This is an archive of past discussions - 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.
Best of luck, Will. You're the best candidate in the election, in my opinion. I hope you don't take it too hard if the "too many hats" argument holds sway in the outcome. I'm surprised the early voting isn't going better for you, but I hope things improve as time goes on. Avruch T 05:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you and don't worry I'm not bothered by it. I'm not running to have my ego massaged, if the community wants me to serve on ArbCom I will do so, if not so be it - I can put the time I would have spent on it into other things :) ... WJBscribe(talk)11:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, see [1]. I felt the response established that the block was outside the terms of the sanction allowing for it, but did not suggest an agreement to reverse it. WJBscribe(talk)00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with your actions here. If you were in communication with Deskana, why not tell him that you thought the block should be overturned, and give him the opportunity to do it himself? --Elonka00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this can be over-dramatised, an admin made a block overlooking the need to obtain prior approval from ArbCom. They were unsure what to do about this. In the meantime, I unblocked. The default position where there is no imminent risk of damage to the project is that everyone can edit and remain unblocked so I restored that status quo. On reflection, the blocking admin posted publicly that their block had been in error and apologised for this. Whilst I understand the position of those who think I should have given the blocking admin more time to make up his mind, time was ticking on a block which it is now common ground should not have been made... WJBscribe(talk)00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Blocking a user for calling Jimbo a liar, among other things, after having received many warnings about incivility and assuming bad faith, does not require permission from the ArbCom, does it? Will you see this matter through and seek consensus for a block, or do you think that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are no longer policies that have to be followed? ·:· Will Beback·:·00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I think context is important - many of us would call someone a liar who accused us of doing something we have not done. If consensus emerges for a block, so be it, but of all the things that Giano has done this does not strike me as the most blockworthy by far. WJBscribe(talk)00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that his behavior of late is acceptable according to Wikipedia policies? If it were any other user, one who had been blocked by ten different admins in the past year, would you have unblocked him? What is the limit of acceptable behavior regarding civility and AGF, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback·:·01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course WP:CIVIL is policy, but that doesn't to my mind mean that a block should follow for all breaches in all cases. I think we need to be aware of the circumstances in which comments are made. I do think where someone perceives that an untrue accusation has been made against them and calls the person who made it a liar, this is a totally different scenario to someone turning up in a discussion between other users and undermining one by denouncing one as a liar. Generally where it is known in advance that a block will be widely challenged and prove controversial, it is best to obtain a consensus for that block before hand. It is one thing to block a vandal or exposed abusive sockpuppet immediately before harm is caused, but in other cases it is to the project's interest to ensure that a block is watertight. WJBscribe(talk)01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, both your unblock and your explanation are spot on. I'm not voting in the election since I'm also running, but you have my strong support, not only for consistently clear judgment but the willingness to stick to that judgment even when its difficult. Shellbabelfish02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I object to your unblock, but I wanted to clarify why.
I assume you did this entirely in good faith. Its sad that anyone on Wikipedia would ever have to say thatever, but there we go. You did things for what I know you believed was the right reason for the good of the project. I don't think any sanctions are needed, but I do think you made mistakes here, and I would like you to acknowledge them.
This was not a time critical situation. The blocking admin, the committee and the community as a whole all deserved more than the hour between block and unblock to have their say, and there was no harm to letting the block stick around. The project and everyone's reputations will survive the time.
Parsimony in actions: you didn't have to take Deskana to task, nor wax eloquent on the validity or community support (or lack thereof) for Giano's civility block. If you felt for whatever reason you had to act then, there was no reason to go beyond "block was a mistake" or something similarly short. Your actions invited further discussion on a subject that does NOT have clear community wide consensus... because if it did, we'd never have to argue about it.
Sometimes, controversy isn't that hard to spot: I'll be the first to admit I've made controversial actions without realizing they'd be controversial, or to the degree that they were so... but this time it surely wasn't that hard to realize that you had more facts than the rest of us and you were unblocking Giano citing a poorly worded arbitration remedy with additional poorly worded clauses.
Your argument had some holes: which I pointed out. This to me, shows that you didn't think it as far through as you are obviously capable of doing, which brings us back to the start
Take your damned time: All of this drama could've been avoided with more patience on your part. Disengage for twenty seconds, vent at someone in a private channel, and then sit on your ass and calculate the likely response. Deskana by his own admission rushed in and made an error: rushing isn't the best way to solve that kind of mistake.--Tznkai (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think situations where users are blocked when they shouldn't have been are time critical. In emergency situations, admins may block to prevent damage from the wiki. Where there are no time pressures and a block is likely to be controversial a consensus should be sought. It is not in my opinion an appropriate to make such a block without bothering to assess the support for it and then allow the clock to tick on that block while everyone works out what to do. Contributors to this project deserve more respect than that - due process shouldn't be something that happens when we get round to it. I wanted to make it clear that my unblock was not based on the technicality alone, in other words that my objection was more than just the paperwork not having been completed in triplicate as required but that the block was unwise on its merits.
I agree that my action could have been quite controversial, and could indeed result in my desysopping, but still thought it right to so. Whilst I agree that I didn't think long about the action, the unblock was on objective grounds - the block was made outside the policy - and further thought would not result in it becoming any the more valid. Personally, I think there would have been much more drama had I not acted. Giano would have remained blocked, people would have speculated as to the reasons and accusations of partisanship would have been flying around. It is unclear when the matter would have been finally resolved. My belief is that this would have generated much more ill feeling rather than less. I feel that my prompt action, though it resulted in some criticisms, actually served to foreshorten then problem. I take your point about thinking things through and endeavour to do so where practical, but I don't that a clearly invalid block should be left to stand while I (or anyone else) wrestle with this issues surrounding that block. WJBscribe(talk)02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Echo Heimstern. Deskana indicated that his action violated the case remedy but he was unwilling to unblock, WJBscribe rightly implemented the remedy as any admin ought to do, and Deskana subsequently agreed that this was the right action. This ought to be case closed. Avruch T 02:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, there were multiple motions passed in the recent ArbCom case. WJBscribe acted supposedly on one of them, while at the same time he was disregarding another. Motion #4, enacted a few days ago, was "no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee".[2] Fine, it looks like Deskana violated that one. However, Motion #1 on that same page says, "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so."[3] Which WJBscribe definitely violated. Two wrongs don't make a right. What WJBscribe should have done, was to follow the suggestions in WP:WHEEL: post to an admin noticeboard, and wait for a bit, either to get some feedback from other admins, or to give Deskana more than a few minutes to mull it over. There was no urgent need to unblock Giano right away, especially on an ArbCom enforcement block, which is different from other blocks anyway. Standard run-of-the-mill blocks on Wikipedia are "preventative" blocks, but ArbCom blocks are "coercive" blocks. They're there to enforce ArbCom sanctions, in special cases where the community has not been able to resolve problems in the normal way. There was no urgency here. If Deskana made a bad block, there would have been a clear community consensus opposing it, and the block could have been reversed that way, through proper channels. Another problem here has to do with a disagreement between two highly placed admins. Deskana, an arbitrator, thought that Giano's comment was uncivil. WJBscribe, a bureaucrat (and candidate for next year's ArbCom) thought the comment wasn't uncivil, or at least was not sanctionable in that context. If a bureaucrat admin wants to disagree with an arbitrator admin, that's acceptable and encouraged. What is not encouraged is to play tug-of-war with someone's account access. Especially as WJBscribe is a bureaucrat, a better standard of behavior is expected of him, since he is expected to know the policies, and even more importantly, he is expected to set a good example for other administrators to follow. Though an unblock of Giano may have turned out to be the correct thing to do in the long run, WJBscribe still should not have unblocked so quickly. --Elonka02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
To focus on interpreting the wording: Deskana's block was simply not "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy" - it was, rather, clearly in violation of the remedy and its attendant injuctions. I don't think the substance of the block/unblock cycle was a disagreement over the merits of the civility parole or the nature of Giano's content. More accurately he was reversing an action that was clearly inappropriate and in violation of a very recent arbitration injunction. If Deskana had been acting qua arbitrator, things would be different - but he was not. Avruch T 03:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the quote Tznkai points out disagrees with what I've written of course - Will did object to the merits of the block, and cited that as a primary motive for the unblock. Even so, I don't think Will would have made the unblock if it wasn't clear that it was invalid because it violated the recent remedy. Perhaps I'm wrong. If he had made the unblock after ArbCom approved the block, then I would have to strongly disagree with that - but whatever his reasons, unblocking was the right thing to do in my mind. Avruch T 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the key point for me is that there was no question of if this was a bad block. The fact that I opposed the idea of Giano being blocked for the comment on principle was secondary to the fact that the block was made in contravention of an ArbCom motion implementing the sanction in question and was definitely invalid. I personally do not think it would be setting high standards for the project to start a long conversation of a the merits of a block that was wrong on its face and would inevitably have been lifted. That would be to deny basic due process to the person subject to the block. Whilst I can accept some criticism for my actions being precipitate, I also think that was one of their strength - they solved to resolve the matter promptly. WJBscribe(talk)03:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
e/cI assume both of you don't disagree that WJBscribe did his actions in good faith. Apparently I didn't make a point here that I had meant to make, so here it is: the unblock was done apparently with WJBscribe's knowledge that Deskana hadn't had committee approval and had said so and the rest of the details- an important bit of information that would've been helpful for the rest of us to know, and made the clearly invalid block that much more clear to the rest of us.
I think here we see a fundamental philosophical divide between WJBscribe and myself here: " It is not in my opinion an appropriate to make such a block without bothering to assess the support for it and then allow the clock to tick on that block while everyone works out what to do. Contributors to this project deserve more respect than that - due process shouldn't be something that happens when we get round to it. I wanted to make it clear that my unblock was not based on the technicality alone, in other words that my objection was more than just the paperwork not having been completed in triplicate as required but that the block was unwise on its merits. "
My problem is that I find any one administrator declaring a "failure of due process" generally outside of their remit, and likewise judging another's administrator's judgment unwise on its merits should be done with the greatest amount of caution. If it is important to have consensus for a block, it should be likewise important to have consensus to unblock. Administrators are not generally asked to put their own opinions over that of anyone else - especially because of the wheel warring problem. WJBscribe's unblock was effectively the last word no the situation, any administrator who disagreed with WJBscribe's judgment in good faith could not do so from a position of parity, because of our wise collective commitment to avoiding wheel wars. However noble it is for WJBscribe to risk his admin bit on principle, it is unfair for him to dare other editors to do the same at even greater risk if they disagree in good conscience.
The exercise of administrator discretion needs to be done with caution, especially when overriding another admin's discretion, or appearing to do so. Because of our policies and practices on wheel warring, the override serves in many ways as the "last word" a privileged position that must be avoided actively lest it be accidentally abused.
The unblock was one thing, but the continued support of the unblock through the various arguments that WJBscribe used moved it from a simple undoing of another administrator's mistake to an argument about WJBscribe's judgment versus Deskana's, an argument that need not have happened. WJBscribe could easly, in my opinion, gathered sufficient consensus to unblock Giano without incident on basic limited grounds; the block was not authorized by the committee. An act that by the way, would have reaffirmed and protected the community's role in administration. Or perhaps let the Committee as a whole weigh in, allowing them to set the situation right. Instead it came down to WJBscribe's discretion and judgment. There are times when an administrator needs to act promptly even conscious of all the problems I've mentioned - but I still have not seen a compelling reason why this was one of them.--Tznkai (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You know, I keep letting myself get off track and I muddle the two issues. The first is as I've nattered on, the philosophical issues with wheel warring and so on. The second is this: all WJBscribe had to do was unblock and leave a note on Giano's talk page that says "I've confirmed that Deskana did not have Committee authorization, and he's not sure what he wants to do, so I am acting thus" Certainly better not to unblock at all and wait for the inevitable deluge of "oh, well unblock then," but this situation I think would've been a large part smoother if the rest of us had that bit of information at the time of the unblock.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the approach you outline remains the same - someone remains blocked when they should not have been blocked in the first place. I would argue that this in of itself is detrimental to the project. I think particularly significant here is that no subjective judgment of the block was needed. It was not a case of "this is not bad enough to justify a block" but of "this block is made on a basis for which a block cannot be issued". Your suggestion that I post that Deskana confirmed he did not have authorisation seems to me rather bureaucratic when you admit the outcome would be a foregone conclusion. Why should a user be made to continue to sit out an invalid block while we wait for the foregone conclusion to be established. All that would have done was to prolong the drama and increase the harm caused by the initially invalid block. WJBscribe(talk)03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The basis for an unblock here was entirely bureaucratic, though; if there had been arbcom authorization I presume you would not have unblocked. So you did the right thing by contacting the blocking admin. There's no reason not to share that with everyone else. The lack of information, on the other hand, did prolong the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)To turn your argument on its head: due process. In all seriousness, letting other people know what knowledge you're using to make your decisions is on face a good idea, I honestly think any argument I use to advance that notion will water down the imperative. This isn't about bureaucracy: that argument is a red herring (or perhaps a straw man, its been a while since I've brushed up on my informal fallacies) The piratical impact of making a controversial unblock like this appeared to be(and appeared so because of your omission of details!) was to privilege your judgment. The so called bureaucratic concerns are not out of a concern for procedure, but out of concern for the very real tension and problems that wheel warring can cause - and the vested interest administrators have in letting the community get their say.--Tznkai (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I generally avoid referencing off-wiki discussion in such cases as this has proved controversial in the past. I did not want to place myself in the position of relying on a discussion between Deskana and myself that I could not document, in case there later prove to be inconsistencies between us. Fortunately there haven't been any. I unblocked simply stating that the block went against the ArbCom motion [4], which was correct. If my not mentioning the discussion with Deskana was in error, it extended the discussion by only a few posts. I don't think you can equate people not knowing all the factors on which I based my decision as something as problematic as someone continuing to be unjustly blocked. WJBscribe(talk)03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I object to you being the determinant as to whether or not someone was "unjustly" blocked. If process is important, than the block was invalid - but then process should similarly be observed in giving your peers and the community a full accounting of what was going on, or allowing the community their say, or both. If process is not important, then we are left to argue the merits of the block on its face - regardless of arbitration motions and procedures - and again community consensus is the primary force. It seems to me you're arguing for the important of process for blocking but the opposite when it comes to unblocks.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
WJBscribe, here's another way of looking at it. Suppose it was someone else, some junior wet-behind-the-ears admin with a shiny new mop, who came along, saw Deskana's block, and decided to overturn it simply because they thought it was the right thing to do, and that they didn't need to build any kind of community consensus? Would you still regard that as okay? I wouldn't. In fact, such a junior admin might already be listed at RfAR, with people calling for the admin to be de-sysopped. Or if not a junior admin, what of a "questionable" admin, such as SlimVirgin, who exactly was de-sysopped just a few days ago, for doing almost exactly the same thing that you did? I am extremely concerned here that you seem to be thinking that your decision was okay, because hey, you're "WJBscribe the Experienced Bureaucrat, the Super ArbCom Candidate", and that therefore you had the wisdom and experience to toss process to the winds and make this call. But what I'm trying to say (and what I think Tznkai is trying to say), is that you broke some pretty serious rules here, and the only reason you're not being dragged to a de-sysop right now is because you have a certain amount of clout with the community. But it's precisely because you have that clout, that you should have worked harder to set a good example. If a junior admin should not have done the unblock so quickly, then a senior admin such as yourself should not have done the unblock so quickly either. I don't buy this argument about the block being so detrimental to the project that it needed to be immediately overturned. Instead, I think you've caused more detriment to the project by your actions, as well as detriment to the perception of your own good judgment. --Elonka04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm very much not making any foray's into WJBscribe's head space here, but yes, setting an good example is good. The point I'm trying to make is that an admin making summary judgment on an unblock is something that should be reserved for urgent cases, and this did not qualify. In addition, seriously, just let everyone else in on the story, it saves us all a lot of headache.--Tznkai (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure there much chance of our opinions converging here, but I have taken on board what you're saying. I would expect any admin who performed the action I did to have faced the same response, in the same way that a bare admin action by an arbitrator is just that. There is a risk if we define wheel warring too narrowly - to mean any reversal of an admin action without discussion that we over privilege those first actions. The problem is that admin actions change the status quo - someone who could edit the project no longer can, content that used to present no longer is. Where those actions are wrong they are damaging. Where it is clear that an action is definitely wrong, it should be undone immediately. Where there may be doubt, discussion is usually the better the route to take. In this case waiting for discussion would have left someone unjustly blocked when the outcome was inevitable. I regard this as an urgent case and to see it otherwise fails to appreciate how editors must feel when they are blocked (especially unfairly) and how this affects their attitudes towards the project. I would draw a distinction between a block that was simply wrong - like blocking someone with a "schoolblock" when they had been reverting vandalism (we could wait for the admin to reverse the mistaken block, but why would we when the outcome is clear?) - and where the consensus for a block is unclear and discussion is usually the better path to take. WJBscribe(talk)13:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This discussion in incorrect in it's entire core, because it presumes that unblocking is subject to consensus approval, as a reversible admin action. Any bad admin action be overturned, and an unblock is not more special. Controversial blocks should not be done either--no more than a controversial unblock should happen--a point that Elonka and Tznkai didn't mention. Admin blocking is as subject to review and approval as unblocking, and as Will mentioned above unblocks can be as time sensitive as blocks themselves. To ignore that important thing is to automatically presume (wrong) that the initiating admin of a first action has some magic authority over his peers where none exists. rootology (C)(T) 06:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing another person's comment (WJBscribe?) with mine. I disagree with the idea that an admin can undo another admin's block just because he or she thinks it was incorrect. They should first consult with the blocking admin to make sure they understand the situation correcly, or if that admin is unavailable they should start an ANI thread. Very often there are more issues than obvious from a cursory glance and in some cases the blocked user may make incorrect claims. We should all presume that admins act correctly, and only undo their actions after due diligience. ·:· Will Beback·:·07:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think complaints against WJBscribe will get far now. Not so much because he has clout, but because everyone now agrees that the block was a mistake. That said, I think that WJBscribe should have handled it better. Deskana should have been given a chance to unblock himself, and the unblock comment contained unnecessary parts that make it look like a populist move during an election. However, trying to nail WJBscribe for slightly ignoring process will only separates people into the usual camps once again. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
My vote at Arbcom
Hey WJB,
I just wanted to clarify my vote at the Arbcom elections. I went to the Arbcom elections explicitly because of Rlvese and Risker's candidacy. When I saw Rlvese running, I thought long and hard about a 'crat being an arbcom committee member. And decided that I didn't like the idea, but wanted to support Rlvese none-the-less. So I went there with the intention of opposing ALL 'crats running for Arbcom except Rlvese. I had checked the candidates the other day and thought there were 4 running---I thought Wizardman was a 'crat and I thought I saw Deskana running as well and was going to have the same oppose rationale for all of them. It wasn't until after I !voted on your Arbcom that I realized that you and Rlvese were the only two, and the wording of my oppose (which would have been fine for four 'crats running) suddenly took a different tone with only two running. With four it read as a philosophical opinion, with only two I'm worried that it sounded personal. I wanted to drop you a personal line because it was a philsophical decision, not a personal one. I would have reworded it if I had realized that you and Rlvese were the only two crats running.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your position. You are free to oppose me for any reason you like, personal or otherwise and there will be no hard feelings on my part. Unfortunately these elections look likely to be the bloodiest yet, and I hope people will get over any ill-will they generate. I particularly hope everyone, including unsuccessful candidates, gets behind the candidates who ultimately are elected (whether they voted for them or not) as they will have a hard task ahead of them. WJBscribe(talk)13:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Will, sorry if this gave a bad impression. Upon rereading the post it came across rather differently than I imagined . Anyway, I thought your call was a brave one with a good outcome. I haven't voted in these elections at all as I feel odd doing so. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I had not seen your post prior to reading your comment here. I take your summary of the impact on voting behaviour to have been meant as a comment on how the action was received, not an accusation that it was done with a view to procuring that result. WJBscribe(talk)15:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded the image because Mark could no longer recall the source of his original upload, and I was able to locate an image of the same subject matter for which the source could be specified. Whilst it obviously is not a free image, it seems to me that it can be the subject of a fair use claims in the same manner as any other copyrighted image. WJBscribe(talk)11:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I notice you have a significant number of questions, including general questions, still unanswered. Will you continue to answer them? Jd2718 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I regret that these elections have fallen at an unexpectedly busy time for me off-wiki and as a result my answers to questions haven't been as prompt as either I would have hoped or the community has a right to expect. It remains my firm intention to answer all questions asked of me, and I will be spending some time this afternoon working through more of them. If there are any particular questions which someone feels are crucial to their casting an informed vote and they let me know, I will prioritise those. WJBscribe(talk)13:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have already made an interim vote pending answers to all questions, due to the lack of answer(s) to Q1 which was posted nearly a fortnight ago. If the elections have come at a busy time IRL (despite an active contribution trail), then for transparency, it's important to note the issue as early as possible on the relevant election page(s) in a location that others are unlikely to overlook. I'd appreciate it if you could point me to where you did so, if you did so. In any case, please also note that I've posted further questions. If you could answer all of my questions within the next couple of days so that I can (ask you any follow-up questions for clarity and) make a final vote on your candidacy, that'd be great. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've initiated a request for amendment in an arbitration case where you were a named party. You may wish to comment. Best regards, DurovaCharge!06:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The Committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk·contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk·contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.
While I decided early on to only "vote" for four people (half the open seats, rounding up), I'm considering changing my oppose to a support for you.
My strongest reason to support may also be a reason to oppose.
I was impressed that you started the so-called "bureaucrat chat" concerning Riana's RfB (here). I have a vague recollection that you explained your reasoning for it "somewhere" (perhaps even just what you said in the intro to the chat), but could you summarise what you were thinking at the time?
To try to help indicate what I'm looking for, my RfA criteria is similar to how I feel about most cases of entrusting an individual with more responsibility here. (For example, "thought-full" in the Shakespearean sense.)
I've decided to withdraw from the elections due to new time commitments that have arisen that would prevent me from discharging my duties were I to be appointed to ArbCom. As to why I started a "bureaucrat chat" in that case, it was mainly because there had been a strong indication from the community that they wanted the bar to successful RfBs lowered. I thought that in the circumstances a promotion at the lower end of bureaucrat discretion might well be warranted, however I chose to consult with other bureaucrats rather than make the promotion myself due to the fact that the poll that indicated support for lowering standards had begun after the RfB in question and several opinions contained the qualification that the rules should not be changed for ongoing RfBs. I also thought there might be differing views as to the strength of the opposition and thought consultation appropriate in the circumstances. Ultimately, the majority of other bureaucrats disagreed with me but I thought it important that a view held by a sizable proportion of the community was put and argued in public. WJBscribe(talk)23:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. (Excellent answer, btw.)
I ask that you review your answers to my questions (to ensure that all of them have been addressed). 24 hours from now, I will be reviewing each candidate and preparing final votes. This is a courtesy note to make you aware that I will not look at any further answers or modifications once this time has lapsed. I apologise for an inconvenience caused, and hope that you've been adequately notified. Thank you for your time, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, WJBscribe. Although I did not support you to become an arbitrator for several concerns, but I indeed am impressed by your withdrawing statement; That is honest and sincere, so you convinces me that you care the community very much. Your chance was still very high, and I believed you would be elected as one. I wish you be well. If you run for the ArbCom the next year, I might change my mind. Best wishes.--Caspian blue23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I can't say I recall ever agreeing much with Caspian Blue so I'm happy to so do here :) WJBscribe, you would have been a wonderful help to the project on arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a shame
I think you would have been a major asset to ArbCom. But you have to make your own choices and I don't question that. As long as you are still editing at Wikipedia, I would like to ask a favor of you - of you, because I respect your principles and experience. Sooner or later I am going to propose to make WP:DE a policy. I think patterns of disruptive editing, including subtle forms of disruptive building (anything that can distract a consensus-building process) is a major sign of trolling, and that this guideline has the potential to cover gaps in current policies which all too often focus on single edits or gross forms of incivility. Would you be willing to look over the guideline, make such improvements as you see justified, or comment on it? It could benefit from the wisdom of others before it is ready to be forwarded as a possible policy.
I realize this request runs counter to your intention to slow down, and I don't mean to dishonor your desire. Whatever you end up doing, I wish you the best, Slrubenstein | Talk06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom candidacy
Will, I supported your candidacy because I think you are a good person and that you have valuable dispute resolution skills. However, I'd like to remind you that the project is for creating content. I recommend you focus on this more. There should not be a dichotomy between content editors and administrators. JehochmanTalk15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
If only Hochman would walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. If he wants to be known as an "article admin" then he really needs to become one instead of just promulgating the myth. His own proportional mainspace edit distribution is only 18.45%! At 14.97%, WJB is only marginally lower but at least WJB has a valid reason for his distribution - he's honoring obligations he made when the community made him a crat. While I'm sure WJB would love to have time to be writing articles, anyone looking at WJB's activity will be satisfied that he's no slacker. Sarah01:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. If you don't mind, I addressed WJBscribe because I have a concern. Rather than oppose his candidacy, I am noting my concern here. I think my comment is civil. Do you have a problem with me speaking my mind, or do I need to get your permission to discuss things with other Wikipedians? JehochmanTalk01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you ask, I think it would generally be appreciated if you would start taking your own advice instead of going about making lofty and condescending "recommendations" to other people which you aren't even following yourself. Perhaps you could start demonstrating with your actions what you think is important behaviour for editors and admins on this project instead of spewing out mere meaningless words that make you look hypocritical? And that goes for all the myths you've been promoting lately - your self-claimed focus on articles, your dislike of politics and cabals, your use of back channels only for socialising or when privacy requires it and so forth. When you promote these sort of myths about yourself which are demonstrably untrue, you're asking people to expose the truth. Sarah03:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinions, but could you please avoid disrupting my attempts at conversation with other users. WJBscribe is more than capable of telling me to "fuck off" (either bluntly or politely) if he wishes to do so. JehochmanTalk16:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You asked me a question, Hochman, I answered you. I also shed some relevant light on your "recommendations" for passersby as I feel it highly relevant that you are not doing what you are recommending others do. I would really like to know why not. Sarah00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, you may think that you're taking the high ground here, but you're coming across as exceptionally rude. Knock it off, it isn't productive. Just to play devil's advocate, though, being a bureaucrat has nothing to do with mainspace contribs; I've been a 'crat for six months, and article work still consists of about a full third of my edits. EVula// talk // ☯ //16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you EVula but this has nothing to do with things like high ground and there is a good reason for all things, including what you perceive to be rudeness. And frankly, after having Hochman take it upon himself to investigate me again despite the fact that I have been barely active throughout this year and have done absolutely nothing controversial (except, perhaps, oppose his arbitration committee candidacy?) and then publicly share with me his unwanted and unrequested "concerns" and "recommendations", and then go around to other people misrepresenting me, I'm rather a long way past caring about things like high ground and politeness. However I do apologise to WJB for using his page and will find a more appropriate venue to address my own "concerns" and "recommendations". Sarah00:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, I did not "investigate" you (now or ever), nor did I "go around to other people misrepresenting" you. You came to my election page and assaulted my character. I came to your talk page to express my concerns with you, which were quite mild by comparison. You blew up, followed me to this page, and disrupted this thread. An appropriate venue for your concerns and recommendations about me is my talk page. I get the feeling that somebody has given you false information about me because you've been treating me like some sort of pariah. I strongly recommend deleting this entire thread and then finding a neutral party to help us sort this out. JehochmanTalk01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
People have every right to express their views on someone who puts themselves up to the community and requests their support. I read Sarah's oppose vote [5] - it was hardly an "assault on character", she simply put in focus that she had serious concerns about you. In response to Sarah opposing you, you attempted to intimidate and impugn her. Within minutes (before or after, I forget which) you posted this rather unusual comment (above) to WJB's page—a candidate receiving almost twice the support you received in percentage terms. After I and other people highlighted the issues with your increasingly odd and hypocritical behaviour, you withdrew your nom and redacted part of your post at Sarah's page. I note you have subsequently withdrawn your support for WJB's nom - which you have every right to do. I would, however, not have characterised the original post at Sarah's as mild - it was condescending, bordering on nasty (also, how is researching an editor's last 750 edits and their contents not "investigative"?). I think you really need to stop looking for others to blame for the low level of support you received at your nom and understand that there are a lot of people who saw your present conduct and demeanour as sufficient reason to oppose, and that some bridges and fences are in need of mending. Orderinchaos09:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, the "more appropriate venue" bit was all I was going for with my post. I'm not telling you that you have to be warm and fuzzy all the time; just be warm and fuzzy when you're on someone else's talk page. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //16:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to see you withdraw
Hi Will. I'm sorry to hear that you are withdrawing from the Arbcom elections. Although I haven't shown much interest in it, you are the second of what I consider my wiki-friends to withdraw from it. I hope you manage to get everything sorted out and things get better for you soon. All the best, ~~ [ジャム][t - c]22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about me, nothing is wrong. In fact many things are right - unfortunately they are still going to eat into the time I have for Wikipedia. It would be wrong to commit to serving in such a role now that I know I wouldn't be able to give it the time it deserves. WJBscribe(talk)22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm far happier to see that you have your priorities straight than I am to see you withdraw. Do what's best for you, first and always. EVula// talk // ☯ //06:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Alas, I was hoping you'd be able to help improve the committee, but then, if you haven't got time for it, the best thing to do is exactly what you did. In response to your comments about whether you might give up some of your other permissions on Wikipedia, I do hope you won't, and that you'll keep them if you do use them a bit (or even a lot) less than in the past. Heimstern Läufer(talk)12:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
As you might have noticed in my voter guide I was quite a supporter of your candidacy for ArbCom for various reasons, I was quite surprised by this sudden withdraw. I have read your statement which I think was quite honourable, and has made me think you have not taken an unwise decision. In any case I wish the best of luck and all the best with what you decide to do on Wikipedia and outside of it. Camaron | Chris(talk)18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawal
I was sorry to see this! The statement though is very honourable given that you still have a real chance, and I hope you'll consider again at some future point when you do have the time. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Me too. And above all, I am glad to read that "many things are right". My first reaction was to hope that it's positive things that are eating your time. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I still think you would have made an excellent arbitrator, and the community appeared to agree as you were still in a winning position. But I respect your decision based on your circumstances (my own editing has been a bit limited for offline reasons too, so I totally understand) and wish you all the best here and elsewhere (and a merry Christmas, of course. :). Orderinchaos10:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Precepts on the secret of success in life drafted by Tokugawa Ieyasu from the collection of Nikkō Tōshō-gū.
We must accept that you are merely demonstrating good judgment with an unwelcome decision, even though we might prefer to disagree.
This becomes a timely opportunity to share a bit of wisdom attributed to Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of Japan's Tokugawa shogunate. I modestly offer a translation of the calligraphy at the right -- with an emphasis not found in the original:
Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.
One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.
Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.
Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.
Blame yourself rather than others.
It is better not to reach than to go too far. --Tokugawa Ieayasu, 1604
As I construe your explanation for withdrawing from consideration as a prospective arbitrator, you've determined that -- for now -- "it is better not to reach than to go too far." --Tenmei (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Cambridge Friends School
Hi. There's been a lot of talk about "Friends Schools" lately, esp. since Obama's children are on their way to the DC one. Wikipedia has a useful page on these schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Friends_schools. But the link to the one in my area is weird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Friends_School. I have no idea how these deletion debates work, but
I came here because your talk page is linked to at the top. It's inconsistent, isn't it, that most of those pages exist (even though many are just "stubs" with little info on them) whereas the Cambridge one ... is not allowed to? even as a stub. As a citizen, and parent, you come to this kind of page seeking objective information (obviously not what's on the school's own website, right?) ... even a short stub is relatively useful(*)
In general, it seems to me, "prestigious"(**) institutions like these, are more or less obvious topics for wikipedia.
Cheers! Pablo Funes.
(*) I was able to see a discussion about the deletion but not the deleted article itself or its discussion (is that just the way it is?). So me calling it a stub is just hearsay ... it's what you yourself said about it I guess.
(**) Expensive, at the very least ;-)
List of Forgotten Realms characters
Hello. I posted this previously, but it looks like the bots archived it, so I don't know if you saw it the first time.
Will, it has been quite a shock to see your withdrawal from the elections - whatever the matter might be, I wish you all the best. Have a very Merry Christmas and a very safe and prosperous New Year. Kind regards, James. (also known as — E↗) 10:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC).
I share James' sentiments. I think you'd have made a valuable and highly beneficial addition to the ArbCom, and would have been in a position to truly effect a positive change. Nonetheless, your wishes are your wishes, and that's that. Best of luck on wiki and off, and have a Merry Christmas. —Anonymous DissidentTalk00:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks! Majorlytalk14:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully, I remain ignorant of the politics of wikipedia. But I was sorry to see your note, because in my dealings with you, I find you empathetic, intelligent, forthright and sincere. I hope you will elect to remain part of wikipedia because you are a rare bird here. My advice is (and you didn't ask): don't let the politics drive you away. You bring a real integrity to the place. Just my two cents. Take care, relax and enjoy your holidays. All best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Very sad to see you leave Will. You were one of the first Wikipedians I ever met, and since I first came across you, you've been a great friend. You were, in my opinion, Wikipedia's best ever bureaucrat, and one of its finest admins - you'd have made an excellent arbitrator. But of course, life goes on, and I wish you well for the future. Thanks, your friend, Majorlytalk00:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Though I did not receive the pleasure of personally interacting with you, I have always had respect for you as an individual. I hope you find pleasure in where life takes you next and I hope that you will stop by here in the future. Regards, NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work00:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
At least you won't have to lie about what you're doing on the internet anymore. :) On a more serious note, good luck with your endeavours; it is a shame you are departing. Best regards, Caulde00:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Good luck in the real world, I know you will apply well the lessons learned in this place. Don't forget that Wikipedia can be a slow, relaxed hobby in addition to a fast-paced one with many responsibilities. There's a reason why I've never stood for ArbCom. Andre (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
All the best for the future Will, and thanks for all your help. I hope you have a good Christmas and an even better New Year. ~~ [ジャム][t - c]19:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I wish you all the best in where ever life leads you, I hope that one day you'll have time to return to editing :). Happy Holidays and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I came back from wikibreak, and this is what I discovered. We'll miss you. Your departure is one of the greatest losses this project has sustained recently. I wish you every luck in your future endeavours, wherever they may take you. Cheers, and Godspeed. PerfectProposal13:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
How I wish you return back to WP asap ... You were(are) the best crat I have seen around , seriously... I hope you reconsider your decision.Best wishes -- TinuCherian - 05:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
ARGH! Not you as well! Sorry for my latecoming to wish you a happy, prosperous and stressless (to whatever extent!) new year. I sincerely hope anything you plan to achieve comes true. You will be sorely missed. Garden. 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which ones were which!
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
