Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

message: Elonka's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

message: I think answer 6 is a recipe for drama.  If a group of revert warriors try to own an article, how will you be able to intervene if there are >5 in that group?  Did you mean that you would stand for reconfirmation if 6 editors asked, rather than resigning straight away?  What about meat puppetry, sock puppetry and so on?  I think your answer needs clarification.  - Jehochman  Talk 14:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reconfirmation would be better; but it may be that she does not consider revert warriors editors in good standing. Do clarify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the avoidance of drama, I suggest adopting A.B.'s wording: "a good-faith recall request from multiple, neutral, established editors." - Jehochman  Talk 17:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd rather just keep it simple: "6 editors in good standing." In most cases, this should be pretty obvious.  If 6 admins asked me to resign, I'd be gone.  As for other non-admins, yes, "neutral, established" editors.  Edit-warriors wouldn't count, editors with a ton of recent blocks wouldn't count, obvious sockpuppets/meatpuppets wouldn't count.  But I don't feel it necessary to spell things out in excruciating detail.   "Good standing" is pretty easy to understand. --Elonka 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconsider Answer 6

message: "months after he and Elonka had agreed to put their disputes behind them". That's bollocks. She kept one of her attack pages on him right up until her last RFA came around. I think my IP was on it. Her pages of 'evidence' are always conveniently wiped out by an accomodating admin right around the time that she herself is nominated for Admin or involved in a public dispute that people could draw on them for evidence.
Anyone that has paid any attention to Elonka's antics over the last couple of years, as have I, (and I'm not a man nurturing a fascination, trust.), would realize that while she is incredibly smart and talented when it comes to building a wiki, she also enjoys conflict. Elonka has used darn near every wiki-rule there is against users, both great and not so, that do not agree with her. She IS civil, almost to a fault, on-wiki. That's one of the things that makes her so controversal. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a link for that attack page? Or diffs of evidence being scrubbed? – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Your talk page doesn't give me much confidence that you're here to help, anon. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, please. Can we do something about allegations like this? What is even the deleted link? Lawrence Cohen 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish I did have a link. As I said, it was deleted by an admin, I think the log stated something along the lines of 'no longer necessary'. This one in particular listed 'Suspected sockpuppets of Dreamguy' and had many many diffs. 12.146.184.9 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this may be a pretty slick poisoning the well to keep Elonka from passing RFA, can a couple of admins all look at deleted edits for her and confirm/deny existence of this? Lawrence Cohen 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC):::...continued, (I'm sorry, I'm doing three things at once and not one of them well at the moment). I honestly don't remember the name of the page. It was subbed under her user space, like a personal sandbox. As far as your confidence in me. Have it or don't. I'm not a wikipedia 'member'. I'm not adding my opposition to the main page. I'm just pointing out what I've observed. Cheers, (or not :), Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was looking through the logs, and I found that page too. She was collecting information to see if there was sufficient evidence to request a checkuser. Once she didn't need it anymore, she tagged it , and an admin deleted it. Try as I might, I can't see anything sinister there. I think our anonymous vandalizer friend is grasping at straws. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, take it or leave it. Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Leave it. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I too would leave it, considering the edit which earned him a warning from an admin.  and this one , which pretty clearly indicate a running dispute with Elonka. Horologium (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, leave it.  And arguably this IP violates the good hand/bad hand clause of WP:SOCK.  It's low conduct to interfere with an RFA on an anonymous IP without substantial evidence. DurovaCharge! 23:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err.. it can't be good hand/bad hand when you only know of there being one hand. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that an absence of known useful contributions constitutes an excuse for destructive ones?  That's a curious proposition. DurovaCharge! 02:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, I'm just saying there's only one hand. It's still a bad hand. -- Ned Scott 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  (ec) Eh, don't even dignify it by calling it a proper dispute. I wouldn't even have opened my big mouth now except that there was a whole page of diffs trailing someone she was supposedly ignoring. The vandalism (and I'll ken to it, it's mine) was another moment of weakness. She got a barnstar (which I think are ridiculous to begin with) for an article that she didn't even believe should exist. The person who she has been working with, who proposed, (perhaps even initiated), the article didn't receive a barnstar. I just find that so very uneven. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, well, well.  WJBscribe had a hand in deleting that page, that's not a surprise.  Mindraker (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of whoever alleges misconduct.  Insufficient evidence doesn't deserve consideration, and insufficient evidence presented anonymously is cowardice. DurovaCharge! 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Insufficient evidence doesn't deserve consideration, and insufficient evidence presented anonymously is cowardice." Oh brother. That's some high horse you've got there. Weren't you just hoist on a very similar petard? Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, and the price I paid for it should be an example to the community to assume good faith in absence of solid evidence to the contrary.  I had the courage to step forward and accept responsibility for my mistake.  Do you? DurovaCharge! 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is my mistake? Insufficient evidence? I do think rather highly of the wikipedia community as a whole. I believe any evidence of Elonka's behavior is easily researched. It's just as easily ignored. Anonimity? I don't have an account to step forward to. Creating one now isn't going to suddenly confer any more credibilty to what I said. Or do you think I'm someone's sock or meatpuppet? Do you really want to head down that road? Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In a legitimate system of justice, the burden of proof is as stated above. Anonymous people are never allowed to have their say or have evidence count at all. I reference my comments above on that subject. Monsieurdl (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged attack page 

message: I am greatly saddened by the comments by some and how they have crossed the line. For those of you who do not know me, I have always been fair with regards to editing and arguments that come up over content, sources, etc. I would defend anyone who has had to be subjected to the kinds of personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations that have been leveled here. It seems that by neglecting civility, we have all lost our way. Please, for the sake of fair play and a sense of respect, let's try and avoid getting personal and just stick with verifiable facts. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this, as I have made some remarks to the same effect on the actual discussion page. It is all too much for me to abide, and this line of discussion has brought out the worst in many editors. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I've done some strikethroughs.  Thank you. DurovaCharge! 05:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DreamGuy is entitled to express his opinion without being badgered.  To her credit, Elonka has not gotten involved in the above arguments. I agree with the sentiments that people need to calm down and let this process come to its natural conclusion. - Jehochman  Talk 12:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, expressing opinion is one thing, but offering unsubstantiated evidence is another. I fully agree- I'm just going to unwatch the page now and let everything happen. <FONT SIZE=3>Monsieurdl</font></font> mon talk-mon contribs 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Elonka was criticized in the past for engaging each oppose, but now she is being opposed for failing to engage (see oppose #52). Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Some of the opposes have been exceptionally incivil, and two editors with whom she has had protracted battles are stirring up a lot of hatred. Statements such as We can only hope that she uses the extra tools for good use, although I'm certain she wont are inexcusable. Horologium (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I can tell you this: as someone who has experienced "e-mail issues" in the past (not from Elonka, but a similar situation), either she explains herself, or I oppose. I will be placing this message in the neutral section shortly, and switching to oppose by 5:00 EST if she does not choose to address the issue. Mr Which??? 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: **Of course you're free to do so. But note these comments above on the substance of that e-mail (if you haven't already seen them). – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: **The first was by SV, the second by you. Neither was particularly convincing, inasmuch as Elonka has simply cited WP:DNFT when asked about it. Additionally, as a male, I find the whole "the boys made her do it" defense quite insulting. Mr Which??? 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. This is the time and place for people to voice their concerns. - Jehochman  Talk 14:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. But let's express our concerns civilly, in a way that we would want others to express concerns to us. (Disclaimer: I didn't always do that myself on this page, but I'm trying.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to point out positive examples, User:Radiant and User:Gordonofcartoon have demonstrated that it is quite possible to support or oppose this candidate, giving detailed reasoning, without being even remotely incivil. If we all voiced our opinions in this way, Wikipedia would be a much nicer place. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Friday, the statement I highlighted was a rebuttal to a support statement, not an oppose statement itself. Horologium (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In defense of civility

message: As this hasn't been brought up yet, for everyone's information, there have been some canvassing issues. Please see the bureaucrats' noticeboard for more details. Thank you. Acalamari 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does posting a bare notice of an RFA in an article that the candidate has spent a great deal of time in really qualify as canvassing? Who is the RFA an appeal to, us weirdos who follow wikipolitics, or the community at large? PHG clearly intended to skew the vote, but if most of the people the candidate worked with at that article are opposes, doesn't that say something legitimate? I'm asking this as a question, not an argument, and happy to blank this and take it to talk. --- tqbf 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, posting a neutral message "For those interested, Elonka is currently for Adminship." on the Talk Page of an article in which Elonka was heavily involved (and which was at the center of many of the disputes related to Elonka, namely the Franco-Mongol alliance article) is not considered as Canvassing, but rather as "Friendly notice" . I myself discovered Elonka's candidacy by chance, and I thought that others who, like myself, had strong opinions about Elonka (good or bad) deserved to participate to the debate if they wished to. Please advise if inapproriate. PHG (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing 

message: My edit after close was a complete accident. I started the edit before it closed, simply clicked "save" and it saved it. I did not realize it was after the close until I saw the page pop up. There was no edit conflict or anything. I'll thank you to stop accusing me of "augmenting the drama", when all I was attempting to do was craft a reasonable position on an RfA. Mr Which??? 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it really matters, to be honest: it wasn't as though you changed from support to oppose or anything like that; you didn't know the RfA was being closed at the time of your edit, and no one should hold that against you. What's done is done, and the RfA is over. I think we can wrap up the discussions here now. Acalamari 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only remaining issue is with being accused of bad-faith in my switch, which I outlined above, and below. Mr Which??? 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (to Yaman)And, by the way, I did not get to Elonka's RfA until today, which accounts for my need for a speedy reply from her. She provided this, and I knew that time was short as to making my decision (which I do not take lightly in such a tight case). This accounts for switching from neutral to oppose, which -- as I've indicated above -- I regret. That is all I regret, though, as my switch from oppose to support was an easy one. The canvassing, combined with Elonka's firm denial of sending DG anything resembling the example I crafted, led me to change my opinion. What you think of that opinion doesn't really matter, but I do not appreciate being accused of "augmenting the drama", which is a serious breach of WP:AGF, in my view. Mr Which??? 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My appologies, in my minds eye I was seeing you doing the edit after the close, and it sounds like something very different happened. It appears I was very wrong about that. Sethie (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with you. I have a problem with my switches being categorized as "augmenting the drama", which you did not do. Mr Which??? 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop with the "augmenting the drama" crap