User talk:Elonka/ACE2010

User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Per this it looks like User:HawkerTyphoon was hijacked and used as a sock by User:JarlaxleArtemis (aka Grawp). Could you please clarify this matter in your guide as the way you've presented things could be prejudicial to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry if somebody clicks the block log link. Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the facts are as they appeared, and a note has been placed in the block log disclaiming any connection between that account and Chase me. Could you remove the links from that account, because it was never held by Chase me, even though the name is the same as his former account. Jehochman ^Talk 03:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the same problem with your links to Messedrocker. That's not Harej's former account. It's a totally unrelated account with the same name. In both cases a vandal created an impersonation account to purposefully cause disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block logs aside, some of the links were useful because they showed previous RFA and RFB runs. Example:

Messedrocker (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

In any case, to avoid confusion, I'll go ahead and remove the links, even though I don't think they were that big of a deal. --El on ka 16:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to include those specific links that relate to the candidate. Example:

Messedrocker (rfas · rfb)

Thank you for removing those that could mislead the viewer. Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

If you're going to oppose Casliber over the Law/Undertow issue, you probably ought to be opposing me as well; I knew about his return as "Law" as well. I still believe that my position at the time it came out and all hell broke loose—"I think Wikipedia's banning policy is – along with its ugly sister WP:COI – completely unenforceable on a project that has anonymity as a basic principle, nor do I believe that blocking of non-disruptive users is ever desirable"—is the only correct one. The Law account was a true clean-start account, and there was no issue of a bad-hand account running alongside it, or of using the new account to settle scores from the old account's past; had he not chosen to tell people that the two accounts were linked, it would never have come out. – iridescent 2 10:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would have been in the same position as Casliber, as an arbitrator, would you have done the same thing, kept the information to yourself? Or shared it with other members of the committee? --El on ka 16:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shared with the rest of the committee, but not released it into the public domain and strongly urged the others to do likewise. We don't have the luxury of so many good quality writers that we can afford to start turning them away for technical breaches. (Law's breach was to start editing before Undertow's year-long ban had expired, not any particularly disruptive action taken by the account.) In situations like Mattisse, where she returned with the good-hand Xtzou account but also a slew of abusive socks, then yes, the correct course of action is to play whack-a-mole, but in cases like Undertow/Law and Pastor Theo/Ecoleetage there's no reason to cut off our nose to spite our face purely because someone's overly eager to help us and doesn't want to wait until they're technically permitted to do so. – iridescent 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you still have my support. My issue with Casliber was that he stayed silent to protect a friend, and though he knew of a breach, he did not inform the rest of the committee about it. In your scenario though, as long as the committee is aware of what's going on, if the committee decides as a group that they are aware of the situation and are choosing to keep the information private, then I've got no problem with that. Thanks for speaking up! --El on ka 17:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, my ears were burning. Never mind iridescent - thanks for sticking up for me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sticking down than sticking up, since I'm saying she ought to oppose me as well… As you know, I don't think you or John Vandenberg did anything improper at the time; the Law account was causing no problems at all, and given the composition of the Committee at that time, revealing his identity would have led to the account immediately being blocked to (what I consider) no benefit to anyone. – iridescent 15:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that it is one of those ethical dilemmas where one can discuss actual harm done vs the loss of trust etc. I was going to try and add something incredibly witty, perceptive or insightful...but I can't - it's too late (or early as the case may be) :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This probably isn't the place to raise the matter, but as a possible arbitrator-to-be, you had no problem with Law's unblock of CoM (some context) and the implications for arbitration enforcement if that sort of thing were universalized? This was before his prior identity was public knowledge, and although you might take the position that his admin actions were correct, it would be difficult to claim they did not needlessly incite drama. Skomorokh 15:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the circumstances of the time, no; I agree with the sentiment that "I feel that goodwill toward editors can only be furthered by waiting until decisions are reached before blocking - not blocking until the situation is under control". Wikipedia has a genuine problem with admins who take the "block them and let them argue their case via unblock templates" attitude; except in the case of a genuine vandal or serious disruption, blocking should be a last resort, not a first reaction, and that includes in the case of Arbcom enforcement. – iridescent 16:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for that. I would view the incident less in the context of "when it is appropriate to block an editor" and more "under what circumstances is it appropriate to undo another admin action". Should you be inclined to get into that, I'll ask a related question on your spillover talkpage.

Apologies to Elonka for continuing this here; please feel free to (re)move. Skomorokh 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Elonka, you know very well that personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia, nor is battlefield behavior. Please remove my name from your guide. I am not a candidate this year. There is no basis whatsoever for you to call me a disruptive editor, as you did here. I have a clear block log, no ArbCom sanctions, and am an editor in good standing. Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I have been concerned by his support of disruptive editors such as ChrisO and Jehochman." I request that you remove the attack on two editors. Although the election gives slightly greater latitude to negative statements about editors, I believe this goes one step too far. Tony (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I've removed the tendentious references to two editors, since this was causing disruption. I am sorry to go in and edit your actual wording, since I know you strongly object to that. However, this is not the place to involve non-candidates in such a way. No details supporting the underlying implications were provided; it is awkward for the editors to defend themselves in this forum; and ChrisO is no longer an active editor. Both editors deserve to be treated with good faith in a voter guide that is listed on the official election pages. You are welcome to edit the change I made, but if the negative reference to the editors is reinstated, the coordinators are likely to remove your guide from the election template. I do this unwillingly, since election coordinators should not be placed in a position of being sandwiched between competing forces; but there is no other way, as far as I can see, since we are charged with minimising disruption to the electoral process. Elonka, please take it up on the election talk page if you wish. Tony (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of diffs confirming disruption by both ChrisO (who has lost his admin access and is no longer editing Wikipedia to my knowledge), and Jehochman, who has been warned multiple times for harassment, and was insulting me on my own talkpage just a few days ago. PhilKnight did support both editors in the past. Yet when I tried to state this, my comment gets edited by another candidate, Casliber?? This just reinforces my concerns about Casliber's bias and inappropriate judgment. I will not re-add the information to my voter page, because I have no wish to get into an edit war on a subpage of my own userspace; however I will be noting that my comment was changed, and by whom. --El on ka 16:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral notice of the removal would be a fair outcome. As for putting forward evidence of disruption, as you have listed this page on the election template it is no longer just another user subpage, and voter guides are not intended to be part of the dispute resolution process. Skomorokh 16:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added notices. If there is a desire to change the wording of them, I would appreciate a comment here, rather than someone just going in and changing it. As for evidence of disruption, I have no intention of using this talkpage as a venue to discuss whether those editors were or were not disruptive. Let's please just focus on the candidates. --El on ka 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion for us all, and speaking for myself I don't have a problem with the wording. Thank you for your consideration, Skomorokh 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So

What leads you to believe that Balloonman is not an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.99.93 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]