Content deleted Content added
→Meta comments about AE: Reply |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 241:
: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)
| |||