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

Didn't she nom him for admin?

From July 11 there is this

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?

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

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

Uninvolved: see involved.

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.

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?

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

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???)

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. :-)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your connection to Durova should take care of that.

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.

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

Shocker. Jehochman's BFF takes his side? No wai!

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.




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).

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.



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.

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.

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?


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

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

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.

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...

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

Welcome to Wikipedia Review, Bish. Good to see you here

Not until we get Trogdor the Burniator.

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

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!

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.

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.

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...

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?

And Round 2 has two opposes already.

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:

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:

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)

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

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! :)

Oh blargh! It's 2:30 am here. Time to go home!