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

[Ramdrake]

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?

Lara, you just can't dismiss every single person critical of Elonka as either biased or involved. We each have our own biases, as NPOV reminds us, and most people critical of Elonka are so because of the way she acted in a situation in which they were involved. Point is, Elonka has her own biases and involvements, and doesn't seem to mind letting them show when telling people off (as she did with Jehochman, ChrisO and a number of others).

For goodness' sake, she even tried to paint me as part of a "lynch mob" because we were trying to keep a POV-pusher from inserting his racist biases in several articles, when all we were really trying to do was to avoid seeing NPOV violated, and to see mainstream science properly represented.

Now, notwithstanding anything she might have done or not done wrong, arguing ad nauseam to get the RfC quashed and the disappearing when the RfC is undeleted isn't the kind of thing to make her look her best.

[LaraLove]

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?

Lara, you just can't dismiss every single person critical of Elonka as either biased or involved. We each have our own biases, as NPOV reminds us, and most people critical of Elonka are so because of the way she acted in a situation in which they were involved. Point is, Elonka has her own biases and involvements, and doesn't seem to mind letting them show when telling people off (as she did with Jehochman, ChrisO and a number of others).

For goodness' sake, she even tried to paint me as part of a "lynch mob" because we were trying to keep a POV-pusher from inserting his racist biases in several articles, when all we were really trying to do was to avoid seeing NPOV violated, and to see mainstream science properly represented.

Now, notwithstanding anything she might have done or not done wrong, arguing ad nauseam to get the RfC quashed and the disappearing when the RfC is undeleted isn't the kind of thing to make her look her best.

I certainly don't. I have no objections with people being critical of her. By all means, say your peace. My issue is for the recall criteria of six. Common sense would indicate that each should be uninvolved. All those who have been put off by her actions, by all means, present your diffs of admin abuse. But the six requesting recall should be, in my opinion, uninvolved editors looking at the entire situation objectively.

I think the RFC should carry on, then be reviewed at the end by uninvolved editors and admins. At that point, if there is evidence that shows she has clearly abused her tools or administrative status, then she should step down. But the lynch mob fear is one that keeps a lot of admins from using AOR, and it's a big issue with producing any sort of decent recall system. If she has not abused her tools to the point that she deserves to lose them, it's going to have a greater negative affect than just on Elonka. It will have an impact on the whole AOR process and any subsequent attempts to create a decent system.

This post has been edited by LaraLove:

[Lar]

I certainly don't. I have no objections with people being critical of her. By all means, say your peace. My issue is for the recall criteria of six. Common sense would indicate that each should be uninvolved. All those who have been put off by her actions, by all means, present your diffs of admin abuse. But the six requesting recall should be, in my opinion, uninvolved editors looking at the entire situation objectively.

You want only uninvolved editors? Fine. Write that into your process. But don't dictate what process other recallable admins should use. Personally I think "uninvolved" is gamable, so it's not in mine (what's an uninvolved editor anyway?). Elonka's big mistake with respect to recall is to not have a clear and crisp process specified in advance. She was recalled once before so I'm not clear why this didn't get done.

No comment on the substantive issues that people have with her, or the supports others have.

Basically, what you're asking for is for a panel of six juries (uninvolved editors, one way or the other) to unanimously find an admin in default for the recall to happen. While it's an interesting proposal, it's not the current process.

Current process for who? If you look through the list you might find someone that specified it... Elonka has no "current process", as far as I can tell.