33]. Please forgive the bluntness of the prose, but I do hope I'm getting my point across.

If I may intrude for a second: I fear this conversation is beginning to pan out very similar to the heated discussions that have been held between Elonka + Jehochman, and yet is going nowhere. I strongly recommend that both Elonka and Jonathan disengage from one another: insofar as contact between the two of you continues to exist, disruption is going to continue. Elonka, I don't think issuing cautions to Jehochman is wise -- if his behaviour is improper, an uninvolved editor or administrator will pull him up. Conversely, Jonathan: I appreciate that you feel that Elonka is intimidating other editors, but I don't think that devoting your time on-Wiki to what seems to be a 'campaign' to "stop the injustices" is wise... If Elonka is behaving poorly, she will be held to task for it by the wider community. You are both excellent editors, and your contributions and actions are often amongst the best I've seen (Elonka, your work on the WG for ethnic warring has been outstanding; Jehochman, your contrib's and opinions at various noticeboards and threads [notably, RfAr] have always been very reflective and totally on-the-button), but this feud really is detracting from all that. I understand that both of you, Jonathan and Elonka, feel strongly that the other's conduct is flawed, and that action needs to be taken; however, it is essential that this is noted: you'll just fan the flames. Leave it to uninvolved to carry out checks and scrutiny on the other's conduct.

Best, Anthøny 22:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I can't speak to the details, since I've only had limited and positive interactions with E and J, but I support the tenor of Anthøny's remarks. In addition, it would be helpful if other editors made space for a cooling off period, without urgently trying to settle the conflict for one side or another. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your tireless and endless efforts to protect Wikipedia against an organised group trying to subvert Wikipedia from inside and for going above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes, you are awarded The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Bharatveer (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Here! :^)

I'm asking for your expertise, or at the very least, input, since it's said you've experience plowing maybe somewhat similar ground.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC) To elaborate more, What we'd looking for, I think, is for you to share with us from your experience so that we might best be able to formulate our decision making proposal. Or something like that. Actually, any kind of feedback or input from somebody who's experience you've had would, I think, be invaluabe (...even if just to give us a heads up as to how difficult or fraught with peril such an undertaking would be or whatever!) Anyway, only respond there if you have the time to drop us a line. Thanks much!  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's promise

Elonka promised that if six good faith editors ask her to step down she will. Well, we are waiting. Let her stick to her word [34]. Itis time to step down. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeating, for those who don't bother to read:

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. ”

GRBerry 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, her recall criteria was "six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage, and I will voluntarily resign", and the same was quoted by Jehochman prior to proposing recall. Note that Jehochman did not provide evidence of admin tool abuse despite being aware of this. As far as I can tell from the RFC and comments here, not a single person has accompanied their recall endorsement with an explanation of which admin tool use has given them motivation to endorse recall. It would be extremely useful if those that have endorsed noted which use of admin tools makes them think that recall is warranted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This recall does not seem to have anything to do with the use of admin tools. The actions presented as a charge against her did not involve tools and I fail to how that meets her criteria. Just follow dispute resolution and put the pitchforks down. There is a consensus above that the community does not want her to step down as an admin. Chillum 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, an abuse of official tools, either on Wikipedia or in RL, may not involve an action but "merely" the threat of one, and that threat may just be implied, rather than stated. A policeman in uniform doesn't have to do anything to get your attention or, likely, your conformance to his/her wishes. It is the threat within the office of "policeman" that you are responding to. Even a policeman out of uniform, so long as you know his official job, will get the same response. That being said, there is nothing in the recall criteria that would make such an implied threat a recall offense, even if judged to be inapporpriate in the moment. In fact, it is what many/most admins count on to get their jobs done -just by virtue of being admins. Elonka has taken a strong stand on her rules for editing contentious articles. By and large, she has established a consistent approach to the contending parties. That she appears to have set her rules above Wikipedia policies may be the only way to deal with many editors of such articles who have consistently set themsleves above the same Wikipedia policies. A "Request for Comment" is a good idea, and that is happening elsewhere. This is not, as presented, a case for de-sysopping at all, in my view. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to take a position on Elonka or "her rules," I would like to point out that admins in this topic area are authorized to utilize discretionary sanctions. So, her rules for the disputed article are not "above" but rather fit within the umbrella of WP policy. HG | Talk 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to take a position on who authorizes what on WP, it is clear from much of the dialogue that Elonka's rules may be themselves the source of current increased contention because not everyone agrees that they are within policy as policy is generally known. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And the way to determine whether they are within policy or not is for the person who finds themselves sanctioned, and feels that the sanction was inconsistent with policy, to appeal. The ArbCom said so, and they also said how to do it. (In light of the previous appeal in this situation, it is clear that the place to go is Arbitration Enforcement first, and then to the ArbCom if that does not resolve the matter.) The person who filed the RFC against Elonka did not do that... so of course the issue remains unresolved, because the procedure for resolving it has not been followed. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not correct, either. If the person who is sanctioned chooses not to formally challenge the sanction, but a third party admin believes the sanction and/or the special enforcement (0RR) is harming Wikipedia, there's no indicated appeal mechanism, other than blocking the "uninvolved" admin, and letting them appeal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An additional issue is that there appears to be no time limitation on special enforcement measures. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)(To Arthur:)I don't think that's correct either, in cases where "discretionary sanctions" apply, per this. I would not say the process is 100 percent clear, but it seems evident that a "third party" administrator who blocked a sanctioning administrator, without first "engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue", would themselves be subject to "suspension or revocation of adminship". 6SJ7 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually John V what you say is incorrect, what User:Jehochman links to above and quotes is 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., which clearly makes no mention of misuse of "admin" tools. One could use either of these statements to support either point of view, neither appear to take precedence over the other. Besides it's degenerated into wikilawyering. The spirit of recall is what is important. Clearly many admins make promises during their request for adminship that they never intend to keep, they make these promises so they can persuade people to support them, as soon as they get the "status" they perceive "admins" have, they quickly forget the promises they made. When they are called upon to honour these promises they look for ways out. That is a strict legalistic attempt to apply the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the promise. I suggest you don't try to speak for Elonka but let her make her own decision, then we'll know if she meant what she said. Alun (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The question remains, whether there is a consensus for Elonka to relinquish her administrator status. The problems barring that question being easily answered, is a lack of information on what "yard stick" we are using to measure that consensus: insofar as I can see, Elonka has not declared any metric (or other) requirements for what will be determined a "consensus" (note, she isn't alone there: as pointed out by Lar some way above, many administrators have not yet published their requirements). In the absence of them, whether she can officially be recalled as an administrator, and whether we should resort to the "default requirements" of the recall system, are the two enduring questions that must be answered before the presence of a consensus to desysop can be assessed. Of course, it can be said "there's clearly a consensus to recall" (an argument which carries a lot of weight: not carrying through the recall simply because numeric requirements have not been met could be said to be overly bureaucratic), but the worry I have about that is that it carries an awful lot of implications for the recall system as a whole. AGK ^{(talk // contact)} 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than making selective quotes as Jayvdb has done above (wikilawyering?), it might be more appropriate to look at two of Elonka's responses in full:

(Main response to "How do you feel about Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall?") Just as I've said in my previous RfA attempts, I completely support it, and will definitely add my own name to the category. I've liked the idea even before I started thinking about becoming an admin - I think it's a classy way to handle things.

(Later clarification) I'm actually going to be a boring admin, doing the dull backlog kind of stuff. ;) And I'll still be in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. All it will take is six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage, and will voluntarily resign. But I'm not worried about it, because I'm not planning to use admin tools in controversial ways. :)

It is simply not true that she is "doing dull backlog kind of stuff". Since, on becoming an administrator, she went out of her way to participate in highly complex and contentious situations, she completely misrepresented her intended modus operandi as an administrator. It seems that far from her activitiies being humdrum mopping up, they have in fact involved high risk micromanagement, more likely to create wikidrama than to promote a scholarly atmosphere conducive to the communal writing of an encyclopedia. As such the later clarification can hardly be taken seriously. Any more than her disingenuous claim on this page that she does not bite when criticized. Mathsci (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am decidedly not weighing in on this entire issue, but merely want to point out that the expectations one has for their post-RfA editing isn't necessarily what they'll end up doing; I know for a fact that my own promises on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EVula have failed to come to fruition.
Like I said, I'm not taking sides, merely pointing out a fact; an interpretation of maliciousness or duplicity on Elonka's part is in the eye of the beholder. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, I am not selectively quoting. She answered the question in her RFA, and expanded on it in a later post on the same page. The clarification of "use of admin tools" is hardly earth-shattering. That is primarily what recall is about. It is non-sensical that her recall criteria is "any six people for any bloody reason" - she had more than six people strongly oppose her adminship, so of course there are six people willing to sign up for any pile on.
I am neutral on the issue of her recall, as I expect that those who have endorsed it could make an argument that it is her use of admin tools that underscores their endorsement of the recall, however I would very much like those that have endorsed it to make that argument plain so that others can see what admin tool abuse they feel warrants recall, or even "adminship abuse" if they want to cast the net a bit further. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The default process says "Editors may request recall for any reason, but are expected to do so civilly and in good faith". I opposed her RfA, but that doesn't imply that I would have supported a recall if she had conducted herself with more restraint. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What hopefully will eventually emerge from all this is an open and calm discussion where problems can be discussed in a constructive and positive way. If, instead of attacking those making criticisms of her actions as WP "bad eggs", Elonka could compromise and start to address some of the points, then real progress will have been made. As I have written privately to Shell Kinney, the kind of calm discussion without finger pointing that Shell has so wisely suggested can be very useful in a very general way, not necessarily specific to this case. MastCell has made a similar point on this page. Much of what Elonka does is excellent. But a general discussion involving certain policies - for example when not to make charges of "tag teaming" or the incorrect identification of a POV-pushers acting against consensus - could be of general use on WP. Elonka has herself recently prepared such a document, so such a discussion is quite timely. It happens by coincidence to relate to some of her own less praiseworthy actions. Mathsci (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame that when proposing the recall, Jehochman linked to the first and least precise of Elonka's criteria for recall, especially as he was fully aware of the latter and more detailed clarification. Thank you for confirming that your endorsement of the recall still stands in light of this clarification. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

O, HAI! My vow of silence is broken once again because I have been summoned by name (like Orcus). Maybe I linked to that instance of The Promise because it was the first one I found when searching the RFA page (using "/" in Firefox followed by a keyword). There is such a thing as "reliance". Maybe Elonka should have taken greater care to be consistent in her promises, and to publish specific recall criteria as recommended by User:Lar. She is the one who set expectations. Now she has the choice to honor them, or not. I for one would like to hear from Elonka directly, rather than through a multitude of her supporters. Jehochman ^Talk 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to hear from Elonka. This is also something which is also being asked below unfortunately the low SNR is somewhat obscuring the request. Shot info (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Jayvdb: if I may dispense a little advice; would it be possible in the future, to funnel any discussion that is not related to Elonka, to a more appropriate page? Both the flame temperature, and the signal-to-noise ratio, are already high enough, without additional discussions that belong elsewhere being lumped in (if you understand my thinking). Most especially, comments re/ Jehochman, and criticism of his conduct, should naturally go to user talk:Jehochman. Posting here is simply going to implore Jonathan to post a comment here, which I think (with the benefit of hindsight) we can say will simply fan the flames (no disrespect to either Elonka or Jonathan here). AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)}

When am I wearing my admin hat?

Without taking a stance on this recall request, I like to hear more reasoned debate on what constitutes "use of admin tools."

In another, less active, talk page two editors are encouraging another to ask me to be recalled over conflict where I haven't pushed any special buttons. Strictly speaking I haven't done anything a normal editor could not have done. I have threatened to do so, however.

While me recall criterion is "six people, we talk, easy" and has nothing to do with admin actions, if it did I'd have thought a threat to be fair game. By extension, if an administrator made a large number of highly inappropiate warnings to drive editors off in a content dispute I'd expect ArbCom would deadmin him.

brenneman 00:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to use your buttons is using your status as an administrator, I imagine in this case to coerce a behavioral response. Its an expected part of your role in enforcing policy, but it is part and parcel of your role - as an administrator. It should, therefore, be subject to review as "administrative conduct" even if you haven't actually pressed a button yet. Specific to Elonka - the authority to place discretionary sanctions was granted specifically to admins, and that was the capacity in which Elonka imposed them. It seems clear, then, that its "administrative conduct" even if she didn't issue a block or protection etc. Avruch ^T 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's promise repeated

Elonka promised that if six good faith editors ask her to step down she will. Well, we are waiting. Let her stick to her word [35]. Itis time to step down. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A plea for patience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral admins are just too valuable

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

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

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

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

• Very well put. I second it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to comment, but agressively neutral admins, to the point of ignoring the content and consensus, are not needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has no right to make this decision by herself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility

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