User talk:28bytes/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I will resign.

I have decided to resign my position on the arbitration committee. It will take a few hours to un-flag myself, unsubscribe from mailing lists, etc., so please bear with me for a bit as I work through that process.

This was not an easy decision. People I respect have publicly and privately encouraged me to serve out the term, and I feel very bad to let them down.

I won my seat on the committee fair and square; my edits to Wikipedia have always been public, and the voters judged me on those edits. There was no canvassing from Wikipediocracy in my favor, obviously, since Wikipediocracy did not know who I was. During the voting the only person outside my family who knew I was active on both sites was a Wikipedia administrator I trust, who has never been active on Wikipediocracy (and who does not particularly like them.)

But the point is that other editors I respect feel it wasn't fair for me to win a seat without disclosing my WO account, since they would not have voted for me if they had known I'd been critical of Wikipedia on another site. I don't agree with that analysis of "fair", but I understand where they are coming from, so I can't dismiss their concerns.

I would rather step aside than let there to be any lingering questions at all about the legitimacy of the election.

This has not been an enjoyable month for me. That's my own fault, of course; no one forced me to run for ArbCom. But aside from the brief interlude between finding out I was the top vote-getter and seeing my name and hometown on various websites a few minutes later, there's been very little enjoyment of what should essentially be a fun hobby.

So in addition to resigning from the arbitration committee, I will be turning in my bureaucrat and administrator tools, and taking an indefinite break from Wikipedia. I won't be "vanishing" or deleting my user pages or anything like that; it's only fair that I stick around and deal with any fallout from this. If you have a question or comment for me, feel free to post it here and I'll respond. I'll make sure that anything you have to say to me is listened to, and if necessary responded to. But once this episode fades into the history bin like so many Wiki-dramas before it, I will be moving on to other pastures.

Some thoughts on COI

Before I go, a few words about "conflict of interest" and the video game I wrote in 2009. Before the Wikipediocracy staff found out that I was "one of them", they were preparing a blog piece that critiqued my COI edits. (That's since been revealed publicly, so I'm not breaking any confidences here.) The idea that an incoming arbitrator would cross the "bright line" preventing people from editing articles they were personally affilated with is indeed a fair topic for a blog post. (As a "secret" member there I was actually in the strange position to see it get written in real time. Let me assure you that watching people prepare a negative blog post about you while they don't know you're watching is a very surreal and unnerving experience.)

But I want to say here, for the record, that I am unreservedly proud of every edit I made to articles I had or have a COI with. It's a few dozen out of my 30,000 edits here total, but I remember those edits well, because I was extremely careful about getting them right. Wikipedia:Autobiography says that such COI editing "is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and there are many pitfalls."

That's absolutely right; it is difficult. But it's not impossible. I remember when the first not-so-good review of Duck Attack! came out. I was a bit bummed out by it, but the question "should I add this to the article?" had an obvious answer for me: "Yes. You are a Wikipedian. You write neutral, accurate and well-sourced content, regardless if the review is good or bad." So I added it.

But I went further than that. I worked with another editor to bring the article about the critic who wrote that review to DYK. And I defended that article, repeatedly, against vandalism and BLP violations against the critic.

And I wanted to make sure that Duck Attack! was not given undue prominence among homebrew games, so I contacted other homebrewers and asked them to donate screenshots of their games, which I updloaded and added to relevant articles. My uploads and article additions of other homebrews are why the list of Atari 2600 homebrew games has an image of another homebrew (not my game) and why Atari 2600#Homebrews has another homebrew game (not mine) adorning the section.

I have treated my "competitors" well, by giving them accurate, neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia articles. I wrote Medieval Mayhem and brought it to the front page. And Oystron. And A-VCS-tec Challenge. Halo 2600 is largely my work. Take a look at any of the homebrew video game articles that were not written by me; most are poorly sourced and filled with original research, and have often been tagged as such for years. I am extremely proud of the work I've done writing about these interesting and notable games, including my own game.

Should I have waited for someone else to write the Duck Attack! article? Well, maybe. I suppose I could have waited for them to write The Vietnamization of New Jersey or Move Like This or R.O.C.K. in the U.S.A. or The Most Unwanted Song or 911 Is a Joke or any of the other 100 or so articles I wrote because nobody had bothered to write them yet, but I didn't see much point.

So take a look at the Duck Attack! article. Do you see any original research, or POV-pushing, or unsourced or inaccurate statements? Or do you see a good-faith effort to comply with every guideline and policy we have on article building, with the acknowledged exception of the COI guideline?

When people bring up that article as one of my failings, is that because there's actually anything wrong with the article, or might there be another reason? My edits have been first and foremost in the service of building neutral, accurate, well-sourced content, whether I have anything to do with the article subject or not. That's true of my edits to Duck Attack!, and it's true of every other COI edit I have made. Take a look at the edits, and decide for yourself.

Once again, I am truly sorry to anyone who feels misled. I hope my resignation will suffice to make things right. 28bytes (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

• I'm disappointed, but I fully understand your decision (and not everyone has a backs-against-the-wall mentality that may have been required in some situations resulting from the "revelation"). I've written COI articles myself; Zoe Wenham, and Richard Keen (racing driver). It isn't that hard to write a COI article, except you need to be double-careful wrt your writing style, and to ensure it is as neutral as possible. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 22:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go, and I hope that you will come back in due time.

But as a courtesy to the rest of us, could you please make the revision history of your user talk page accessible to non-admins? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC) OK, it's archive 43. You can revert this if you don't want it visible. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It's here; I just archived it, I didn't delete it. 28bytes (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• "watching people prepare a negative blog post about you while they don't you you're watching is a very surreal and unnerving experience." Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

  I don't feel deceived. If you run again, you'll have my support again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Mine too. Without question. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

'tis the season

• no words, less hope, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• I know how you feel but its another massive loss to the project. Good luck. Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Far from "making things right", this is the worst outcome for everyone. — Scott • talk 23:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Definitly the worst outcome, but is that's what you want I respect your wishes. If you do ever stand again you will have my full support however. Blethering Scot 23:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• So we've lost an excellent editor, admin and (probably) arbitrator, and Wikipediocracy has lost one of its sanest and most ethical contributors. Sad day. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Best wishes and regrets. You made a difficult decision. Take your break and return refreshed. As far as the planned blog post, I suspect that if you had disclosed yourself before the election, we would have had you write it. →StaniStani  23:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'm disappointed in this decision. A tiny group of vocal people should not be able to shout louder than 900 wikipedians that just took a vote where external affiliations wasn't an eligibility criteria. It's of course the same pool of people complaining that Wikipediocracy should not have such an impact on Wikipedia's affairs - except when it suits them. And sitting arbitrators should know better than to try and influence who sits with them. Overall, a net loss for Wikipedia. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, you're gonna serve your full arb term and not resign. You're not allowed, my orders. Wizardman 23:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• You've got mail. I'm genuinely sorry to see you go, but I do respect your decision and I won't add my thoughts to any on-Wiki drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• The bad guys win this round, but I think you've won too. Don't be gone too long! --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• bitterly disappointed with this outcome. 28bytes: the greatest arbitrator the community never had. Worm^TT(talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Saddened to see this, but see integrity at work the same time. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Terrible. This is pretty terrible :( — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with resignation

Sorry, coming late to the party, still trying to sort through just what happened here. I wavered back and forth between, "Sorry, what's happening?" to "Oh, poor 28bytes, he's being bullied by known bullies. Well, that comes with the territory," to "Wait, he resigned? Well, he shouldn't have done that," to, "Wait, is there really a smoking gun?" to, "Oh dear, I think there is." The slamdunk for me was this: The recent flap that made it to ArbCom, that resulted in the resignation of (past) Arbitrator Jclemens.[1] The incident that precipitated that event was 28bytes making a controversial close of the Henry Earl AfD.[2] The close was debated at DRV, consensus was not reached, and so 28bytes' decision stood. Only now I learn that 28bytes, under another identity, had already been participating in a discussion about that article at WO?[3] Sorry, that went over the line for me. My expectation was that 28bytes came to the AfD discussion as an uninvolved administrator. Not as someone who had already stated an opinion elsewhere that the article should be deleted, and then (evidently) came to Wikipedia to abuse authority with a supervote. 28bytes, as I already said elsewhere,[4] if the AfD dispute would have occurred just a few weeks earlier, it might have cost you the election. If this association with WO would have been disclosed, I think it would have had an even greater effect. If I would have known about this, my "Support" would have changed to an "Oppose". Whether it would have cost you the entire election is moot at this point, but I do think that resigning was the right thing to do.--Elonka 00:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Knowing your opinion is very important to all of us, Elonka. Thank you so much for sharing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So much for me above not wishing to add to drama, but the drama happened on the now archived section of this talk page and I see no purpose in rubbing salt. It's over now, time to give it a rest rather than continue to pile on. Yes, it's moot now, let it be so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I don't at all agree that the close was a "supervote"; it would have arguably been one if I had closed as "keep" given the breakdown of the discussion. I do take the point that I shouldn't have critiqued the "keep" arguments externally if I intended to close the discussion. That's a fair criticism. 28bytes (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am impressed

As I've watched this unfold, I was composing a letter in my head to ask you to ask me to call for a community vote to re-confirm your ArbCom membership. Although I think that Wikipediocracy is a net problem for Wikipedia (because it encourages perverse attacks on community members and a conspiratorial way of thinking which is at odds with the facts), it is not for me to substitute my judgment for that of the community. However, I think that the failure to disclose your active participation there was at a minimum problematic as it could very well have impacted some people's votes for some perfectly valid reasons. Or not. Mere participation in that forum is something about which reasonable people may disagree.

In any event, this is the sort of thing that I think is very awkward for our community processes as we do not have clear processes to deal with such things. I think that most people would agree that there should be a method for removal of ArbCom members who have lost the trust of the community, but that is something we don't have, other than (controversially) my ability to remove someone - and that's a drama route that is not healthy either.

So, I'm impressed. You did the right thing by standing down from ArbCom, but I also think that given your overwhelming trust in the community as exhibited by the vote (although of course that came before the disclosure) you would also do the right thing by asking for community confirmation. If you did that, and if the community expressed support at a level that would have given you a seat on the ArbCom anyway, then I would reappoint you. I hope that you'll try. If nothing else, it would open a useful discussion about such things as participation there and about honesty with the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)