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.

[Castle Rock]

Round 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...itration#Elonka

Does she honestly not see a problem with this, or is she actually that corrupt?

[dogbiscuit]

Round 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...itration#Elonka

Does she honestly not see a problem with this, or is she actually that corrupt?

She wasn't necessarily the best person to post that, but actually, it was a fairly straight forward statement that ChrisO should not be de-admined just because of something that happened ages ago, followed by a statement of the process. What was written was not inappropriate, though the who wrote it makes the advice on how to proceed unwise.

Given that the ChrisO talk page is essentially the same thing, then at least she was open about it.

But the wise thing to do would have been to say nothing. Nothing to see here.

[Proabivouac]

Sam Blacketer posted hidden comments along with his rejection of the latest Arbitration case:

I have not recused on this case, although I recused on the previous case. This was because it revolved around the issue of Elonka's response to the recall petition and I had privately advised her, before the case, on what she might do about it. I have not committed myself and prejudged any issue in this case and therefore no recusal is necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=234952363

So Blacketer admits that he stands in an advisory relationship to Elonka, but doesn't recuse because they (purportedly) hadn't yet chatted about this particular thing. The broader point was clearly addressed by Ghirlandajo in the previous request:

"Like every complaint on Piotr's POV-pushing ways or poor PHG's plea below, this request for arbitration has no chance of being examined as long as ArbCom is composed of Elonka's friends…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=234757420

It has never been more apparent that Arbitrators cannot hope to be impartial so long as they are drawn from "the community (of well-connected Wikipedia administrators)". There is no one being brought before them with whom they haven't interacted, often extensively. The end result is that the most honest Arbitrators recuse while the least honest (e.g. Morven) never do, making the committee even more biased than it would be if there were no recusals at all.

[Random832]

It has never been more apparent that Arbitrators cannot hope to be impartial so long as they are drawn from "the community (of well-connected Wikipedia administrators)". There is no one being brought before them with whom they haven't interacted, often extensively. The end result is that the most honest Arbitrators recuse while the least honest (e.g. Morven) never do, making the committee even more biased than it would be if there were no recusals at all.

Really what's needed is a mechanism to forcibly recuse an arbitrator. I've been saying this since Mantanmoreland. (The only problem with such a thing is there's really no-one you could put in charge of it)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Vicky]

Really what's needed is a mechanism to forcibly recuse an arbitrator. I've been saying this since Mantanmoreland. (The only problem with such a thing is there's really no-one you could put in charge of it)

You'd need a small committee of impeccably honest and well-respected people to rule on such things. They could include ... er ...