User talk:Xeno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Xenocidic)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
userpage | talk | dashboard | misc


  • I will usually reply here, so you should watchlist this page while awaiting a response. If I left you a message, please reply on your talk page.
  • Unfragmented discussion is ideal; so if you reply here after I left you a message on your talk, I'll continue here to keep things easily readable.
  • My Wikipedia-linked email address is no longer regularly checked. If you choose to email me, please let me know that you've done so.
  • Feel free to post a message or ask a question. Please be sure to [[wikilink]] appropriate subjects. Thanks for visiting!
click here to leave a new message...
Jack-o'-Lantern 2003-10-31.jpgThis user would like to wish you a happy Halloween.
Lightnings sequence 2 animation-wcag.gifThis user really enjoys dark and stormy nights.
ubxrand · view ubx · random ubx

Thank you...[edit]

for that. Exactly the sort of action 'crats need to be taking at RfA's and i wish i saw it sooner or more often; some of the crap that goes on there is still, after so many years of discussion, not worthy of the community. Seeing that action by you has made me happy this morning. Happy days, LindsayHello 07:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note LindsayH. Certainly non-bureaucrats can do this type of clerking as well, though I understand why some might be hesitant. –xenotalk 08:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A gentleman's nod of appreciation.[edit]

While I tried to keep my posts about the recent (for some reason divisive) RfA to a minimum, I did disagree with you on your stance and conclusion. Still - your posts were all polite, calm, courteous and often filled with very understandable logic. I found it easy to see your point of view, and I appreciate your beliefs on the subject. Discussions that are filled with posts such as yours are a pleasure to become a part of. Sadly there's all too often condescension, condemnation, insults and personal attacks filling discussions on wiki these days. This is why I wanted to make note of the 'old school' polite discussion posts that you made. Thank you. I'm glad to see there's still a few adults about the project. — Ched (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, Ched, I certainly do try. –xenotalk 00:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks also for this. Maybe it is time to break for reflection. –xenotalk 15:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find a map[edit]

I'm continuing here (and will point here from BN after hitting publish) because it feels far less of general concern (why I posted there and not here in the first place, which I debated doing) and more about individual concerns which don't, in my view, belong on the BN. You wrote "I offered my opinion as requested by another user while confirming that DQ’s close was within policy." If that was your intent that's very much not how I read what happened. Instead I see Gerda ask a question [1]. You then answer asking your own version of the same question [2]. If you have concerns about the actions of another crat it's totally fair to ask a question about it. Gerda then asks you a follow-up question [3] to which you provide an answer in what appears to be in your crat role (and, I'll note, it reflects the conservative manner I would hope of crats) [4]. Still so far so good. You then edit this to say that you think DQ made a mistake not including a closing statement [5]. Here's where my concerns begin. If that was something you were thinking, why didn't you ask about it? Gerda has now been encouraged and asks you a further question [6] to which you reply, with full acknowledgement that you're acting in your official role, that DQ got it wrong [7]. All before you've heard from DQ. In neither of these last two diffs did you point to a policy or some other kind of precedent that suggests Amanda acted wrong. Just that you, personally, would have acted differently. To date the best justification I can find that you've offered for why you're officially suggesting this is because "<The discretionary zone is> not a hard cutoff" [8]. To which I would also point out that merely being in the discretionary zone, according to WP:CRATCHAT and contradicted by no RfC that I've seen, does not require a crat chat. In fact nothing (that I am aware of) requires a crat chat.

Has a crat chat become regular for RfAs ending in the discretionary zone since the RfC which set the new level? Yes. And so, arguably, if it finished at 65% and DQ closed it without a crat chat, the case could be made that she was not acting conservatively even though she was acting with-in the discretion offered by policy. But what you seem to be officially suggesting is both that crat chats are required for RfAs that end in the discretionary zone (arguably, but not officially, true) and that they should be had for some number of RfAs falling below the discretionary zone which, by policy, will almost always fail. From what I've read it seems like you think there should be more crat chats because discussion is good (a principle that I freuqntly argue and am thus abstractly in favor of). In that case you should get the community to endorse it rather than suggesting another crat misstepped because she stuck to policy (and convention). This kind of official criticism of Amanda's crat actions are why I suggest your actions have harmed crats as a whole and fit into what I see as a pattern of crats willing to use their powers in BOLD ways rather than conservative ways. Hope that provides a map into my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in. Will reply shortly. I like that the edit was exactly 4000 bytes. I like round numbers. –xenotalk 01:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think there has been a miscommunication - I don't believe I ever said DQ was wrong in their closing, or that a bureaucrat discussion was required (and I say both of those things in the edit you've cited). I am allowed to have a different opinion as to the appropriate closure path for any given RfA than any given colleague. DQ was able to divine the consensus without going to a bureaucrat discussion while I was not so sure that having one bureaucrat "go it alone" was the best course here. That doesn't mean DQ's decision to close without sending it to a discussion was wrong or against bureaucrat procedure, but I was curious if they had considered doing so. Bureaucrats are "expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request" (WP:BUR). My opening question to them was mainly to seek such an explanation about their consideration of closure paths and tease out DQ's summation of what I perceived to be the major turning point of the RfA, since it did not have the benefit from a wider examination on the merits. I was a bit surprised that a closing rationale had not been provided, and I think in future DQ will probably take the time to include one on knife's edge RfX's which is a positive. Personally, although I often engage as a bureaucrat during the RfA, I don't seek to divine the consensus on a potentially contentious RfA until after the timer expires - it appears the DQ's approach is different - but entirely reasonable and justified if they were following the discussion edit-by-edit and had already taken the appropriate steps to determine consensus. If I had decided I was able to close this RfA on my own, my approach would have been to put the 'on hold' wrapper on it while I went back over the entire discussion de novo (to mitigate potential bias) and composed a detailed rationale. DQ is a relatively new bureaucrat, and my goal was to gain an understanding of their thought processes both in approach and in the consensus evaluation, and I'm satisfied with DQ's approach and response following the addition of the detailed rationale even if I would have not personally taken the same approach, as reasonable minds can differ on this and DQ clearly felt more confident going it alone than I did. Bureaucrat discussions are never required if the closing bureaucrat feels they can determine the consensus without convening a bureaucrat discussion. I do consider it a best practice to include a detailed closing rationale both for the benefit of the participants and the candidate.
DeltaQuad did nothing wrong. Hopefully this helps clear things up. Feel free to follow up for further clarification. –xenotalk 02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I kinda forgot about this thing, I don't know if that factored into your comments- but DQ taking that stance and then closing it swiftly is still not "wrong" as such, as one could argue they were involved only bureaucratically. I still feel it was a mistake for them to act in that manner as I still believe avoiding the appearance of impropriety is important for bureaucrats. While DQ doesn't seem to share that belief, I don't intend to push the point further (after all, their mandate is fresher than mine). –xenotalk 03:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I do appreciate the question. I've been a bit rushed this evening, and I went back over my contributions and found an unintended wording choice (Special:Diff/921135221). This may account for the miscommunication. If you had that understanding, others might have as well, so I reproduced the reply to the BN thread. –xenotalk 02:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond here and BN and clarifying (and revising) your thinking. It's appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


Formerly Reminder to self: Don’t post to Joe Roe’s talk page or ping them ever again
re: Special:PermanentLink/921177050#COI

Joe Roe: if you are not willing or too sensitive to engage in reasoned debate with others grappling with your tortured application of policy, please resign your commission on the Arbitration Committee. –xenotalk 11:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I was sorry to see that discussion shut down, as I had hoped to have a back and forth discussion to find a better resolution. Everything Joe says in defense of his editing can be exactly said for Greenman's. I realize my example was a bit extreme but it's along the same road as those used against Greenman. Thanks for standing up for what you think is correct. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I’ve been asked not to post there, but I suppose you could make a new section if you remain unsatisfied with their response. Sorry I got your section shut down. –xenotalk 11:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I won't continue that discussion with Joe based on that ugly response to you. I want to add that you've done nothing wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I’m actually quite concerned about their unwillingness to engage in dialogue. I’ve raised the concern at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Joe Roe / Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators in Special:Diff/921201982. –xenotalk 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
They confirmed I may contact them directly regarding clear matters of arbitration, so I’ve tagged it resolved. –xenotalk 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • El_C: just as preposterous as my suggestion that Joe Roe was going secure all the grant money with their mainspace contributions to their respective field was Joe Roe’s suggestion that MariaDB is going to crush their competition because Greenman is keeping their version numbers up to date. It seems to follows that Joe Roe this stance would rather result in an article falling into disrepair and disutility than to be uncontroversially updated by an unpaid volunteer who happens to be employed by the company that produces the software to “make it fair” for other articles that don’t have the benefit of knowledgable volunteers. Preposterous indeed. –xenotalk 14:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC) 15:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure they [Refactored: Joe Roe] would rather that would happen, but myself, I don't see that [Refactored: Greenman's updates] as conflict of interest or anything untoward, which is partly why I supported the RfA. El_C 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, quite right- so amended.

    Neither do I see Joe Roe’s editing in their field to be a violation, which is indeed the thrust of the argument made. –xenotalk 15:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Xeno - as much as I respect you - and I DO respect you - I think this thread and thread title are poor choices to make. — Ched (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    Hi Ched, I’m going to take your advice and disengage for a while (will respond to direct questions). Though as an arbitrator, I don’t think I ever told someone to leave me alone when they were seeking clarification about my interpretation of policy. I think we can leave it at that. I’m looking forward to advice from WTT (and maybe WJB) and will reflect on my actions and choices. –xenotalk 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi Xeno. I thought I'd drop by. I've been following this situation since I commented on the BN thread yesterday, so I have a bit of an idea what's going on. From my outside point of view, we've got two editors I respect going at loggerheads over the CoI policy. Now, paid editing is a big deal on Wikipedia, one that has attracted a lot of debate over the past decade - so I'm not surprised that we have some strong opinions on either side. That leads to RfA's like Greenman's - anyone who might have a financial interest in editing is going to have to work very hard at managing that to become an administrator. I'm willing to debate CoI and paid editing - I see both sides of the argument - but I don't think that's the problem here.

I've stated that I don't think Joe needs to resign for shutting down a debate at his talk page. I stand by that statement, and I think that asking him to resign over a disagreement is an over-reaction. People do not have to agree on everything and it's better that you know someone's views for situations where such knowledge might be relevant.

That leaves one more thing. You seem invested in this RfA, and (as is common on Wikipedia) intent on getting the process to match your point of view. I've done it myself, mentally discounting or giving less weight to views that do not match my interpretation of policy. I don't blame you for doing so. I question, however, the way that you participated in the RfA - asking for more information of opposers. On one interpretation, you were simply clerking the RfA, as 'crats are allowed to do. When combined with your discussions after the RfA, I think it's a shame you didn't simply act as a participant. Declaring that you support or oppose, would have allowed a clear line that you were not acting as a 'crat. It would also have made it clear where you stood in subsequent discussions. The way that you clerked the RfA did lead to some questions as to your neutrality on the subject. Now, I could have completely misread the situation, I just thought you might like to see how it's come across to me. WormTT(talk) 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. I will reply in more detail after some days. –xenotalk 19:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
(tps) WTT, People do not have to agree on everything, but if the accusation of COI hangs over an RfA (the term "doomed" was used and got me interested, I was silent until then), and not a bit of evidence was produced, that feels like the candidate was treated unfairly. Knowing the feeling, I may have overreacted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hang in there[edit]

Hang in there or slow down, you have got to be about burnt out. Just an observer. Eschoryii (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)