User talk:Elonka/ACE2008

No personal attacks

Elonka, although I have recently avoided commenting on your actions for the sake of peace on the wiki, if you comment about me, I may respond. The election does not suspect Wikipedia's policy No personal attacks. On the attached userpage, you have accused me of serious, sanctionable misconduct, though you have failed pursue these claims through proper channels.

"Conduct issues"

This claim is not supported by any evidence. My block log shows no valid blocks,[1] and I have never been subject of any arbitration sanctions.

"IRC admin-shopping"

I have no idea what you are talking about.

"History of harassment"

You link to accusations, not actual diffs of harassment nor a community discussion nor an arbitration case with a finding of harassment.

"COI issues because of involvement with the SEO industry"

Because I wrote a featured article about my field of study, you claim COI? The pages you link to show that I have been interviewed, spoken about and written about Wikipedia. I think outreach helps bring in fresh volunteers and discourages marketers from spamming our pages. As an example, I recently spoke at the Web 2.0 Conference about the topic Defending Wikipedia. I wrote to User:Jimbo Wales in advance for permission, and he fully approved.

In short, you are poisoning the well and making what amount to personal attacks. I have serious doubts about your objectivity in these matters because of my prior participation in your admin conduct RFC and your admin recall. Jehochman ^Talk 11:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks here. As with anything else on Wikipedia, editors are allowed to form views, and state them in the proper venue. As for your conduct issues, a block log is not the sole measure of conduct. I have observed your behavior for more than a year now, and have found it extremely erratic. You'll say one thing in one venue, and then reverse your position and say something completely different in a different venue. I am also concerned by the way you have been obsessively following my contrib list. I can point to multiple places in your history where you were working on nothing else on Wikipedia, except popping up in Elonka-related discussions, with negative "sniping" comments. It was, quite simply, on-wiki harassment, and I was not the only person who thought so. Even Sarah, a highly respected administrator who had nominated you for adminship, told you to back off, and that "others have already spoken to you about your obsessive and inappropriate behaviour".[2] She called your actions "profoundly inappropriate", and expressed concerns that a user conduct RfC should be filed on your actions. Let me emphasize this: The person who nominated you for adminship, told you a few months ago that they might have to file an RfC on you for inappropriate conduct. And yet you decided to disregard everyone's concerns and run for ArbCom anyway? This was extremely unwise. To be clear: I feel that having you as an arbitrator would be a bad thing for Wikipedia. If you really want to help the project, please withdraw your candidacy, and please try to find other things to do with your time than tracking my every move. Thanks, --Elonka 16:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman

Regardless of official wikibreaks, he appears to be quite active. I can think of many people who are always officially active but never do anythign. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One of my concerns was over my RfC. He volunteered quite early on in the process to actively "close" it, but then didn't. I reminded him, other people reminded him, he'd say he was going to get to it, then he didn't. It was frustrating exactly because he was active on the project and doing other things, but not what he'd actually promised to do. Finally, after months, he did close it, but there were errors in the summary. I contacted him about the errors, multiple times, and he would just be evasive. He showed no interest in even knowing what mistakes were there. Other more recent communications that I have had with him have been similarly frustrating. So I see him as a candidate who (a) procrastinates; (b) says he's going to do something, and then doesn't unless frequently reminded; and (c) is reluctant to go back and review past actions. Having an arbitrator who does even one of those would be questionable. Having all three, I must oppose their candidacy. He may get points for neutrality and calm, but I also want arbitrators who have good time management skills, and are willing to re-review and improve past actions. --Elonka 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

history deep links

See User_talk:ST47/ACE_2008. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)