User:Ched/Arbcom

My page to deal with all things Arbcom:

IMO thoughts

very rough draft here, but some passing thoughts.

• There should be a minimum effort at DR prior to filing a case (outside emergency actions). Be it 3 or 4 or whatever number should be decided upon, there should be some community review at some DR board. (AN, AN/I, etc.)
• I think that once a case has been accepted, then anyone wishing to offer evidence should be added to the case, and their own actions should be open to review
• Arbs and former arbs should not be contributing evidence unless the case involves them directly, and they should be added to the case party list if they do
• Absolutely NO arb (past or present) should be stating "I think editorx should be sanctioned" outside the active arbs in the PD vote.

Rough drafts

• to review for formatting, content, and flow of posts.

I'm guessing this is the meat of what prompted you to post here, so I'll try to address it fully. I typically do AGF, so I'll assume that your post is not an attempt to intimidate me or anything in that related area. (but I'm also well aware of WP:NOTSUICIDE wrt AGF). I wish you would have been more specific, because you started with a link to something I posted at the PD talk page; but I made no reference to you in any way there. If you feel there was something amiss, could you be specific as to which sentence or phrase you feel was casting aspersions in your direction?

Which brings us to the post I made to another user's talk page. Now I made it quite clear that this was MY perception", what it looked like to ME. I didn't accuse any one person of anything, and I certainly didn't point a finger at any specific user; and I MOST certainly didn't attack your character. Now I'll go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that it's "throw their weight around" phrase that troubles you. OK, but item #8 above pretty much solidifies my perception doesn't it? (would seem to confirm my suspicions) Now you're certainly not alone here. There are plenty of folks who try to influence discussions; especially those who have that magic "wiki-social capital"

If you want me to provide an example of what I consider to be slanted evidence, ok. On first blush: Your first, very first, bullet point is directed towards the RexxS RfA. (see: Poisoning the well) There you say RexxS' RfA was contentious, with 92 editors (36%) opposing, and 15 neutral. You don't mention that there were 164 support !votes. That is what's known as providing only part of a story. And I'm not going to get into reviewing your other "evidence" or even ask why you struck 16 diffs further down in your evidence. It's not my job to go through your evidence and try to point you in any particular direction.

Iff you simply want to claim I've cast aspersions on you, that's fine, whatever, say it anywhere you'd like, I honestly don't care. If you wish to file a formal complaint, drop me a link and I'll try to respond. If however you're asking me to come to you every time I see something that could be improved? I don't know Joe, I'd imagine you're a perfectly fine young man, - but it doesn't really look like our wiki-interests overlap much. I've never been good at following anyone around, and actually rarely even look at my watchlist. If I saw something that I felt violated policy then sure, I'd come to your talk and tell you. But to go looking for sub-optimal posts - I'll have to pass on that since it's not really my style. As a former arb I hope you have the self-awareness to know that your posts are going to come under scrutiny especially on case pages.

If it's a matter of you having hurt feelings over my perception of things - again, I'm not really sure what to tell you. I guess you could try to force me to apologize, or you could take it onboard and move forward. If my opinion matters all that much to you, then I'll try to be as gentle as possible in future comments where I think you could have done better. (but allowing for WP:SPADE)

Joe, I honestly appreciate everything you've done to improve the project. In an attempt to find a common ground, I can say I enjoyed reading some of the Jared Diamond stuff and may even grab a copy of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Survive in British edition) if I see it somewhere. I wonder if any correlation could be drawn to Wikipedia? That's pretty much all I have to say. Personally I consider the matter closed now, but if you wish to add a further comment I will read it. Understand though that I'm not going to engage in any "did too, did not" debate. With that ...

Thanks for posting here and Kind Regards.

Still too much

draft 2:

Joe I wish you had been more specific in where you feel I've cast aspersions on you. I stated my perception, what I think, and frankly there's nothing in what I said that I feel can be construed as an attack of any kind, and I most certainly never denigrated your charter. Yes, I feel your conduct could have been better. 1 (one) example: Your first, very first, bullet point is directed towards the RexxS RfA. (see: Poisoning the well) There you say RexxS' RfA was contentious, with 92 editors (36%) opposing, and 15 neutral. Why didn't you finish that Joe? He also had 164 support votes. And by the way, the Arbcom principle here seems to be relevant as well. You said: " Conversely, it's easy to dismiss evidence as "misleading" or "cherry-picked". I think I've heard that in every single arbitration case I've been part of, but rarely with an explanation of why. You want an example of "cherry-picking" .. well that is what I consider cherry-picking. So basically, my opinion hasn't changed.

Did you violate any policy? No, I never said you did. (and I would come to your talk if I thought you had). If you want to run around accusing me of casting aspersions on you .. whatever, fine. I'm not here to collect any "wiki-social capital". I'm also not going to go hunt down every talk page of every user every time I see a sub-optimal post. Sorry. Maybe once in a while if I see something bad, then ok, I'll let you know - but I've never been good at following people around.

Now I will also say that I think you do a lot of great work Joe. I enjoyed reading some of the Jared Diamond stuff and it made me wonder if a correlation could be drawn to Wikipedia. I appreciate the work you do. Pretty much all I have to say. If you want to respond, that's fine. (although I will not get into any "did too, did not" bickering). If not, then I guess we're done here. Thanks for posting, and Kind Regards, — Ched (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've also not seen anything since that changes my mind