Jump to content

User talk:Xeno

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2409:4064:319:3668:9989:5edb:1b86:5cdc (talk) at 00:25, 22 October 2019 (→‎submission at Articles for creation: SUMAN GUPTA: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

userpage | talk | dashboard | misc

Notes:

  • I will usually reply where original comments occurred and add notifications if thought necessary.
  • You may email me regarding anything sensitive, private, or confidential.
  • I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, but this is my personal account. Edits, statements, or other contributions made from this account are my own, and may not reflect the views of the Foundation.
  • Feel free to post a message or ask a question. Please be sure to [[wikilink]] appropriate subjects. Thanks for visiting!
click here to leave a new message...
All in all this user is just another brick in the wall.

Reminder

Template:Formerly
re: Special:PermanentLink/921177050#COI

Joe Roe: if you are not willing or too sensitive to engage in reasoned debate with others grappling with your tortured application of policy, please resign your commission on the Arbitration Committee. –xenotalk 11:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to see that discussion shut down, as I had hoped to have a back and forth discussion to find a better resolution. Everything Joe says in defense of his editing can be exactly said for Greenman's. I realize my example was a bit extreme but it's along the same road as those used against Greenman. Thanks for standing up for what you think is correct. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been asked not to post there, but I suppose you could make a new section if you remain unsatisfied with their response. Sorry I got your section shut down. –xenotalk 11:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I won't continue that discussion with Joe based on that ugly response to you. I want to add that you've done nothing wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m actually quite concerned about their unwillingness to engage in dialogue. I’ve raised the concern at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Joe Roe / Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators in Special:Diff/921201982. –xenotalk 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They confirmed I may contact them directly regarding clear matters of arbitration, so I’ve tagged it resolved. –xenotalk 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • El_C: just as preposterous as my suggestion that Joe Roe was going secure all the grant money with their mainspace contributions to their respective field was Joe Roe’s suggestion that MariaDB is going to crush their competition because Greenman is keeping their version numbers up to date. It seems to follows that Joe Roe this stance would rather result in an article falling into disrepair and disutility than to be uncontroversially updated by an unpaid volunteer who happens to be employed by the company that produces the software to “make it fair” for other articles that don’t have the benefit of knowledgable volunteers. Preposterous indeed. –xenotalk 14:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC) 15:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm not sure they [Refactored: Joe Roe] would rather that would happen, but myself, I don't see that [Refactored: Greenman's updates] as conflict of interest or anything untoward, which is partly why I supported the RfA. El_C 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno - as much as I respect you - and I DO respect you - I think this thread and thread title are poor choices to make. — Ched (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ched, I’m going to take your advice and disengage for a while (will respond to direct questions). Though as an arbitrator, I don’t think I ever told someone to leave me alone when they were seeking clarification about my interpretation of policy. I think we can leave it at that. I’m looking forward to advice from WTT (and maybe WJB) and will reflect on my actions and choices. –xenotalk 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Hi Xeno. I thought I'd drop by. I've been following this situation since I commented on the BN thread yesterday, so I have a bit of an idea what's going on. From my outside point of view, we've got two editors I respect going at loggerheads over the CoI policy. Now, paid editing is a big deal on Wikipedia, one that has attracted a lot of debate over the past decade - so I'm not surprised that we have some strong opinions on either side. That leads to RfA's like Greenman's - anyone who might have a financial interest in editing is going to have to work very hard at managing that to become an administrator. I'm willing to debate CoI and paid editing - I see both sides of the argument - but I don't think that's the problem here.

I've stated that I don't think Joe needs to resign for shutting down a debate at his talk page. I stand by that statement, and I think that asking him to resign over a disagreement is an over-reaction. People do not have to agree on everything and it's better that you know someone's views for situations where such knowledge might be relevant.

That leaves one more thing. You seem invested in this RfA, and (as is common on Wikipedia) intent on getting the process to match your point of view. I've done it myself, mentally discounting or giving less weight to views that do not match my interpretation of policy. I don't blame you for doing so. I question, however, the way that you participated in the RfA - asking for more information of opposers. On one interpretation, you were simply clerking the RfA, as 'crats are allowed to do. When combined with your discussions after the RfA, I think it's a shame you didn't simply act as a participant. Declaring that you support or oppose, would have allowed a clear line that you were not acting as a 'crat. It would also have made it clear where you stood in subsequent discussions. The way that you clerked the RfA did lead to some questions as to your neutrality on the subject. Now, I could have completely misread the situation, I just thought you might like to see how it's come across to me. WormTT(talk) 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perspective. I will reply in more detail after some days. –xenotalk 19:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(tps) WTT, People do not have to agree on everything, but if the accusation of COI hangs over an RfA (the term "doomed" was used and got me interested, I was silent until then), and not a bit of evidence was produced, that feels like the candidate was treated unfairly. Knowing the feeling, I may have overreacted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response (Xeno)

Thanks for giving me time to compose my thoughts. I've used a numbered list, but the order of statements is not necessarily significant.

  1. Although a community venue, Bureaucrats are the stewards of the RfX process.
  2. From WP:RFA: Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt.
  3. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate.
  4. Bureaucrats are charged with ensuring a civil discussion, and that both the candidate and the participants are protected from aspersions, personal attacks, and harassment.
  5. Bureaucrats are not required to perform the review of the candidate for the participants.
  6. Bureaucrats are tasked with determining the consensus of those participating.
  7. Bureaucrats should not let their personal belief as to the candidate's suitability affect their judgment or actions when acting as a bureaucrat.
  8. As volunteers offering to take on a greater duty and responsibility towards the project, candidates deserve to be treated fairly and with respect.
  9. Absent compelling reasons or evidence to the contrary the default position is to take contributors at their their word and assume good faith.
  10. RfX are decided on the strength of arguments, not merely the numerical support percentage.
  11. Opinions and commentary should be germane to the candidate or candidacy.
  12. Positions that appropriately apply relevant policies, guidelines, and community norms to support their argument will carry more weight.
  13. Positions that are accompanied with specific diff-based evidence provided will carry more weight than unsubstantiated positions.
  14. Ideally, a statement critical of a candidate will be constructive: providing advice that is specific, measurable, achievable, and realistic, so the candidate can be guided in their future actions.
  15. A violation of the COI guideline (financial) generally concerns edits to the main space.
  16. It is clear from both the TOU and the COI guideline they paid edits are those for which an editor expects to be remunerated directly for same.
  17. The candidate had stated their edits were not paid and we are bound by an assumption of good faith.
  18. To claim an editor is PAID without evidence is considered casting aspersions.
  19. To claim an editor has violated the COI guideline on a particular article without referring to specific edits is at least unfair, and approaches casting aspersions.
  20. There is wide community agreement that an editor should be given specific, diff-based, actionable evidence of their undesirable edits so they may correct their behaviour.
  21. We had administrators, including a sitting arbitrator, suggesting the candidate’s answers were untruthful, calling the candidate a paid editor, and then only reluctantly retracting that statement.
  22. We had editors piling on related to an issue that was not clearly communicated to the editor, nor substantiated upon polite request.
  23. Clearly what people consider to be in violation of the COI guideline runs along a spectrum and reasonable minds can differ.
  24. Without identifying specific edits, it is impossible for bureaucrats or the candidate to know which edits the participants felt were in violation of the guideline.
  25. Was it the version changes? Was it the addition of a source? Was it the removal of the maintenance tag? Some other edit? The whole body of work? The candidate has no idea what any given participant has an issue with because no specific edits of concern were linked.
  26. For people mentioning COI in a vague manner: are they concerned about the edits? Or were the edits okay but they take issue with the late disclosure? If it’s the former, the candidate can modify their editing approach. If it’s the latter, they just have to wait it out and hope for forgiveness. Without knowing, it is difficult to appropriately weigh the strength and scope of the concern.
  27. It is rare for me to participate in an RfA except as a clerk/bureaucrat both because 1) my time is limited so an adequate review of the candidate is often not possible, and 2) to increase the number of uninvolved/available bureaucrats to attend to the closing.
  28. Most individuals going to an RfA will be taking a position, which leaves precious few to actually ensure the candidate and participants are treating each other fairly and with respect.
  29. Some feel I became too invested in the RfA: if I am invested in anything, it is in seeing the RfA candidates are not treated very poorly and unfairly, as was done here.
  30. My goal was never for Greenman’s RfA to be successful, since I did not perform a full review of the candidate and without such diligence would not be able to form my own opinion.
  31. To consider my clarifying queries to be in support of the candidacy is a misreading of my actions and a misunderstanding of my intent.
  32. I don’t see how asking clarifying questions changes the view of one’s neutrality.
  33. The answer to the clarifying question may cause other participants to to support or oppose depending the response, and assists the closing bureaucrat in understanding the scope of the opposition. 
  34. There are some that suggest I should have taken a position in the RfA if I felt so strongly the candidate was being treated unfairly: no - it is not a bureaucrat’s job to "put a finger on the scales of consensus” like the speaker of the house in a tie vote.
  35. At best I could have offered a “moral” support which would change the percentage but supporting a candidate just to “cancel out an oppose” is just as inappropriate as an unsubstantiated oppose if I don’t genuinely support the candidate; and again: I did not come to any kind of personal decision as to whether the candidate should have been made an administrator.
  36. If I was wrong in my interpretation of the COI guideline, then I need someone to help me see where the error in my thinking lies.
  37. A sitting arbitrator in theory should be able to engage with me to work this out. 
  38. If that person felt some distress from the personalization, then I do apologize, while hoping that it allowed them to understand how the candidate must have felt to be called a paid editor (despite their assertion that they were not) or a COI violator without reasonable grounds or being providing specific evidence.
  39. I was, at all material times, intending to participate as a clerk or bureaucrat with no personal interest in the success or failure of the candidacy.
  40. I watched the RfA as it progressed and certainly may have become invested in trying to ensure Greenman was treated fairly. I will admit to that.
  41. I don’t think that affects my neutrality, as I did not have a personal stake or desire as to whether they were promoted or not, only that they were given an opportunity to see exactly which edits those in opposition had a concern with.
  42. I am perfectly capable of affording full weight to positions with which I personally do not agree that have been appropriately substantiated and grounded in a fair and measured application of policies, guidelines, pillars, and norms.

Worm That Turned: Now that I've got my thoughts to paper, I think I need further assistance in understanding how "asking for more information of opposers ... lead to some questions as to [my] neutrality on the subject". Can you help me to understand that line of thinking? Feel free to refer to any numerical statements above if you feel my assumptions, positions, conclusions, etc. are incorrect. –xenotalk 01:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ched

Wow Xeno - that's quite a list you've collected there. Give me a day or two to digest it all, and perhaps I can think of something to say. (like being speechless has ever been a problem for me. ..:)) A couple things come to mind right off the bat. 1.) I had pretty much put all this behind me/us/them/they. 2.) My oppose wasn't based on money, or even COI (other than judgment, such as bumping right up against that guideline, and not mentioning his affiliation until a month or two before running) My oppose centered around judgment, temperament, attitude, and wp:bite. I listed 3 or 4 instances of the 4IM taggings:

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at World Rugby Rankings, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. EditorA (talk) (date stamp)

That's quite a forceful approach for someone to see that after their very first edit - and some of them were actually GOOD edits. There were quite a few more than the 3 or 4 I listed at the RfA, I can throw a dozen or so down for your right now - and only need go back a month or two to find them. A handful of them revolved around a referee being called "blind" after a sporting event, and there were even cases of an Admin following and blocking ... with no further edits after the warning; But I'm campaigning here, and that's not what you're asking for. So, 3.) I hadn't really thought about the "crat's job is to watch RfX" viewpoint - I do apologize for that slip. I can see now that you mention it how important it is for you and other crats to get this right. I try to put myself in the other person's shoes if they are seeking debate, and I suppose I failed one aspect of that here. So much of what I was reading after the RfA close came across (in my eyes and opinion) as Wikipedia:Sour grapes, which has some relevance from our article The Fox and the Grapes. Anyway - I'll read over it in the coming days, and if I have anything to add I'll let you know.

  • Oh - in retrospect, if I had it to do again, I would have emailed you and not posted on wiki - I'm sorry for that. — Ched (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, don’t apologize for calling me out in public. If it looks to you like I’m putting my Spiderman suit on and catching a cab to the Reichstag, you call me out on wiki. No hard feelings there. I agree with WTT that asking for JR’s resignation was an overreaction: I was probably heated from being made persona non grata. –xenotalk 02:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC) (P.S. I find opposes based on substantiated WP:BITE concerns very compelling)[reply]
In all fairness, I don't think the JR postings were exactly optimal either, but everyone was having a bad day all the way around.— Ched (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

← I just noticed what I wrote four years ago: I still think that the difficulty a bureaucrat faces in this task ("ask[ing]... people to modify their behaviour") is that we are getting the tag-in at the conclusion of the show. Once we start stepping into the middle of it, it is very difficult to draw the line between bureaucrat and participant. The community set up this gladiatorial process and it's not entirely clear they want us to jump into the ring while the battle is ongoing. We can weigh things afterwards but if we become an active participant, then we are really no longer acting as bureaucrats - we could be seen to lose our impartiality and become involved. We can make proclamations in general from on high or in the market - wag our fingers and suggest people assume good faith and be more trusting - but that might just be seen as pontificating. If someone is being a jerk at RfA, that's a user conduct concern - not really our wheelhouse, isn't it?. Clearly my thinking and approach has evolved (devolved?) since then (probably in reaction to the RfA clerking rfc). –xenotalk 03:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Barkeep49

Hope you're ok with me continuing this format of sectioning. I appreciate the invitation to reply and as you will soon see I've done so at some length. I hope it is helpful (and if it's not please stop reading and feel no obligation to reply). I choose to address my concerns to you initially on the big picture but unsurprisingly for those who know me I have some thoughts on this part of things too. So many thoughts I'm going to collapse them.

BK's extended thoughts

I think your numbers 1-14 are a good summation of the points they cover and hopefully all find them uncontroversial. I personally think Greenman got a bum rap on the COI bit for many of the reasons you outline - my oppose was more about being out of touch with community norms. I think there's an alternative universe where Greenman addresses the COI stuff differently and it garners a handful of opposes but not enough to sink the RfA. However, I have harder time than you seem to have at saying that so many respected editors don't understand COI.

But the bulk of my thinking starts with 28. I've written my thoughts (also at far too much length) about how I think RfA works at the moment and specifically about what I think it takes for someone to oppose. Currently, opposes, even in an RfA like this, will attract more scrutiny, questions, and expectation of follow-up discussions than supports; this already acts as a bit of a fairness balance for the candidate. I also think some number of people who if forced to cast a vote would oppose instead choose to sit out those RfAs - I can tell you that I've certainly sat out so RfAs rather than oppose and I know Beeblebrox made reference to the same idea at BN. Admittedly my oppose would have been made stronger if I'd linked to the diffs to reference what I was talking about - but how many supports would have been helped by diffs too? I think in the idea that supports or opposes are made stronger with diffs is a good one but that such an expectation shouldn't just fall on opposers. We absolutely need to be fair to the candidate but this doesn't strike me as a situation where being fair to the candidate means we need to accept unfairness to the people they've invited to participate - at least not in the current climate.

But that's all in general. In terms of your actual interactions with Joe, first I think you held him to a higher standard because of his being an arbitrator. This is both fair - he has more influence owing to his position - and unfair - he wasn't trying to use, even implicitly from what I saw, that position in this discussion and just because he's a sitting arbitrator doesn't mean he (or other arbitrators) shouldn't be able to participate in RfA (or only participate as a support in RfAs). Of course he wasn't the only prominent oppose you disagreed with. Before things started with Joe you had an exchange with Tony. This circles back to the idea that I think it's ungenerous to say veteran respected distinguished editors are expressing positions that deserve to be discounted, in part of in whole. Instead I would suggest that opinions supported by diffs deserve extra weight. So more a bonus than a demerit on those that don't have it if that makes sense.

Of course in Joe's mind, as I understand it, diffs were presented via Lourdes. And even more than that, while not presenting a diff Joe literally quoted the candidate (from that page and thus easily verifiable) so it's not like it was just vaguely thrown out there. And further when you asked him for the diff he gave you one. You, among others, found it unconvincing which fair enough.

But what happened next is what I would encourage you to think about twice in the future. You then got into a debate with him about our COI policy, but unlike Joe (in this conversation) did so from a position of authority - it's an active discussion at BN on a topic you had been suggesting should have been a crat chat and thus a situation where you would be able to weigh-in directly. You ended the conversation with Joe on BN in the right place ("I think we can agree that there are substantial disagreements as to how the COI policy should apply in this circumstance - just as you are questioning my interpretation, I am questioning your interpretation. That being said, it's not really a topic for BN and we should probably pick it up at WT:COI."). But maybe arriving there after 8 replies was a few too many given the situation at play.

In reading your response you did convince me of one thing - that you have an obligation, as a crat, to speak-up when you see someone being treated unfairly at RfA. That's a principle I can get behind - and importantly has a basis from the crat clerking RfC. It helps inform, and causes me to soften on some of my judgement on, your interaction with Amanda. But good faith editors, especially editors with a proven record of understanding policy and guidelines, really should have an expectation that you're not going to make them convince you of the righteousness of their policy interpretations in order to have their thinking be fully considered at RfA. I would suggest the bulk of evidence - including your choice to insert yourself into Mr. Ernie's topic at Joe's talk page (and thus not picking it up at a venue like WT:COI) suggests that "All [COI inspired RfA participants] were asked to do was point out the edits they found problematic. If they pointed out some of those incredibly boring version edits, then I’d say “okay, they feel the COI policy prohibits those edits” and take it at face value." wasn't the case. Instead, I read it as you wanting them to convince you that they were right and you were wrong on the policy merits. That, not your feeling that Greenman got an unfair shake of the RfA rattle, is why people were suggesting you should have participated rather than adjudicated. You had strong beliefs on a debatable issue and a desire to debate it and convince others of your position - that's all fine and good in a participant but not, in my way of thinking, of a crat acting in an official capacity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49: thank you for your thoughtful reply (I've uncollapsed it). I need to circle back. Briefly: Did you mean to say Lourdes instead of Tony? Tony and I interacted at BN but not at the RfA. –xenotalk 13:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fix broken ping to Barkeep49 (one day I will get the hang of it). –xenotalk 13:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean Tony - I will admit I hadn't remember it was you who started the discussion with Lourdes and Joe during the RfA (though I did recall your ping of a bunch of people towards the end). I think the conversation in response to Lourdes as a whole demonstrates my point that participating as an oppose comes with a cost and your particular bit fits with what I've suggested above but admittedly was not on my mind with what I wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTT section

What a novelty to have so many sub sections within a user talk page!

Thanks for taking the time to put these thoughts together. I will preface this comment by saying that whilst there is debate to be had on these issues, I have seen no one act so out-right incorrectly that concerns should be raised. COI and paid editing (which are not the same, despite the overlap) are simultaneously extremely bright lines and blurry lines. If you were to take the extreme view that no remuneration or benefit-in-kind is acceptable, then this is a very easy question to answer, but the world is full of shades of grey. I am personally not on this "all paid editing is bad" end of the spectrum, I've seen text poorly written through general bias, lack of knowledge, paid editing, nationalism and many other reasons, and I don't see any one of these issues to be more important than any of the others.

Let's talk about this specific case. Greenman has stated that receives pay from MariaDB. Greenman is also the primary editor to the MariaDB article 126 edits. The next top editor has made 17. These two facts put together are sufficient to a) ask for more information from Greenman on the nature of that relationship and b) oppose no matter what his answer might be. There were more points to this issue, but I highlight these two as a high level explanation which exemplifies the issues that we are dealing with. This is one of those situations where you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, which shows the issue as the minutae may not.

You've asked me why your clerking actions might show a lack of neutrality. For one, you commented in the RfA - not explicitly as a voter, but in the discussion (e.g. "You've got it backwards"). One request from you that stands out to me is a request for controversial edits - yet that is a misreading of our policy. What is allowed is unambiguously uncontroversial edits, and what's more the policy gives a very specific list of what constitutes unambiguously uncontroversial. Unlike many Wikipedia policies, it is exhaustive and goes on to say Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. The phrasing of the request for clarification that you put to JJMC89 gives an impression of leading the response - based on that misreading.

I hope that helps explain my statement regarding the perception on neutrality. I wouldn't want to discourage you from clerking or participating in RfAs in the future, I don't think what you did or said was WRONGTM by any means. My concern was that it looked like you may have crossed a line into holding an opinion on the candidate which cast doubt on your ability to act as a neutral 'crat subsequently. From point 40, I see that this was largely about your perception of fairness towards the candidate and certainly helps me understand where you were coming from. WormTT(talk) 11:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate response is the (somewhat worrying) realization that I hadn't noticed that part of the guideline that makes it exhaustive. This is exactly why dialog is important. I do see talk page edits by the candidate though. Are they relating to the edits they made? See my point 5. And remember, I was never asking people to withdraw their opposition, merely to ground it so that the candidate can be appropriate guided and treated fairly. I will reply in more detail later as I need to digest both yours and Barkeep49's reply further. –xenotalk 12:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, Purely looking at the numbers, Greenman has made 6 edits to the talk page, in comparison to 126 edits to the page. I'm not trying to judge him, I didn't participate in the RfA and I don't doubt that he improved the article, but from my outside point of view he did so in contravention to our community norms (I use the term to allude to point 12). But as I say, this isn't really about Greenman's RfA which I think was handled pretty much correctly in all aspects. WormTT(talk) 13:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Martin

A brief comment from me. I participated in the RfA, noticed your contributions and approved of them. However, at the time, I assumed you were also participating in the RfA and never imagined you were acting a bureaucrat. So even though you maintain that you remained neutral at all times, it may be that your edits were simply perceived to be non-neutral. This is sufficient to make recusal a good idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping the section active, I do plan to return to it. Just off the cuff, I think I’ve always been willing to recuse on reasonable request or suggestion (pretty sure I commit to that in my RfB). I’ll work on making sure I’m more clear about which hat is being worn in any given contribution (luckily I have less hats on my rack now). –xenotalk 11:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there

Hang in there or slow down, you have got to be about burnt out. Just an observer. Eschoryii (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eschoryii, this was helpful. –xenotalk 01:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 - ?

Have you considered running for ArbCom in the upcoming elections? I think you'd be an excellent candidate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

← Yikes.

I coined a phrase to myself earlier this year, the Newyorkbrad Index. It measures community satisfaction with the current arbitration committee by how many requests NYB gets to re-take their seat on the committee.

I'd also be pleased seeing Risker back in there, though I understand they're taken on a number of other responsibilities.

And last to throw under the bus would be Carcharoth, they should do another stint.

I'd like to see a non-administrator candidate get through as well, I think there's a number of thoughtful non-administrators that could provide balance. –xenotalk 16:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin.... -Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, got me on a technicality. –xenotalk 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh geez, Xeno, and here I thought we were friends. How could you wish Arbcom on me if you were my friend???? Risker (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha - my initial reaction was to think back to what I'd done to wrong Reaper Eternal =) –xenotalk 17:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I was thinking more of what you (Risker) said here ("It's a dispute resolution body, not the grand poobahs of Wikipedia. I know, I sat on Arbcom for 5 years."), here ("Yes, we need new faces"), here ("They're not political posts, they're work assignments"), here ("we as a community are almost going out of our way to avoid developing people who will be able to fill these roles 2-3-5 years down the road; in fact, we're recycling arbitrators to the point of absurdity, and doing nothing to fix that problem.") and here ("We are not renewing the committee; in other words, we are not growing new leadership. This is a significant failure on the part of the community."). Especially the last two diffs. The funny thing is, apart from not having the time, the thing that makes me least likely to run again is working with the same people as before. But it is almost impossible to run and not end up working with someone who was on ArbCom previously. The dynamic is different each time around, over and above the changes in people's personal lives and the changes in Wikipedia over the years (that makes it both an exciting and a daunting prospect). I really do hope that lots of new people step up to take on the challenge. Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read the 'Rome' and subsequent post as well (and largely agree with Risker), yet there's something to be said for the institutional memory and experience of having a good idea of what will de-escalate and what will lead to further community discord. (And you're both 'contributors matter' people.) So yes to new faces, but with institutional memory baked in as well. Just my humble opinion. –xenotalk 17:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that this lack of renewal and new faces is actually my biggest issue with Arbcom today. If I was looking for new blood, I'd suggest someone like Barkeep49, who's hardworking, been around a while, but is still fairly fresh-faced as an admin. If I didn't think it would turn him into a complete Wikipedia cynic, I'd suggest TheDJ as a (currently) non-admin with great tech background. But yes, Arbcom is a work assignment, not a sinecure or a political post. The longer one is on the committee, the more likely that one forgets that point. Risker (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By all appearances, Barkeep49 would make an excellent arbitrator; but wouldn’t that risk taking a brand new matchbook and igniting the entire thing? –xenotalk 10:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say that like it's a bad thing.  :-) Risker (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matchbook here - though I actually think a candle might be a better metaphor. I think of Rob as an instructive example. I wonder if he'd waited another year if he'd have burned out or if his "wax" would have had more time to firm up more and thus there'd have been more to burn over a long period of time. I don't think we have a fixed amount to give to Wikipedia because at certain times we can get refilled with purpose and so does going on ArbCom too quickly mean that we give less overall? I don't know and obviously Rob and I are different in many ways (place in life, disposition, and the fact that I have his example to think about) but I throw that out there for consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, that's definitely a good metaphor. In 2013, I became an arbitrator, but I had significantly burned out by the end of 2014 and it was pure stubbornness that meant I remained. At the time I was still fairly fresh-faced and keen. A year earlier I also ran but was knocked back, I was even more keen then. I came out the other side jaded and grumpy, and it took me quite a while to find my place on Wikipedia again. This term, however, I would definitely consider my wax hardened - I have managed the whole term without only one wobble (and given the circumstances, well, I think it's justified).
If you are willing to come onto the committee, I think you'd do well there, but do be prepared for the down sides, of which there are plenty. WormTT(talk) 14:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My best advice to you and any person considering ArbCom is probably the same—you will find it much easier if you disregard optics and politics and just focus on doing the job well. Most of the snafus I recall during my time (that I remember—there's a blissful haze over much of it this far removed :P) were invariably made worse by attempts to reduce drama that instead inflamed it. It's no way to stay sane. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is this, Ac Pointe Blank reunion, Class of 2010? Don’t feel left out David, you’re a good egg too. And “blissful haze” says it all. –xenotalk 15:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that you would have my vote also, you're pretty much what I'd like to see in a candidate, thoughtful, articulate and willing to change your mind - though (and I could be misremembering), were you not inactive for a significant period of your last term? That might put off a few voters given the inactivity problems we've been having recently. WormTT(talk) 11:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(xeno 2012 edits - live count 126) I was inactive on almost all matters (and the project generally) for the final 11 months of my 2-year term (Special:Diff/473546506) due to unforeseen life circumstances and time limitations (Special:Diff/526585850). My major contribution of 2012 was organizing the AUSC selections, where I was pleased to oversee the appointment of a non-administrator to CUOS permissions (Special:Diff/479685278) - I believe for the first time project history. (They went and acquried admin rights shortly after, the blighter.) That 1 March 2012 diff represents the final arbitration action of my term, though I may have contributed to mailing list discussions (probably very sparsely).
I appreciate the kind words from all. Life continue to keep me fairly occupied. –xenotalk 12:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I should expand a bit on my "not a bad thing" comment above. The year I was first elected to Arbcom (election in 2008, seated in 2009) was also what might have been considered a "crisis" year for Arbcom. Things were going pretty wonky, at least one arb took it upon themselves to act "on behalf of the committee" without the actual consent or agreement of the committee, and Arbcom was pretty much twisting in the wind with respect to its effectiveness. We started 2009 with a committee that had only a tiny number of arbs who had sat on the committee before. But enough of ancient history. The bottom line is that this is a really important opportunity for the English Wikipedia community to renew and reinvigorate the Arbitration Committee, just as it had in 2008/09. This *is* the time for folks to put their name forward and take Arbcom in a healthier direction. It's a rare window of opportunity and we as a community need to have the courage to take the leap. Risker (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    An exciting prospect, to be sure. Make sure you encourage folks somewhere other than the relative backwoods of my talk page ;>. –xenotalk 16:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Risker you and I have had the discussion before and I fully understand the reasons why you won't, but I still wish you were back on that committee. If I weren't so old and jaded I'd probably make another attempt to run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different...

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure (you're namedropped there Risker, in relation to our past discussion on this draft process). –xenotalk 01:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sigh

Thread borne of confusion. I suppose it goes to show that you've been a rather effective arbitrator if multiple admins think you're still on the committee after your term ends. –xenotalk 12:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I did NOT see that one coming. But I'll bet dollars to donuts there'll be a corresponding ACN post too. Starting to wonder if there will be ANYONE left. — Ched (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, ArbCom is trapped between a rock and a hard place. While I disagree with some of their actions, I don't envy their position. I've been considering encouraging arbitrators to simply refuse to do anything until the WMF pulls its head out of its ass and either (1) hires professionals to do the job or (2) backs off enough to let ArbCom do its job without the ironically-named Trust & Safety breathing down their necks. If the WMF takes option (1), then editors here will have more time to deal with valuable stuff like, you know, writing an encyclopedia. If the WMF goes with option (2), then hopefully we still have enough people here who are willing and capable to do the job. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"... anyone left": yes, you, Ched, hopefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ched: I was really not hoping to have to edit after posting today, but it seems I need to. There is no impending ACN post about my permissions of any sort that I am aware of, everything was my choice here. It would come as a complete shock if ArbCom made a post without contacting me first to try and address the issue. I still haven't even seen a reply from ArbCom about my self-report, and if I do ever come back I intend to face whatever music is thrown at me over that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeltaQuad, of course there could be no music to be played over that. I'd ask you to consider revoking, during this 24 hour hold, your request to relinquish crat. Things feel hot right now but I don't know that losing all your en permissions is the right way forward out of whatever combination of frustration with en and self-critique it seems might have driven you here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding frustration: been there; hope it improves. Regarding self critique: I sure wish hard working, productive, helpful people would cut themselves more slack. —Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi .. Amanda (aka DQ). I'm not sure why you felt a need to respond to my post here, but if I owe you an apology, then I most assuredly will offer you one. I didn't ping you.?!? To paraphrase Rick in his world Of all the pages, in all of wiki, on all the Internet, why did she have to respond to my post? If you'll please look at the discussion following your post at BN, you'll see that I'm actually, if not defending, than at least finding no fault in your actions. To be honest, I actually went to your page with the intent of offering a "if you ever want to talk..." post. Seeing how you left things there, I then considered even emailing you, but it appeared as though you just wanted to be left alone for the time being. Still, the email and/or discussion offer are sincere, and I DO offer that here and now. Please, if you feel a need to talk to someone - my door is always open. I fully admit that I was hoping to see Ritchie unblocked, and I'm glad he has been.
Still, given all that I've disagreed with over the last few months, I don't recall finding fault with you specifically. In fact I have made a concerted effort at most junctures to make it clear that my disappointments lie in the collective body of AC, and I've had very little to say critically about the individuals. I think it's an important distinction to make, that a person does not equal the group, and the group does not equal the individual.
If you consider all the trends that this year's AC has shown, then I think you'll have to admit that resigning is certainly one of the big ones. If I'm reading your response here correctly, then personally I'm glad you're staying on at AC. As far as getting a reply from AC on your self-report - I'm not sure who's left to respond. Even Worm has posted about a need to take a break and get away from the day to day grind of Arbcom. I saw what was posted, I understood the reasons for oversight. While I've seen stronger candidates for removal - I didn't disagree with it. Not saying I've always agreed with every support/oppose you've posted - but I certainly never called for you to leave. But in fact I DO understand your need to take a break and get away. I guess I can apologize for assuming you were also going to resign from the AC, especially as you're giving up other various bits. I would think that many others figured that's where this was headed as well.
I understand that this year's AC has faced more difficult situations than most. Having never been an Arb, I can easily imagine that there have been (and are) issues that I have no clue about. I'll say again, my door is always open if you want to talk. Email? No problem. If you want to talk where there's a public record of what's said - just let me know the link and I'll come there. If you feel there is anything at all I need to answer for, please feel free to ask. Now all that said - I do wish you the very best. — Ched (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ched, DeltaQuad is not an arb. – bradv🍁 02:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Well then - my stupidity might explain a lot then. — Ched (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

submission at Articles for creation: SUMAN GUPTA

Hello, I request Wikipedia Can you Please help me in creating this article. I have already Created the Draft:SUMAN GUPTA today back but Since Suman Gupta name is in Wikipedia Blacklist only experienced editor can remove that. I request the Wikipedia administrator to check it as the subject matter follows the guidelines of Notability and is worthy for moving to Article space. 2409:4064:319:3668:9989:5EDB:1B86:5CDC (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeno&oldid=922416446"