This is an archive of past discussions with User:Elonka. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sorry that I'm late in saying this, but congratulations. You know that I would have supported you in this nomination as well, if I had known about it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Oh no, Elonka's an admin! [Screams in terror!]" Congratulations, and I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to support you, but I'm glad to see that it was successful anyway! Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)18:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats from me as well. I must admit I did oppose your Rfa, but I am fully confident in your abilities, and am quite pleased your Rfa passed. Enjoy the new tools, don't let the vandals get to you, and if you ever need anything, I always have time for a fellow admin! Now... get back to work! :) Jmlk1702:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Darn it, I missed the show. Very glad of the outcome though :) While I'm here I'll take the opportunity to wish you a Happy festive time.--Alfmelmac07:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Becoming an Administrator did not change your intimidation methods apparently! The AfD was on "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem", which was indeed voted down. The new title is "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)", which is not at all POV. Many authors to describe Mongol raids on Jerusalem. The article as such is totally justified (subject, size, content), and is usefull to deflate the size of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. PHG (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, you are the one who actually proposed "Ameno-Mongol alliance"... and now you say you are against it and criticize me for starting the article? (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article split). You even wrote "I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Title) That's pure nonsense. I am asking you to apologize for your bullying. PHG (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hatchets
Elonka, I just wanted to reiterate that I am not holding a grudge here, and don't think there is a hatchet between us. I trust that you feel the same way, and believe you would tell me if it were otherwise. All the best, Kafka Liz (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
RfC closings?
Hi, Elonka! I saw your comment on an RfC and I wondered how/when they get closed? Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluemarine was started in September - how does one know when to close it and come to resolution? I'm only interested because a user (who has not taken part in the RfC) complained about the user's "interesting take on consensus-building" and another user mentioned the RfC. Thanks for your help - I'm still wet behind the ears with this mop, so I'm not very confident in how to use it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.
But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.
I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.
But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.
Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all.
Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.
I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.
Larry Pieniazek
NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Really?
Is this true? To my knowledge, it is not. Whose copyright are you saying may be violated? The book manufacturer? But they didn't create the picture - they got it from someone else. I'll concede I'm not a copyvio expert though so I'm curious if I'm missing something. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sounds like you might be on to something. Perhaps one or more of the images should be brought through the Commons deletion process. Also, if the issues with PHG are really bad here, it may be time for an WP:RFC. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion while looking for something else, and my opinion is that this depends on whether it was a scan or a photograph, with cavets for how old manuscripts are "scanned". The Commons bit says:
"There have been no decided cases in the UK which directly bear on this issue, but most British academic writers agree that the UK courts probably would grant copyright to a carefully lit and exposed photograph, taken from a distance, which aims to be a faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art. The level of originality required by the UK courts is low, and there will very probably be sufficient originality in the photographer's selection of lighting arrangements, exposure, filters and so on for a new copyright to be generated. Of course, a simple scan or photocopy of a PD illustration in an old book is OK, as purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright."
The important bit is the last sentence: "Of course, a simple scan or photocopy of a PD illustration in an old book is OK, as purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright." I may be wrong, but the "from a distance" bit to be seems to apply to photographs from a distance of a painting hanging on a wall, not to a camera held over a manuscript and used to take a photo. In any case, for old manuscripts, the image capture process invariably involves fixed camera set-ups to faithfully reproduce the pages of the book, which is essentially the same set-up regardless of who is doing the photograph (ie. minimal originality). For obvious reasons, brittle manuscripts are not stuck in a normal scanner (at least not without a great deal of preparation). The amount of work involved in faithfully reproducing an old manuscript might be a lot, but the amount of originality is minimal. Similar examples from the Rashid al-Din book are: Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg and Image:Muammad-as-youth-meeting-monk-bahira-compendium-persia-1315-edin-550.jpg. Carcharoth (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the book by Jackson was inded published in the UK, but you will notice however that the picture was taken in France (Bibliotheque Nationale) by a German company (AKG-Images), which makes it dependent on French copyright laws. France is listed as "Inconclusive" regarding PD-Art (it is not "generally considered to be protected by copyright" for faithfull reproductions of ancient paintings), thereby allowing the PD-Art usage per Wikipedia [1]. In any case "purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright" as per the same page, and as per Carcharoth above, that definition should legitimately apply to un-creative photos of old manuscripts. PHG (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Jerusalem
I once read that Wikipedia is not about what is true or not, but about what published authoritative sources write or not about a given subject. Your comment that the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300 is not true doesn't make much sense in that context. The statement about the capture of Jerusalem is backed up by multiple reputable sources which I know of (starting with Alain Demurger), although I agree there are also opinions to the contrary. This is just a matter of presenting the various scholarly opinions on the subject. PHG (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Elonka, thanks for your message. I am sure you will do well as an admin, and I wish you lots of happiness for the new year. Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have time I would like a 3rd party opinion on the page:[2]
the "Independence movement" section. The current version verses my last version (trying to achieve census of NPOV). You will also find a lively arguments on the talk page. Best,--Duchamps_comb MFA06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. I suspect you'll prolly oppose, but I hope at least you will read the proposal and the reasoning. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Possibly with a bot, though I'd need to know the specifics to say for sure either way. Javascript I'm fairly profoundly ignorant of, though I have toyed with learning some for purposes of another project. Alai (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That looks doable, but likely somewhat convoluted, given the rather disparate nature of the information being collated. Probably the WP API is the best way to handle it: I'd have to check up on that, though. I'll try to comment in detail soonish, but it'll likely be no sooner than Monday. If you need technical input on a speedy basis, it might be a plan to drop a note at the bot requests page. Alai (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm passing this case over to ArbCom. I know you had a go at trying to sort things with the Matt Sanchez article, so you might want to comment on whether they should accept or reject the case. WjBscribe04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA
Belated congratulations (I'm partially off-Wiki at the moment in the Land Beyond Broadband and editing here is a serious pain over a dialup link, so I'm not on as much as I'd like to be!) My only concern with your RfA was that you seem to be spreading yourself a bit thin with all your other commitments but hey - if you think you can find the time, go for it! Plus as they say, being an admin is not That Big Of A Deal - nothing says you have to get the broom out of the cupboard every time you log on ☺ TonywaltonTalk10:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome for the support. I have seen you on TV and I was very intrigued by your expertise. That did not affect my vote, but I am so pleased that such a distinguished and interesting person is an editor on wikipedia. I also think you will be a good admin. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Belated congrats
I just found out you're an admin now. :) Third's the charm! Well, here are my belated congrats. If I'd known at the time I'd have supported you. Aw well. Congrats again and good luck with admin school! ;) Cheers Raystorm(¿Sí?)15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you remember me (posted on your page, months ago) - Congrats on becoming an Administrator, Elonka. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your Adminship! It is about time.
You may remember me, the one who gave you your very first Barnstar.
I also supported you in a number of controversies during which you were unfairly mistreated. I am very glad you have finally come out ahead.
I have never asked you for your help on anything, but I should like to now. There is a very good, new article: Liite Buddhism. I have relatives entrapped in this organization, so I take a special interest in it.
It needs Wikifying and he usual polishing new articles require. I myself have made a few minor changes.
Can you make sure that this article is not deleted, that it survives, and gets the normal Wikifying and proofreading? I am worried that Sethie will delete it as he says he will, despite the 26 references with verifiable links.
Thank you very much and once again I am delighted to congratulate you on the adminship you have so long deserved!
Good; now you're in a position to make up for the large proportion of admins who slip through that silly RfA process and turn out to want to use their position for petty ends. Congrats. Tony(talk)11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I read your message
Surely you realize the editor is deliberately being obtuse? In any event, if you all feel the need to bend over backwards to an editor who has abused virtually the entire community, feel free. I just happened to have their page watchlisted, but have no desire to become embroiled in that particular nest of snakes. Jeffpw (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't often say that much in the way of witty, wise or pithy things, but when I do, i thought it helpful (for myself at least) to note them. I am always impressed by folk who can write extended essays on a subject. Maybe this will help me collate my thoughts enough that I can try my hand at them at some point. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Matt Sanchez, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that is cool
Elonka, how did you get hooked up with this bot to notify you of that? You weren't the original author (I'm curious for my own articles I frequent, is why I ask). Lawrence Cohen00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea. I definitely didn't create the article, though I've done some major rewrites of it over the last year. I'm not sure if it was using AI to figure out "major contributors", or if it just took a manually-created list? --Elonka00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I'd check myself but I'm a bit busy at the moment. BTW, if it hasn't been listed yet, you might want to list the AfD at WP:BLPN to get further input. --Elonka00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You are quite welcome Elonka you know to present your case in full at the ArbCom, like you did on my Talk page. I as has been shown dozens of times in the years I've been here, am more than willing to abide by *consensus* editing. Which, in my humble opinion, has been derailed by certain forces with agendas which are not related to improving the project. I'm sure you feel the opposite. The situation should be decided at ArbCom. You know well, that when *we* were both involved in the article, the group, albeit with various arguments, did work toward a consensus view. The problem always arises when editors in content disputes use admin powers to silence opposing viewpoints, citing policies which are perhaps skewed toward a certain goal, without regard to how this *escalates* instead of satisfies the problem. At some point I'm going to write an ethics paper about it and post it as an article, now that we have a skeleton WP ethics page, but not today. I encourage you to add your view to the Workshop and esp. the Proposals page of the ArbCom case. Wjhonson (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I put some of my evidence on the Evidence page of the ArbCom, hopefully you will read it, as I mention your name there. I *think* I was careful not to directly attack any particular person, and I certainly am not attacking you. I do point at the messages you left on my talk page, hopefully reading through those, can help ArbCom see the diametrically opposed viewpoints you and I share on publishing data gleaned from multiple sources, or however you'd characterize it. If there is anything in my comments on the Evidence page which you feel is a personal attack against any specific person, as opposed to an attack against their arguments, please let me know. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
On my talk you said we need "reliable peer-reviewed secondary sources". If you check again you will see that "peer-reviewed" is not something we require. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to comment on a few other things, you said that you were only talking about my website. I am absolutely *not* trying to bypass anything on-Wiki. My on-Wiki edits adhere quite firmly, imho, to our policies, with which I think I'm familiar. My site, which has hundreds of pages, not one, is my own research site. The fact that I have a page on Sanchez is not material to whether the site exists or not. Check for yourself that my site has reams of research on all sorts of people. As to my contribution history being Sanchez-istic, you will note, that we have an ArbCom going on right now, so certainly my contribs *recently* will be on that issue. However you will note, for the record, that I have not been involved in this article for *quite a number of months* prior to this ArbCom. It was the ArbCom itself that brought me back to the article topic. My hands are rather full with my own research, so I haven't been doing as much contributing here as I had in the past. So just to make this clear, you are in firm agreement that the transcript of the Alan Colmes show should be included in his article? *That* particular thing is the sole thing I'm interested in effecting. Wjhonson (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the message. I have to confess I translated the article blind from French wikipedia - I haven't checked against underlying sources at all. So if you could fact-check the article, that would be great; and if there's anything you think could be expanded on, or rounded out more completely, then please go ahead.
Quite a lot of the article starts to discuss art-criticism of the pictures and illustrations. Again, I have translated this blind, without being able to see the images it's discussing. So if your books go into that aspect of it, that discussion is something that could maybe particularly use a second look - and even page citations, that would be even better.
See WP:RTP. I'm not editing your meaning, I'm just removing the big pink "quotation" box that you're putting around your comments. Which, I would point out, is probably a violation of WP:SIG: "Your signature should not blink, or otherwise inconvenience or be annoying to other editors." --Elonka17:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What is an alliance? Declaration of cooperation? Actual cooperation? Recognition of mutual goals? The Franks and the Mongols had something going on thats for sure (not necessarily the last three mentioned things). Some such as myself will call it an alliance, but only for the sake of simplicity because there was more good feeling than aminosity. Others will not. Sorry, but I had to defend my point. Tourskin (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
DreamGuy
Hi, maybe I'm just getting paranoid, but have you seen this [3]? This guy coincidentally restarts up a dormant account, editing similar articles, just as our old friend receives a block. Jack1956 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. The edit summaries don't look like him, but the timing and topic areas do. I was going to say "Looks like coincidence" until I saw the talkpage messages, which I agree look like his style. It's weak linkage though, so you might want to wait and see how things develop. Or, you could file a CheckUser... Up to you! --Elonka08:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahem.
"I can't seem to get enough of writing articles and helping behind-the-scenes."
No kidding. Seems like you've been doing a little more than just "helping behind-the-scenes" I really hope it is not true that you have been mentoring Sanchez in the way it was suggested you had. Aatombomb (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Request
I would appreciate if you do not post to my talk page again. I have withdrawn myself from this Alliance affair already by the way, if you had noticed. Please honor my request now and stay away from my talk page. --Matt57(talk•contribs)01:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that I was the one that first contacted Matt57, to make sure that any comments I had made had not upset him or gone over the line [4]. Matt did not contact me out of the blue, he was replying to a question I had left on his talk page. Ealdgyth | Talk01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Howdy Elonka, this is the second time you're assuming bad faith regarding my comments concerning the disputed nature of the Franco-Mongol alliance article and the ongoing conflict that you have been involved there. It is my opinion that you are intimidating other editors away from participation, particularly those in opposition to your views. As for my involvement regarding the content, actually I have been compiling various references from scholars who actually specialize in the topic and will commence with editing the article in the very near future. If you have any further comments regarding my involvement do so in the article's talk pages. Also, if you continue assuming bad faith I will have to take this matter to ANI. Thanks.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Elonka. How are you? I was reading your biography and I noticed that there was something missing. What is your religion? And, are you a cryptographer? I am interested in Cryptography. How did you become a cryptographer? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would be willing to acquiesce to PHG's express wish to begin any dispute-resolution process from his version of the article (200k long)? I feel confident that a slimmer, more accurate version will be the result if we can force him to voluntarily abide by the process, not to hold his own dissent as refuting "consensus", and not to edit the article in the interim, there will be no way for him to argue against the resolution and nobody will be taking his side at all. But perhaps I am being optimistic. If you think that my suggested dispute-resolution process cannot work from the 200k version of the article, then I would suggest you take the allegations of ownership seriously and (since I have no idea how WP works with regards to these things) do whatever it takes to have him removed from working on this article. Here's to hoping we're not still doing this come next August! Srnec (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but if you are right, I cannot understand why putting off ArbComm is worth it: PHG will just revert your version constantly and an accuracy tag will always be there. That said, unless my proposal becomes accepted by all, I will make any improvements to the 70k version. Srnec (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Mongol Stuff
I'd rather avoid getting into a revert war, mainly because quite honestly this isn't my field of expertise. I've completely mined out my library (which is quite extensive on medieval subjects, just not anything on THIS medieval subject (I suppose i should take a picutre of it, huh?)) so I feel uncomfortable with doing any major alterations on the article any time soon. I also don't read French, so I can't do much with the French sources, leaving me further handicaped. (I almost put in a complaint about using all these French language sources in an English Wikipedia, but felt that would be wrong, and not supported by policy). The best I can do is to critique the sources that I can see, kibitz on the organization, and try to get a hold of the sources at some point. I also have some rather large Wikipedia projects of my own (i'm trying to get all the medieval bishops of England up to snuff) and am trying to get help out at Wikipedia:Equine and at GA also. I don't intend to leave the article alone, but first priority on book buying has to go to the other two projects first, honestly. And the libraries around here suck. Even the university in town has a bad history section (I've checked) so it's either Interlibrary Loan or drive an hour to the U of I in Champaign, which given the weather lately, I don't like doing. I know, this sounds like a whine, sorry. Just wanted you to understand why I'm not willing to jump into things head first. Ealdgyth | Talk15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I just sat down and ordered the following from Amazon: Tyerman's God's War and England and the Crusades, 1095-1588; Housley The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar and Contesting the Crusades; Lock's Routledge Companion to the Crusades; Richard's The Crusades, c.1071-c.1291; and Riley-Smith The Crusades: A History. Any other suggestions? They should be here Tuesday. (This was a much cheaper part of my order than the bishop stuff I ordered, OUCH! $180 for the newest edition of The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216-1377 OUCH!) Anyway, if I missed something I must have, catch me tonight so it can still go out tomorrow and get to me Tuesday. Ealdgyth | Talk02:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and started on the Crusades books not just for this whole brooohaaha, but because a number of the bishops I'm working on went on and/or died on the First and Third Crusades, so I need general overview works on them as well as the more specifically Mongol-Franco stuff. I'll go ahead and get the Jackson and the Morgan. I have Morgan's first edition, but for something like that I hate having an outdated editon. You miss too much if you're trying to argue details. Books are a passion for me, I'd rather have books than a lot of things! I'm still trying to convince the local university that JSTOR should be printable.. I think they are still flumuxed that a middle aged lady is in doing library research, it scares the little barely-out-of-teenager-hood males. Thanks for the suggestions!Ealdgyth | Talk06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Got the things I mentioned, also Mayer's The Crusades and Saunders' The History of the Mongol Conquests. This should give us a bit more diversity in sources. (Also ordered four more Anglo-Saxon Christianity books, more fun!) Hopefully this will help with sourcing and getting details worked out. The Housley and the Tyerman "England and the Crusades" should be very interesting, I'm hoping. Since I don't read French, I can't order the Grousset, unfortunately. Ealdgyth | Talk06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I am not trying to attack you about the bulls thing. I can see that that sentence is a legacy sentence. (grins) Ealdgyth | Talk03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In light of your commitment to be an “open to recall” Administrator, I hereby formally request you to resign from your position, due to a conduct which is unrespectfull of Wikipedia rules and unethical. This, on three main counts:
For a more complete set of my issues, please see User talk:PHG#Use of userspace
I still believe you are a competent editor, with high technical skills, but I am now convinced that your dogmatism, harassment patterns and lack of ethic behaviour clearly do not make you fit for the responsibilities of a Wikipedia Administrator.PHG (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I formally request that you don't put yourself up for recall in this circumstance. None of the accusations has anything to do with admin tools. If admins considered stepping down every time there was a disagreement about a content dispute we would run out quickly. (1 == 2)Until15:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
There were several admins and a 'crat involved in the dispute and not a single one of them used their admin tools in this dispute. As such, this is a dispute between editors and requesting that Elonka step down as an administrator simply doesn't make sense. While I don't believe Elonka will, I have to concur with User:Until(1 == 2) and formally request that Elonka doesn't put herself up for recall due to this issue. Justinchat17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above posts by Until(1 == 2) and Justin, Elonka: recall is for abuse of the admin tools, not disagreements over content. This is not the correct usage of the recall system, and there is no reason at all for you to step down. There has been no abuse of the tools on your part. Acalamari22:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what this has got to do with Elonka's admin powers. Seriously, Elonka is a normal content editor, and happily has continued as such. Elonka shouldn't for one second consider putting herself up for recall because of these alleged misdemeanors, and the threat of recall shouldn't be hung over her head everytime someone has a disagreement. That's just absurb. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't not see a need for a recall either. Since I joined the discussion, Elonka has never made a single admin action or a threat to use her tools in an inappropriate way. And I wasn't aware that we were swearing oaths when we edited, that perjury was a concept that applied on Wikipedia.Ealdgyth | Talk00:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this is just ridiculous. Recall is for occasions in which there are allegations of misuse of admin tools, which is certainly not the case here. The process is not intended to be nor should it be used for escalation of content disputes or obviously long-entrenched battles as it very much appears to be here. I would almost classify this as harassment. LaMenta3 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Recall is for situations relating to the person's adminship. This matter relates to a dispute which predates the granting of adminship, and the fact it continues today is only incidental to that. Admin tools weren't even involved. Therefore, the question of recall is entirely irrelevant in this case, even before one assesses any merit or otherwise in the proposal, and hence should be rejected entirely. Orderinchaos23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support everyone. And correct, I do not see PHG's request as being in good faith. He was just recently blocked (by someone else) for edit-warring and deceptive behavior at the Franco-Mongol alliance article.[7][8] As soon as the block was up (14:16), he was in here on my talkpage within a half-hour (14:47), calling for my resignation, obviously out of some desire for revenge. But I have never abused admin tools, and I obviously have no intention of abusing them in the future. Since PHG's request was not made in good faith, and had nothing to do with my use of admin tools, I agree that it should be ignored. --Elonka08:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is not about abusing administrative tools, it is about an Administrator having unethical conduct, making false claims of consensus, and making false accusations. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
