Talk:Stewards/Elections 2022/Coordination

Naleksuh's question

Hi folks, I've BOLDly removed Naleksuh's question to Vermont (in this edit). I am not an electcom member, but I believe this is a clear personal attack disguised as a question. Because I'm not part of electcom, and because I do generally like Vermont, I submit my actions for review in case anyone feels that my actions were inappropriate or biased. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?. Not only was there nothing close to a personal attack anywhere in there, it was finding fault with another editor, and a removal could easily be taken as an attempt to protect them. Yes, it was extremely biased, especially when Vermont has been harassing ME for the last two years and you claim it is me making a personal attack against THEM. Furthermore, even if the post was inappropriate (which it wasn't), there certainly was no need to remove it. Naleksuh (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. (Disclaimer: Also generally fond of Vermont.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've pointed that out before as it may make other things personal attacks, but it seems to only apply to me. Everyone else just gets to make up whatever they want about me yet if I don't put a million diffs for every little thing that's a huge no no. In this specific case, I asked Vermont a specific question about their off-wiki harassment and conduct in general. I assure you they know exactly what is being referenced. Also, there was no "serious accusation" here. I was planning on opposing, but instead I put it in a question to allow Vermont a chance to explain themself. Yet now we have a clan protecting Vermont instead. So clearly not even that was enough. Naleksuh (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Without any evidence in the form of diffs that falls directly into personal attack territory. -Djsasso (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, and I have reverted a reinstatement by Naleksuh considering that consensus here, at least for now, seems to be that the question was in fact inappropriate. Blablubbs (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Vermont's answer, apart from not answering my question, also contains multiple lies in it. For example, Vermont claims that they have no intention of interacting with me, yet just a few weeks ago contacted me: <Vermont> Naleksuh: could you remind me what pronouns you prefer to be referred to with?. Vermont also claimed that I asked them to stop one conversation only and then contacted me in February which I allegedly wrote a rude reply to just because I am so mean and evil. This is a lie by omission, because Vermont is leaving out that after I told them to stop completely they agreed to: <Vermont> This is a different conversation. If you intended that to be a general “don’t talk to me”, it wasn’t evident, and I’ll stop communicating with you.. And then violated that. Three times.

User:GeneralNotability Please see above. I am sure you thought my question was a personal attack for not having evidence, but there now is, and given that Vermont's response has contained multiple lies I would say that is the problem on their end. Naleksuh (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So...you had a heated conversation with Vermont and stopped communicating (I'll assume that you did say something like "yes, stop communicating with me", you don't mention that). After that, it sounds to me like Vermont tried to extend an olive branch (based on their reply at the SE questions page) and was rebuffed, so they again stopped communicating with you. Finally, they asked for your preferred pronouns - no idea why, and in retrospect I don't think that was a great move on their part, but it's a reasonably neutral question made in a public forum. I do not know when the five times you asked them to stop communicating fall in this timeline, but accusing them of a lack of basic human decency seems disproportionate based on what both of you have said so far. And finally, at least on enwiki, the expectation is that if you have asked someone not to interact with you, you shouldn't be trying to interact with them like you're doing here by asking a "question" at steward elections. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Although I'm technically involved as Naleksuh's previous victim, I'll say I agree the question is inappropriate, that casting aspersions applies as even after being specifically asked for proof, Naleksuh hasn't supplied any, and that the decency comment is a grievous personal attack. I suggest the question be removed and an uninvolved meta sysop consider a block. This is Naleksuh's third account with which they've made outright personal attacks, therefore a pattern of hostility, incivility, and violations of local and global guidelines is established. Since the prior accounts have been publicly connected for a while, Naleksuh is responsible for the conduct of those accounts. This means they have already had the courtesy of at least one warning and more likely a dozen. Operator873 ^connect 19:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Naleksuh's previous victim Victim? You are not a victim. I don't know why you are acting like I am some parasite looking for prey, that is not the case. I am simply another user here.

Naleksuh hasn't supplied any Scroll up, the comment directly above yours has multiple quotes and information about it, which both supports my own statements and proves Vermont's wrong. Naleksuh (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I see you using {{tq}} but... I can use those too and it doesn't provide proof of anything. Operator873 ^connect 19:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in this specific case, it is off-wiki, so that is all that is available. Also, the extent of Vermont's proof is tq, so it is equal proof on both sides. Naleksuh (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

But its your claim that is the serious accusation, not their's so requirement of proof falls on you. You are essentially accusing them of stalking you when it appears they only asked you how you were doing once and then asked you a simple question in a public channel. I would echo Operator's statement above that a meta admin take a look at this. -Djsasso (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Djsasso: it appears he only asked you how you were doing once It does appear that, yes, because he left out information as seen above. In fact, it was not only once, it was multiple times, about 4 or 5 I think. Another time was when I was speaking in the Wikimedia Discord server and Vermont saw me talking there and took the opportunity to PM me. I reminded Vermont of my wish not to yet again, and also removed them as a friend to prevent future incidents. However, I cannot provide quotes of this one due to my Discord account being deleted. I do have proof of all of the other ones though as seen above. That said, I will admit I may have been a bit unclear in my accusation. I did not try to accuse him of "stalking" me, I simply said I asked him not to contact me multiple times and he did so anyway multiple times. That's pretty much the extent of what I had to say, I wasn't talking about any other accounts or last year's elections etc. I hope I have made myself a bit more clear. Naleksuh (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You have repeatedly accused Vermont of off-wiki harassment and lacking "basic human decency", and are now claiming that they are lying in their response to your (blatantly loaded) question. Your follow up question is also far from neutral, and there is insufficient evidence to support your any of your accusations of harassment, making this a personal attack. I echo Operator and Djsasso's comments – I would appreciate if a Meta sysop could look at this. Giraffer (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)