Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/10. (BOT) |
→Meta comments about AE: Reply |
||
| (28 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 180:
:Let me also say that I think this request for feedback idea is a good one and I think a lot of people would benefit from it. Thinking back on my own wikijourney, the last time I've really heard substantive feedback from a bunch of people was my own RfA, over six years ago now. And I think that both sides of the coin are valuable in different ways: of course actionable feedback for self-improvement is helpful, but hearing the reaffirmations of trust and appreciation can also be very important to both the effectiveness and enjoyment of this work. And there are many ways in which both of those (but perhaps the latter especially) are harder to access the longer one has been around the project. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 19:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks Kevin. There's a lot to think about here. I'm not even sure where to start on the capacity building you mention (even if I don't 100% subscribe to the way you think I'm unique). My attempt at capacity building had been RfA. But as you know, I've had to put those activities on pause because I couldn't do that with enough remove; what happened around RfA made me reconsider my entire involvement in the project. Ultimately I decided the right answer for me was to step away from RfA while continuing other activities. So yes I agree with your general comment about capacity building (it was something I did at NPP when I was active there). If you come up with anything specific there I would love to hear it because my best answer so far has been to write about those things. But I will also give it more thought. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, thanks. I think what I was getting at is that we need to build systems and institutions that are resilient to the lack of people like you, at least for a time, which may sometimes mean shifting the expectations we have for volunteer-driven work. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Apologies for butting in, but can I ask what you're referring to with {{tq|what happened around RfA}}? I would assume you mean [[WP:RFA2021]] in general, but it looks to me, as someone who post-dates that discussion and has the hindsight of [[WP:RFA2024]] having occurred, that it was extremely successful, at least as far as anyone can be successful at trying to get this old ship to change course. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You're always welcome here asilvering. No. I'm referring to RFA2024 there. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Oof. I guess I assumed it was something further in the past since you've always seemed like such a rock. Glad you're still around. For what it's worth, to this post-RFA2024 addition to the corps, it looks like capacity has indeed been built, even if it felt awful at the time. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes the elections are a huge success. Very happy to see it. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
== Feedback from Epicgenius ==
#Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I've found you to be a level-headed admin who's always willing to offer a helping hand. Like PMC, I think you are doing well at being a voice of reason, so you should keep it up. Cliched as this may sound, admin or not, you are a positive presence on Wikipedia.
#Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Unfortunately I don't know what feedback to provide in this regard. In my view, you have it pretty much nailed down; if anything, there should be more admins who are like you. I do realize that this would be a tall order, though, like L235 mentions above. Other than that, I suggest jumping back into content creation, even if only occasionally (I see you're already doing that). It'll be fun.
#(Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: I don't have any questions.
#(Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: I don't have a list of things I wish you'd stop/do differently, at the moment, so I'm not sure how useful my feedback is. Personally I think you are doing a great job, but I do think it's worth soliciting feedback from folks who may have had disagreements with you. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 16:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
#:Thanks Epic. I appreciate the time and consideration you gave this. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
#::You're welcome. Hopefully my feedback can be helpful even though I don't have any specific suggestions for improvement. <small>Also, for Q3, I should have asked how you're doing, but then I'd be stealing Amory's idea. {{=D}}</small> – [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 00:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== Feedback from Amorymeltzer ==
#''Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing:'' Keep thinking systemically, broadly, and communicating your thoughts. You're quite good at it; putting a name to an issue and conveying it clearly is hugely valuable. I'd basically echo everything Kevin said above here, so all of that as well. Institutional is a word I'd use.
#''Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently:'' Take care of yourself! I can't know this and I ''think'' it probably belongs above, but I just want to make sure you're doing all the things we're saying we want you to do but keeping yourself balanced and on an even keel. Also—and I know this is contradictory—ArbCom.
#''Questions I have for Barkeep:'' How's it going? How're you feeling?
#''Other feedback I want Barkeep to know:'' You rock!
~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 22:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:I miss our paths crossing regularly. I hope you're well. Thanks for taking some of your limited time to comment here. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:Ok since you and Epic have now both said that you want to know the answer, I suppose I better answer your question. I'm generally feeling quite good about wiki related matters these days. Serving on ArbCom is a privilege I've been lucky to do and I miss some elements of the work, but its work also tends to occupy nearly all the space I have for wiki related matters. So not being on ArbCom has been tremendously freeing and reinvigorating; I'm truly enjoying being a volunteer again on wiki. And helpfully the U4C work has been good so far. The committee members are all great colleagues, we're doing a reasonable job of setting up systems and processes that are going to endure (which was my major reason for running). And having just the little bit of distance in work between what happens with ArbCom and the cases we've gotten has been useful too. Outside of not having as much time for wiki work as I once did, I do feel like I'm operating as my "best self" in the work with the U4C. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5|''Palestine-Israel articles 5'']] updates ==
You are receiving this message because you are on [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Update list|the update list]] for [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5|''Palestine-Israel articles 5'']]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the [[WP:PIA]] topic area and examination of the [[WP:AE]] process that led to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 129#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al|two]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 130#Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)|referrals]] to [[WP:ARCA]]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, '''the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days''', until '''23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)'''. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence|the evidence talk page]], providing a reason with [[WP:DIFFS]] as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Second, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence|evidence phase]] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 -->
== Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment ==
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#rfc_A538A8D|'''Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)'''  on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 19:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
== December music ==
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = [[User:Gerda Arendt/Top|story]] · [[User talk:Gerda Arendt#Music|music]] · [[User:Gerda Arendt/Places and songs 2024#19 Nov|places]]
}}
On the Main page today [[Jean Sibelius]] on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's [[Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)|Fifth]] from the [[:File:Notre-Dame de Paris, across the Seine, before reopening.jpg|opening of Notre-Dame de Paris]]. We [[User:Gerda Arendt/Images 2024#8 Dec|sang in choirs]] today. -- [[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:What pretty choral spaces. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Thank you! - Rehearsal was difficult - too many new pieces, too little light - but the singing, with raised vigilance, was good. - What do you think of {{diff|Samuel Barber|1251417174||this edit}}? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 10:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Syrian civil war#rfc_EB2AD72|'''Talk:Syrian civil war'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 01:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== I noticed your comment about the committee getting more appeals in the past than it does now ==
That could change as we tell those with ARBPIA bans they have to appeal to ARBCOM, which I've started doing. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's a reasonable point though I don't think it changes the overall analysis of my point since the comment I made was presuming a heavier workload. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's only if the admin says the appeal has to be heard by arbcom. I'm not sure how much that will come up. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well at least one admin is saying he's doing it. And perhaps more will given that the most frequent admin in the topic area is becoming an arb. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Really? That sounds like a bummer. That guy was pretty cool. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
== Feedback from Girth Summit ==
#Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I haven't been keeping tabs on exactly what you've been doing lately. I know you were a first-rate new page patroller, and trainer of other people wanting to do that well, so if you're still doing that, great! I believe, from my own limited interactions with the committee, and from what other people have told me, that you were an excellent arbitrator, so I guess it would have benefitted the project if you had kept on doing that, but I'm sure you have your own reasons for stepping back from that and I would never want to put pressure on any contributor to work on an area of the project that they don't want to. Wherever you do it, I hope that you will continue sharing your extensive knowledge and encouraging contributors new and old.
#Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: I can't think of any. There are things you do that I would probably do differently from you if I were doing them, but that's more about the different ways that different people interact with each other. One of the things that keeps this community working is the diversity of our contributors, their different perspectives and ways of doing things are a great strength. So, yeah - even if I occasionally take a different perspective on something from you, I wouldn't want you to stop and seeing things your way.
#(Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: when are you going to take that vacation in the UK?
#(Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: it seems like a long time ago now, but you should know how much I still appreciate the help you gave me back in 2019 when I was going new page patrol school. Your friendly, patient and thoughtful guidance was excellent. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span> <span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
== Recall ==
Hey, I noticed your [[User:Barkeep49/Recall|voluntary recall]] page has a typo on it. It says "immeadiately". My inner OCD cannot leave without pointing this out :) [[User:OXYLYPSE|OXYLYPSE]] ([[User talk:OXYLYPSE|talk]]) 22:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:For my level of educational attainment I am an atrocious speller and there are some words I can never spell right. That's one of them. Thanks for point this out. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
== Meta comments about AE ==
I'm concerned that three admins ([[User:ScottishFinnishRadish]], [[User:Extraordinary Writ]] and [[User:Vanamonde93]]) at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Raladic]] are considering a logged warning for both sides for edit warring, based on a single example supplied by Extraordinary Writ. In the previous AE on this area [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive341#Colin here] Barkeep explicitly said "If people have concerns about anyone other than [the subject] they should file their own AE report" but here we see admins take it upon themselves to widen the scope of "those who may be sanctioned" to include the filer, for an issue separate from anything they wrote in the AE filing statement. And doing so with a single example that if that was all a typical user posted when filing a complaint, would result in a swift dismissal of "Nothing to see here, come back to us when you can offer an strong pattern of problematic behaviour". Once again I get the feeling that the rules about evidence are for other people. If you are going to arbitrarily take it upon yourselves to inspect other users' behaviour, why not also then any others present. What a jeopardy you have created, that being a filer of the complaint escalates hugely the risk of being sanctioned yourself, because those other guys could be 100 times worse than you, but you have to be perfect.
The statement at the last AE: "There was also a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised during this discussion" was a strong encouragement to the community to file additional reports on problem users. Which is what [[User:Void if removed]] did.
About my own AE... The filer basically made shit up and was caught out by the reviewing admins for doing that and yet... there were no consequences. Barkeep's rationale for that was that bad faith misinterpretation was not "limited to Snokalok". Quite bizare for me to read that because there are other bad editors, the filer isn't sanctioned for making claims about me that are patently untrue. So the lesson then was you can come to AE and post any old shit about an editor and hope the admins find some other fault in the subject (tone say).
The lesson from the Raladic AE, if you follow through, would seem to be that if you complain about an obvious activist at AE, you'd better be an absolute saint, or better still, not have any edits in the area to be examined, because if you make any mistakes, you'll get a logged warning back at you. And if one can get a logged warning because an admin finds a single diff, then presumably the next escalation is you get topic banned for one more mistake. (We warned User:X and they didn't heed the warning). I'm not provoking you to go find two or three diffs. But Void is one of the better players in this field, and of all the people at that AE, a long way from being those most in need of logged warnings.
I get it that boomerangs is a thing people do on Wikipedia. And at times it is useful to avoid vexatious filings from editors who are actually the problem vs the subject. But you guys explicilty asked us to make more reports, and it turns out Void was stupid enough to take you up on it.
This area is overrun with activist editors on all sides who use revert regularly and with impunity. That a medical editor trying their best to use [[WP:MEDRS]] might let their frustration lead to mistakes is somewhat understandable. Of the editors on both sides of this debate, I think Void if removed and Sideswipe9th are the only two I feel properly grasp that "other opinions exist and are valid, even if I disagree with them" and who understand our policy and guildeline limit and guide what we need to write in article space. Both of them are fully capable of understanding the other side's POV and fairly describing it. Unfortunately Sideswipe9th is no longer editing, and I am quite certain this AE will do the same for Void.
I fail to see why any reasonable editor would either file any more AE requests against activists in this area or even bother to edit in this area at all. I'm not aware of ''any'' other medical editors who edit articles in this topic. One or two post the occasional talk page comment. It will be left to the activists (on both sides) who lack any concern for building an encyclopaedia.
[[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:Colin: putting something in quotes which is an accurate summary is a problem, but does not mean they (in my mind) {{tqq| basically made shit up}}. Beyond that I cannot comment on the current report or what that means for the patterns of yours, Void's, and this one until I have had a chance to read it. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think you made a typo there, and meant to say "inaccurate summary", which is a very generous description. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
| |||