| Revision as of 12:56, 1 October 2019 editKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →Recent events: +1← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:57, 1 October 2019 edit undoKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →Thank you!: +1Next edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ... what they said --] (]) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC) | ... what they said --] (]) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC) | ||
| : +1. ]] 12:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Note== | ==Note== | ||
Revision as of 12:57, 1 October 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User | Talk | Articles | To Do | Toolbox | Subpages | DYK | Awards |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!
I am probably offline and am unable to respond swiftly. I will respond as soon as I can. Please feel free to send me an email, where I will likely respond faster.
 | This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers. |  |
|
Thanks
Just a quick note to thank you for being, by far, the most intelligent and trustworthy Arb I've ever had the "pleasure" to deal with. You stand out head and shoulders above your peers, and I sincerely hope you'll be doing the job for a while to come, and hopefully helping the mass of new Arbs come new year follow in your footsteps. I made a mistake when I voted in the last Arbcom election, I voted for three individuals, two of whom have let me down terribly by really not actually engaging with the community, not being open and honest. You were the only one. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, Thank you for your kind words, none of which I deserve and all of which I'm sure you'll regret one day! My term is almost up on the committee, and I haven't decided if I'll run again, but I do appreciate the sentiment, especially from yourself. Worm(talk) 07:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like you to return! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gerda. Worm(talk) 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like you to return! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- All humor aside ^^ what they said ^^. IMO the 2019 iteration of AC was one of the weakest I've seen. But I suppose that's said almost every year. Still, it was a year where we required exceptional leadership, a year where an exceptional number of arbs resigned, and a year where I thought you distinguished yourself as exceptional. (even if others displayed a rather lackluster effort) There are times where experience weeds out the ineffective, but I think this year your experience has lifted you to a category of Arb that's rather sparsely populated. (NYB, Iri, Carcharoth, Casliber, Risker, and I'm sure one or two that aren't coming to mind at the moment). This is to say that, even when I most assuredly disagree with you, I do believe you've distinguished yourself as one of the better Arbs. — Ched (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well... there's not much I can say to that. Thank you Ched, for those very kind words. Worm(talk) 12:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- At least there's a lot I could say to that. I concur 100% with TRM, and Ched - and they've put it in finer words than I could. I was very relieved when you came back to Arbcom, and I hope most sincerely that you will stay there for a while to come. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd include Gorilla peacefare and Opabinia regalis in the category of arbs whose reasoning I can usually follow (which is saying a lot). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- And thank you both too. I'm resisting the (British) urge to tell you all how wrong you are and just accept the compliments. It's surprisingly difficult, so I'll just keep saying thank you. Worm(talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd include Gorilla peacefare and Opabinia regalis in the category of arbs whose reasoning I can usually follow (which is saying a lot). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- At least there's a lot I could say to that. I concur 100% with TRM, and Ched - and they've put it in finer words than I could. I was very relieved when you came back to Arbcom, and I hope most sincerely that you will stay there for a while to come. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| The Fram situation was a debacle from start to finish and Arbcom was dealt bad cards and did not play them perfectly. Nevertheless, you demonstrated courage and intellectual honesty in working hard at the end to make sure the verdict matched the findings of fact at hand. I'm not a Fram fan, but I am a WTT fan. Nicely done, you did well in an absolutely unwinnable situation. Beyond that, Dave, I thank you very much for your service on the committee — one of the hardest and most thankless tasks at Misplaced Pages. You've been a consistent, reasonable voice, and that's really all anyone can ask. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you Carrite. I accept that with hindsight, the committee could have played things better - but allow me to point out that the committee could have played things a damned sight worse. I have no doubt that point will get lost in the annals of time, but I do think it's worth making. As for the final point, reasonable and consistent is actually where I generally aim, so I'm glad I've come across that way! Thank you again. Worm(talk) 17:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll heartily second this. It must be extremely difficult at times to remain objective on Arbcom; Dave does this admirably.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 | |
| meadow saffron |
|---|
... what they said --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Note
You are cited as saying:
"The fact is that the community had a chance to bring any evidence during this case, but declined to - largely because they just wanted to watch and see what happened. "
In my case it was largely because I couldn't get an answer as to whether open evidence was allowed. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram#Private_vs_public_evidence.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC).
- Hi Rich. I first like to apologise for not getting back to you - there was an awful lot going on and while I did sit down to write you an answer a couple of times, I couldn't think how best to explain it - especially as your question was not clear, it was more asking for a considered response to a statement. Also, my opinion on the response changed significantly as the case went on - from one end of the spectrum "The case is going to be held completely in camera as we have said on the front page" (which meant your question didn't need answering) to the other "this case should have been done in public from the start", by which time it was too late. Open evidence was not allowed - but the why... well it's what we decided based on the options we had. For my own part, I'd hoped to release the T&S evidence along with the community evidence, so it wasn't clear what came from where. I was told by tWMF that could not happen. I'm not happy with how the case turned out, but that doesn't surprise me - I knew going in I wasn't going to be happy with the outcome - whatever it ended up as. Worm(talk) 23:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think it was never going to end well for all concerned. There were always going to be people who would say of anything short of complete exoneration that ArbCom was WMF's puppet (to me this, at least, is demonstrably not true). Conversely, even though I was with the community that it is not T&S's mandate to deal with this type of behaviour, the world has moved on in the last 15 years, and it is now recognised as important to protect users from social harms - something we have failed to do in this case, at least up to the de-sysoping, and I think probably in many others.
- I have never thought that the community is "toxic" as some like to describe it, but there are certainly elements that make life uncomfortable, to say the least. A few weeks ago, someone I have no recollection of disagreeing with in the past said they had "given up assuming good faith" of me "years ago". While odd occurrences of this level of "feedback" does not unsettle me they do not form part of the collegial spirit we would like to engender. I have no idea what good, practicable solutions there are to these problems, if any. We have enough trouble patrolling content without patrolling the larger part of the project.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
- These are very good points which will hopefully be covered in the upcoming RfC. I do hope you participate there Worm(talk) 12:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Feedback
Thank you for your feedback. All feedback is valuable. Some of what you said seems based on misperceptions, but I don't want to argue about it. Instead, I removed my remark (unreplied to) that you and Joe Roe had disputed, and tried my best to restate my concerns in a more constructive manner. Jehochman 12:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Jehochman, Thank you. I've replied there. Worm(talk) 13:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- If I ever sound like a troll, be sure to tell me, and I will try to stop. Jehochman 13:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Jehochman, I do appreciate that. I'm not one to generally criticise others, but sometimes I do feel it is necessary. Hopefully, that can be the end of it, I've no interest in pushing things further. Worm(talk) 13:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- If I ever sound like a troll, be sure to tell me, and I will try to stop. Jehochman 13:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Recent events
I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Black Kite, I appreciate the note. I hadn't intended to stand, however, with 11 seats available - I'm concerned about... unsuitable candidates. We'll see. Worm(talk) 07:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I share BK's sentiments and endorse their comments. I'd also be pleased to see you stand again, for the reason you suggest, and you'd have my full support. -- Begoon 07:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Begoon, Thank you too. I'm sure there are many who would be unhappy to see me (or any of the current committee stand), but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Of course, my talk page is hardly the best place to get honest feedback on how well I'd do ;) Worm(talk) 08:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- We don't need so many arbitrators. If we reduce the panel size to 3 for each case, which is typically the largest number of arbitrators ever used in real world arbitration, a committee of 7-9 could handle the work load. I think that having 9 arbitrators all read the same evidence is too many. Having one arbitrator is very valuable. Having three is a little more valuable. Having more is already of little incremental value. Jehochman 12:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'd certainly support if you stand. KillerChihuahua 12:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Begoon, Thank you too. I'm sure there are many who would be unhappy to see me (or any of the current committee stand), but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Of course, my talk page is hardly the best place to get honest feedback on how well I'd do ;) Worm(talk) 08:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I share BK's sentiments and endorse their comments. I'd also be pleased to see you stand again, for the reason you suggest, and you'd have my full support. -- Begoon 07:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)