Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

message: User:Elonka
      run at Fri Jul 27 16:07:41 2007 GMT
Category talk:	56
Category:	300
Help:	1
Image talk:	2
Image:	100
Mainspace	23742
Portal talk:	47
Portal:	28
Talk:	2814
Template talk:	84
Template:	293
User talk:	2164
User:	561
Wikipedia talk:	839
Wikipedia:	1240
avg edits per page	1.54
earliest	21:01, 16 September 2005
number of unique pages	20891
total	32271
2005/9 	11 	
2005/10 	7 	
2005/11 	4 	
2005/12 	223 	
2006/1 	1395 	
2006/2 	1103 	
2006/3 	357 	
2006/4 	472 	
2006/5 	363 	
2006/6 	884 	
2006/7 	3585 	
2006/8 	1256 	
2006/9 	4644 	
2006/10 	4851 	
2006/11 	4013 	
2006/12 	1766 	
2007/1 	343 	
2007/2 	1410 	
2007/3 	872 	
2007/4 	769 	
2007/5 	2063 	
2007/6 	1220 	
2007/7 	660
Elonka's editcount summary stats as of 17:07, July 27th 2007, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

message: See the unblock request on User talk:Zivko85. Grandmasterka 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mackensen's a checkuser, he checked the IPs. Andre (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A public request is not required. pschemp | talk 04:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Mackensen is a checkuser. There doesn't need to be a request for a checkuser to perform a check, as happened here.--Chaser - T 04:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now it gets interesting

message: Orderinchaos, myself, and several other editors have been attempting to work this out on IRC, and I'm reasonably convinced that the other two users concerned are not indeed his sockpuppets, but rather meatpuppets who have edited from his computer specifically to support him. This has little practical effect on this RfA - any votes from Zivko85 and DanielT5 should remain stricken as meatpuppets. However, I suggest that the attempted witchhunt against their fellow Western Australian editors is unwarranted and unhelpful. Rebecca 07:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What witchhunt? If I were Mackensen, I'd almost certainly would have come to the same initial conclusion. El_C 10:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think Rebecca was referring to the above post, not Mackensen... --Dark Falls talk 11:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think she meant the questions about Twenty Years and other WA editors not within the scope of this who happen to vote in similar ways in similar places. I have undertaken to abstain from voting completely for a few months, and I have acknowledged the stupidity of my actions and omissions at the AN and elsewhere. The others, well, it's up to them what they do on their own computer, but no-one who comes around here will be allowed to use Wikipedia, as to be honest the accusations today really did ruin my day and make me feel awful, as well as risking denting the trust of those I have worked with for more than a year, and I don't want to be in this situation again in the months ahead. Orderinchaos 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *  OIC, thank you for your constructive responses. I hope you feel better, and I respect you more because of your response. Jehochman  Talk 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What witchhunt were you referring to Rebecca?  It's not very nice to use such words when referring to fellow editors. Please come to my talk page so we can discuss this further.  Jehochman  Talk 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand now.  Thanks for that.  Jehochman  Talk 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting in a good word for Jehochman here: he's a longstanding contributor at WP:COIN and WP:BLPN.  I'm sure he wouldn't suppose rushed or frivolous accusations, especially in a contentious situation like this one.  Very level head on his shoulders. DurovaCharge! 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolving the drama