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)

Meh...most COI issues are overblown. I read thru the article and it looks fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is disappointing-- I'd rather you'd left it at "I made some inappropriate edits as an inexperienced editor in 2010, but I know better now", like in your WP:AN post from last week. The above just digs it in deeper. Wikipedia is not an SEO app in the cloud. Well it is in practice, but it's not supposed to be. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 09:23, 30 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)
• I'm sorry to see this as well. The idiotic harassment of respected editors by people at Wikipediocracy claims another victim.... Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• I am sorry about your personal experience, in particular the outing. You are very right that Wikipedia ought to be a fun hobby (although seriously done) and it’s always sad if it ends up causing people personal trouble. Hopefully 2014 will be much nicer for you than the last weeks of 2013. Best wishes, Iselilja (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Bad decision to quit. Another illustration that there is a symbiosis between the extremist wing of Wikipediocracy and the extremist wing of Wikipedia. They need each other. Carrite (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed above, including by those who I often have radical differences in opinion with. 28 brought us all together. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Dammit, your parting statement actually made me really like you as a candidate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Declining 2014 Arbcom appointment (without prejudice to running again next year): probably a wise decision given the drama level. You didn't technically resign since you weren't on arbcom yet, as I understand it.

  Resigning as bureaucrat: not necessary unless there was significant feedback calling for this (I didn't see any so far).

  Resigning as admin: not at all necessary, unless there was really substantial pressure for it (say in a self-initiated RFC/U or someone opening a recall petition) and I don't think that pressure would materialize. If you stand for RFA again I think you will pass without problems. I would like to have you back in the admin corps, so I hope you will do this. Just be more forthcoming about WO and whatever else.

  Going on wikibreak: if you feel you need it, then sure, it's always a good idea. It leads to a changed perspective and makes you a better editor.

  Quitting Wikipedia completely: oh heavens no, we need your (most of the time) level-headedness despite your having made what I see as some clear boneheaded moves in some specific areas (we are all sometimes boneheads, each in our own ways). Chill out for a while, let the tension dissipate, and come back when you're ready.

  Hang in there, — 50.0.121.102 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Please don't go, we all need you. Epicgenius (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• What I see is an attack of idiocy and bastard people; this is a level of harassment and bullshit that will make anyone think twice about being involved with wikipedia on a leadership level. Hugs to you, 28, and Illegitimi non carborundum Montanabw^(talk) 03:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Most graciously, you stated your hope that your resignation would suffice to make things right. I am sorry, but it doesn't make things right for me. I thought and still think you were among the very best ArbCom candidates this year. I spent a lot of time studying the candidates, and in my estimation, you were the second best, just a hair behind the best. Reading your posts on Wikipediocracy (I don't post there), I see nothing disqualifying. Your close on the homeless guy article was correct in my view, and by no means a supervote. I would vote for you again in a minute, and encourage you to return and reclaim your tools as soon as your understandable need for a Wikibreak allows. Please relax and recharge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• This is certainly ANI worthy. You departure is a clear disruption to the project. A valuable contributor has again been lost.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 04:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• 28bytes had my support and trust and still does. He is one of the best.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC))
• What disappointing news to wake up to this morning, that we've lost probably our best potential Arb ever (and one of our very best admins and crats). I do hope you'll take up the tools again some time in the not-too-distant future, and you'll get my vote again any time you want to run. Boing is sad today :-( -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Everything Boing! said in their comment right above mine is how I feel. :( You've always been excellent and it's a shame that this has happened. Acalamari 09:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry it has come to this. I don't think you had much choice about ArbCom, but I do hope you will at least change your mind about resigning as an admin/bureaucrat - your request for removal of your bureaucrat flag on meta is on hold to give 24 hours for you to reconsider. WJBscribe (talk) 14:46, 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)

So what your saying is that if someone makes a statement like "six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools," or "I read that site" but actually neglected to include an important qualifier like "those making the request would be doing so in good faith (as determined soley by me)" or "I'm also a blogger there," should resign from their position of authority? Just checking! Hipocrite (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That issue was dropped long ago. Please let it remain dropped. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 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)

You have my vote! Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Mine, too. Epicgenius (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

+1 — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 06:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support return of 28 This would not have changed my vote. Any system needs people in charge who are clear-eyed about the strengths and weaknesses of the system; to be less than that is to become nothing more than a choir of bleating sheep. Wikipediocracy is a necessary foil to WP, I only wish they'd have more discussion of positive ways to improve wikipedia (which 28 attempted to do) without the "burn it all down" macho nonsense that makes Wikipediocracy such a hostile forum. Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Someone needs to start a movement, Keep28!. We could start tagging buildings and hack it into lights in Skyscrapers at night. It would be like that 80's movie Turk 182. :-) Kumioko (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Shall we start with this? Montanabw^(talk) 07:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

28bytesThis user votes to Keep 28.

• Jimmy, the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy actually does contain a provision for removal of ArbCom members where warranted (by two-thirds vote of the Committee), though I saw no cause for such an action here and would have strongly opposed any such proposal. It is good that you have offered 28bytes a way back onto the Committee if he should want it, although I suspect, sadly, that a few of the shriller voices here—and elsewhere—may have taken the joy out of Wikipedia for him for ever, and very few people do a good job with any aspect of what we do here if we do not feel good about doing it. 28bytes would have been a fine arbitrator, and I am sorry that I will not have the opportunity to work with him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think of that section because I'm primarily concerned here with a process from outside ArbCom. It is good for ArbCom to have that power with a 2/3 majority. But I think there needs to be an easier way for the community to have input between elections. As usual, of course, I would not like to see a system that would result in too frequent and too easy results, but I do think there are rare cases where it would be healthy to have recall processes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• For what little it is worth, I also !vote yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Who else is voting for 28's return?

Let's start with a list of votes. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My reply to Jimbo

Hi Jimbo. Thank you very much for your kind offer. I think a confirmation of the sort you are suggesting would be an excellent way to move forward in cases like this. But I must respectfully decline. Having slept on it, I am at peace with my decision to leave Wikipedia. In 2008, I grew frustrated with Wikipedia and decided to leave for a couple of years; in the interim I learned assembly language programming and wrote and released my first video game (which has been much discussed here recently.) It was a very enjoyable and fulfilling thing to do, and seeing it get mentioned in places like 1UP.com and The A.V. Club has been a huge thrill for me. I think it's time for me to take a break from writing about notable things and get back to work doing more notable things myself.

Regarding Wikipediocracy: believe me, I understand why people are bothered by the goings-on there. Let's face it, they act like dicks there sometimes. I've been a bit of a dick over there occasionally myself. But sometimes you need to be a dick to get things done. I credit Wikipediocracy with giving me a fuller understanding of our BLP problems, among other things. The scathing commentary they've posted about the hurt our processes can inflict on BLP subjects has hit home to me in a way than none of the dozens of earnest policy, guideline or essay pages we have on Wikipedia could.

I mentioned above that, being privy to the WO blog-preparing area, it was a very unsettling experience to see people figuring out what they were going to put out on the internet about me. I imagine that must be what it feels like for low-profile subjects of our BLPs who request deletion; we hold AfDs where participants say things like "well, if you didn't want a Wikipedia article, you shouldn't have gotten a job as a radio presenter/football coach/whatever." We need to be more humane. We already have some humanity enshrined in our policies; for example Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows us to respect the article subjects' wishes for privacy in cases of no consensus and poor sourcing. We should go further.

We need to distinguish between "Lady Gaga notable" and "Arthur Rubin notable". With no disrespect at all towards User:Arthur Rubin, readers would not be shocked and puzzled to encounter a modern encyclopedia that did not have a biography about him, the way they would be if Lady Gaga did not have one. Mr. Rubin's BLP appears to be well-sourced and neutral, consensus has been that he meets our general notability guidelines, and judging from the comments in the most recent AfD, he does not mind there being an article, so great! Let's keep the article. But if he instead found the article to be distressing and believed his privacy was being harmed, I would be the first to support its deletion. But current policy says that wouldn't be enough. That's something that needs to be rethought.

With Wikipedia's prominence and reach, it's inevitable that there will be at least one site dedicated to criticizing it, and that's a healthy thing. As Wikipedians, we can't decide how we will be criticized; we can only control how to react to that criticism. Do we ignore it? Do we lash out defensively? Or do we engage it with an open mind, even if the tone, presentation, and methods of that criticism are unpalatable? The most recent discussion on your talk page, where you have engaged respectfully with allegations that a respected administrator was whitewashing articles about a business school, encourages me that we are, at least some of the time, willing to listen to a critical message even if we don't like the messenger.

I have a few writing and video game design projects I have let languish since I returned to Wikipedia; I'm going to spend 2014 tackling those. I have a pretty good feeling about one of them in particular. If all goes well, I will return to editing Wikipedia once I have another notable accomplishment to write about. But this time, I promise I will let someone else do the writing. :)

Jimbo, I offer you, and everyone here, and everyone on "the other site", my best wishes for a happy and healthy New Year. Until we meet again, peace. 28bytes (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We love you anyway

What happened happened, but we love you anyway. Don't let it eat you up. 28bytes in 2015!

v/r - TP 01:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• ArbCom is a poisonous cancer... it's not as though the mountain of evidence demonstrating this needed any further proof. If you're really interested in content creation, as you say above, you don't need adminship, bureaucratship, or any involvement with ArbCom. That's part of the insane, crazy, lovely beauty of Wikipedia. Come back when you're ready. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I obviously wouldn't go so far as to call the Arbitration Committee "a poisonous cancer," but its importance in the overall project is often vastly overrated by its supporters (are there any?) and its critics alike, and I agree with everything else MZM said. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Around the recent election, there were a lot of very good Wikipedians who chose not to run, specifically because of the distaste for being outed. What ArbCom does is necessary for Wikipedia. It's in Wikipedia's best interests that the best candidates step forward to run for ArbCom. If the atmosphere of gotcha is causing people to decide that running isn't worth it, and it does, and now it caused one of our very best to decide that serving isn't worth it, then that is genuinely a poisonous cancer, and we all need to be concerned about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am genuinely sorry, and deeply saddened, to see this. I voted for you, and if you were up for election again tomorrow, I'd have no qualms about voting for you again. If you're guilty of anything, it's probably naivety—you should probably have anticipated that, if you had any secrets (no matter how benign most people might think they are), they wouldn't stay secret for long after you were elected. I always thought of you as one of the good guys, and I've watched your editing career (so to speak) with interest for a few years. Participation on Wikipediocracy makes no odds to me really—there is a gap to be filled in legitimate criticism of Wikipedia, much as I loathe the sorts of things that some less scrupulous members of that site do—and the "conflict of interest" issue seems to have been blown out of all proportion.

  Most of all, I'm genuinely upset to hear that all this business has ruined your hobby. You're one of the most respected editors on the project, and you have put many, many hours of your time into it, so I hope you won't let the last month or so completely overshadow your whole experience. I hope you'll come back when you've had a rest, and get back to doing some the things you enjoy. Ping me if you want me for anything (on-wiki or off). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)