Elonka vs ChrisO Options

[alan323]

ChrisO prepares an RFC about Elonka and Elonka prepares a response. FWIW I don't think Elonka has handled this situation very well at all.

[Kelly Martin]

It's fascinating to watch the rats scurry around with silly wikilawyering arguments why Elonka cannot be recalled. Various arguments like insisting that Jehochman is not in "good standing", or that she really meant "six net editors" or some other such nonsense.

I doubt she'll consent to recall; Elonka has never seemed particularly bound by any sense of honorable conduct, and I can't imagine that she'll start now. Besides, how is this really any different than what Jimbo would do in the same situation?

[Proabivouac]

It's fascinating to watch the rats scurry around with silly wikilawyering arguments why Elonka cannot be recalled. Various arguments like insisting that Jehochman is not in "good standing", or that she really meant "six net editors" or some other such nonsense.

Six net editors, oh, that's good.

Elonka's tactic is to make enemies, then exclude them from discussions on the ground that they have a history with her. Her friends and sycophants, on the other hand, can always be involved.

Reading from the most worn page of her playbook, she has accused Jehochman of "harassment":

Jehochman, taking a look at your contribs over the last few days, {{user|Jehochman}}, it appears that nearly all you've been doing, is hovering over my RfC and reacting to everything. As I'm sure you know, 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. So, could you perhaps try to find something else to do on Wikipedia, that isn't related to me? Thanks,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230213544

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Cla68]

It's fascinating to watch the rats scurry around with silly wikilawyering arguments why Elonka cannot be recalled. Various arguments like insisting that Jehochman is not in "good standing", or that she really meant "six net editors" or some other such nonsense.

Six net editors, oh, that's good.

Elonka's tactic is to make enemies, then exclude them from discussions on the ground that they have a history with her. Her friends and sycophants, on the other hand, can always be involved.

Reading from the most worn page of her playbook, she has accused Jehochman of "harassment":

Jehochman, taking a look at your contribs over the last few days, {{user|Jehochman}}, it appears that nearly all you've been doing, is hovering over my RfC and reacting to everything. As I'm sure you know, 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. So, could you perhaps try to find something else to do on Wikipedia, that isn't related to me? Thanks,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230213544

I've been trying to reserve judgement on the matter, but Elonka's post on Jehochman's talk page reminds me of another admin who is the current subject of two separate RfARs. To try to intimidate someone with unsupported accusations of harassment is unacceptable. She still hasn't withdrawn it.

[LaraLove]

Jehochman, taking a look at your contribs over the last few days, {{user|Jehochman}}, it appears that nearly all you've been doing, is hovering over my RfC and reacting to everything. As I'm sure you know, 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. So, could you perhaps try to find something else to do on Wikipedia, that isn't related to me? Thanks,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230213544

I've been trying to reserve judgement on the matter, but Elonka's post on Jehochman's talk page reminds me of another admin who is the current subject of two separate RfARs. To try to intimidate someone with unsupported accusations of harassment is unacceptable. She still hasn't withdrawn it.

Okay, so I have a few questions that perhaps Cla, Jehochman or anyone else following this may know. Because I hadn't really looked at any of it until yesterday.

1/ Are the majority of Jehochman's post over the past week focused on Elonka, specifically to her RFC?
2/ Has Jehochman ever been cautioned for harassment? If so, on multiple occasions?
3/ Has he made comments in the RFC that were not completely accurate?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm seriously asking.

Jehochman, taking a look at your contribs over the last few days, {{user|Jehochman}}, it appears that nearly all you've been doing, is hovering over my RfC and reacting to everything. As I'm sure you know, 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. So, could you perhaps try to find something else to do on Wikipedia, that isn't related to me? Thanks,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230213544

I've been trying to reserve judgement on the matter, but Elonka's post on Jehochman's talk page reminds me of another admin who is the current subject of two separate RfARs. To try to intimidate someone with unsupported accusations of harassment is unacceptable. She still hasn't withdrawn it.

Okay, so I have a few questions that perhaps Cla, Jehochman or anyone else following this may know. Because I hadn't really looked at any of it until yesterday.

1/ Are the majority of Jehochman's post over the past week focused on Elonka, specifically to her RFC?
2/ Has Jehochman ever been cautioned for harassment? If so, on multiple occasions?
3/ Has he made comments in the RFC that were not completely accurate?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm seriously asking.

Okay, looking myself.

1/ Clearly, yes. Practically all of them. Including one that says he wouldn't touch the RFC with a barge pole. See how that turned out.

[Apathetic]

her recall requirements were pretty clear

[LaraLove]

her recall requirements were pretty clear

Witch hunts don't count. I'm not saying her use of the tools or her status as an admin hasn't been misused, I'm also not saying it has. I don't know. That's why I'm looking into it. But what I've seen so far isn't very compelling for a recall.

Many of those supporting the request are citing this above comment from her. If the comment proves to be valid, then that pretty much is an indicator that everyone flipping their shit over it needs to stfu. Six editors in good standing with a grudge isn't really fair. Of course, if there are six truly neutral editors that have reviewed the evidence and can be objective, then that's a different story.

Are her recall criteria overly simple to the point that she's basically screwed to resign to what is potentially (I'm not done looking at the evidence, thus "potentially") a mob? Or must she break her word in this voluntary processes because it is potentially being gamed? It looks like yes to me. Those appear to be her two options. Personally, in a case like this, I'd refer it all to ArbCom, should the RFC prove it necessary.

It's clear from looking at some talk pages in the past few days that there are a fair many editors supporting the recall that cannot possibly be objective. Biased and involved. The question is this: is it common sense that such editors would not be in a position to request the recall, or must her criteria, as noted above, be taken exactly as worded?

This post has been edited by LaraLove:

[Gold heart]

her recall requirements were pretty clear

Witch hunts don't count. I'm not saying her use of the tools or her status as an admin hasn't been misused, I'm also not saying it has. I don't know. That's why I'm looking into it. But what I've seen so far isn't very compelling for a recall.

Many of those supporting the request are citing this above comment from her. If the comment proves to be valid, then that pretty much is an indicator that everyone flipping their shit over it needs to stfu. Six editors in good standing with a grudge isn't really fair. Of course, if there are six truly neutral editors that have reviewed the evidence and can be objective, then that's a different story.

Are her recall criteria overly simple to the point that she's basically screwed to resign to what is potentially (I'm not done looking at the evidence, thus "potentially") a mob? Or must she break her word in this voluntary processes because it is potentially being gamed? It looks like yes to me. Those appear to be her two options. Personally, in a case like this, I'd refer it all to ArbCom, should the RFC prove it necessary.

It's clear from looking at some talk pages in the past few days that there are a fair many editors supporting the recall that cannot possibly be objective. Biased and involved. The question is this: is it common sense that such editors would not be in a position to request the recall, or must her criteria, as noted above, be taken exactly as worded?

The bottom line is that she must step aside. The parameters have been laid down, and the parameters have now been met. She can always seek RfA again.

If Elonka does not step down, then it makes the whole recall thingy a joke. It will also make a joke out of Wikipedia, and leave very little credibility with many editors. Elonka is gone, and she has been too arrogant to too many. Admins, watch out!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)