Jump to content

User talk:UninvitedCompany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Absidy (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 24 February 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Old sections are automatically archived to User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2024 November. Sections without timestamps are not archived.



Old talk archived 1 2 3 4 5 6

WikBack

It'd be nice if there were an automatic approval process. Anyway, confirming the account "Random832" is me. —Random832 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There have already been an number of disingenuous registrations which the manual checking has caught. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WikBack

Seems like I'm not the only one visiting your talk page for this. :) In any case, when you get a chance, GlassCobra is me. Thanks! GlassCobra 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interview

that's good, Just let me know when you're set. I'm "Wittylama" on Skype too. Best, Witty Lama 07:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikBack

I signed up under my regular username, "xDanielx". Thanks for setting up and hosting this. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikback

Thank you. I have registered under my usual name. I'd be happy to help, time permitting. >Radiant< 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small typo on arb page

Regarding your edit here, I believe you meant "to whom", not "who whom". Jouster  (whisper) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed finding

You write Though I would like to point out that Tony's recent participation reflects considerable improvement, even if the problem is not "resolved." [1]

I only recently realised that even what I regarded in all innocence as reasonable comments on the conduct of others involved were a large part of the problem in this case. This really means that I cannot trust myself to state my opinion on Wikipedia matters (I have little insight into what will and will not cause offence--I'm sorry if that sounds like a wet excuse). See my discussion of this here. In retrospect, I can see a pattern of similar problems going back to some of my earliest interactions on Wikipedia, mainly from my lack of insight into the effects of what I say. You may laugh, but this comes as a shock to me. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152

I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Another project

Hello UninvitedCompany,

I think its a wonderful idea, and I wish I could be of help, but unfortunately there is nothing I can help with. I don't know how to use LilyPond and I live in a country where anything organ other than JS Bach is impossible to find (and so nearly all my sources, including articles and books used for Wikipedia articles, are found, one way or another, on the Internet).

I'm sorry I can't help, but best of luck with the project! I hope it makes pre-Bach composers a little bit more known; at least that - to make them more known, as they most definitely deserve - is one of my reasons for editing Wikipedia.

Regards,

--Jashiin (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this deletion ok?

[2] Please answer. Abridged talk 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC) all set Abridged talk 00:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hoffman case

Since you invited comment on your talk page, I did have a few questions about the Matthew Hoffman case. I have pretty strong opinions about it, but I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something important here.

  1. You mentioned that you voted to accept the case straightaway, without an RfC, because most of the affected users were "new and occasional editors" and unlikely to participate in an RfC. But the goal of the RfC would be to get feedback from the community as a whole about Adam's actions. At the eventual RfC, not only did every active user Adam had ever crossed paths with show up, but all of Adam's actions (including those involving new and occasional editors) were scrutinized in depth. I'm still not entirely clear on why the case was accepted without a preceding RfC - this was a major departure from both prescription and common practice, there was no emergency, and this decision handicapped the case from the start. Is there something I'm missing?
  2. You describe RfC participation as "sparse". I'm sure you've seen well more user-conduct RfC's than I, but I think this is way off base. Some specific views (Durova's and B's) were endorsed by as many as thirty-six other users, including many established editors and admins who had not been active in the ArbCom case. Even a relatively harsh view, that of Professor Marginalia, was endorsed by 20 users, with (at a quick glance) no overlap. There was significant participation from well more than these 56 users. If this is "sparse" participation, then what would have been adequate?
  3. The case opened at 17:34 on 2 December 2007. By 06:20 on 3 December, you had voted to desysop Adam and bar him from ever standing for RfA again. Also within about 12 hours of the opening of the case, you proposed a finding of fact censuring User:Chaser for lack of due diligence. This was the state of evidence page at the time. Chaser had provided no evidence when you proposed the finding; once he had the chance to do so, it became apparent that the finding was erroneously phrased. This haste seems unusual to me for any ArbCom case, particularly for one involving desysopping an established user and admin with extreme prejudice. As evidenced by the community feedback and the apparent divisions within the Committee itself, this was hardly an open-and-shut case. The resulting impression, at least to me, was that in the haste to sanction Adam, careful discussion and consideration of the situation and evidence was lacking. I won't speculate on the reasons for the haste with which this case was accepted and sanctions proposed, but am I off-base in feeling that things proceeded with atypical speed?

You're welcome to respond to some, all, or none of these questions as you see fit. I realize they come across a bit aggressive, perhaps, but I'm really just trying to see a different perspective here, and figure out what I'm missing in looking at the case. I do appreciate your comments on the case talk page, and your willingness to discuss the case. MastCell Talk 06:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The case is not entirely unique in having no predecessor RFC, and we accepted despite one because there was evidence of serious misconduct and because we thought there were important principles at work.
  2. My sense was that it wasn't broad based and didn't include substantive participation from people outside the group of SPOV proponents who take a hard line on topics such as Homeopathy. We received some private comments from users who supported some sort of sanctions regarding Cuerden but did not wish to so state publicly.
  3. The Chaser finding was a mistake and I later withdrew it. The haste was in part because there had been considerable internal deliberations since the RFAR was made, and in part because we had just completed an internal discussion where we had emphasized the importance of wrapping up as many pending matters as possible prior to January 1 to allow the newly elected arbs to start with a clean slate. I note that during the subsequent delays, Cuerden did not provide any substantive evidence or reasoning to us despite repeated promises to do so.
I note your disappointment in our handling of this case and in my leadership on it. For my part I have found the extent to which the community is willing to circle wagons when well-liked editors engage in misconduct to be troubling. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do excellent work on the Committee in general, though obviously this particular case still troubles me. Regarding your first point, it's interesting to compare this case to the handling of another sysop who is famously quick on the trigger with indefinite blocks, often without even the limited WP:AN/I feedback that Adam solicited. Despite a much longer track record of concern and much greater potential damage in terms of WP:BITE, this sysop was afforded an RfC as a first step in dispute resolution. In the face of the concerns raised there, the admin in question was willing to change his approach somewhat. A subsequent RfArb based on the same concerns was rejected; you wrote at the time that "the RFC shows that the community by and large supports what Ryulong is doing." (The RfC in question had participation as sparse, or sparser, than Adam's). That's how the process worked (and it did work) in a case where there was far more theoretical urgency and damage to the encyclopedia.
Obviously I can't weigh privately submitted commentary in regards to the RfC. Certainly "hard-line SPOV proponents" were well-represented among those willing to comment on-wiki. Perhaps you count me among them. Still, the views from B, Heimstern, and Durova drew support from a large number of experienced editors and admins with no irons in the SPOV fire. The views favoring a harsh approach to Adam were endorsed largely by partisan editors of a different stripe; discarding the input of such editors on both sides, it seemed there was still some usable feedback there, and it dissented from the path taken by the Committee. The Committee is privy to information submitted privately and perhaps has a better perspective on the problem as a whole. At the same time, it is a bit bothersome to have an RfC convened, to develop some useable feedback, and then to have it disregarded without comment. In that regard, again, I do appreciate your willingness to share your thought processes, and I realize you opposed the mid-case RfC to begin with, so I don't mean to put you in the position of defending something you disagreed with from the start.
I simply cannot let the irony of your final comment, about the willingness of the community to "circle wagons when well-liked editors engage in misconduct", go unremarked. A member of your Committee, a person occupying positions of great respect and responsibility, engaged in conduct that ought to be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia, much less in front of ArbCom. His comments remain unrefactored and, so far as I know, there has been no apology to those attacked, all of whom are easily identifiable in real life by their usernames incidentally. Yet when this issue was raised, the response was, precisely, to circle the wagons. You said "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this" (despite the fact that he initiated the case). Paul said that "The issue at hand is what to do about Adam, not what to do about Charles... I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him." You added that any evaluation of Charles' behavior would be a "distraction". You and Paul then both suggested that, despite Charles' role as initiator of the case, anyone thinking his conduct during it should be examined would need to bring a separate ArbCom case. This is actually relevant, though: an editor being attacked in the terms used by this Arbitrator, and facing a proposal to desysop him with extreme prejudice within 12 hours of a case opening in the absence of any prior dispute resolution, will be hard-pressed to stay cool and respond constructively. In the end, Adam didn't, but that doesn't mean that looking at other aspects of how this case was handled is a "distraction". To me, at least, they send a much stronger message than the fate of Adam's sysop bit.
I think there was some wagon-circling going on with regard to Adam's defenders. I don't subscribe to that, and I haven't defended his blocks, which were bad ones. But concern about the irregular aspects of this case and the hasty and harsh response to Adam's misdeeds is not the same as excusing his actions. And if holding people in positions of responsibility accountable, rather than making excuses for them, is the message behind this case, then it would be more convincing were it applied more evenly and closer to home. MastCell Talk 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on the MH ArbCom case

UninvitedCompany, I have some questions about the MH ArbCom case and your comments on the talk page. I have posted them here, and would appreciate a response. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your post there to be more of a piece of criticism than a list of questions, and I'll decline to respond to most of it. There are two factual points however which I would like to clarify:
  1. There were at least three requests for delay from Adam in addition to the request for an RFC. These were emailed to us.
  2. The committee negotiated a voluntary settlement with Adam which he ultimately declined to accept even after we modified the wording several times to address his objections.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UninvitedCompany, in point two (above) you refer to negotiations between the now-vanished user and ArbCom. Are you referring solely to off-wiki interactions (email or otherwise), or does this negotiation also take in on-wiki communications through the Workshop and Proposed Decision pages? EdChem (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this point is covered here: Following discussion, Vanished user has requested the case be suspended indefinitely, with his adminship being waived pending resumption.". See also FT2's comments on the proposed decision talk page. It seems that the committee took this as an invitation to close the case with a 6-month desysopping (instead of suspending the case) - in addition, the vanished user objected to the wording of one (or more) of the Finding of Facts, and things went downhill from there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts, Carcharoth. I would, however, still like an answer from UninvitedCompany. He has not posted since before I posed my question, and so probably has yet to see it, and I am content to await his return. We do, after all, all have to work in RL as well, and UC has ArbCom email etc too, so I am sure he is busy and will be back here when he gets the chance. Best, EdChem (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to off-wiki discussions that led to the posting of the remedy Carcharoth identifies. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo

You should be aware of my post on User talk:Jimbo Wales, as it arises in part from your actions as an arbitrator. —Random832 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Minnesota

Portal:Minnesota is at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates if you can find a minute to vote. From memory, you have both knowledge of Wikipedia and of Minnesota. The most recent portal promotions had only a few more votes than Minnesota has now. Thank you kindly. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Hi UninvitedCompany, I just wanted to inform you that I have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to personally participate. This system is ideal for your purposes, since given your Arbcom duties, you have limited time to devote to the other aspects of Wikipedia, but many trusted colleagues here. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to User:UninvitedCompany/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter: 

{{subst:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table/Designate|Absidy}}

I've also come up with this cool advertising banner:

This user supports delegable proxy.
 Show your support for delegable proxy! Add this userbox to your userpage using {{User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy}}

(Ordinarily I might view this type of message as a potentially questionable type of canvassing, but I feel entitled to contact you about my ideas and concerns since I am your constituent and you my elected official.) Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UninvitedCompany&oldid=193715662"