Elonka vs ChrisO Options

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.

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.

ChrisO needs someone to co-sign his RfC with him after he posts it, or else it will be deleted after 48 hours.

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.

ChrisO needs someone to co-sign his RfC with him after he posts it, or else it will be deleted after 48 hours.

Apropos of nothing, I just glanced at both of those pages and it drove home to me one of the reasons I left wikipedia. As a writer, why would I ever want to write that many words for free?

Apropos of nothing, I just glanced at both of those pages and it drove home to me one of the reasons I left wikipedia. As a writer, why would I ever want to write that many words for free?

I completely agree. It is a complete waste of energy. Contributing to something that is so unpleasant and dysfunctional - if not cruel? No. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Apropos of nothing, I just glanced at both of those pages and it drove home to me one of the reasons I left wikipedia. As a writer, why would I ever want to write that many words for free?

I completely agree. It is a complete waste of energy. Contributing to something that is so unpleasant and dysfunctional - if not cruel? No. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

What makes it even worse would be when someone then comes and erases it all.

I read through both arguements, and I side more with Elonka on this issue. Then again, I am bias on this issue. But her arguements do seem stronger to me. I do not think ChrisO is really a "neutral" party here. His pro-palestinian bias has been pointed out before. He has a habit of wronglfully claiming to be "neutral" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I still remember how angry he got at me for my views on the Allegations of Apartheid issues.

This post has been edited by Yahel Guhan:

His pro-palestinian bias has been pointed out before. He has a habit of wronglfully claiming to be "neutral" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I don't think that link demonstrates what you think it does (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Where is the pro-palestinian stuff?

His pro-palestinian bias has been pointed out before. He has a habit of wronglfully claiming to be "neutral" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I don't think that link demonstrates what you think it does (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Where is the pro-palestinian stuff?

Here are a few examples:

See here, where he makes his support for the existance of the Israeli apartheid article clear for one. Second, I think his recent opening statement to the Muhammad al-Durrah mediation is very revealing about his personal feelings toward the conflict.

The subject of the article is the focus of an aggressive off-wiki campaign by a number of right-wing and pro-Israeli nationalist bloggers and activists, with support from a few op-ed columnists in ideologically sympathetic media outlets.

Then there is his AFD nomination of Ouze Merham and his delete vote for Pallywood.

Overall, when I was editing, every disputed edit ever I saw him make was either pro-palestinian or anti-Israel. I have yet to see him take the Israeli side of the dispute, while he has taken the palestinian side many times. There may be an example I am unaware of, but I have not seen it. For these reasons, I conclude he is pro-Palestinian.

This post has been edited by Yahel Guhan:

I just see your own bias in this. But is you are biased yourself, anyone in the middle will look biased.

The RfC has been posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._comment/Elonka but it doesn't appear to me to be properly certified. ScienceApologists doesn't show where he attempted dispute resolution with Elonka.

According to Elonka, managing the creation of an encyclopedia is no different than administering DragonRealms:

Though I do have to admit that it amuses me that in his statement, ChrisO is trying to refer to me as some sort of junior administrator. It's true that I've only been an admin on Wikipedia since December 2007, but I would point out that I have been a professional online community manager for 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=229320753

Who could be in a better position to identify Wikipedia as an MMPORGP?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Overall, when I was editing, every disputed edit ever I saw him make was either pro-palestinian or anti-Israel. I have yet to see him take the Israeli side of the dispute, while he has taken the palestinian side many times. There may be an example I am unaware of, but I have not seen it. For these reasons, I conclude he is pro-Palestinian.

Well, hell, we can't have that. Since all the pro-Israel types have been booted off Wikipedia ages ago, if we had even one pro-Palestinian remaining, it would hopelessly pull the entire project into a vicious political warp, from which it might never return. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Banniate him, therefore! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

Elonka gets the RFC deleted by using her influence with ArbCom member TheBainer who goes beyond the ArbCom remit and unilaterally deletes it. Good to see ArbCom keeping the drama quotient to a suitable level.

Rumble, rumble.

Elonka gets the RFC deleted by using her influence with ArbCom member TheBainer who goes beyond the ArbCom remit and unilaterally deletes it. Good to see ArbCom keeping the drama quotient to a suitable level.

Rumble, rumble.

Oh boy, that one backfired pretty quick - as was predictable. Elonka should have stuck to a strategy of "I'm just an uninvolved admin taking the high road and doing my best to enforce civility in trying circumstances, and ChrisO is a [[civil POV pusher]] who's abusing process to get his way." Recruiting a meat-puppet to try and crush the entire RfC is just going to cast doubt on her own judgment and neutrality, whatever the merit of ChrisO's claims. Mind you, her "defence" was already quite flaky - she categorizes reasonable disagreement from ChrisO as abusive "threats," etc. If anything comes of this RfC it will be mainly the result of Elonka's highhanded and inept self-defence.

deletion overturned in a snowstorm at DRV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV...ka_.28closed.29

Jehochman proposed recall of Elonka under her own terms set at her RFA. Looks like a rat fucking is in progress.

Some people had it coming; Elonka definitely did.

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?

Elonka's actions aside, the RfC and recall have already turned into a festering pile of nonsense with everyone getting in their shot.

To increase the drama whoring even more, Bishonen is now threatening to block Elonka if she doesn't respond to her demands within 24 hours.

But of course, Bishonen isn't an admin...I guess Bishzilla really is a second personality with no knowledge of the first.

Elonka's actions aside, the RfC and recall have already turned into a festering pile of nonsense with everyone getting in their shot.

To increase the drama whoring even more, Bishonen is now threatening to block Elonka if she doesn't respond to her demands within 24 hours.

But of course, Bishonen isn't an admin...I guess Bishzilla really is a second personality with no knowledge of the first.

Welcome to Wikipedia Review, BTW (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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:

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.

I've decide to post for the first time. The atmosphere here is a bit less corrosive today than at Wikipedia.

I've decide to post for the first time. The atmosphere here is a bit less corrosive today than at Wikipedia.

Ah so glad of you to join us Jehochman, pull up a chair and stay a while.

I've decide to post for the first time. The atmosphere here is a bit less corrosive today than at Wikipedia.

I came to that realization some time ago. Welcome.

I've decide to post for the first time. The atmosphere here is a bit less corrosive today than at Wikipedia.

Welcome, Jehochman!

I was thinking of you earlier today, actually, and the discussion surrounding your RfA.

I've decide to post for the first time. The atmosphere here is a bit less corrosive today than at Wikipedia.

I'm somewhat less sanguine and welcoming.

I would see fit to ban JeHochman a priori. Beyond that for making any future comment with which I might disagree.

Reciprocity and all that.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

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.

It's the triumvirate of the perfect storm (of hypocrisy).

Though I do have to admit that it amuses me that in his statement, ChrisO is trying to refer to me as some sort of junior administrator. It's true that I've only been an admin on Wikipedia since December 2007, but I would point out that I have been a professional online community manager for 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=229320753

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And your first job....... and your mother......... and your father......... and your husband....... and your ...... hobbies...... and your obsessive (ironic) COI attacks on others who do what you do ....

Hey 'LONKA......

Like, girlfriend: "Get a website" (oh you did), or "get a blog" (oh, well then) ok - "get thee to a knol(lery), GO!".

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

What are the expectations here? What are the different ways to get banned?

Lackey, think of all the fun you can have with me here. If I go away, that will be very BORING.

And where is my friend theKohser?

This post has been edited by Jehochman:

You overestimate your capacity for "being boring" unintentionally Jon.

On existential grounds. Sui generis yawnium.





But then, there's the ripe opportunity for accidental-unintentional "take myself so seriously I become hilarious" humor too.

So it all balances.

Fun? No. Many adjectives, adverbs and such would apply. Fun is not one of them. "Idiosyncratic" comes to mind.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

I've decide to post for the first time. The atmosphere here is a bit less corrosive today than at Wikipedia.

I'm somewhat less sanguine and welcoming.

I would see fit to ban JeHochman a priori. Beyond that for making any future comment with which I might disagree.

Reciprocity and all that.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I'm inclined to agree with DL. When I said the Elonka recall looked like a rat fucking, i wasn't distinguishing between any of the rats!

That being said, welcome Jon. Try not to overly attack or harass our dedicated volunteers.

What are the expectations here? What are the different ways to get banned?

Lackey, think of all the fun you can have with me here. If I go away, that will be very BORING.

And where is my friend theKohser?

Hey there, Jehochman! Welcome indeed to Wikipedia Review (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Do pull up a chair and grab a beer.

How come I didn't get a welcome when I came on a few days ago? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

This post has been edited by Crestatus:

How come I didn't get a welcome when I came on a few days ago? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Late welcome!

Apologies, I try to get people when I see them post first.

How come I didn't get a welcome when I came on a few days ago? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Welcome! We need a "New members" forum where people can introduce themselves when they register.

Better late than never, I guess. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

How come I didn't get a welcome when I came on a few days ago? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Welcome! We need a "New members" forum where people can introduce themselves when they register.

We use the Lounge for that. Welcome, Crestatus.

How come I didn't get a welcome when I came on a few days ago? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Welcome! We need a "New members" forum where people can introduce themselves when they register.

We use the Lounge for that. Welcome, Crestatus.

And also, we don't care that much about you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)






(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

For the first time since May 10, Elonka did not edit - to avoid the veritable shitstorm that is her talk page?

Will she step down? Place your bets...

For the first time since May 10, Elonka did not edit - to avoid the veritable shitstorm that is her talk page?

Will she step down? Place your bets...

Well, I try to choose my battles, but I'm thinking about getting involved in this one. I'll check to see if Elonka has backed up her allegations against Jechochman with any evidence, or else withdrawn them.

For the first time since May 10, Elonka did not edit - to avoid the veritable shitstorm that is her talk page?

Will she step down? Place your bets...

Well, I try to choose my battles, but I'm thinking about getting involved in this one. I'll check to see if Elonka has backed up her allegations against Jechochman with any evidence, or else withdrawn them.

Elonka hasn't made a single edit since the very minute after the recall proposal was submitted to her talk page, so I doubt she's backed up much of anything with evidence.

My bet's on her not stepping down. With as many tries at RfA as it took for her to become an admin in the first place, I don't see her handing it over because of a dispute she so adamantly disagrees with.

"Try not to overly attack or harass our dedicated volunteers."

Don't worry, I'll go easy on them.

"Try not to overly attack or harass our dedicated volunteers."

Don't worry, I'll go easy on them.

I'm leaning towards involvement. I supported Elonka's RfA. I haven't edited any of those articles (as far as I can remember without checking my contributions history). I think I'm as neutral as anyone. If I decide to ask her to recall, I won't stop until she's no longer an admin, supports her allegations, or apologizes and withdraws what she said.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

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.

her recall requirements were pretty clear

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:

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)

lara did she retained you as her wikilawyer or something?

her recall criteria was crystal clear, and most likely part of the reason her rfa passed at all

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

her recall requirements were pretty clear

Personally, in a case like this, I'd refer it all to ArbCom, should the RFC prove it necessary.

I really hope that the RfC can handle it then. I'm about as neutral on the matter as can be given the circumstances, and both have supported me making the final call... though that's a very trying responsibility for when it comes down to it.

If Elonka does not step down, then it makes the whole recall thingy a joke.

You appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that recall is not already a joke.

If Elonka does not step down, then it makes the whole recall thingy a joke.

You appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that recall is not already a joke.

Recall is pretty clearly a sham. I almost shit myself laughing at people who seriously ask about it at RFA. Has anyone ever stepped down in a recall, where they would not have had their bit taken away at an otherwise unavoidable ArbCase? I suppose you can use it to save face, and make a future RFA more likely to succeed.

Asked and answered: Czrussian. Maybe Durova, maybe Mercuy, hard to say. A cursorly glance suggests Czrussian was screwed otherwise. Durova probably was too.

This post has been edited by JoseClutch:

lara did she retained you as her wikilawyer or something?

her recall criteria was crystal clear, and most likely part of the reason her rfa passed at all

No.

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.

2/ Okay, so I looked through his talk page a bit, and this is what I found.

Right. So you've "opted out" of what you pledged in your RFA but you're holding Elonka to what she said in hers without even asking what her current recall criteria might be, if she may have revised it or not? Double standard much? Please withdraw from this dispute. Supporting someone's RFA does not give you the right to obsessively harass them. FYI also, I have already advised Elonka that I think your behaviour towards her has reached the level that she should notify ArbCom and perhaps even Jimmy. If you cannot stand down after being explicitly asked to do so by WJBScribe, myself and others like Sceptre commenting about your behaviour then I think there is a serious problem here and it is going to look very bad for you. If "Many editors are concerned about Elonka", then many unobsessed editors are able to manage the dispute and any recall. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't she nom him for admin?

From July 11 there is this

Jehochman, your actions towards me are approaching the level of [[WP:HARASS|harassment]]. You are obviously stalking my contribs, you're showing up all over my watchlist, challenging nearly everything I do, and badmouthing me both on-wiki and off-wiki. Please stop. I'm not going to go to the trouble of producing a ton of diffs, but I think you know that I easily could, showing grossly uncivil comments from you towards me and my actions, on multiple pages. In most cases, you refactor within a couple hours, but that's not cutting it, you need to stop the stalking. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And there was also this from GRBerry on July 11. And then almost a month before that he made it clear that Elonka was not welcome on his talk page.

I couldn't find the warning from Sceptre that Sarah mentioned, but I only looked at his talk page history. Regardless, that pretty much sums up #2 as accurate.

So that just leaves 3. Has he made claims in the RFC that were not completely true?

This post has been edited by LaraLove:

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.

But that's exactly it: Elonka treats people so poorly and remorselessly that she has an ever-growing list - many more than six - of people with unresolved grievances against her. Should this be ignored? When others question her actions, she threatens them and accuses them of "harassing" her. From that point forward, they are "involved" and can no longer weigh in

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

But that's exactly it: Elonka treats people so poorly and remorselessly that she has an ever-growing list - many more than six - of people with unresolved grievances against her. Should this be ignored? When others question her actions, she threatens them and baslessly accuses them of harassing her. From that point forward, they are "involved" and can no longer weigh in

That's what makes the Wikispeak dictionary such a smile.

Uninvolved: see involved.

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.

But that's exactly it: Elonka treats people so poorly and remorselessly that she has an ever-growing list - many more than six - of people with unresolved grievances against her. Should this be ignored? When others question her actions, she threatens them and accuses them of "harassing" her. From that point forward, they are "involved" and can no longer weigh in

Fair point. However, considering the area she is working in, and this work she is doing for ArbCom, are all these grievances truly legit? Or are there some editors who were sanctioned, blocked, warned or otherwise dealt with by Elonka (rightfully) who are now upset?

That's why I think it should be six uninvolved editors looking at the whole situation objectively. You speak as if making so many enemies works to her benefit in this right. As if she's making everyone involved so they cannot challenge her. However, this is a large project, and I would think if she was making serious mistakes with so many people, it would only prove easier for those uninvolved to take issue with her.

This post has been edited by LaraLove:

I see Lar has juxtapositioned himself into the Elonka saga. He conveniently introduces himself as a neutral editor, and then he becomes Elonka's spokesperson. Now Elonka and her Wiki-lawyer Lar are claiming that Elonka is far too busy for Wikipedia at the moment, and will get back to events in some days time. A nice little ploy, but will it work? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elo...ea_for_patience





This post has been edited by Gold heart:

Hi, LaraLove.

As I have explained, I like to focus on one thing at a time. Regrettably I got sucked into the RFC, against my better judgment. Then again, it's a free wiki and any editor can edit most pages. We don't have quotas on who can edit what. If you look at my history you will see many instances where I work on one thing at a time. Some folks like to multitask. To each their own.

Cautioned for harassment multiple times? I don't think so, except maybe by Elonka, who likes to play the cyberstalking card as a sort of get-out-of-jail-free ploy, kind of like another admin who is not much respected on this forum.

Said anything not quite accurate? I try to be accurate, but I am not infallable. If somebody shows me that I am wrong, I am willing to admit error.

Hi, LaraLove.

As I have explained, I like to focus on one thing at a time. Regrettably I got sucked into the RFC, against my better judgment. Then again, it's a free wiki and any editor can edit most pages. We don't have quotas on who can edit what. If you look at my history you will see many instances where I work on one thing at a time. Some folks like to multitask. To each their own.

Cautioned for harassment multiple times? I don't think so, except maybe by Elonka, who likes to play the cyberstalking card as a sort of get-out-of-jail-free ploy, kind of like another admin who is not much respected on this forum.

Said anything not quite accurate? I try to be accurate, but I am not infallable. If somebody shows me that I am wrong, I am willing to admit error.

Hello, Jehochman, and welcome to the party. The booze is over there on the table. Try the beandip: it's my mom's secret recipe.

(Not to be unwelcoming or anything, since it's a free country and this is a free forum and all of that--Yes, we're very glad to see see you, Jehochman and thanks for the bottle...but does anybody want to take bets about how long it is before Slimmy starts posting here too???)

This post has been edited by Carruthers:

I don't think Slim is too likely to post here. She tarred me for posting here a while back, when I never did. That's part of what motivated me to start posting. Shit, if I am going to be criticized for a vice, I may as well enjoy it.

LaraLove, you making me out to be bad guy is only going to increase my popularity on this forum. :-)

This post has been edited by Jehochman:

Elonka has been involved in witchhunts in the past; looks like karma is finally coming back to her.

Cautioned for harassment multiple times? I don't think so, except maybe by Elonka, who likes to play the cyberstalking card as a sort of get-out-of-jail-free ploy…

Remember how we met, Jehochman? Elonka had accused Matt57 of "harassment" for opposing her RfA and then for attempting to apply the source policies to her Dunin family spam. When I saw her threatening Matt and accusing him of "harassment", I stood up to it, only to be accused of harassment myself. Then Elonka solicited people on IRC to threaten me, including one operating under the pseudonym "Krimpet." Matt57 was blocked three times in a row based on completely false charges…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User%3AMatt57
…I was driven off of Wikipedia.

I doubt it was ever truly personal for her; her motive was simply to retain her Dunin family spam articles, including ludicrously inflated or outright fabricated claims, such as that her father, descended as he is from an illustrious line of supergenius Polish kings, discovered the method of inserting satellites into geosynchronous orbit.

Elonka has never apologized for any of this, for her lies have served her well. Perhaps they are now catching up to her.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

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.

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.

Welcome to the Review Ramdrake.

Hi, LaraLove.

As I have explained, I like to focus on one thing at a time. Regrettably I got sucked into the RFC, against my better judgment. Then again, it's a free wiki and any editor can edit most pages. We don't have quotas on who can edit what. If you look at my history you will see many instances where I work on one thing at a time. Some folks like to multitask. To each their own.

Cautioned for harassment multiple times? I don't think so, except maybe by Elonka, who likes to play the cyberstalking card as a sort of get-out-of-jail-free ploy, kind of like another admin who is not much respected on this forum.

Said anything not quite accurate? I try to be accurate, but I am not infallable. If somebody shows me that I am wrong, I am willing to admit error.

Hello, Jehochman, and welcome to the party. The booze is over there on the table. Try the beandip: it's my mom's secret recipe.

(Not to be unwelcoming or anything, since it's a free country and this is a free forum and all of that--Yes, we're very glad to see see you, Jehochman and thanks for the bottle...but does anybody want to take bets about how long it is before Slimmy starts posting here too???)

Good Heavens, man, stop with the Science Fiction.

But again, we might remind Jehochman of the unofficial policy of most Enlisted Men's clubs: Officers are not challenged if they cover all insignia and badge of rank, and don't act like anything other than an enlisted man. No saluting of anybody is done by anybody. Under such circumstances just about everyplace looks the other way.

WR's a place where your WP rank gets you (less than) nowhere, and indeed may get you razzed unmercifully, depending. But if you can take that, well, the beer and been dip is indeed over there.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

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.

She's not the first person to use that tactic, and she probably won't be the last.

What makes the tactic work is at the same time its own fatal flaw really - it requires you to declare as enemies people who might not otherwise care about the rest of your actions, and to throw away your friends at the slightest provocation. In the end, you run out of people who will put up with your crap.

But Elonka has powerful friends in WJBscribe and FT2, and a less-powerful but robotically loyal puppet in Shell Kinney. So far, this clique has done well for itself, though as your observation predicts, several erstwhile members have since been alienated from it, others have joined - she seems to have acquired a spiritedly yapping chihuahua with the buttons in Seicer.

I believe Elonka aims to run the project. With decades of experience in running multiplayer online role-playing games like Wikipedia, and with the noble blood of geniuses flowing through her veins, she is self-evidently the most qualified person to do so.

I don't think Slim is too likely to post here. She tarred me for posting here a while back, when I never did. That's part of what motivated me to start posting. Shit, if I am going to be criticized for a vice, I may as well enjoy it.

LaraLove, you making me out to be bad guy is only going to increase my popularity on this forum. :-)

Your connection to Durova should take care of that.

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:

Durova has endorsed Elonka's recall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230577956

Durova has endorsed Elonka's recall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230577956

Shocker. Jehochman's BFF takes his side? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) No wai!

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.

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.

Also, what a lot of people feel she has abused aren't specifically her tools (i.e. her buttons), but her overall position as an admin, using it to reverse consensus at least twice that I'm aware, and taking the side of single, disruptive editors against a well-established consensus. Twice she forced a process reversal (getting one disruptive editor unblocked, just to be reblocked within two weeks, and insisting a merge be sent to AfD, just for the verdict to be reaffirmed with a much larger majority (15-1 instead of 5-1).

Also, the fact that she seems to turn and attack when her judgment is called into question (even when using a non-threatening tone of inquiry) makes me dubious about her qualities as an admin.

[Welcome to the Review Ramdrake.

Thank you, Derktar. Took me a bit to figure out the reply system (i.e. the correct button being below the post rathter than above it, but I think I got it).

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.

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.

It is written into mine, which is based on like a third of yours. Yours is already so complex, I don't think you have room to add anything. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I think it's common sense that 6 grudges wouldn't count as good faith requests. But this is just my interpretation. I'm not rallying for her. Other than my comments here, I think I have two on her talk page and a couple endorsements on her RFC. That's about it.

I've been thinking about this more. In my initial assessment I stated that should she be desysopped, it would have a potential negative effect on the AOR process, if it turned out that she had not abused her tools or status as an admin to the point that desysopping was warranted. Now, conversely, if she refuses to resign as her terribly worded criteria dictate, if taken by the letter, then it will have an equally negative effect if the evidence shows a clear abuse of tools/status.

If she's been recalled once before on this vague criteria, why would she not update it?

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.

They're basing it off of her comments in her RFA.

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.

Sorry, should have been more specific. I was talking about the current default process.

Elonka's actions aside, the RfC and recall have already turned into a festering pile of nonsense with everyone getting in their shot.

To increase the drama whoring even more, Bishonen is now threatening to block Elonka if she doesn't respond to her demands within 24 hours.

But of course, Bishonen isn't an admin...I guess Bishzilla really is a second personality with no knowledge of the first.

Oh, she definitely is. Watch this space and you'll see Bishzilla run for the Arbitration Committee, which Bishonen wouldn't touch with a bargepole. I think that proves it.
(This is my very first post to WR. I probably didn't do it even halfway right. Can Bishzilla be a member, too? I'm sure she'd be better at negotiating this confusing site.)

Elonka's actions aside, the RfC and recall have already turned into a festering pile of nonsense with everyone getting in their shot.

To increase the drama whoring even more, Bishonen is now threatening to block Elonka if she doesn't respond to her demands within 24 hours.

But of course, Bishonen isn't an admin...I guess Bishzilla really is a second personality with no knowledge of the first.

Oh, she definitely is. Watch this space and you'll see Bishzilla run for the Arbitration Committee, which Bishonen wouldn't touch with a bargepole. I think that proves it.
(This is my very first post to WR. I probably didn't do it even halfway right. Can Bishzilla be a member, too? I'm sure she'd be better at negotiating this confusing site.)

I was wondering when you'd finally post Bishonen, welcome.

Oh, she definitely is. Watch this space and you'll see Bishzilla run for the Arbitration Committee, which Bishonen wouldn't touch with a bargepole. I think that proves it.
(This is my very first post to WR. I probably didn't do it even halfway right. Can Bishzilla be a member, too? I'm sure she'd be better at negotiating this confusing site.)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Review, Bishonen. Your post looks fine.

Oh, she definitely is. Watch this space and you'll see Bishzilla run for the Arbitration Committee, which Bishonen wouldn't touch with a bargepole. I think that proves it.
(This is my very first post to WR. I probably didn't do it even halfway right. Can Bishzilla be a member, too? I'm sure she'd be better at negotiating this confusing site.)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Review, Bishonen. Your post looks fine.

Bishonen (backed up by Geogre, as usual) threatening to block Elonka for making "proof-less accusations"? Hilarious! Now who's the one editor responsible for the largest number of "proof-less accusations" ever to grace the project? Hint - his name begins with a "G" and ends with an "o". And who are his two chief defenders? Oh yeah...

Can Bishzilla be a member, too?

I support Bishzilla for WR in 2008. Yes we can!

Elonka's actions aside, the RfC and recall have already turned into a festering pile of nonsense with everyone getting in their shot.

To increase the drama whoring even more, Bishonen is now threatening to block Elonka if she doesn't respond to her demands within 24 hours.

But of course, Bishonen isn't an admin...I guess Bishzilla really is a second personality with no knowledge of the first.

Oh, she definitely is. Watch this space and you'll see Bishzilla run for the Arbitration Committee, which Bishonen wouldn't touch with a bargepole. I think that proves it.
(This is my very first post to WR. I probably didn't do it even halfway right. Can Bishzilla be a member, too? I'm sure she'd be better at negotiating this confusing site.)

Welcome to Wikipedia Review, Bish. Good to see you here (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Can Bishzilla be a member, too?

I support Bishzilla for WR in 2008. Yes we can!

Not until we get Trogdor the Burniator.

Elonka responds. But I'm not so sure what she actually said.....

Summary: "I lied"

Summary: "I lied"

..."and you can't do anything about it! Ciao."

Summary: "I lied"

..."and you can't do anything about it! Ciao."

No, it's actually, "I'm right, and everyone who doesn't agree with me is saying so in bad faith." Muuuch more subtle.

Summary: "I lied"

..."and you can't do anything about it! Ciao."

No, it's actually, "I'm right, and everyone who doesn't agree with me is saying so in bad faith." Muuuch more subtle.

She is making a "laughing stock" out of recall! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Elonka responds. But I'm not so sure what she actually said.....

Ummm ... to summarize:

• I didn't know what I was signing up to when I agreed to recall at my RFA.
• I didn't abuse the tools, whatever about the position of admin. "The tools" is what recall is really about
• The community is happy to have me stay on, from my reading of proceedings
• Got a problem? Add it to the RfC or take it to ArbCom

... at least that's my take here.

Summary: "I lied"

..."and you can't do anything about it! Ciao."

No, it's actually, "I'm right, and everyone who doesn't agree with me is saying so in bad faith." Muuuch more subtle.

She is making a "laughing stock" out of recall! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

She has lost my respect. If she'd said, "I regret choosing those criteria, but a deal is a deal, so I resign effective immediately, and will be standing for re-RfA," I probably would have voted "support." If she had said, "I regret choosing those criteria, and I know this will strike some of you as dishonest, but I feel this is a special case situation, so I'm going to withdraw my recall pledge - i did say it was 'voluntary' from the beginning, now I'm exercising voluntary choice" even, I would at least not have pressed the issue.

But this? This is just a rambling, dissembling diatribe full of every stupid thought-terminating cliche, hypocritical trope, and despicable evasion one sees on Wikipedia. Those who support her are a "consensus" or even "the community" those who oppose her are a "tag team" and a "mob."

"If anyone still feels that I have genuinely misused admin tools..." Elonka, you manipulative, conniving, dishonest little schemer. You are an admin tool.

Summary: "I lied"

..."and you can't do anything about it! Ciao."

No, it's actually, "I'm right, and everyone who doesn't agree with me is saying so in bad faith." Muuuch more subtle.

She is making a "laughing stock" out of recall! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

She has lost my respect. If she'd said, "I regret choosing those criteria, but a deal is a deal, so I resign effective immediately, and will be standing for re-RfA," I probably would have voted "support." If she had said, "I regret choosing those criteria, and I know this will strike some of you as dishonest, but I feel this is a special case situation, so I'm going to withdraw my recall pledge - i did say it was 'voluntary' from the beginning, now I'm exercising voluntary choice" even, I would at least not have pressed the issue.

But this? This is just a rambling, dissembling diatribe full of every stupid thought-terminating cliche, hypocritical trope, and despicable evasion one sees on Wikipedia. Those who support her are a "consensus" or even "the community" those who oppose her are a "tag team" and a "mob."

"If anyone still feels that I have genuinely misused admin tools..." Elonka, you manipulative, conniving, dishonest little schemer. You are an admin tool.

Actually, it's in character: given a number of possible choices, Elonka should be trusted to consistently make the worst one possible. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Funny, now that Elonka's published her "response" some more people are starting to ask for her recall, figuring she hasn't held to her word. I wonder what would happen if by absolute chance the net six criterion was met by the seven-day limit? Will she still refuse to step down?

Stay tuned for the next episode of Wiki-Drama... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I actually used to have some respect for Elonka, but I'm afraid that's gone. I think she would likely have been reconfirmed at RfA if she had stood by her promise.

Now she's in the same league as Ryulong, who also was only selected as an admin based on a recall promise, only to renege on his pledge later. How sad.

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?

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

And Round 2 has two opposes already.

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.

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.

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:

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 ...

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)

Geogre has made some interesting comments on recusal in the context of the rejected RFAR/Elonka:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=233971444

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=234541662

Geogre has made some interesting comments on recusal in the context of the rejected RFAR/Elonka:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=233971444

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=234541662

Hey, nice to see you on here, Bish (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Geogre has made some interesting comments on recusal in the context of the rejected RFAR/Elonka:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=233971444

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=234541662

Hey, nice to see you on here, Bish :)

You appear to have forgotten the last page! :)

Geogre has made some interesting comments on recusal in the context of the rejected RFAR/Elonka:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=233971444

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=234541662

Hey, nice to see you on here, Bish (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

You appear to have forgotten the last page! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Oh blargh! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) It's 2:30 am here. Time to go home!