User talk:Elonka/ACE2009

Note
Elonka, if you are going to review me, please disclose our past "history". I do not think either one of us could render an objective opinion about the other. I would describe that history as "we had a personal conflict, and then I made what you considered to be an improper admin recall request." Your description might be different. If you choose to run for ArbCom, know that I will not comment on you whatsoever. For the good of Wikipedia it would be best not to re-energize past disputes. Do whatever you think is right. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to post your rebuttal here, to anything I say. I'll make sure to link to it. :) --Elonka 23:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not argue with you here, there or anywhere. I merely suggest that you provide a disclosure of the prior circumstances so that your statement is as honest as possible.  Do as you like with your page. Jehochman Talk 03:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it your opinion that my current statement is not honest? --Elonka 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your current statement is purely factual. However, it does not provide the context that you and I were involved in a serious dispute.  Thankfully that dispute seems to be history, and I'd prefer to keep it that way, so I will leave you to do whatever you think is right.  Kind regards,  Jehochman Talk 04:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

CLA68 and non-Adminship
I have just [redacted - new content edit follows] been rather harsh with another opinion giver [edit ends] for their dismissal of CLA68 for being a non-admin, and I am even more shocked that you are unfamiliar with why he is not flagged - I seem to recall you being around in the days of Mantanmoreland/Attack Sites. CLA68's situation is one of the reasons why ArbCom needs input from outside of the usual demographics, yet you would deny consideration of such a resource. Pah! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no, I am not intimately familiar with Mantanmoreland or the whole attack sites debate. Neither did I participate in Cla68's 2007 RfA.  Wikipedia is a big campus, and there are a lot of things going on at once.  Just because I may have been an editor at any particular point in time, does not mean I was following (or even necessarily aware of) some of the "disputes du jour".  Regarding my oppose of Cla68, I have multiple possible reasons that I could oppose, but the most important one for me is that I feel that arbitrators must be administrators, before they should be arbitrators. Arbitrators make decisions about what administrators should do, and in some cases ArbCom is tasked with deciding whether certain individuals should be administrators at all!  Arbitrators must understand what it means to be an administrator: They should understand how administrative tools work, should have hands-on experience with those tools, and should understand the processes of making decisions on administrative things (judging consensus, deleting articles, blocking and unblocking editors, etc.)  That's one of the reasons that I see adminship as a necessary pre-requisite.  Also, if someone cannot achieve adminship, that raises natural concerns about whether or not the community trusts them.  And yes, I do understand the concerns about whether one or more editors may use their influence to de-rail an RfA (trust me, I have firsthand knowledge of what that's like).  I have no opinion on whether this did or didn't happen at Cla68's RfA, but I do acknowledge the concerns.  However, that RfA was in 2007.  And even with a failed RfA, a candidate can still learn from these experiences.  They can listen closely to the community's concerns, try to adapt their behavior accordingly, and then try again a few months later.  That Cla68 hasn't tried another RfA, is also a concern for me.  Quite simply: If he can't manage to become an administrator, he definitely shouldn't be an arbitrator.  --Elonka 05:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, being an admin on Wikipedia is about the equivalent of being a "super user" on other types of computer-based networks. If you feel that being an admin on Wikipedia is so complex and complicated that only another admin could understand it, then I guess that's your right to believe so.  I, however, disagree.  In fact, if elected, I'm going to advocate the formation of a community-based admin review panel or committee in which at least half, if not more, of its members are non-admins.  I feel that non-admins are often in a better position to objectively examine the actions or behavior of any admins brought to their attention.  One question, why do you feel that it reflects poorly on an editor if they haven't attempted, or reattempted, to become an admin? Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no trouble with the idea of a community-based admin review panel. But I still feel that anyone who wants to be an arbitrator, needs to be an administrator first. If the first RfA fails, try again.  If the next one fails, try again.  Ultimately though, if someone can't get sufficient community support to be an admin, they've got no business being an arbitrator. --Elonka 07:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Concern.
I mentioned your concern about me here. Thanks Secret account 17:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response, if anything just email me. Thanks Secret account 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points...
I wanted to clarify a couple of points. Regarding my background, I attended Florida Atlantic University and received a bachelor’s degree in history. I am a third year law student at another university in Florida. Regarding my ability to review complex cases and make thoughtful decisions, history and law are both fields that require strong research and analytical skills. As you mentioned, I have used these skills on Wikipedia to research and write a number of articles, including a featured article. As a law student, I have reviewed real evidence, analyzed countless cases on a wide range of subjects, and drawn conclusions based on what I have learned. I am therefore confident that my time on Wikipedia, in addition to my background in history and law, would make me an asset to the Arbitration Committee. I have found your ACE page very informative. Keep up the good work. KnightLago (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry about that, I'll fix ASAP! Also, as long as you're here... Have you ever offered a statement at an ArbCom case?  Ever been a party to a mediation, or some other type of dispute resolution?  Thanks, --Elonka 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I do not recall if I offered a statement, I may have at one point, but not recently. In my time on Wikipedia I have generally focused my edits in the article development arena. This is not to say that I have avoided arbitration. The opposite is in fact true. I lurked on the committee pages for a while before becoming a Clerk. This lurking was partly due to my interest in law and governance, and partly just to see what was going on in the community. Through observing I became interested in the committee's work, learned the in and outs, and decided to take a more active role in the process. Thus, the clerking. Since becoming a Clerk I have been intimately involved in a number of complex and difficult cases, including the current Eastern European Mailing List case. I have never been a party to a case in arbitration or mediation. I have been involved in disputes before, but I was always able to work them out with the other party. As I wrote above, I am practiced in finding information, reviewing that information and drawing conclusions, and then applying those conclusions in a practical setting. These skills come not only from my background, but my time on Wikipedia as an editor, administrator, OTRS volunteer, and Clerk. Let me know if you have any more questions. KnightLago (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Intimately involved in a number of complex and difficult cases"... Intimately involved how, exactly?  Did you draft proposed decisions? Also, could you point me at a few places where you were involved in disputes, or offered an opinion in a complex matter?  It's one thing to be a diligent observer, it's another to be a decisionmaker.  Thanks, --Elonka 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By intimately involved I was referring to my work as a Clerk. The monitoring of case pages, reviewing evidence to make sure it is in compliance with the committee's requirements, interactions with parties, and other tasks. I have not drafted a proposed decision. Regarding disputes and complex matters, I would have to go back and find them. I can tell you they were minor and did not involve anything beyond article content or talking to a couple of editors regarding their dispute. They are nothing to hang my hat on, just stuff any administrator would do. I agree it is one thing to be a diligent observer, and another to be a decision maker. But due to the way Wikipedia works, and our focus on consensus decision making, there are very few true decision makers. That being said, the only thing I can do is promise to work hard, give all views and evidence fair consideration, act in an ethical and respectful manner, and do my best. That is it. KnightLago (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fewer words, more diffs please. Campaign promises are easy to make, and I don't give them a lot of weight. If you have links and diffs though, I'm happy to review them.  Thanks, --Elonka 02:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AGK
This is largely a moot point as the elections are now open and most people will have already made up their minds; but I nonetheless want to reply to what you say about my candidature, if you are okay with my doing so. (If you aren't, my message is yours to remove.)


 * User:AGK/Boastbox: Are we appointing me to write encyclopedia articles? No. We're appointing me to resolve disputes. Anyhow, the boastbox page is clearly prefaced with "By doing so, I don't claim that the page got there thanks to me". Why are you trying to make it seem that I am claiming credit for the work of another editor?
 * "Shoot first, aim later" style: Well observed. I am by instinct not somebody who likes to tolerate waffle and nonsense, and I am sometimes inclined to whack a big stick at whoever or whatever is disrupting the project. But my work at arbitration enforcement does, I think, show me to be somebody who is willing to take time to think things over. Where people disagree with how I have ruled, I've always taken a couple of days to fully re-examine my position (cf this recent example). As a person, I am 'shoot first, aim later'. As a Wikipedian, I am actually not rash at all.
 * ArbComOpenTasks: Are you seriously opposing a candidate because of this?
 * AGK does not have sufficient experience or judgment to be a good arbitrator: Thanks. I can see my years of contributions are really appreciated.

It disappoints me that you haven't noted the disagreements we had in the past by e-mail. I don't buy into the argument that those who have once argued should stay away from one another forever-after, but I do think a note that you might not be in a position to neutrally evaluate me would be in order.

For what it's worth, you have my gratitude for speaking honestly about me. I just think you've gotten a few points wrong along the way. AGK 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, here are my comments:
 * I find your page at User:AGK/Boastbox to be inappropriate, since you do seem to be claiming credit for other editors' work. In most cases around Wikipedia, when an editor puts a GA icon or FA star on their userpage, it's an indication of substantial effort on their part, not of just going in to rewrite a sentence.  If I were to list every article that I've ever made tiny tweaks to, I'd probably have a list of thousands of articles on my userpage.
 * I'm a bit confused when you say we had disagreements in email, as you seem to remembering a conversation that I'm not recalling. When was this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I have no recollection of an email conversation with you. I do have conversations with a lot of people though, so it's very possible that we did correspond, and I just forgot. If you still have any of the letters in archives, could you please forward one or two along to me (elonka@aol.com) and I'll be happy to take a look to refresh my memory?  Or maybe remind me about what it was that we were talking about? --Elonka 21:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point with the userpage icon, with regards to Paddington station. I didn't realise that I'd put an icon up for an article I had only nominated. I'll correct my mistake, and also think some more on the benchmark I have for inclusion in the boastbox page.
 * We bickered over e-mail some one year ago. I wasn't having a great time offline (we all have our rough patches, I guess?), and I think I got frustrated with you. You (obviously) didn't appreciate that, and it descended accordingly. It was not a substantial conflict, and ended with that conversation, but I always presumed that I'd be in your bad books thereafter. The e-mails were dated 25th through 28th December 2008, and were sent from my account to your g-mail one. Shall I forward you the thread? AGK 21:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

reason for changing order of candidates on vote page?
Elonka, do you know why the order of the candidates on the voting page keeps changing? What is the significance of the order? thanks. stmrlbs | talk 07:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It randomizes each time the ballot loads to avoid giving any candidate an advantage by reason of ballot placement. Steve Smith (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you for emerging from the shadows to answer my question. stmrlbs | talk 08:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not ridiculing my misspelling of "emerging". Steve Smith (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew what you meant :) Your summary "emerging from the shadows" made me think of Dowson's poem.  And your Cynara response made me smile.  stmrlbs | talk  03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)