Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

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

run at Fri Dec 7 00:36:35 2007 GMT
Category talk: 55  
Category: 300  
Help: 1  
Image talk: 2  
Image: 93  
Mainspace 26536  
Portal talk: 47  
Portal: 32  
Talk: 3410  
Template talk: 85  
Template: 323  
User talk: 2804  
User: 823  
Wikipedia talk: 919  
Wikipedia: 1465  
avg edits per page 1.64  
earliest 21:01, 16 September 2005  
number of unique pages 22495  
total 36895  
2005/9  11   
2005/10  7   
2005/11  4   
2005/12  223   
2006/1  1392   
2006/2  1046   
2006/3  352   
2006/4  467   
2006/5  352   
2006/6  877   
2006/7  3531   
2006/8  1233   
2006/9  4587   
2006/10  4786   
2006/11  3954   
2006/12  1736   
2007/1  342   
2007/2  1393   
2007/3  863   
2007/4  767   
2007/5  2051   
2007/6  1218   
2007/7  708   
2007/8  1160   
2007/9  1261   
2007/10  1417   
2007/11  906   
2007/12  251   


Mainspace  
375 Knights Templar  
230 Franco-Mongol alliance  
135 Dirty Dancing  
121 Pauline Fowler  
112 Dan Brown  
75 Damien Spinelli  
74 Fustat  
73 Matt Sanchez  
71 Juice Plus  
63 History of the Knights Templar  
60 Bradford Anderson  
58 Black Stone  
57 Hajj  
48 Austin Miller  
45 Alfred Niezychowski  

Talk:  
233 Franco-Mongol alliance  
148 Juice Plus  
122 Knights Templar  
98 Matt Sanchez  
87 Pauline Fowler  
51 Jogaila  
49 Eenasul Fateh/Archive 3  
35 Danah Boyd  
31 Voßstraße  
27 Days of our Lives  
27 Kaaba  
27 General Hospital  
24 Matt Sanchez/Archive 2  
22 Laurent Dailliez  
22 Indo-Greek Kingdom 

 
Category talk:  
16 Category needed  
8 Cities and towns in Italy  
6 Wikipedia administrators open to recall  
4 Educational institutions by year of establishment  
2 Infobox templates  
2 Wikipedia  
2 Human-animal relationships  
2 Uncategorised albums  
2 Wikipedia administration  
2 Zoosexuality  


Category:  
6 Voivodeships of Poland  
6 Knights Templar  
5 Kuyavian-Pomeranian geography stubs  
4 Cities and towns in Abruzzo  
4 Podlasie geography stubs  
4 Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy  
4 Świętokrzyskie geography stubs  
4 Wikipedia administration  
4 Food infobox templates  
4 Poland geography stubs  
3 Opole Voivodeship  
3 Cities in Abruzzo  
3 So You Think You Can Dance contestants  
3 Wikipedia tools  
3 United States student societies  


Image:  
5 3D Nature logo.png  
4 WilmerPoster.jpg  
4 Mysto.jpg  
3 Granick.gif  
3 PangbocheHand.jpg  
3 Harold and Maude.jpg  
3 Bad Twin.jpg  
2 MeretzkyAndAdams.jpg  
2 Arthursbench.jpg  
2 Journal of Medieval History.gif  
2 MVC-261S.JPG  
2 DE Shaw logo.gif  
2 LizMyers.jpg  
2 Dirty-dancing-corner.jpg  
2 HendrickHudson.jpg  

Portal:  
18 Poland/New article announcements  
3 Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/to do  
3 Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board  
2 Poland/Selected anniversaries/June  
2 Poland/Did you know  

Portal talk:  
25 Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board  
17 Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 6  
5 Poland/New article announcements  


Template:  
25 Infobox EastEnders character 2  
11 General Hospital  
7 Knights Templar  
6 KujawskoPomorskie-geo-stub  
6 Foodbox  
5 WikiProject Soap Operas  
5 Ws  
5 1911EB  
5 Infobox EastEnders character  
4 Podkarpacie-geo-stub  
4 Pomorze-geo-stub  
4 Wielkopolska-geo-stub  
4 Refactoring  
4 LostSeason3  
4 Nutritionalvalue  


Template talk:  
10 ArticleHistory  
8 Mesopotamian mythology/Archive  
8 General Hospital  
5 Infobox EastEnders character  
4 Uncategorized  
3 Coor title dms/archive001  
3 Move  
3 Unreferenced  
3 WikiProjectBanners  
2 NUS  
2 Foodbox  
2 Db-spam  
2 Polish terms for country subdivisions  
2 Welcome  
2 Wiktionary  


User:  
445 Elonka  
116 Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance  
56 Elonka/Mongol historians  
34 Elonka/monobook.js  
25 Elonka/RfA ponderings  
13 Elonka/Top-10  
10 Ursasapien/Sandbox/Lost  
7 Essjay/RFC  
7 Elonka/Stats  
7 Elonka/Reading list  
6 216.165.158.7  
5 Elonka/Mongol quickref  
5 Elonka/Category advice  
3 Mervyn/List of ships  
2 216.165.158.131  


User talk:  
303 Elonka  
30 Piotrus  
22 TStone  
20 Josiah Rowe  
20 Ned Scott  
20 PHG  
20 Englishrose  
18 Flyer22  
16 Dr. Dan  
16 Ursasapien/Sandbox/Lost  
13 Gungadin  
13 Deacon of Pndapetzim  
13 Wknight94  
13 Rhode Island Red  
13 John J. Bulten  


Wikipedia:  
80 Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence  
73 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  
73 Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Workshop  
42 Requests for adminship/Elonka 2  
40 WikiProject Soap Operas  
24 Featured article candidates/Pauline Fowler  
23 Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red  
21 Requested moves  
16 Village pump (policy)  
15 Naming conventions (television)  
14 WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines  
11 WikiProject Lost  
10 Help desk  
10 Articles for deletion/Aladin (magician)  
9 Requests for adminship/Elonka  


Wikipedia talk:  
152 Naming conventions (television)  
52 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader  
43 Special:Uncategorizedpages  
37 WikiProject Soap Operas  
36 WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines  
35 Requests for mediation/Lost episodes  
26 WikiProject Lost  
26 AutoWikiBrowser  
23 Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red  
22 WikiProject Geography of Poland  
18 Naming conventions (names and titles)  
16 Notability (shopping centers)  
15 Biographies of living persons  
12 Requests for mediation/Danah Boyd  
11 Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)  


Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

Acalamari 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but is it not true that every sentence in an article needs to be sourced? Elonka put in tonnes of stuff in Fustat and it wasnt sourced at a time (now it is, I'm not sure if it was her who did it). Elonka, (forgetting our past disputes), your thoughts? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not true. If somebody told you that you are misinformed. Please read WP:V to acquaint yourself with policy. Jeffpw (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any sentence that is challenged or likely to be challenged. I've always interpreted that pretty tightly, but if somebody is jumping up and down on the talk page demanding a peer-reviewed citation for kittens being considered cute, I might not think they are being sensible. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, I'll wait for Elonka to answer this. I might be wrong on this e.g. sometimes things are mentioned in the lead of an article and may have a citation later, although I didnt get that impression for Fustat.

Tim, someone asked for a citation for Knut to be called cute on the Cuteness page. I also thought that was not sensible but thankfully I was able to find a citation for that too. That editor has retired by the way (maybe I should ask them for a citation that they truely did retire). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always leave well alone, as they saying goes "Never use a pointy stick to check if the monster is dead." Tim Vickers (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this one made me giggle here :) - Alison ^❤ 00:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: it was very amusing! :) Acalamari 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously posted a section here proving Elonka had, in fact, sent me harassing messages, as requested by editors to back up my claims in the voting section. This section was removed completely and apparently erased from the page history by User:Ryan Postlethwaite, who posted a threat to block me if I added it again. That same editor is listed as one of those supporting Elonka's request for admin status. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care either way if Elonka does or doesn't promoted, I supported but I have no huge opinion either way. what I do care about is users posting private material without the permission of the user in question. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, if people asked for proof of abusive messages for the RFA, how is he supposed to provide that information? Lawrence Cohen 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cryptographic hash and checksum in the signature? I know I can write whatever I want and paste it under an e-mail header. I think you have to regard anything off-Wiki as hearsay. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it on-wiki? provide a diff. If there's extensive off-wiki problems, ArbCom can deal with it. If there's just a general problem with off wiki communication then you can't really prove it. There's no way for us to verify that what is being copied actually got sent. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I took a look at this "deleted message" and all I see is just some hearsay; no headers nor routing information, nothing. - Alison ^❤ 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could ask Elonka directly. But I can say that is not representative of her communication style in general. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'd almost be tempted to allow that "log" to be posted - I think even some of Elonka's harshest critics would agree it sounds nothing like her. WjBscribe 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should all be permitted to make our own minds about the email, without Elonka's loyal followers trying to censor. Threatening to block Dreamguy for providing evidence is unacceptable in my opinion, particularly as he only did so after he was asked to. He kept it on the talk page, it wasn't plastered all over the RFA page.80.1.36.7 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has three total posts.[1] Durova^Charge! 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(diversion removed) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

return to discussion of if appropiate to post email

It's a Google talk message, sent through Google mail to a Gmail address. Google doesn't give any headers in this situation like a standard email, or at least if they do it's hidden under the Gmail interface somewhere. Of course it's going to be hearsay, just as much as any email would be. I can forward the actual email to ArbCom or any other group that it'd be appropriate for, assuming anything can be done with it. It's 100% legit, and certainly anyone who has dealt with her when she is angry knows it's exactly how she talks. But I guess people who want to excuse her past and recent history of bad behavior will refuse to believe it no matter what. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words - no one could verify the authenticity of the "transcript" you posted. All we could only ever have is your word for it. Er, no thanks... WjBscribe 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Elonka could certainly confirm it, if she cared to. But, no, unfortunately, there is no technical way to confirm pretty much anything off-wiki. That's just how things are, and it's not something I have any control over. I was asked to post it, so I did. You can choose to believe or disbelieve, I guess, but there's nothing I can do about it either way. DreamGuy (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any posts anywhere asking you to post this actually. Is that something I need to take your word on too? WjBscribe 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said on the RFA front page he was asked by email. Lawrence Cohen 17:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to contact Elonka for comment. She isn't available right now and she may not know about this yet. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's signed onto Googletalk at the moment, so she is around. Her little message there says "RfA-ing :)" DreamGuy (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that Durova of all people is questioning the trust of other editors. Perhaps the evidence can be uploaded to an external site and linked to, so those who want to see it can do so. Nominating an admin is not a decision that should be taken lightly, and as recent developments have shown, we need to be able to trust them above all else.80.1.36.5 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot question me, 80.1.36.5, and I echo totally Durova's comments. Either show yourself as to who you are, or don't say anything at all. Speaking anonymously on this matter is by far an insidious method used to try and discredit someone- you can't even vote anonymously, so I would not shed one tear if all of your comments were stricken from this page. Shame! Monsieurdl (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it doesn't sound like Elonka, he should be able to post that email, isn't that the whole idea of AGF? why should you not trust him? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling from ArbCom on this topic is pretty clear - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2#Private correspondence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence for recent examples. WjBscribe 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, isn't disallowing material as private correspondence tacitly agreeing that it was actually written by the person in question? - Ehheh (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would create a Catch-22. One of the reasons we don't allow the publication of such is that it is so easily faked. WjBscribe 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, especially when/if Wikipedia:Private correspondence is acknowledged as policy. But the Arbcom principles are apparently just based on violation of copyright. I have no real opinion either way, it just struck me funny - if it's something RFA participants really should see, it can't be posted. If it doesn't matter, it can be. Very Catch 22 Indeed. - Ehheh (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private chat logs and emails are not allowed to be posted on wiki without the permission of all parties, so this is not at all about AGF. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the AGF was meant for the people insisting that I am lying because they don't want to believe it is true and not over whether the message can be posted or not. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy I think AGF has limits when one is dealing with someone under ArbCom sanction for frequently engaging in incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks directed at other editors, sorry. WjBscribe 17:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what, I am under ArbCom sanctions for having been less than polite when editors were attacking me, and so you feel justified in making uncivil comments and assuming bad faith in me? Great... The ArbCom decision is intended to improve interaction, not give rationalization for others to behave improperly. DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof always rests with the person making an assertion. I offer no speculation regarding your motives, but you are unable to verify this onsite within the boundaries of site policy. There were ways you might have handled this that could give the matter some clout. On the face it lacks credibility to assert this in the middle of an RFA when you might have raised the matter with WMF when you say it first happened, and sought advisement about how to proceed. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I can't post my e-mail from the Dalai Lama saying how wonderful Elonka is? But all the curly script took me ages! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Elonka stop by and confirm/deny this emails so this can be over? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I state above, I've been trying to contact her since I first noticed this was happening. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I state above, she is signed online, showing active (green - being active in Google mail or talk, not yellow, away from the computer) with a message that mentions RfA-ing. And, heck, if anyone here happens to be friends with her and have her on GoogleTalk they should be able to confirm these details, which shows Elonka is on my Googletalk list and that we had talked in the past... which, granted, doesn't prove the specific content but might get the people insisting I am a liar to pause for a blooody second here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thread needs to be closed and everyone move on. A log of a conversation which at best is private and cannot be posted, at worst is not accurate, was posted and then deleted according to policy. DreamGuy has been reminded of the rules about posting such correspondence, we've had a discussion about why those rules exist. Not sure anything else is going to be achieved here. WjBscribe 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"At best private"... wow... Mindraker (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AEB: What approved policy applies?

DreamGuy, Although I do not agree that copyright applies nor does an assumption of privacy apply to an email that was sent to you, nevertheless, wikipedia frowns on such things. However, I would say that you do not need to post the email verbatim. Instead, you can post quotes from the email and use "Fair Use" under the copyright act as justification for quoting. Quoting works is done all the time in reviews of artistic material and editorials without any question whatsoever about copyright. Indeed such applications (and this is one) are specifically the reason for the fair use provision.

Elonka could ignore your post or she might respond. If her response is to declare the quotes wrong and not from her, then at that point the issue would be: "Do people believe you are lying?".

One thing to consider is this: Someone might be trying to pretend to be her when they emailed you. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no quotes or excerpts of emails - we don't post private correspondance on Wikipedia - it's not about copyright, it's about the privacy of individuals who made the comments/emails without expecting them to be published. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is no approved policy that says what you have described. The Arbcom decisions all appeal to copyright not to privacy. For you to take the stand you are taking and then enforce it with admin powers is to set yourself up as a rule of law contrary to consensus or policy. Note that I support Elonka, but I do not think your position is at all correct and without policy or Arbcom direction you should be more careful about using admin powers.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't understand the seriousness of posting private logs like this. Once can be considered a mistake, for which he got a one and only warning. Posting it again will result in a block, it's not "abuse of admin powers" - the arbitration committee have clearly agreed with this in numerous cases. I urge you not to suggest he posts private material as if he chooses to do so, it will mean you are in part, responsible for his block. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the private message was clearly correct and within policy. That's what we do when somebody posts private correspondence on Wikipedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:PRIVATE and the talk page there. Lawrence Cohen 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy? Where is the consensus authorization for this? Doesn't wikipedia operate by consensus -- supposedly? However, note that I did not object to the removal. I suggested an alternative process. But, with Ryan's response, it could be argued that the contents cannot even be paraphrased and that is clearly not true per the one actual policy that is approved -- copyright. In fact, that policy explicitly says that you SHOULD paraphrase. What Ryan is operating under is the idea of PRIVACY but that is a policy not approved and not established by consensus --even if it is something you and he and others believe in. It is not right to generally operate outside of consensus policy on wikipedia, especially as an admin. The tools are not meant to be used that way.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing over this, if he posts it again, we'll just have to see what happens. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, take a look at this and this where arbcom disallow it. Are you suggesting he goes against that. It's a little disapointing if you do. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal considerations always trump consensus. That includes posting material from an off-wiki source, even if it's for purely copyright reasons. A couple of hundred editors all saying "Yes" to something that is illegal isn't going to carry any weight with any sensible administrator. Nick (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen both those diffs. Note -- the Arbcom ruled based upon Copyright. Not based upon privacy. The Copyright Policy (which has consensus) says that we may use "Fair Use". It also says that we may refactor into our own words. If the Arbcom statements are based on something else they do not say so and (as I understand you believe) Arbcom does not actually make policy. So, though I am not interested in supporting a malcontent, I believe this is an important matter and if he does post something that fits under the copyright policy but you delete it, I will want to take it up under AN/I or Arbcom -- with the interesting situation of not being directly affected (as a third party). I will in particular make the case that Admin tools should not be used to enforce policies that do not enjoy consensus on wikipedia. There are some other arguments as well. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use doesn't apply to emails between contributors. Going against this and reposting is going against the arbitration committee - what they say is quite clear. It's been like this for quite a while - most people know not to post private communication. I'll not only delete it again if he reposts, I'll block him for it - this is standard practice when someone start posting private emails. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. Fair use is a defense in any claim of copyright infringement. So is the lack of commercial damage. You claim that posting this is going against the ARBCOM but I disagree. You claim it is quite clear. I also disagree -- UNLESS the ARBCOM can actually create new policy. (Do you think that they can?) The ARBCOM referenced the wikipedia copyright policy. And the wikipedia copyright policy allows for fair use. If it is standard practice to block someone for doing something for which there is no policy then it means that wikipedia is no longer operating by consensus. And as I understand it, consensus is really important here. Question for you: Suppose he just paraphrases the email but does not post it verbatim? --Blue Tie (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Nick: there is nothing illegal in my suggestion. Copyright law allows for Fair Use and the copyright policy recognizes the law in this matter. My suggestion was in keeping with both the law and the approved, consensus policy. Admins operating otherwise are operating contrary to both the law and approved consensus policy. That is not what the tools are for. Why is this so hard to grasp? Isn't wikipedia supposed to operate by consensus and law? --Blue Tie (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'm now at a total loss as to how a refactored e-mail posted on Wiki could be considered reliable evidence. Anybody refactoring an e-mail could put any sort of spin on it, remove a smilie, anything which could totally change it's intended meaning. It's also not our policy here to allow fair use outwith the main namespace. Our fair use policy does not allow for e-mails between contributors to be fair use, only for material essential to the actual encyclopedia. Paintings, excerpts from books and the like. You could well get away with using fair use as a defence for the publication of e-mails in a court of law, but our policy doesn't permit it. Nick (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a refactored email might not be considered reliable. That's up to the community to consider when reading it. And that is what is left over when you do not permit the original to be posted. See my comments on WP:PRIVATE talk page. Of course people could then request the original email be sent to them by email and they could review it for themselves. But...Can you direct me to the policy statement that says "Emails do not fall under fair use"? If you can show it to me and it is a policy that has consensus (and that version with that element of the policy in it has been shown to have consensus) I will be quiet. Otherwise, I believe you are inventing policy here. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read our non free content policies, you'll see that we do not permit fair use outwith the main namespace. We would permit e-mails if they were relevant to an article, so if a prominent politician sent a dubious e-mail and it was printed in the press, we could argue that by including the entire e-mail in any article on the politician or the scandal, it would fall both under Fair Use law and under our policies. There's some problems with a private e-mail that would make it fall foul of our Fair Use policy, it's quite clear that publishing the e-mail is not necessary to produce a quality encyclopedia, the work hasn't previously been published and that non free content is only permitted in the article namespace. From WP:NFC "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." - That also rules out publishing entire e-mails on-wiki, and without publishing the entire e-mail, there is no way that a substantially edited and refactored e-mail could be considered reliable. Nick (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for the response and the direct to the policy GUIDLINE. I see a number of problems with your statement though:

1. It is absolutely clear that this policy GUIDLINErelates to article creation and never contemplated RfA's or other such things. This alone is sufficient in my mind to question whether it enjoys consensus for application here. But for the moment I will stipulate to that. However there are more weaknesses.
2. The article Namespace restriction appears to be related to images and is subject to exemptions. (The mention of images is repetitious, but there is no mention of text) Furthermore, the exemptions describe other pages besides the Namespace where these things may appear and this is reasonable because otherwise, we would not be able to discuss the use of such things on talk pages (for example). As a result, (and combined with #1 above) I think that this location restriction you describe does not really apply.
3. The "extensive" quoting passage is also somewhat in conflict with "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice" and the term "extensive" is subject to interpretation and is modified by the IF clause I just quoted. Would a portion suffice better than the whole email? I think not, but notice. My proposal was to quote just relevant sections and I was told that was not right either. So though you are addressing the posting of the whole email, I am referring to quoting passages.

Finally, that a refactored or partially quoted email is unreliable is a matter for the community to decide upon reading the post. It is not the issue here. However, if Elonka (or whoever) felt that they were abused they could deny the email, quote portions themselves or publish the whole thing. The community could, as it does, make its decision. I happen to believe that if the email were here in its full form, it would probably vindicate Elonka. But I have not seen it.

Frankly I much prefer a system of open posting and response to one where a person says on an RfA page: "I have an email showing XXX to be abusive. Request a copy and I will forward it to you", which would certainly not violate any copyright policy but it would actively encourage private secret backbiting without good recourse for the accused. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to see private correspondence published for any given RfA, I think you will need to write up a policy which exempts RfA specifically by name from the above Non Free Content policies. It's true that they were probably never intended to cover off-wiki communication being quoted on-wiki, especially on such pages as RfA, but so long as there is no exception clause, it is prudent to follow these policies until such time as a new policy specifically permiting the publishing of e-mails and which is in line with the necessary sections of Non Free Content as it relates to Fair Use Doctrine is created and agreed upon. There is also copyright and other legal problems involved with forwarding on e-mails away from the intended recipient, violation of privacy and such. I wouldn't recommend any user goes around forwarding e-mails around. Nick (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is presently no policy forbidding such posting on talk pages for RfA. If you wanted to ban the use of emails from pages such as RfA, you would need to pass a POLICY (not just a GUIDELINE) that restricted not only images (as the current policy GUIDLINE describes) but also text. Incidentally, I wonder, if I do a screen shot of an email and convert it to a picture and then upload the picture as GFDL, if it would be ok. This is not just a mind game by the way. It is a serious question because that very scenario has been presented by individuals who oppose various international copyright laws against DeCSS and who have suggested exactly that solution as a way around the problem. There is actually a professor at a college who has posted DeCSS on a website in something like 30 different ways -- many as original "Art" and openly challenged all and any legal authorities and copyright holders to do anything about it. So far, nothing.

But, I would also say, that if the wikipedia community seriously wants such issues to be handled by private correspondence between editors -- "I have a bad email from XXX, write me so I can show it to you", then so be it. But that is a seriously bad solution. It is, however, the solution that is left if your view of policy prevails. --Blue Tie (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Tie, where you say that it is to the community to decide if a post of a refactored or partially quoted email is unreliable - decide based on what? a gut feeling? general impressions? The only further criteria for decision lead to a demand for the author of the email to disclose more contents, a perfect recipe for gaming. In the specific case of this RFA, Dreamguy can simply Oppose stating "I have received questionable private communication from this candidate" and let the statement stand or fall. If the perceived abuse is serious, it should be forwarded to ArbCom through private channels and they can intervene as necessary. Taking parts (or all) of a private communication out of context can easily lead to misinterpretation, thus not Fair Use.

That said, if you can represent the email as a large prime number, maybe you can advance the Art of mathematics. But now you crash on the rock of OR :) Franamax (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) They may decide based upon any criteria that they wish. Just as they do now for RfA. If there is a call for the person to disclose more of the email, I have no problem with posting the whole thing, headers and all. But if that does not fly he can say "Ask me and I will email it to you". Dreamguy could do exactly as you suggest. Or DreamGuy could do more. And more would be appropriate. I share your concerns about taking parts out of context, but if that is what the aggrieved party says, then they can authorize the full email to be displayed. By the way, OR does not apply to comments. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response doesn't seem to lead to any other action than full disclosure of the email in question, so I guess I would answer: QED

You are correct about OR on talk pages, I believe the professor you cite was expressing novel discovery of prime numbers that just happen to also represent copyright violations, I've just never seen them yet on wiki talk pages. However, now the RFA has closed, I think this is all a load of 1997653124734563721 and a big 17 besides! Franamax (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really resolved

So I've just been written off as a liar and people gave up on having Elonka confirm or deny the message and that's supposed to be "resolved" and nobody can talk about it anymore? How convenient.

As far as Durova above questioning my motives and timing, when else would be an appropriate time? When it happened I just resolved to ignore her and stopped even looking at her Google Talk messages when they came in. I don't think ArbCom or WMF (and I'm not even sure what that is... how do admins expect non-admins to follow all the acronyms and various separate pages to try to get anything resolved?) would have had enough to do anything with it, but now that she is running for admin yet again I think it goes to prove that she still hasn't gotten over old conflicts, which seems to be a regular reason for denying her admin status. If she hadn't run again -- or if she had waited for some future point when maybe I could believe she'd act differently -- I wouldn't have had a reason to bring it up. I don't want her blocked or whatever, I just think she's not got what it takes to be an admin, so when other time would it had made sense to bring up?

More so than proving Elonka unsuited for becoming an admin, more than anything I think it shows that some of those who already are admins don't seem to think the normal rules of behavior at Wikipedia -- allowing people to discuss issues, assuming good faith, etc -- do not apply to them. That seems to be a chronic problem, when there is no methods in place to ensure that admins follows policies once they become admins. And that's all the more reason to be extra cautious in giving the power to those who we have reason to believe would abuse it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What else is there to say? You've stated that she has been incivil to you which is enough reason to oppose, but you will not be allowed to put any private material on wiki - there's not much else to discuss. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but whether the message can be posted here or not it doesn't change the fact that I have been written off as a liar by those who wish to ignore evidence of extremely incivil behavior unbecoming of someone who wishes to be an admin. There's also that she was still pursuing a personal agenda against me (saying she had a list of sockpuppets of mine she could contribute, which weeks before the Googletalk message making the threat the admins in ANI had determined was groundless and removed her tags of sockpuppets) despite her saying that she doesn't carry grudges. Certain support for the statement in general can still come in from other sources, and Elonka can still respond. Don't you think she SHOULD respond? Don't you think that would help judge the veracity of the complaint, not to mention how she would handle conflict as an admin? If you think that it's proper for admins who voted to make her an admin can just declare the topic closed to prevent further discussion and continue to insist that the only issue is whether the message can be posted or not then you've missed the whole point. The section I created was never intended to be a section on whether a message can be posted or not, which, if it were you'd be justified in locking. It was a section to discuss her poor behavior. And if, as discussed above, the current ban on posting private messages is for copyright reasons only, then small excerpts or a description of the contents certainly can be posted here under the Fair Use clause about "review and comment." DreamGuy (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even people running for public office aren't required to respond to every allegation, every complaint, every slight, and Elonka shouldn't have to be subjected to this constant referencing to off-Wiki logs, messages, whatever. Nobody called you a liar that I could see- you ASSUME that is the case, but not to take note of this off-Wiki evidence is just not taking note of it, plain and simple. Monsieurdl (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the above the comments? If you can say that nobody literally called me a liar I can play the game that I never said they said it literally but that I had been written off as such. As far as "constant referencing to off-Wiki logs, messages, whatever", are you serious? As far as I can tell this was the only such instance brought up. And of course she's not required to respond, but you'd think she'd want to, or that people who care about the quality of admins would want her to as well. This is supposed to be about how she'd handle herself, not about how people who already voted for her can handle things for her, isn't it? Durova had said he was trying to get her to respond, so why are you so insistent that she not? This all goes to finding out whether she'd be qualified for the position you want her in, and the behavior I've seen shows that some people care more that they want her in an not whether she is actually suited for it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anyone calling you a "liar" here, not at all, nor do I see anyone "ignoring evidence", nor do I see "censorship" (as the nameless editor stated). All I see right now is an editor with a major, long-term grudge against an admin candidate, doing their best to post unsubstantiated messages in a bid to derail their adminship request. When people call them on it, they resort to using emotive terms and claim suppression by an élite bunch of Elonka-Lackeys™. Did I miss anything here? - Alison ^❤ 19:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you just called him a liar, and I'm not even on his side. No disrespect intended. --- tqbf 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call him a liar, absolutely not. I pointed out that the messages are unsubstantiated, as indeed, they are. We have no way of proving whether they came from Elonka or not, thus they don't really serve much purpose here - Alison ^❤ 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I never had a long term grudge against Elonka, she's the one who kept inserting herself into my edits here. All of my reactions to her in the past couple of years have been a result of her making false accusations (sockpuppeting, etc.) against me or in voting on RfAs. And I am not talking about Elonka-Lackeys or anything, but, gez, the people insinuating that I am liar and demanding the section be locked are all people who voted for her... do you not know about standards of conflict of interest, or what here? And your comments certainly do not show an understanding of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and a number of other policies you are supposed to know to edit here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you have sock-puppeted, as per the SSP from less than two months ago. Anytime anyone asked you about it, you kept evading until the matter grew stale. As for conflict of interest, your editing in web connections in the Jack the Ripper article to a website you administer seems like more of a CoI to me. For someone under behavioral restrictions, you don't seem to be learning a great deal from them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no I haven't. That's just your continuing false accusation, as backed up by multiple admins. You can't pretend that repeating the same lie over and over makes it a fact. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really, so you've never edited from 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? - I've a standing bet that you will never admit to it. so far, I've been able to keep my money. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I once again get to keep my money. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds alot like "When did you stop beating your wife" type stuff. How do you know it was elonka that sent you "that" email? I personally don't believe one dam thing on the web, but thats me. Unless you have 5 x 8 color glossies of Elonka sitting at a computer typing "that" email, I wouldn't believe it. It seems like WAY to much time has been spent on this, anyways, --Tom 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is directed at me (hard to tell, as it talks about email, when I've maid clear above that it was Googletalk message that got backed up via email), Elonka and I had conversed over Googletalk on multiple occasions. She approached me to try to get my endorsement for her last RfA and acted like she wanted to smooth things over and then did use it as part of her public rationale for why she thought she should succeed at that RfA when the previous one failed. I communicated with her both over prior emails and many Google Talk messages, discussed when she'd be in town giving a lecture, recommended a place to gamble nearby while she was visited, had her suggest we work together on some deletion votes (typically over malls in Australia, with us voting at the same time), and so forth and so on. The Google talk messages also came from her authentic publicly known email address, as authenticated by Googletalk. To suggest that I had been duped by someone impersonating her (or, as others do, that I made this whole thing up), is just not at all reasonable considering the circumstances. The point here is that right before she put her second RfA up she acted like she wanted to put the past behind us and work together, and then she communicated with me often, and then later totally blew up because I had mentioned (not as an attack on her, but as proof that people can be told not to post to individual's talk pages and that continuing to do so after that can be harassment for which people have been disciplined) that she had been banned years ago, a fact which she freaked out about and started swearing up a storm and making more false threats about sockpuppet allegations which admins on ANI had already resolved and shown to be false. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the possibility of uncivil comments DreamGuy, and I would have not stated it the way Alison did, but she is right- you can't force anyone to accept unsubstantiated material as gospel. I would never insinuate that you are lying based upon what you have said here; that would not be right. However, I can't see the value of debating unsubstantiated claims or having Elonka respond to them. Monsieurdl (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Honestly, I'm not seeing anyone insinuating that you're a liar here. I'm not overly pushed as to whether the alleged messages are posted here or not but as long as they're not verified as having come from the candidate, they're of little use other than of hearsay value. If Elonka wants to 'fess up about them, fine - but right now my AGF is getting stretched by your persistence in wanting to reveal them here. I've seen them in the deleted page and, to be honest, the whole matter looks rather childish and petty from here, regardless of what happened and who-did-what-to-whom - Alison ^❤ 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for sounding rude here, or insinuating that you were lying in an way. That wasn't my intent here. I know you're being sincere in what you are saying and in what you believe - Alison ^❤ 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, diffs are very useful in this type of discussion. At the start of this thread you say As far as Durova above questioning my motives and timing...[2] Actually my specific words were I offer no speculation regarding your motives, but you are unable to verify this onsite within the boundaries of site policy.[3] I don't think there's anything wrong with what I wrote there, but if there is please point it out to me and I'll strikethrough as appropriate. In return I'd appreciate if you retract those words of yours I quote here. Thank you. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dreamguy, in regards to your e-mail to me, I apologize for archiving the above section, but the whole thing seemed to be going nowhere. In regards to posting excerpts from Elonka's emails, as you suggested should be fine under fair use, it seems that was only ever allowed under User:!!'s evidence of the harassing cyberstalking list email about him. If someone wants to undo my archiving above I'm certainly not going to redo it. Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good... "unresolving" then. I would appreciate Elonka’s response on this issue. As the way she handles her problems with Dreamguy previously, gave me enough reason to oppose last time. I’m seriously considering supporting now, but I would like this item to be removed from my reasons to hesitate. --Van helsing (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate thing about having deleted the chat discussion Dreamguy posted is that people can't see it really wasn't that bad. It was a woman responding with extreme frustration because Dreamguy mentioned her name in a negative context yet again — months after he and Elonka had agreed to put their disputes behind them, in the hope that he'd stop focusing on her. I don't know any of the details of what Elonka has been through, or how one thing triggered another. All I know is that I've seen a succession of male editors become almost fascinated by her, so that she's had a steady stream of them follow her around for a long time, appearing to be baiting her. If she has sometimes responded by typing some curse words in upper-case letters offwiki, good for her for being so restrained. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Male editors"?! Wow, this is the first time I may actually be offended at Wikipedia. What's the "male" part have to do with anything? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OHHH SNAP! things are really taking another turn now. Are you saying that the opposers are mainly frustrated male editors? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think SlimVirgin was (perhaps artlessly) referring to a well-known phenomenon: when a female editor takes a strong stand and becomes incivil, she gets a lot of heat about it from (almost exclusively male) editors. When a male editor does the same thing, he gets only a fraction of the criticism. When there is something allegedly hidden about the female's behaviour, certain people (again, almost exclusively male) will become semi-obsessed with finding out the hidden information. Perhaps there is some subconscious association with disrobing and Taming the Shrew; I don't know. Anyway, I've seen this happen over and over again. Because of SlimVirgin's well-publicized and intricately-researched exposés on attack sites, she is more sensitive to the issue than most.

As to the substance of what SlimVirgin was saying, I too read the chat log that was posted here (since I'm an admin and it has not yet been oversighted). Elonka was clearly upset and angry, and voiced this in unambiguous terms. She cussed (oooh!), and she used all caps in parts (poor form!), but she didn't make any threats or personal attacks. If anything, it indicates to me that she can get sputtering mad at someone and not let it goad her into doing anything inappropriate on-wiki. And I think that speaks well of her. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin's remarks here are just bloody ridiculous. For one thing, to even suggest that this has anything to do with male editors becoming obsessed with Elonka is ridiculous. My mention of Elonka being banned was not an attack on her but an example of which I was clearly familiar that people can be blocked for talk page harassment, which was what the RFC in question was debating (people were claiming the idea was absurd). I for years have been trying to ignore Elonka as someone I don't care to have any interaction with. The only times I respond to her is when she makes false accusations against me somewhere (years after our conflict she is still bringing up the past on ANI) so I defend myself, or when she's up for ANI and I point our my opinion that she is not qualified. As a matter of fact, if anything, it's Elonka who is obsessed with me. She tracked down my real name, email and address based upon sorting through various comments I had made here and there about myself on varios talk pages, and when she was in town visiting she asked if we could meet and so forth and so on. I don't know how many times and how many ways that her constantly tracking of my movements years after our original conflict (where she was permanently banned for harassing me, I might add, though it was later overturned as too harsh and set to time served, basically, though all she got out of it was that she thinks she was totally justified in the harassment) and contacting me was unwanted. This whole time it's been me trying to ignore her and then her jumping back in again months later. Last July I finally just decided to halfheartedly patch things up and go vote on some things when she asked me too, figuring it might be the only way to get her to leave me alone. But then it looked like the whole thing was merely an attempt for her to fake some resolution so she could claim it was over with when the RfA came up shortly after... once that was over it was back to the same old Elonka. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to a number of things. As Quadell says, it's pretty well-known that women editors who assert themselves are often seen as too aggressive, while male editors doing exactly the same things aren't focused on to nearly the same extent. But I was also pointing to something else I've noticed -- related but not entirely the same -- which is that, once a woman editor becomes the focus of attention (for reasons that might have nothing to do with her being a woman), the nature of the attention becomes extremely intense and obsessive. She can be followed around by the same small group for months -- in my own case it has been two years now -- who watch every tiny thing she does, and who try to goad her into responding poorly. A similar thing happens to male editors too, but it tends to be much lower key and it stops much sooner. But some women editors seem to inspire feelings that almost amount to fascination in some editors that can't be explained by the onwiki interactions alone. I don't profess to know the causes, except that the same phenomena are seen in real life -- in the workplace, for example -- so we should expect to see it here too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Elonka is an unusually... engaging? editor --- the only one on WP so far that took the time to track me down off-wiki. I think this is a good thing, but it could also be why she gets so much attention. She is clearly not trying to be left alone. --- tqbf 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh c'mon. -- tariqabjotu 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I don't think anyone has addressed that this alleged conversation is dated August 16 - four months ago, and right after her highly stressful last RfA. That DreamGuy is publicizing an old, private, and actually quite mild bit of controversy from months ago right during the last few days of her RfA just seems like a petty attempt at vengeance. --krimpet⟲ 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that he decided to hold onto something that long speaks a bit to that 'grudge' thing that has come up about DreamGuy before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud people. Her RFA came up, I voted, I gave my rationale, her abusive nature and holding of long grudges and continuing false accusations after admins cleared it all up long ago was my reason for voting no, people asked for proof, apparently G-Mail automatically archives all Google Talk conversations to an archive section so you don't ever even see it in the New Mail to know to delete it, and there it was. This is not a petty attempt at vengeance, or even holding onto an email as a grudge, but then I guess people who want to make personal attacks will go ahead and do so no matter what. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I haven't bothered to try to see the substance of the deleted communication, the posting of it was in response to the "put up or shut up" tactics employed by people responding to nearly every oppose !vote in every RFA. Not to try to overhaul the system, it's just the way it works. But to pound the guy for "putting up" after being queried is unfair. The glaring problem I see is that the nominee did not forthrightly disavow any such communication. Of course it could be faked, and a denial could be false, but if we WP:AGF, we cannot assume that the communication was faked, and there is no denial as far as I can tell. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged attack page

"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)[reply]

You have a link for that attack page? Or diffs of evidence being scrubbed? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, please. Can we do something about allegations like this? What is even the deleted link? Lawrence Cohen 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Ok. I do not know that it was these in particular, these could just have easily been a list of sources. They are simply examples of the type of activity I described: [1] [2] There have been several iterations of the 'work' pages. Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka. This was it; deleted at the time of the last RFA. This was it. Yours, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{db-owner}}, 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)[reply]

Like I said, take it or leave it. Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too would leave it, considering the edit which earned him a warning from an admin. [4] and this one [5], which pretty clearly indicate a running dispute with Elonka. Horologium (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Durova^Charge! 23:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you suggesting that an absence of known useful contributions constitutes an excuse for destructive ones? That's a curious proposition. Durova^Charge! 02:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Well, well, well. WJBscribe had a hand in deleting that page, that's not a surprise. Mindraker (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm confused by what we're talking about here. "Months after he and Elonka had agreed..." etc? This is a bit of a muddle, and it may have been stated above but...

• Where did DG and Elonka shake hands and agree? Can I have a diff or something, please.
• If they are meant to have buried the hatchet prior to 23:39, 23 July 2007 does this page mean anything nefarious?

I'm not clear enough on what it is that's being claimed to make any value judgement on it yet, but I'm dissapointed that we attack the messenger so often. Regardless of who makes a claim, we should examine it. Bad information reveals itself quickly enough without "bad hand" aspersions clouding the issue.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Durova^Charge! 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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? Durova^Charge! 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"* Where did DG and Elonka shake hands and agree? Can I have a diff or something, please."

• I'm not looking for it. See the last time they dragged each other to the Noticeboard. It was addressed there.

"* If they are meant to have buried the hatchet prior to 23:39, 23 July 2007 does this page mean anything nefarious?"

• Not necessarily, no. It's simply that to document someone's 'suspected' movements is not leaving them alone and staying away from them, is it?

I'm simply a casual observer with poor impulse control. I have no axe to grind. I think Wikipedia is an amazing project and Elonka an incredibly intelligent and prolific contributor. On the other hand, I believe her goal of achieving adminship to be at least as much ego-driven as love-for-wiki-driven. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're right. I've done some strikethroughs. Thank you. Durova^Charge! 05:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

If you think someone will not use the tools well, it's certainly allowed to say so during an RFA discusson. In fact, I'd go a step further and say it's downright encouraged to say so. This notion that "criticism is mean and therefore bad" is about the stupidest idea I've ever seen circulating around Wikipedia. When we get unsuitable candidates, people are going to say so. What else would you have them do? Friday (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is the time and place for people to voice their concerns. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [6]. 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)[reply]

1. Oppose Admins are looked to resolve conflicts, something Elonka's history shows the exact opposite of. Last rfa did not suceede 3.5 months ago- why the rush for another? Sethie (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, 3.5 months between nominations is a decent amount of time, and there is no rush: in my nomination statement I mentioned that there has been a good amount of time between RfAs. I myself ran for adminship a (successful) second time a day under three months after my first one didn't pass. Acalamari 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per my discussion in the "Neutral" section. Mr Which^??? 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)--Switching to support, as I will most definitely not be a party to sinking a candidate against whom bad-faith canvassing is being targeted. Mr Which^??? 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you please point me to what you are considering bad-faith canvassing? -- tariqabjotu 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   He means this, based on this WP:BN post. --- tqbf —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If he is actually talking about that, I'd have to say that I'm rather disappointed that MrWhich changed his position based solely on that. That is not in any way "bad-faith canvassing" and I frown upon the statement's characterization by those at WP:BN. -- tariqabjotu 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I was, in fact, talking about exactly that. Posting a notice that an editor is standing for an RfA at an article talkpage is the definition of bad-faith canvassing, especially when there's a high likelihood that there are editors at that talkpage who will oppose simply based on content disputes. You can be "rather disappointed" and "frown upon" whatever you want. The canvassing is what it is. Mr Which^??? 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   "Posting a notice that an editor is standing for an RfA at an article talkpage is the definition of bad-faith canvassing..." No, it's not. The definition of canvassing is as follows:

   Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive.

   That's not what PHG was doing. He wasn't contacting multiple editors on their talk pages. He posted a rather neutral notice on the talk page of the article. And, because it seems many do not seem to know this, although multiple opponents have noted Elonka's conduct on Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, few of them have actually been involved in it. In regards to the content dispute, more people appear to stand by Elonka's position(s) than PHG's. -- tariqabjotu 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It is far from neutal to post a reference to an RfA on the talkpage on an article where the candidate has been involved in heated discussion. That said, I'm not sure that PHG would have been aware that his doing so was wrong. WjBscribe 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (ec to tariq) You have every right to oppose this candidate, based upon whatever you want to base it upon. As for me, I looked at PHG's canvassing (he effectively contacted several editors at once by posting to an article talk page) as something I didn't want to contribute to, even tangentially. Thus I switched to support. As for the block of PHG, I think it should be overturned, as long as he swears off this type of canvassing activity. Mr Which^??? 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, PHG was unblocked by Jehochman. Acalamari 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   MrWhich has indeed augmented the drama with his neutral/oppose/support dance, but is there any need to discuss this any further? he has every right to change his vote, it doesn't matter why. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indenting) I originally considered making this a subsection of "Canvassing" because this was more about what constitutes canvassing than MrWhich's vote. I'm mostly finished with this discussion, but I'm afraid that the accusations of canvassing will be overstated to the point where they play too great a role in how the bureaucrats see this RfA. Given recent comments by WJBscribe and Taxman, however, I think they have things in perspective. -- tariqabjotu 00:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether canvasing is going on or not- isn't it a bit extreme to change your vote from oppose to support- just because you suspect canvasing? If that is the reason you're voting support- please clearly indicate that in your vote! Sethie (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrWhich clearly indicated in his support to why he switched from oppose to support, and no, it's not extreme to change from oppose to support because of the reasons of other opposers. Acalamari 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand how becoming conscious (of possible canvasing) could possibly lead one to the conclusion, "Yes, she would make a good admin?" It's not a vote for Elonka, it's a vote against (alledged) canvasing! Sethie (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored my support comment, as well as adding an explanatory note of sorts to explain my thinking. My oppose was a weak one to begin with, and the canvassing (which I despise), combined with a firm denial by Elonka in her response to my "neutral" also played a role in my switching. A last note (to Yamanbaiia): I don't appreciate being accused of "augmenting the drama" for simply doing my best to give due consideration to my eventual position. It was not a "dance" as you accuse me of, but a measured consideration. My only regret is that I switched from "neutral" to "oppose" before noticing both the canvassing and before Elonka posted her denial. Mr Which^??? 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would never accuse anyone of dancing, I would merely clap my hands as they danced.

I do however love that you have now twice used the word "refactor." I don't clap hands for "refactoring." Sethie (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the portion about someone accusing me of conducting a "dance" between sections, and "augmenting the drama" was not meant to be directed to you. Again, I have "refactored" to reflect that fact. ;) Mr Which^??? 01:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still augmenting the drama. Editing a closed RFA? and, like Sethie said, after seeing that someone left one comment at a talk page conclude that Elonka would be a good admin? All you should have said is "i changed my mind because X REASON, so what?" This wasn't a dance? making a huge deal of your neutral with the whole "you've got until 22:00 east time" or whatever, then a huge deal of your oppose and now you ended up supporting 1 hour before closure. This RFA has ended, and with all your arguments, MrWhich, i almost thought about withdrawing my vote, but then you switched to support and called your oppose a "weak one", making me doubt of my own sanity. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my- I didn't notice that he edited it after it was closed! Now I think we need to redo the whole RfA- especially since I was in the process of replying to his after closure edit- when I noticed it was closed- and stopped. My comment could have swayed the whole thing. Where do I report this? :) Sethie (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a full report here. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea... however, I have already filed one here: [[7]] Sethie (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can someone explain how a 74% vote can be considered as a "consensus" on Wikipedia, especially amid so much controversy around Elonka? Either the word consensus is being stripped of its real meaning on Wikipedia, or the bureaucrat who took the decision is taking too much liberties. Did the bureaucrat in question explain his decision in anyway? Can this decision be challenged? Thank you for your comments. PHG (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please address your queries to the bureaucrats, who are always happy to explain their decisions. To be assured of attention, either address the closing bureaucrat on his talk page or, in the case of a query (like this one) of more general interest, use the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. --Tony Sidaway 14:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there is also an ongoing discussion on this matter at:

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Questions about Elonka's RfA

--Tony Sidaway 14:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]