| Revision as of 22:49, 29 December 2013 edit28bytes (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators32,522 edits →Sorry to see you go: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:04, 29 December 2013 edit undoSmokeyJoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,345 edits →Sorry to see you go: "watching people prepare a negative blog post about you while they don't you you're watching is a very surreal and unnerving experience." Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.<p>I don't feel deceived.Next edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| OK, it's archive 43. You can revert this if you don't want it visible. --] (]) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC) | OK, it's archive 43. You can revert this if you don't want it visible. --] (]) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :(ec) It's ]; I just archived it, I didn't delete it. ] (]) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC) | :(ec) It's ]; I just archived it, I didn't delete it. ] (]) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *"watching people prepare a negative blog post about you while they don't you you're watching is a very surreal and unnerving experience." Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.<p>I don't feel deceived. If you run again, you'll have my support again. --] (]) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:04, 29 December 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:28bytes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
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 will resign.
I have decided to resign my position on the arbitration committee. It will take a few hours to un-flag myself, unsubscribe from mailing lists, etc., so please bear with me for a bit as I work through that process.
This was not an easy decision. People I respect have publicly and privately encouraged me to serve out the term, and I feel very bad to let them down.
I won my seat on the committee fair and square; my edits to Misplaced Pages have always been public, and the voters judged me on those edits. There was no canvassing from Wikipediocracy in my favor, obviously, since Wikipediocracy did not know who I was. During the voting the only person outside my family who knew I was active on both sites was a Misplaced Pages administrator I trust, who has never been active on Wikipediocracy (and who does not particularly like them.)
But the point is that other editors I respect feel it wasn't fair for me to win a seat without disclosing my WO account, since they would not have voted for me if they had known I'd been critical of Misplaced Pages on another site. I don't agree with that analysis of "fair", but I understand where they are coming from, so I can't dismiss their concerns.
I would rather step aside than let there to be any lingering questions at all about the legitimacy of the election.
This has not been an enjoyable month for me. That's my own fault, of course; no one forced me to run for ArbCom. But aside from the brief interlude between finding out I was the top vote-getter and seeing my name and hometown on various websites a few minutes later, there's been very little enjoyment of what should essentially be a fun hobby.
So in addition to resigning from the arbitration committee, I will be turning in my bureaucrat and administrator tools, and taking an indefinite break from Misplaced Pages. I won't be "vanishing" or deleting my user pages or anything like that; it's only fair that I stick around and deal with any fallout from this. If you have a question or comment for me, feel free to post it here and I'll respond. I'll make sure that anything you have to say to me is listened to, and if necessary responded to. But once this episode fades into the history bin like so many Wiki-dramas before it, I will be moving on to other pastures.
Some thoughts on COI
Before I go, a few words about "conflict of interest" and the video game I wrote in 2009. Before the Wikipediocracy staff found out that I was "one of them", they were preparing a blog piece that critiqued my COI edits. (That's since been revealed publicly, so I'm not breaking any confidences here.) The idea that an incoming arbitrator would cross the "bright line" preventing people from editing articles they were personally affilated with is indeed a fair topic for a blog post. (As a "secret" member there I was actually in the strange position to see it get written in real time. Let me assure you that watching people prepare a negative blog post about you while they don't you you're watching is a very surreal and unnerving experience.)
But I want to say here, for the record, that I am unreservedly proud of every edit I made to articles I had or have a COI with. It's a few dozen out of my 30,000 edits here total, but I remember those edits well, because I was extremely careful about getting them right. Misplaced Pages:Autobiography says that such COI editing "is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and there are many pitfalls."
That's absolutely right; it is difficult. But it's not impossible. I remember when the first not-so-good review of Duck Attack! came out. I was a bit bummed out by it, but the question "should I add this to the article?" had an obvious answer for me: "Yes. You are a Wikipedian. You write neutral, accurate and well-sourced content, regardless if the review is good or bad." So I added it.
But I went further than that. I worked with another editor to bring the article about the critic who wrote that review to DYK. And I defended that article, repeatedly, against vandalism and BLP violations against the critic.
And I wanted to make sure that Duck Attack! was not given undue prominence among homebrew games, so I contacted other homebrewers and asked them to donate screenshots of their games, which I updloaded and added to relevant articles. My uploads and article additions of other homebrews are why the list of Atari 2600 homebrew games has an image of another homebrew (not my game) and why Atari 2600#Homebrews has another homebrew game (not mine) adorning the section.
I have treated my "competitors" well, by giving them accurate, neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia articles. I wrote Medieval Mayhem and brought it to the front page. And Oystron. And A-VCS-tec Challenge. Halo 2600 is largely my work. Take a look at any of the homebrew video game articles that were not written by me; most are poorly sourced and filled with original research, and have often been tagged as such for years. I am extremely proud of the work I've done writing about these interesting and notable games, including my own game.
Should I have waited for someone else to write the Duck Attack! article? Well, maybe. I suppose I could have waited for them to write The Vietnamization of New Jersey or Move Like This or R.O.C.K. in the U.S.A. or The Most Unwanted Song or 911 Is a Joke or any of the other 100 or so articles I wrote because nobody had bothered to write them yet, but I didn't see much point.
So take a look at the Duck Attack! article. Do you see any original research, or POV-pushing, or unsourced or inaccurate statements? Or do you see a good-faith effort to comply with every guideline and policy we have on article building, with the acknowledged exception of the COI guideline?
When people bring up that article as one of my failings, is that because there's actually anything wrong with the article, or might there be another reason? My edits have been first and foremost in the service of building neutral, accurate, well-sourced content, whether I have anything to do with the article subject or not. That's true of my edits to Duck Attack!, and it's true of every other COI edit I have made. Take a look at the edits, and decide for yourself.
Once again, I am truly sorry to anyone who feels misled. I hope my resignation will suffice to make things right. 28bytes (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed, but I fully understand your decision (and not everyone has a backs-against-the-wall mentality that may have been required in some situations resulting from the "revelation"). I've written COI articles myself; Zoe Wenham, and Richard Keen (racing driver). It isn't that hard to write a COI article, except you need to be double-careful wrt your writing style, and to ensure it is as neutral as possible. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 22:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go
I'm sorry to see you go, and I hope that you will come back in due time.
But as a courtesy to the rest of us, could you please make the revision history of your user talk page accessible to non-admins? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, it's archive 43. You can revert this if you don't want it visible. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) It's here; I just archived it, I didn't delete it. 28bytes (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- "watching people prepare a negative blog post about you while they don't you you're watching is a very surreal and unnerving experience." Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
I don't feel deceived. If you run again, you'll have my support again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)