Revision as of 22:27, 5 December 2007 editGRBerry (talk | contribs)16,708 edits →Buckner: timing order, 2 cents← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:41, 31 December 2024 edit undoSkarmory (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,861 edits →You are missed: Commenting. | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Retired}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
{{nobots}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
|counter = 13 | |||
|algo = old(4d) | |||
|archive = User talk:WJBscribe/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{User:WJBscribe/Talkmessage}} | |||
== Thank you and a farewell note == | |||
== Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-) == | |||
I wanted to say a huge thank you not only to those who have posted supportive messages here and elsewhere, but also to those who have posted criticisms of my actions. It has been a pleasure editing this project alongside each and every one of you, whether we have agreed or not. I hope that those whose advice I have not felt able to follow over the last couple of weeks do think it fell on deaf ears. I have read every word and listened carefully. | |||
<div style="padding: 5px; style="background-color: #32005B;" border-style: solid; border-width: 3px; border-color: "000000"; font-size: 100%; "> | |||
<center> | |||
<div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 300px; float: center;">]</div> | |||
</center> | |||
<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none; font-size: 100%;"> | |||
<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none;"> | |||
<div class="NavHead" style="background: black; text-align: center;"><font color="E4D5E8"><font face="Georgia">Tapadh Leibh ]...</font></font></div> | |||
<div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: center;"> | |||
<font color="E4D5E8"><font face="Georgia"><br> | |||
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful ], which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. | |||
Some have suggested that my recent actions have been out of character. I think that overlooks some of my history on this project. I have always believed more in principles than rules. Some may remember my unblock of Giano during the 2008 ArbCom elections, others my staunch objection to the existence of an off-wiki bureaucrat mailing list, or indeed my strong opposition to certain resysop decisions at ] that I felt ran contrary to the best interests of the project. It is probably true to say that I have been one of the most "activist" / "interventionist" bureaucrats. Whether that is a good or bad thing I leave to the judgment of others, but I make no apology for it. | |||
I would particularly like to thank ] and ], my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally. | |||
Harassment is a serious issue, and one that has affected me personally in my time editing the project. I have never spoken publicly about the full reasons for my withdrawal from the 2008 ArbCom elections. I did so due to threats I received that actions would be taken against me in the real world to embarrass me and my then employer. I had recently started a new position and was relatively junior, so that was a threat that I could not ignore. I withdrew from the elections and resigned as an admin and bureaucrat. Some months later, when I felt more secure and established at work, I resumed service as an admin and bureaucrat. It has been a matter of great sadness to me to see some suggest that I don't take the issue of harassment seriously or that recent actions by me are supportive of harassment. That is not the case, and I caution people against being overly quick to accept unquestioningly a narrative that has been presented to them. The WMF account of its actions in relation to Fram does not withstand the most cursory scrutiny - it should be treated with utmost suspicion. | |||
Thank you so much for all your help and support, Will. If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you for deleting it ;-)) | |||
There are two very serious problems facing the community at the moment, and neither ought to be allowed to eclipse the other: | |||
And forgive me if I need a ] now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me ], now would you? | |||
#'''WMF v community self-governance'''. There is an urgent need to clarify the extent to which WMF is required to defer to community consensus, and the extent to which it must explain its actions and be held accountable for them by local communities. Without this, the project will hemorrhage contributors. Absent sufficient autonomy, wikipedia will simply not be the project that many of us chose to give our time to. The number of staffers would need to rise exponentially to fill the gap. I suggest WMF think long and hard about the value to them of the volunteer time they benefit from. | |||
#'''Fair process in WMF actions'''. In all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, the accused must have basic rights. Those include the right to know the name of their accuser(s), to understand what they are accused of, and to have the opportunity to defend themselves. The accused must also have the right for any public statement about them to clearly identify the misconduct that they were found to have committed, rather than to be subject to vague insinuations and innuendo thrown about from those who claim to speak from a position of authority. Fram has been treated abysmally. The decision of two of my fellow bureaucrats to re-enact a punishment applied by WMF with no respect for basic concepts of fairness was the last straw in convincing me that I could not continue here. | |||
I would remind everyone that over the last few years I been minimally active on the project, with little time to dedicate to it. Everyone will be fine without me. I also think that it is time for this project to stop relying on old hands in key positions. ArbCom is increasingly comprised of re-elected former Arbs, many bureaucrats (including me) were elected over a decade ago. That's not a good thing. We need fresh blood in key roles. | |||
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)<br> | |||
<center><center><font face="comic sans ms">''']</b> ]<font color="FCD73F">♦</font>]'''</font></font> | |||
I hope that matters are resolved in relation to the two issues that I have identified above such that in future I will feel able to continue contributing to this project, but my days as a bureaucrat or administrator are done. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 11:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
<br><font color="#000000"><small>'''This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.'''</small></font></div></div></div></div> | |||
::''Replies to this message and further discussion have been ]'' | |||
== |
== Precious anniversary == | ||
{{User QAIbox | |||
| title = Precious | |||
| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg | |||
| image_upright = 0.45 | |||
| bold = ] | |||
}} | |||
miss you - see Die Fliege (the fly) on my talk --] (]) 09:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
... so delighted to read your measured comments again, "old" crat ;) - ], read ] and enjoy ! --] (]) 16:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
Wow! You went through the rename backlog like a hot knife through butter! Way to go! -- ] (]) 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
:On the other hand, the number of admins we have has gone down from 1419 to 1418 during his tenure as a bureaucrat. I know of no other bureaucrat who has a negative record in this area. Please do better in the future WJB. ;) ] 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
::It's no surprise that you've fixed it already. :) ] 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
{{-}} | |||
== Quorum and the RFA == | |||
== Three years ago? Yikes. == | |||
On the off chance you still look in from time to time, I saw something that reminded me of something else which in turn reminded me of Framgate, and I'm amazed to see that it all started 3 years ago yesterday. It feels so much more recent. While thinking back on everything, I still don't regret a lot, but I do regret my part in your resignation and retirement. I imagine it was like 95% WMF's fault and 5% mine, but I regret that 5%. Hope you're well, and thanks for caring so much about the integrity of the project. --] (]) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
I'm a strong adherent to the idea of many of our mistakes have occurred because we never address the issue of quorum. I can branch out with this criticism a number of ways, but I think one place it is clear is with RFA. Having just been too involved in one of the great knock down shouting matches in recent memory ("Durovagate"), and consequently not following your RfB properly, I'll first congratulate you and then explain what I meant. | |||
You two are forever my heroes for your actions then. ] (]) 03:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
The "RFA is broken" phenomenon occurs because 1) "bad" people get promoted, 2) "good" people don't. These are separate matters, as some folks complain because of disappointment, others outrage. No one can fix that, because we will never agree on the bad or the good. However, what I find more common, as an old timer now in the midst of a giant project, is that more and more people are blundering about with their bits. They may be nice, not nice, well intentioned, or shadowy agents of dark powers, for all I know, but when I look at their RFA's, I see that, aside from being recent, they seem to always be sparsely voted. | |||
:{{ping|Floquenbeam}} It does feel both like a very long time ago and in another way just yesterday. I think even 5% is beating yourself up too much. I don't think events would have played out differently if you hadn't asked for your bits back at the noticeboard; I couldn't have watched things play out from the sidelines. In the end, the result would still have been the same, there wouldn't have been enough support for the actions I took (esp. re: Fram) and my position would have still have ended up untenable.<br/>Ultimately, it's not because I resigned the bits that I don't contribute any more, I miss everyone and care for the project, but I don't want to give valuable free labour to WMF. I was comfortable contributing to a community-run project advancing free knowledge that was largely self-governing save for the minimal legally required role that WMF originally had (and Jimbo's increasingly shrinking founder role). And I was happy to give my time to that project. But increasingly the projects are now <u>run</u> by WMF, which sees itself as having a governance role over a social movement. The goal of trying (perhaps in vain) to build a NPOV online encyclopaedia that was free to all was alluring. is depressing (it's like they didn't realise ] existed).<br/>The community has failed to stand up to WMF and has tacitly endorsed its every encroaching remit. More of those who have stayed, and those who joined recently, believe that WMF are <u>in charge</u>. They liken WMF to Facebook without understanding how Misplaced Pages is (was?) different. I feel that Facebook provides a service to its users whereas WMF receives services from the community. But it seems people don't see it that way. That's fine, I get it. From my point of view though, the battle for self-governance we won with Jimbo was then lost to WMF, which whittled it away a piece at a time. WMF forces through policies and tech features that no one wants, while ignoring the features that the community asks for and the bugs it's crying out to have fixed (e.g. ]). WMF now attempt to set the agenda, rather than responding to wishes of the projects. WMF even dictates where and how discussions happen, eschewing the noticeboards and consensus building structures we set up. People seem to be grudgingly accepting that. I couldn't and still can't. The result is that I don't want to give my time here any more, however tempting. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 13:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
Badlydrawnjeff and I probably never agreed on a single article. He wanted all of them revived and preserved, and I think all but the most highly polished are wastes of space. I'm an extreme elitist in that regard, and he was an extreme inclusionist. Because he was passionate, he argued his position, generally well, always consistently. He also had nearly a year, it seemed, of demonstrating calm and, when not calm, of staying within the lines proscribed by policy. He always favored more discussion, less bullying. I was surprised at how well he managed to be as passionate as possible and yet stay clear of policy violations. I voted against his first RFA and voted for his second. If you know my deletionism and his inclusionism, you'll see that that really is saying something about how well he impressed me with his character and his restraint. I knew that I was voting for an admin who would oppose me at nearly every turn but agree with me that we work by open rules. However, he had had a year of vociferous argument. | |||
::Yes, I still see echoes of this in the recent UCoC enforcement vote (and many other issues too, but that's foremost in my head). Good to hear from you. Take care. --] (]) 22:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, it seems you have nudged me slightly out of my self exile. I have at least commented on the current RfBs. I do look in from time to time. It may be that the community / WMF balance will improve with time. One can only hope... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
His RFA #2 generated hundreds and hundreds of votes, incredible amounts of pettiness, and lots of threatening. | |||
::::Sorry, only people who support the WMF unconditionally are allowed to oppose RFB candidates. --] (]) 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
On the other hand, I can look over at some recent RFA's that have passed, and they have a ''total of 34 votes.'' Such was user:ChrisTheDude. I have no opinion of said dude. He may be the finest admin since Wile E. Heresiarch or Secret London, or he may be as troublesome as Everyking. I don't know. Apparently, no one else did, either. I know he's newish. ''Because he is new, and because he has done nothing substantial, he has had few views.'' In other words, he has not, almost ''de facto,'' demonstrated sufficient experience with the project due to having done so little to draw comment. RFA as it is now, with no quorum, promotes milquetoasts and the newbie over the passionate, involved, and experienced. | |||
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
{{ombox | |||
We've all heard the "if I had to go through RFA today, I'd fail" sentiment (or "if you had to go through..."). In fact, ArbCom tacitly acknowledged that when it moved the goalposts on Carnildo. If being active, engaged, and experienced means giant vote totals and being passive, particular, and new means low ones, then the only way to be sure that the same standard is at work throughout is to have some form of quorum. | |||
| name = First Edit Day | |||
| image = ] | |||
I feel very uncertain about any admin with 40 votes, total. Such a person may turn out to be fine, but I rather suspect it's easier for the shadowy BADPEOPLE that Durova and others worry about to get themselves to such a position by bland gnomery with low vote counts than it would be if we had quorum. | |||
| imageright = ] | |||
| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: repeating-linear-gradient(300deg, MistyRose, AntiqueWhite, Ivory, Honeydew, Azure, GhostWhite, MistyRose 50%); | |||
When I passed, it was 35:1:2, and it was one of the busiest RFA's in ages. If we had a requisite 100 total votes (neutral is not a vote), we might at least be sure to filter out the new users and those who are doing so little as to have gotten no notice. | |||
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center; | |||
| plainlinks = yes | |||
Anyway, such are my Thoughts upon this matter. ] 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi WJBscribe! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ]<sup>]</sup> 21:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
== Bots == | |||
I'm wishing to write a bot that can also be an adminbot, but reverting mass page-move vandalism, similar to {{botlinks|RedirectCleanupBot}}. | |||
I had a look at the code for RedirectCleanupBot and saw it was written in ] (.pl extension), would it be possible to do this for a {{botlinks|PageMoveCleanupBot}} (currently non-existent, but it could be useful, and would be another adminbot which would be useful. | |||
I'm fairly new to this area of Misplaced Pages, so any advice that can be given is appreciated. If you could help me that would be much appreciated. | |||
Hopefully, if such a bot can be created, let's hope it isn't as troubled as {{botlinks|BetacommandBot}}. | |||
Cheers, --<font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Probably the first thing to note is that the community is extremely weary of admin Bots - it seems to be required that someone who ran an admin Bot would also be an admin themselves. Also most of the code for RedirectCleanupBot was written by ] not myself. I presume the reason you want a page move Bot to be an admin Bot is that it would block the page move vandal? Unfortunately blocking Bots are some of the most controversial. A page move vandal blocking script was run for some time by ] (but on his main admin account, not a designated Bot account) which blocked users after a suspect string of page moves and reported it to ] for human review. Curps has since left the project but I understand that another admin now runs a blocking script for page moves from their main account, though I shan't name them. So this is being done, albeit not with the same openess that a designated Bot account would provide. | |||
:In short, although I think such a Bot is a great idea, I have a lot of doubts that it could pass ] and if it did I suspect it would need for the operator to be an admin themselves with a pretty perfect reputation. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Congratulations! == | |||
Congratulations on your promotion, Will! :) ] 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Ah! That rename log is huge already! Congrats on the new tools, and glad you got 'em! :) ]]] 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Just adding my congrats to one of the existing threads. So glad to have you as a 'crat. I really believe you'll be less of a "number cruncher" and I think that's important. Regards, ]] 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry I missed the !vote. Congrats!! -- ] ]</sup> 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== WikiHelp == | |||
Best, — ] <sub>]</sub> 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks == | |||
Many thanks for your cool head on . Thanks. ] ] 14:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Jeffpw == | |||
Here's my reasoning for blocking Jeffpw: | |||
# He was edit warring | |||
# As an editor who has been here a while, he knew full well that edit warring is unacceptable even if he or she did not violate 3RR | |||
# 3RR does not empower an editor to revert 3 times | |||
# He did not discuss with the "opposing editor" before his 2 of 3 reverts on that page. | |||
# I felt that by continuing his reverts he was putting them both in the spot to be blocked, in a sense baiting the "opposing editor", although it most likely wasn't done intentionally. | |||
# After assessing the situation, as well as a promise not to edit war, I unblocked Jeffpw. | |||
<sub>On a side note: in the future, refer to me as "he"/"his" not "her", which you seem to have written on ].</sub> regards, <small>]]</small> 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Also, if you really want to see heavy handedness check ]'s issuing of blocks. <small>]]</small> 15:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I'm sorry are you really saying "Its OK for me to issue bad blocks because someone else is worse?" <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Actually, I did discuss, and asked him to stop on the , as well as warning him . This was before my , after which I brought it to the 3rr page, thinking I had followed policy. You chose to simply block me without discussion. You also didn't bother removing the autoblock after you finally removed my regular block, resulting in nearly another hour of blockage. Your actions have left a bad taste in my mouth regarding editing here, and I would hope you act with more caution before blocking other users in a similar fashion. ] 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:'''Reply to WJBscribe''' No I did not say or intend to say "Its OK for me to issue bad blocks because someone else is worse?", I was giving an example of heavy handedness. My actions were not heavy handed, although I agree I could have simply spoken to Jeffpw on the issue, however, it is my position that he had been edit warring on the page even if he full well knew that he shouldn't have. (I apologize for forgetting about the autoblock). | |||
:'''Reply to Jeffpw''' You were not following policy when you were edit warring with then other editor. <small>]]</small> 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::] has only been an admin for a couple of weeks. If his blocking is out of step with others he should receive guidance from more experienced admins. But I do not think heavy handedness is relative such that as long as someone is being more heavy handed than you you're doing fine. I would hope that the consequences for your block - a lot of angst and nothing positive achieved - would be enough for you too see that blocking was a bad decision. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Nat, obviously, I didn't know that I had done anything wrong. A simple explanation of the fine points of 3rr would have gone a long way. A simple check of my block log would have shown you I had never been in this position before. You didn't assume any good faith in this situation, and, as I see it, abused your authority. I am through discussing this with you, and as far as I am concerned, this incident is closed. That said, I am currently reviewing my participation on Misplaced Pages in reaction to your heavy autocratic actions. ] 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
I would like to say a few things: | |||
# I did not abuse my authority | |||
# As a person and an editor that has clearly been here longer then I have (according to wannabe kate: Jeffpw registered in May 2005, and actively editing since October 2006), Jeffpw should have known the fine details of certain policies such as edit warring. | |||
# I object to the usage of the term "autocratic" as my actions were clearly not one of an autocrat. | |||
# If you feel the need to review your participation on Misplaced Pages, so be it. | |||
# I have checked you block log before I issued the block, and that is why I issued only a 24 hour block, which I believe is standard for edit warring. | |||
# As shown here: you did not clearly address the issues that the other editor had brought up. Here's what he had to say in an email to me: {{cquote|I'm just curious - why was I blocked for 3RR, when user Jeffpw reverted my edits three times, without even familiarizing himself with the talk page? I'm not sure if you read the discussion on ]. No one has addressed the fact that their edits violated MOS#Identity, they simply told me to "get over it." I really feel as if I am being ignored and treated unfairly. | |||
Jón Þór Birgisson refers to himself as "gay". MOS#Identity compels us to respect a person's choice of terminology. Yet Jeffpw and other editors reverted my edits in rapid fashion (more than 3 times), adding "openly", despite the fact that adding this word violates MOS#Identity. When I asked these users to address my point that "openly" is a violation of MOS#Identity, I was simply ignored. I feel like no one is addressing my point. It's clear from the edit history that neither Jeffpw nor the other editors even checked the cited source. | |||
Furthermore, please note that I was *not removing sourced material*. I have no idea where Jeffpw is getting this from. I believe that he is completely misunderstanding where I am coming from. Probably because he didn't even bother to read the talk page. If he had, he'd understand what I've been trying to explain for weeks. Also, I have been protecting this article from vandalism for six months now. I can't believe what Jeffpw is trying to accuse me of *without even understanding what I'm trying to say*. --]}} | |||
Now clearly I've looked at the talk page, and not once before that threat of a block did I see you discussing with him on his concerns. Now that gives me the impression that you did not want to discuss this with him, and that this edit war was going to continue. Your behaviour is not what someone would expect from someone who has edited here for a longtime. I think that the block was necessary and justified, as a method of prevention as well as a wakeup call that you cannot just revert someone or get into an edit war with someone without any attachment of responsibility with your actions. Although you did not break the letter of 3RR, you clearly broke the spirit of the rule. I apologize if this has upset you, but I was clearly justified to block you for something that a long time contributor, such as yourself, should understand and comprehend is inappropriate. <small>]]</small> 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Hesperian == | |||
Thanks for that. ] 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Sick of them yet? == | |||
Sick of renames yet? ;) You will be in a week or two.. ] 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I'm good at the moment. Enjoy the break while they're a novelty for me... :D <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Congrats == | |||
How could I have not seen your RfB? It would've been a '''Super Strong Support''' Good luck with the "Mop+" responsibility. ] 05:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I just realized you're a crat. Congratulations! I knew you'd be one soon, but not under my ] :). Also, I thought you'd run for ArbCom, you would've been a good contender. Did you at least think about it? - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== RFCU oddity == | |||
Why are these cases listed here? See ]. I see no pattern some are not on the RFCU page, one is archived, and one is on the RFCU page. I can't figure this out.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:All new RFCU requests contain the template {{tl|checkuser requests to be listed}} which includes them in that category. Someone needs to manually remove that category from case pages once they are listed on the main page. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::AH, I see, it's at the top, I was looking at the bottom of the case page. I've also noticed a lot of users don't transclude their request onto the RFCU page too.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China == | |||
Hi WJBscribe, Is it possible to extend the acceptance period for ] by 48 hours as there is only 1 of 8 that has not responded to the RfM yet, and I believe that it might of slipped his mind. Regards, <small>]]</small> 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:It seems that ] has been editing since the request was filed and was notified. If he were now to say he'd like to participate in mediation it would I accept be ridiculously bureaucratic to refuse to reopen the case. Our experience is that those who don't sign up within the week aren't really interested in mediation, but if he drops me a note saying he just forgot and wants to be involved I'll reopen the case and it can go ahead. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::''Copied from ]. | |||
:Please see ]. Thank you! — ] 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I'm recused in this case (as noted on the page), so {{user0|WJBscribe}} is acting Chair :) . Cheers, ''']''' 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== ''Signpost'' updated for December 3rd, 2007. == | |||
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font> | |||
|} | |||
<br> | |||
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
|- | |||
| colspan=3 | | |||
---- | |||
|- | |||
| align="left" | '''Volume 3, Issue 49''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']''' | |||
|- | |||
| colspan=3 align=center | | |||
---- | |||
|} | |||
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
<!-- --> | |||
{{s-s|2|1|2007-12-03|Gardner interview|''Signpost'' interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner}} | |||
{{s-s|2|2|2007-12-03|Arbitration series|Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open}} | |||
{{s-s|2|3|2007-12-03|License compatibility|Possible license migration sparks debate}} | |||
{{s-s|2|4|2007-12-03|Staffing features|Featured articles director names deputy}} | |||
{{s-s|2|5|2007-12-03|Software issues|Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed}} | |||
{{s-s|2|6|2007-12-03|WikiWorld|WikiWorld comic: "''Wordplay''"}} | |||
{{s-s|2|7|2007-12-03|News and notes|News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones}} | |||
{{s-s|2|8|2007-12-03|In the news|Misplaced Pages in the News}} | |||
{{s-s|2|9|2007-12-03|WikiProject report|WikiProject Report: LGBT studies}} | |||
{{s-s|2|10|2007-12-03|Features and admins|Features and admins}} | |||
{{s-s|2|11|2007-12-03|Technology report|Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News}} | |||
{{s-s|2|12|2007-12-03|Arbitration report|The Report on Lengthy Litigation}} | |||
<!-- --> | |||
|} | |||
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
| colspan=2 | | |||
---- | |||
|- | |||
| align="left" | ''']''' | ] | ] | ] | ] | |||
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small> | |||
|- | |||
| colspan=2 | | |||
---- | |||
|} | |||
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
== Thanks; advice? == | |||
WJB, thank you very much for defending me ]. I feel... distraught about the whole thing and it's good to know people are looking out for me when I'm too busy to promptly do so myself. I don't know how to respond other than to lay out my thought process as best I can remember it so many months ago. It's not really evidence, and I know from my many years of mock trial that someone's statements in their own interest are rarely persuasive, but I can't think of what else to do. Any thoughts?--] - ] 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Nevermind; that's what I'll do. Thanks again for defending me again today.--] - ] 11:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== ArbCom elections == | |||
Hi WJBs. You comments where highly appreciated. I just want you to read my where i explicitly explained my position. I hope receiving a feedback from you. Thanks again. -- ] - <small>]</small> 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Send me an e-mail. ] <small>]</small> 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your mature and balanced administration. It's a difficult tightrope to walk but you negotiated it with aplomb. ] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== User talk:74.200.75.5 == | |||
Hi I wonder why you unblocked the user, comments that he said was obvious trolling like | |||
I agree a two week block was too harsh, but we can't endorse that type of behavior in the elections. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I don't think that's trolling actually. A lot of good users seem to be concerned that power is being concentrated in the hands of a few people and that some candidates are a bit too "Wiki-establishment" for their tastes. That itsn't an invalid view to express, and I think the voting requirements should have been clearly explained to the IP before they were blocked. If they resumed now they have had it explained to them why they are not allowed to vote, a block might be appropriate. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I thought the same thing, WJB. Which is why I left notes on a few users' pages, as the incivility and premature block were both unnecessary, per the blocking policy. - ] (]) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Username == | |||
You freaking work fast, WJ. It's quite amazing. You're like a bot, but way cooler. ] ] 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Ha! Just you wait til I have a go at the clerks for not getting to the requests quickly enough ;-). I mean your request was there literally 4 minutes unattended... <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Unacceptable! I could have had my new username 4 minutes earlier if it weren't due to your philandering ways. ] ] 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== HIYO-Blue Laser == | |||
I did make a comment on Deskanna's talk page and she never responded. I am sure of this name. ] (]) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Ah, OK - I didn't know that. I'll go ahead and rename you then. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
See results, esp my last clerknote. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== 'crat ness things? == | |||
Playing (!) on Meta I looked at what others had done with renames and also asked others wiser than me. ] at all useful? Cheers --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 13:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
==ArbCom== | |||
Thanks for your note and for clarifying your position. I'll be honest as yours was quite a late candidacy I hadn't read your question answers and voted based on past interactions and a general belief that you would make a good Arbitrator. It was only on review the page and seeing concerns raised by some of the opposers that I realised I should have been more attentive to your question answers. The issue of privileged discussion is a complex one. On the one hand, discussing behind closed doors matters that could legitimately be shared more openly disenfranchises those not involved in the discussion and may prevent those with relevant information from contributing it. It can create an atmosphere of distrust and fuel conspiracy theories. On the other, there is some information that needs to be kept in safe hands. An extreme example is data covered by the Foundation's non-public data policy which is avalaible only to the most trusted (over 18) editors who have confirmed their identity to the foundation. Such material is apparently regularly discussed on the list and therefore legitimates the restriction of the list's circulation. There may also be information short of that which could be considered best kept confidential in order to encourage people to provide information and for Arbitrators to feel willing to express themselves fully (though that should not extend to attacks being made off-wiki than could not be made on it). Giano, despite his general advocacy of free flowing information, expressed the view that "an Arb has have the discretion of a Catholic priest". He is I think right. Sometimes people must feel able to contribute something to ArbCom that will not be shared with anyone else. Ironically, too much openness can have the uninteneded consequence of stifling the whistleblower... | |||
As a more pragmatic point, you may want to consider that regretably some do not trust their fellow administrators - indeed some discussions suggest there are some who do not even trust all present recipients of the ArbCom mailing list. It may seriously hamper the effectiveness of the Committee if it ceases to receive information because those who should be forwarding it that information do not trust those who will ultimetely receive it. It could also cause an increase in the number of "secret mailing lists" through which this information is disseminated. Which would promote the climate of secrecy and distrust the increased openness was trying to avoid. | |||
Anyway, just things to consider. I am more or less satisfied by your clarification but will let you think further on the issue. I am little concerned that your first opinion on the openness of the list was (to my eyes) a slightly knee-jerk one and doesn't appear fully thought out, which isn't ideal for someone wishing to be appointed to ArbCom. I shall consider my position over the next couple of days with a view towards restoring my support. I remain of the view that you are a talented and effective administrator, I'm just pausing for a little more thought on your suitability to being an arbitrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I really appreciate your position and the time you dedicated to explain it to me. I am satisfied w/ it and will take this opportunity to thank you again for your dedication to this project. -- ] - <small>]</small> 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Prolly an odd sort of question== | |||
I've been to AN/I and have seen some of the sections listed there. I am thinking I have to preparean AN/I on a user for multiple issues of incivility and personal attacks across a few articles. I was wondering, since you seem to know where all the nifty things are, if you could perhaps point out an exceptionally well-structured AN/I complaint that I could take a look at so as to better craft my own? - ] ] 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not sure I can think of one, but I can give you a few pointers: | |||
:# Keep the title neutral - people often switch of its titled "Absolutely shocking behaviour by User:X" or "Ban User:X" | |||
:# Keep it brief an focus on the evidence, people are often put off by very long threads | |||
:# Present diffs clearly, if you citing an attack use the diff as a quote e.g (from this page): | |||
:#: ] - 00:24, December 5, 2007 - | |||
:# Explain what action you want but leave the evidence to speak for itself - don't go on for too long about your personal opinions of the person you're complaining about | |||
:I think a good structure would be | |||
:# Introduction | |||
:# Diffs of misconduct | |||
:# Links to any previous relevant discussions | |||
:# Conclusions - what you want done | |||
:I hope that helps... <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 16:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Congrats! == | |||
Congratulations on getting your bureaucratship badge. :) You'll do a fine job. Regards, ] ] 16:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Favour asked == | |||
A favour please. Every answer to a question to 'F' that is not 'contentious' (these all relate to my original concern about pushing of pseudo-scientific views) is preceded by a message such as . Sometimes accompanied by accusations of bad faith, trolling &c. | |||
Can you ask him to stop this please. I've apologised for the remark quite enough. I am not acting in bad faith. I'm deeply concerned about this individual's involvement in Misplaced Pages (and now, other administrators). You may dislike my views, but that doesn't mean I am acting in bad faith. I deeply believe this stuff is wrong, need I say any more. I have no personal views about the person involved here, how could I. It's the internet. | |||
Note, the other person involved in this (I never asked her to support me, never met her before) has privately emailed and said she will not get further involved because of the bullying. Please can this stop. | |||
So, can I suggest a deal. | |||
1. I delete all the contentious stuff from the Vote talk page. I remove the questions as a gesture. All the contentious stuff we handle by email. I will send you the diffs, plus analysis around these. And if we could have an email discussion first, so I can be quite sure I trust you. I trust you already in view of some of your remarks, but I like to be sure, apologies for this. | |||
2. FT2 agrees to handle the non-contentious questions (about scientific method, pseudo science &c) in a reasonable way, and stops accusing me of trolling, bad faith &c. | |||
Does that sound reasonable? I have some old-fashioned views, but I'm a reasonable person. Many thanks. ] (]) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I note that the comment in your diff was written before you were unblocked. I can talk to FT2 and I think your offering to remove some of the stronger allegations from the vote page is a fair compromise and I think FT2 would then be more disposed to deal with the rest of your questions without refering back to the incident. Feel free to email me, I will respond honestly. I don't agree with the comments you have made on the vote talkpage and the way you have pursued that issue, but you are clearly a long term contributor to this project and should not be dismissed as a troll. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: I will remove the lot, and we try to start again. 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::: Which I have done. . I will ask the non-contentious questions again. The contentious ones, we deal with privately. 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::Can I suggest you don't? You've already opposed so I see no further need to question the candidate, and considering that you were quite rightly blocked yesterday, I'd suggest that you no longer comment on FT2's candidacy again. ] 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::: Why can't I ask the pseudo-science questions again? I have already deleted the original questions, because of the general mush. And I have a concern about this person (i.e. about the pseudo science) that a whole bunch of people in the community just don't understand. Why this concern? And this strikes me as bullying again. Please stop these questions about legitimate concerns. ] (]) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::: And who are you anyway???? 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) ] (]) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Check my userpage if you want to know who I am. I can assure you this isn't bullying, just a serious concern that you are harassing FT2. As I said, you've had your say, you've opposed, you're not going to change that vote, so move on. ] 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: I did check your page. I will not move on. Stop bullying! ] (]) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Well my friend, consider this a final warning, as you're cruising for block No.2. ] 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: I absolutely cannot believe this. I state my intention to pursue some (non-contentious) questions about scientific method. You tell me to 'move on'. In England this is considered EXTREMELY rude. You threaten me with a block. ] (]) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::: Let me put it bluntly, any further questioning of FT2 is now looking like harassment, you've made your thoughts clear, now it's time to do something constructive and stop this smear campaign. ] 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::: Please don't put anything bluntly. I agreed here to delete all the stuff relating to the contentious questions. As part of that, the original uncontentious questions were deleted. It seems a reasonable solution to put the original questions again, without the mush. This is part of the process. I have worked here for 4 years. ] (]) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I am pretty sure Ryan has the right idea here, and that you should take his warning seriously. Just let it drop all together. ] 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::: I'm not dropping anything. Stop this concerted bullying. I've agreed to deal with the 'difficult' questions privately. The ones about scientific method are perfectly legitimate and I want to ask them again. OK? That is the last thing I have to say, except, stop these threats, and stop the bullying. ] (]) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message == | |||
I don't think threatening more blocks here is wise. Dbuckner is not a troll, he is a longstanding solid contributor in good standing. That he may be nursing a grudge from a situation that even FT2 now says would be handled differently isn't that good. But the situation is calming down, and threatening, or even worse issuing, more blocks won't help calm it down. ] 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
:Ryan, Until - that you for your input but I think escalating things is a bad move here. Dbuckner has blanked the controversial comments on the talkpage and I think that should be accepted as genuine gesture of good faith. I would appreciate having your confidence to continue handling this matter, as I feel considerable progress has been made so far. Dbuckner is free to continue to ask questions of FT2 (and I think FT2 would be uncomfortable with him being prohibited from asking questions). Dbuckner is not a troll, he is a longterm contributor who has I think allowed himself to get carried away here. But I think we should be weary of stfling discussion because someone has expressed themselves in a sub-optimal manner. Questions asked of FT2 about scientific method seem to me perfectly reasonable - indeed NPOV vs SPOV seems to be an important issue to many voters. Lets give Dbuckner the benefit of the doubt that I think his contrib history warrants and let this unfortunate episode pass. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div> | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
: thank you. What has this place come to? ] (]) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
== Buckner == | |||
</div> | |||
While initially I think your unblock was a good one, based on Buckner's recent comments I think it is not turning out so well. Based on his recent comments, he appears to have moved his campaign to e-mail, and has "contacted the relevant organisations", whatever ''that'' is supposed to mean. I'll keep an eye out, but as my wiki-time is limited I'd appreciate it if you did likewise. ] 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1124425183 --> | |||
== Precious anniversary == | |||
:I'm trying to get things resolved quietly and peacefully - Dbuckner has removed his comments from the vote talkpage in exchange for his questions about scientific method being answered fully, which seems like progress. Where is the comment on contacting the relevant organisations? That's bordering on a legal threat... | |||
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Nine}} | |||
Best wishes for what you do with your time, - miss you here. --] (]) 08:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
== You are missed == | |||
:: the relevant organisations diff, it's a little worrying. ] 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::(edconf) . Also, accusing people of "a lot of nasty bullying" , , really isn't helping. ] 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Thank you again for both your actions and your articulation of the danger to the project posed by the WMF. I greatly respect your decision to leave, but it's a sad loss. ] (]) 09:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The bullying diffs preceed my appearance and also preceed the relevant organizations diff. I emailed him regarding the latter diff. I also have to head out soon. ] 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Yngvadottir}} Thank you, and I greatly appreciate your inclusion of "''This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF''" in your edit summaries. Were I to be minded to make any further edits in future, I would definitely adopt that! <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 13:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
Let me second the sentiment that you are missed. It's hard to believe it's been five years since all that went down. I'm sorry things shook out like they did, but your principled stand was noticed by many. ] (]) 00:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I will also add that you are definitely missed. I'm damn happy that I got to know you while you were here; I'm one of the lucky users that had this privilege. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Me, too! ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
In light of some recent events, I went ahead and read back through some of the Fram situation (one that occurred before my time actively editing). I think Misplaced Pages would be well-served by more bureaucrats and administrators like you were at that time. Thank you for your service. <span style="background-color: black">] ] ]</span> 00:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:41, 31 December 2024
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.
Thank you and a farewell note
I wanted to say a huge thank you not only to those who have posted supportive messages here and elsewhere, but also to those who have posted criticisms of my actions. It has been a pleasure editing this project alongside each and every one of you, whether we have agreed or not. I hope that those whose advice I have not felt able to follow over the last couple of weeks do think it fell on deaf ears. I have read every word and listened carefully.
Some have suggested that my recent actions have been out of character. I think that overlooks some of my history on this project. I have always believed more in principles than rules. Some may remember my unblock of Giano during the 2008 ArbCom elections, others my staunch objection to the existence of an off-wiki bureaucrat mailing list, or indeed my strong opposition to certain resysop decisions at WP:BN that I felt ran contrary to the best interests of the project. It is probably true to say that I have been one of the most "activist" / "interventionist" bureaucrats. Whether that is a good or bad thing I leave to the judgment of others, but I make no apology for it.
Harassment is a serious issue, and one that has affected me personally in my time editing the project. I have never spoken publicly about the full reasons for my withdrawal from the 2008 ArbCom elections. I did so due to threats I received that actions would be taken against me in the real world to embarrass me and my then employer. I had recently started a new position and was relatively junior, so that was a threat that I could not ignore. I withdrew from the elections and resigned as an admin and bureaucrat. Some months later, when I felt more secure and established at work, I resumed service as an admin and bureaucrat. It has been a matter of great sadness to me to see some suggest that I don't take the issue of harassment seriously or that recent actions by me are supportive of harassment. That is not the case, and I caution people against being overly quick to accept unquestioningly a narrative that has been presented to them. The WMF account of its actions in relation to Fram does not withstand the most cursory scrutiny - it should be treated with utmost suspicion.
There are two very serious problems facing the community at the moment, and neither ought to be allowed to eclipse the other:
- WMF v community self-governance. There is an urgent need to clarify the extent to which WMF is required to defer to community consensus, and the extent to which it must explain its actions and be held accountable for them by local communities. Without this, the project will hemorrhage contributors. Absent sufficient autonomy, wikipedia will simply not be the project that many of us chose to give our time to. The number of staffers would need to rise exponentially to fill the gap. I suggest WMF think long and hard about the value to them of the volunteer time they benefit from.
- Fair process in WMF actions. In all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, the accused must have basic rights. Those include the right to know the name of their accuser(s), to understand what they are accused of, and to have the opportunity to defend themselves. The accused must also have the right for any public statement about them to clearly identify the misconduct that they were found to have committed, rather than to be subject to vague insinuations and innuendo thrown about from those who claim to speak from a position of authority. Fram has been treated abysmally. The decision of two of my fellow bureaucrats to re-enact a punishment applied by WMF with no respect for basic concepts of fairness was the last straw in convincing me that I could not continue here.
I would remind everyone that over the last few years I been minimally active on the project, with little time to dedicate to it. Everyone will be fine without me. I also think that it is time for this project to stop relying on old hands in key positions. ArbCom is increasingly comprised of re-elected former Arbs, many bureaucrats (including me) were elected over a decade ago. That's not a good thing. We need fresh blood in key roles.
I hope that matters are resolved in relation to the two issues that I have identified above such that in future I will feel able to continue contributing to this project, but my days as a bureaucrat or administrator are done. WJBscribe (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Replies to this message and further discussion have been archived
Precious anniversary
Six years! |
---|
miss you - see Die Fliege (the fly) on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
... so delighted to read your measured comments again, "old" crat ;) - February flowers - late Valentine, read Alte Liebe and enjoy Handel's birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Three years ago? Yikes.
On the off chance you still look in from time to time, I saw something that reminded me of something else which in turn reminded me of Framgate, and I'm amazed to see that it all started 3 years ago yesterday. It feels so much more recent. While thinking back on everything, I still don't regret a lot, but I do regret my part in your resignation and retirement. I imagine it was like 95% WMF's fault and 5% mine, but I regret that 5%. Hope you're well, and thanks for caring so much about the integrity of the project. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
You two are forever my heroes for your actions then. Folly Mox (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: It does feel both like a very long time ago and in another way just yesterday. I think even 5% is beating yourself up too much. I don't think events would have played out differently if you hadn't asked for your bits back at the noticeboard; I couldn't have watched things play out from the sidelines. In the end, the result would still have been the same, there wouldn't have been enough support for the actions I took (esp. re: Fram) and my position would have still have ended up untenable.
Ultimately, it's not because I resigned the bits that I don't contribute any more, I miss everyone and care for the project, but I don't want to give valuable free labour to WMF. I was comfortable contributing to a community-run project advancing free knowledge that was largely self-governing save for the minimal legally required role that WMF originally had (and Jimbo's increasingly shrinking founder role). And I was happy to give my time to that project. But increasingly the projects are now run by WMF, which sees itself as having a governance role over a social movement. The goal of trying (perhaps in vain) to build a NPOV online encyclopaedia that was free to all was alluring. This is depressing (it's like they didn't realise WP:PILLARS existed).
The community has failed to stand up to WMF and has tacitly endorsed its every encroaching remit. More of those who have stayed, and those who joined recently, believe that WMF are in charge. They liken WMF to Facebook without understanding how Misplaced Pages is (was?) different. I feel that Facebook provides a service to its users whereas WMF receives services from the community. But it seems people don't see it that way. That's fine, I get it. From my point of view though, the battle for self-governance we won with Jimbo was then lost to WMF, which whittled it away a piece at a time. WMF forces through policies and tech features that no one wants, while ignoring the features that the community asks for and the bugs it's crying out to have fixed (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Mobile communication bugs). WMF now attempt to set the agenda, rather than responding to wishes of the projects. WMF even dictates where and how discussions happen, eschewing the noticeboards and consensus building structures we set up. People seem to be grudgingly accepting that. I couldn't and still can't. The result is that I don't want to give my time here any more, however tempting. WJBscribe (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- Yes, I still see echoes of this in the recent UCoC enforcement vote (and many other issues too, but that's foremost in my head). Good to hear from you. Take care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it seems you have nudged me slightly out of my self exile. I have at least commented on the current RfBs. I do look in from time to time. It may be that the community / WMF balance will improve with time. One can only hope... WJBscribe (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, only people who support the WMF unconditionally are allowed to oppose RFB candidates. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it seems you have nudged me slightly out of my self exile. I have at least commented on the current RfBs. I do look in from time to time. It may be that the community / WMF balance will improve with time. One can only hope... WJBscribe (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I still see echoes of this in the recent UCoC enforcement vote (and many other issues too, but that's foremost in my head). Good to hear from you. Take care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Happy First Edit Day! Hi WJBscribe! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU 21:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Nine years! |
---|
Best wishes for what you do with your time, - miss you here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
You are missed
Thank you again for both your actions and your articulation of the danger to the project posed by the WMF. I greatly respect your decision to leave, but it's a sad loss. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: Thank you, and I greatly appreciate your inclusion of "This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" in your edit summaries. Were I to be minded to make any further edits in future, I would definitely adopt that! WJBscribe (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Let me second the sentiment that you are missed. It's hard to believe it's been five years since all that went down. I'm sorry things shook out like they did, but your principled stand was noticed by many. 28bytes (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I will also add that you are definitely missed. I'm damn happy that I got to know you while you were here; I'm one of the lucky users that had this privilege. ~Oshwah~ 04:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Me, too! Andre🚐 04:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
In light of some recent events, I went ahead and read back through some of the Fram situation (one that occurred before my time actively editing). I think Misplaced Pages would be well-served by more bureaucrats and administrators like you were at that time. Thank you for your service. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)