User talk:Elonka/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Elonka. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Unblocking

It's all cleared up! Thanks for your help I really appreciate it! If you ever need help with an unblocking I am so there for you! The Llama! (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. This was definitely an interesting puzzle to solve! I felt like I was working on Kryptos for awhile. :) --El on ka 22:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocks thinggy

Lol, apparently I need to make it a point not to edit until I've gotten some caffeine in my system every morning. :P Thanks for keeping an eye out, and more importantly, thanks for being rational about the whole thing. :D Anyway, thanks again, and sorry for having to trouble you. :( Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for unblocking me :)

Yes, I am a New Page Patroller. I just started with Twinkle and NPP, and I soon plan to do recent changes on existing articles. What's funny is that this happened and I haven't been patrolling or using Twinkle for even 24 hours yet and this happens :P.

Yeah, I'm still learning which templates to use, and I didn't notice any issues with any of the ones I applied.

Again, thanks,

--Mooshykris (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Raju - Atiyah Case

Please see this attack page created today by User:Bharatveer, already nominated for speedy delete by me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bravo and well done!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		It's pseudo-long, but just read this wiki-user-talk-thingy-thread for why Elonka gets this Barnstar (geeks and hackers need pay special attention): [1]. Transparent disclosure: I have met Elonka in the real world. Follow the link anyway. This was VERY cool real "defense of wikipedia" work. If I didn't know you, me and two other users would likely be eternally wiki-screwed for no good reason. Quartermaster (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Perfect barnstar for me, thanks. :) --El on ka 19:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Klaksonn's case

Hi Elonka. I don't know if you remember the Klaksonn sockpuppetry case. Anyway, there have been some updates which can be found here. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --El on ka 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs is violating the rules of editing Quackwatch

He just removed material from the article [2]. Please DO something! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the diff, but didn't see the problem. His changes seem to be reasonable attempts towards finding a compromise. If you feel that he buried an actual revert in there, please show me "before and after" diffs. In the meantime, you are welcome to continue editing the page, to try and find a middle-ground. --El on ka 02:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

You left me a message saying that you could coach? If you could that would be awesome! The Llama! (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help a bit. My first recommendation is, to improve your userpage. If you want to be an admin, you have to "walk the walk". Add some more information about yourself, and, yes, thin out the userboxes a bit. Having lots of userboxes on a page, tends to make you look very young, and some people, right or wrong, will equate "youth" with "immaturity". Sort of like if you walked into a job interview wearing a t-shirt and torn jeans, the interviewer may come to a snap judgment, regardless of your actual skillz. So I recommend adding a bit of information about who you are, which topic areas that you enjoy participating in, and maybe a a couple sentences about your wiki-philosophy. This will be helpful, not just to you, but also to me, as it will give me more of a sense of what you're interested in. --El on ka 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

al-Durrah

Elonka, ChrisO at the talk page is threatening a major overhaul of the al-Durrah page. Can he just do a major rewrite like that? I, and others, have been working hard at improving the article a little at a time. The idea that he can rewrite the whole thing according to his view and without collaborating is ...well... frightening... ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, he sure can. Then again, anyone else can do it too. So just because he (or anyone else) rewrites it, doesn't mean it's in stone, it's still going to be going through the filters of multiple other editors reviewing and changing things, towards finding neutrality. And nothing is being completely wiped out by his changes... All the old text is still available in history, so if anyone really liked an old section, they can pull it out, and rework it to see if it fits better in the newer version, and so forth.

In general, article expansion is good. If ChrisO is on a major expansion drive, there are different ways that you can handle it... One is to make tweaks as he's working, and another is to sit back and wait for a few days until he runs out of steam (no one can keep up that level of expansion work forever), and then move in and see how you like the new version and if any changes are needed. Or find some level in between. Remember, there is no deadline, we can take our time while working on an article. And since he is not allowed to remove sources, the core foundation of the article will still be there. If it turns out that he's deleting all information from certain sources, then a course correction might be needed, but my guess is that he won't do that. In my opinion, ChrisO is working in good faith, and genuinely wants to provide a high quality article. There is just disagreement between editors on what "high quality" means, which is why we need the tweaks here and there. So carry on, you've been doing a good job in helping to keep the article neutral, and trying to find compromise wording. As long as everyone continues working in good faith, towards the same goal of "high quality article in adherence with policies, and which reflects positively on Wikipedia", then progress is being made. :) --El on ka 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I tend to specialise in rewriting contentious articles, often ones which have been the subject of edit wars in the past. Two examples I'd point to are Battle of Vukovar and Borovo Selo killings, both of which were the subject of edit wars between Serbs and Croats before I rewrote them. My rewrite of Kosovo War four years ago is still largely extant - I was elected an administrator on the basis of that and similar work, so I have a long-standing track record in that field (as my string of FAs, GAs and DYKs will indicate).

As for removing sources, I can't guarantee not to do that, since I consciously try to use high-quality mainstream sources in preference to fringe or otherwise less reputable sources. What I try to do, however, is to ensure that the point on which the source is being cited is preserved, while citing it using a more reliable source. So if I see something sourced to what I see as a questionable source (e.g. a personal website or fringe publication), I try to find a higher-quality source such as a mainstream publication that makes the same point. If I remember rightly, I've already done this in a few places in the article. I find that this helps in avoiding arguments about whether this website or that one is a reliable source - if we use only sources that every reasonable person can agree is reliable, a major area of contention is dealt with from the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, this dif [3] is a wholesale revert of a sourced text. The reasoning behind the edit summary is faulty. In fact, the initial testimony is only the Charles Enderlin report and possibly the affidavit. Anything else that is clarified down the road is not 'initial' testimony. For clarity it is important not to leave the reader with the impression that the initial testimony is the final word on the matter, particularly if there is evidence that it has been revoked. Furthermore, in an edit further down the page someone uses an interview from 8 months later and includes it in this section. This section does not adhere to its own rules but only imposes them on some people. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a reversion. I've taken out some repeated detail (there's no need to add dates when they make no material difference to the narrative and already appear in the references). I've reworded part of a couple of paragraphs to more clearly attribute the statements to Abu Rahma, as Tundrabuggy evidently wishes. I'll try to work Juffa's non-contemporaneous claim (which I've not seen in any other source - I'll have to look into this) into the "Main issues" section in the final third of the article. I've also explained the reasoning and the overall strategic plan behind the rewrite on the article talk page, at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#The Incident as initially reported. I'm basically just doing what I've explained above - taking a jumbled, fragmented article that's been hacked about over the years and rebuilding it in a coherent, consistent format. I would ask both of you to have a little patience and wait for me to finish that last section of the article so that you can see how the whole thing works as a single coherent entity. It should only take a few more days. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:Fowler&fowler and User:Mathsci

Hi Elonka, I'm writing to you because you left a welcome message on my talk page and because you visited the Atiyah talk page to view the controversy there. As you, and another administrator User:CBM pointed out, we can only discuss the verifiability of the sources involved here. However, User:Fowler&fowler has repeatedly used ad-hominem attacks amounting to deliberate defamation. For example, on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, where I started a discussion on whether a petition by eminent academics counts as a source, F&f contributed the following: " ... scientist, C. K. Raju, of unremarkable achievement, who is looking, by hook or by crook, to get some publicity" and then again, "unremarkable scientist with grandiosity inversely proportional to achievement". If you look through the talk page, you will see that F&f has continued to make slanderous, and demonstrably factually incorrect, statements of this form not only against Prof. Raju but also against other living people. For example, on the talk page, F&f claims: "All Raju has (if he has them) is a bunch of historians who couldn't integrate sec3(x) to save their lives.".

What recourse do we have? Can we delete these comments since they are not pertinent to the discussion of the controversy? Since Wikipedia is so careful about what to include and what not to include in a BLP, why are statements of this sort allowed to stand?

User:Mathsci has alleged at the RS noticeboard that I am a "sockpuppet of currently blocked User:Bharatveer." This is, evidently, an attempt to distract attention from the topic by attacking me rather than my argument. (For the record, MathSci's argument is that I am a `sockpuppet' because I am aware of the restrictions imposed on Bharatveer which is suspicious since I'm a newbie. However, these restrictions are publicly visible on Bharatveer's talk page!) Similarly, on the BLP noticeboard, Mathsci has similarly tried to allege some association between me and Bharatveer. I dont know if you have access to IP addresses, but if you do, you can easily check that this is false! At another time, Mathsci threatened a user with a ban because of the use of the word 'Eurocentric'. MathSci promptly followed this up by branding me and other users, `Indian extremists'.

What recourse do we have. I am perfectly willing to accept a decision that this controversy cannot be included on the page, particularly if other neutral editors and users on the BLP and RS noticeboards feel so. However, I feel that F&f and MathSci are preventing an honest discussion by attacking me and using poorly sourced ad hominem arguments against Raju.

I feel that an intervention by an administrator in the two noticeboards will help. Furthermore, I feel that User:Fowler&fowler should be held to account for repeatedly making slanderous statements and restrained from doing so in the future. Thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. User:Bharatveer is currently blocked for his unexplained use of VPN. There has been a discussion on Wikiproject Mathematics on him and his felllow editors determined to introduce an attack section into Atiyah's BLP (and elsewhere) without reliable sources. At this stage it might be appropriate to put out a checkuser on the SPA's User:Perusnarpk and User:Abhimars. Many other editors and administrators are following the disruptive actions of these tiresome troublemakers, including User:Nishkid64, User:David Eppstein, User:CBM, User:Charles Matthews, User:JackSchmidt and User:R.e.b.. Most of Perusnarpk arguments above - without diffs - are inaccurate. It has taken him at least two days to explain his almost immediate familiarity with the ArbCom editing restrictions on User:Bharatveer. Perhaps he might explain why he is only here on WP to insert this attack material? Most wikipedia editors, and certainly me, spend most of their time adding encyclopedic content to wikipedia. Has he ever thought of doing that? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, this user has started forum shopping. Because I advised User:Abhimars against using the extremist phrases "eurocentic" and "exposing western idols", he has reported me on the wikiquette noticeboard. Can this tiresomely disruptive SPA really be a recent arrival? I am too busy editing Differential geometry of surfaces to follow him around. Sorry, Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein and Nishkid64 have now advised this editor on WP:BLP policy, so hopefully this problem should now have ended. Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)a

Mathsci, I feel that your post above typifies the consistent misrepresentation that you have carried out on the talk pages. You say that "I advised User:Abhimars against using the extremist phrases "eurocentic" and "exposing western idols", he has reported me on the wikiquette noticeboard." My Wikiquette posting is available here and my complaint is on the use of your phrase: "... a number of Indian extremists have tried to disrupt this page". This was not about your comment to Abhimars.

As you confirmed to me, your comment about Indian extremists was directed at me as well as at Abhimars. This evidently constitutes what, in Wikipedia's own terminology is an "ethnic epithet". I would like to hear either a justification for this phrase, how you came to the conlusion that I was 'Indian', or why the phrase 'Indian' nationalist was relevant in this discussion. thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perusnarpk, please stop trying to escalate things on wikipedia, as this is not a great idea. You seem to be in conflict at the moment with Nishkid64, Slrubenstein and Jehochman, all administrators, as well as most mathematics editors (including people far more eminent than anybody on your petition). Please take a deep breath, step back and calm yourself. Why not try editing a mainspace article, like lesser spotted dogfish, to find out what the wikipedia community is really about? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Have a good day. Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not in conflict with anyone. To the contrary, I would like to point out that the consensus on the wikiquette page was that you had exceeded the bounds of civility. I hope this will not repeat. I am perfectly willing to have a civil discussion which I hope to continue on the article talk page. Perusnarpk (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(noindent) On the contrary you are in conflict with most of the wikipedia community, unless you now have dropped the idea of inserting this libelous material into a mainspace article in gross violation of the BLP policies of this encyclopedia. I looked carefully at the diffs for the talk page of Atiyah and note that, far from distancing yourself, you seemed to be in agreement with the extremist remarks of both Abhimars and the anonymous IP 67.169.0.250 (who received a warning from Elonka for inserting the attack material in Michael Atiyah, after I removed it). Please refer to the wikiquette page for more details. Your familiarity with the various noticeboards and the internal workings of wikipedia (your current RfC against Fowler&fowler) for example) is still somewhat worrying. You are skating on very thin ice at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah again

Not remotely acceptable, Elonka. I've fully explained my edits, I've said that I will review and verify the content in question before working it into another part of the article (as with the paragraph we discussed the other day), and your aggressive response is unwarranted. I am not going to move information around the article without first checking it out - that's how I found the problem with Tundrabuggy's addition of the presentation. I invite you to reconsider. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, you do not own the article. Please, I think it's time to re-read WP:OWN. You do not have the right to remove sources until you personally review them and decide how to incorporate them into the article. You have already been banned from the article in the past, so continuing to disregard the conditions for editing was unwise. My recommendation to you at this point is either just take a break from the article for awhile, or, if you wish, continue participating at talk, and at the mediation. You also have the option of creating a draft version of the article in a subpage of your userspace, where you can write the article in anyway that you choose. But for the next month, please avoid editing the live article. Thanks, --El on ka 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Elonka, I do not regard this as acceptable. Your mismanagement of this, and I have reason to believe, other articles, is a sign of a systematic problem with your approach to administrative work. I will be taking further steps to address this - not at WP:AE, as this has gone beyond that point. I will notify you soon of the relevant page so that you may respond to the community's concerns. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision

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

Bye

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

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? --El on ka 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. --El on ka 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 [4]. 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. --El on ka 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and for a definition on what the word "troll" really means, check here:[5] --El on ka 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. --El on ka 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,[6][7][8][9] aggressive behavior,[10] and this ongoing grudge that you seem to have against me.[11][12][13] You have even been blocked for harassment.[14] As for what you are asking about, as I am sure you know, I have posted extensive diffs,[15] 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. --El on ka 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. --El on ka 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. --El on ka 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? --El on ka 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?[16] Multiple statements from editors and admins, as well as arbitrators, that the ban was appropriate. How much more "breadth" of warnings is reasonable? --El on ka 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. --El on ka 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. --El on ka 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.[17] The "before"[18] and "today"[19] 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. :) --El on ka 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? --El on ka 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)

Word of caution from a friend

Cross-posted from user talk:Jehochman#Diversification^[20]. 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)

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 [21] 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)

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 [22]. 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)