HubertSchuf

Self-Note regarding the draft for CDTO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chief_Digital_Transformation_Officer

side note: I was unable to work on the draft, due to decisions by the Wiki admins - working on it rn Draft:Chief Digital Transformation Officer

/E: incorporated the sources

HubertSchuf (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Muted @MrOllie

User talk:MrOllie

User ignores or does not read core argumentation, then gets told that, and confuses it with harassment. Later user resorted to spam the discussions tab with off-topic personal matters. Due to toxicity and non-sense user is being muted. HubertSchuf (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting. How do you mute somebody on Wikipedia? Also, did you fail to notice my warning just above before you posted those attacks? You are on extremely thin ice now. Bishonen | tålk 19:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen

• I replied to your "warning" afterwards (you haven't declared it as warning).
• You can mute someone on the right side of the profile

For example for me: Special:Mute/HubertSchuf HubertSchuf (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

HubertSchuf's Key Positions on Block Appeal and Admin Conduct (September 25, 2024)

I understand that all of you have a limited time, so please take a second and forget everything before. Stop reading or commenting the sub threads (or how ever you call them) and focus solely on this.

On September 25, 2024, HubertSchuf presented several core positions regarding their block appeal and interactions with other users and administrators on Wikipedia:

1. Request for Neutral Review: They requested that a different administrator evaluate their case, suggesting that the initial admins involved might have a conflict of interest or might have been more focused on issuing a ban rather than resolving the conflict

1. Critique of Administrative Conduct: HubertSchuf criticized the administrators for not listening to their side of the story and for threatening them with a permanent block. They indicated that the admins failed to provide adequate explanations for their actions, which they felt contradicted Wikipedia's policies

1. Concerns About Miscommunication: They raised concerns about the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes incivility and expressed disappointment that their requests for clarification were not adequately addressed. This lack of communication contributed to their feelings of mistrust towards the administrators

1. Assertion of Policy Understanding: HubertSchuf attempted to highlight discrepancies in how Wiki policies were applied to their case. They referenced specific policies regarding comment removal and signatures to support their points

1. Frustration with User Conduct: They expressed frustration with another user whom they perceived as disruptive and insulting. HubertSchuf felt that the user's behavior contributed to the negative environment and undermined constructive discourse

1. Call for Improved Administrative Practices: HubertSchuf advocated for clearer guidelines and consistency in the enforcement of policies by administrators. They expressed a belief that the current approach was detrimental to the Wikipedia community and called for better training in conflict resolution for administrators

Overall, HubertSchuf's positions reflect a strong emphasis on fairness, clarity in communication, and adherence to established policies, while also expressing frustration with both specific users and the administrative process on Wikipedia.

Hopefully you understand my frustration after the initial story with two admins heavily contradicting the written policies, punishing me, despite misconduct of another user, as I understand the policies with my deep background in international & national law, policy making education and experience with business practices.

@Doug Weller @Acroterion @CoffeeCrumbs

Due to this summary and topic, I removed the 2nd appeal for the inactive block, including everything else that was being posted. And also to avoid punishment or warning of Coffee, as they have used a personal attack in form of ad hominem within a comment, who's argument I disproved (see below)

Summary: a term (such as "may not") is unclear if you have to define it in written law (e.g. 1.5 in CCR), especially if such a term does not appear in the clear language guide by the US gov, aside that you have to define every terminology in written law to keep things clear. Law is not business policy etc pp - ofc some regions/states use Common Law v. Civil Law but within business policy and practice you usually use written laws such as the Civil Law.

In my opinion Wiki admins should work closely to the written policy, and if they contradict or deviate from it, they should explain why.

I'm sorry Doug' for the harsh reaction and that I, unknowingly, disrespected your health condition. I hope you excuse (forgive me that) that.

I wish all the best. HubertSchuf (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin, non-involved comment) Amongst other flaws in this post, telling people what they can or cannot do (i.e., Stop reading or commenting the sub threads) is both non-collegial and likely to be ineffective. Also likely to be an ineffective strategy is jumping from third-person to first-person grammar within the same post. I suggest that you consider not responding further about this, and carefully reviewing WP:AGF. After reading WP:AGF, you might understand why striking and apologizing for your baseless claims above (two admins heavily contradicting the written policies, punishing me, and (they [CoffeeCrumbs] have used a personal attack) will go a long way toward avoiding additional, preventative sanctions against you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not encountered you before but, I found your initial comment quite direct. After a second read I understand that you want a collegial community and I endorse this. With that in mind I do believe clarifying the written policy could be beneficial. What do you think about it? HubertSchuf (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

People tend not to take arguments produced by ChatGPT very seriously, if they even bother to read them in the first place.

This isn't a court, and our policies describe our practices. I'd gently encourage you to let go of the lawyering and whatever it is that you're seeking justice about, and find something around here you enjoy doing. Folly Mox (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, but it seems like you're interpreting my feedback as criticism of the policy rather than a genuine effort to clarify it.

Sure, AI summaries have flaws. I use language models as semantic transformer. It helps to sound less rude and questioning the own arguments, as I was perceived as rude. I am seriously not rude I am just very calm and logical oriented.

It appears to me that I was treated unfairly, as I faced punishment, while the other user harassed me and injected nonsense into the discussion, effectively disrupting the work on the article. In my perception they focus solely on me for absolutely no reason, it's like I am their punch bag.

Tbh I genuinely enjoy engaging with policy and I believe discussing them leads to a better understanding for everyone involved. Especially given my background in strategy, politics, law and policy-making. Let’s focus on how we can improve the conversation around these policies together HubertSchuf (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Admin non-involved comment: your block was appropriate and preventative, since you were creating an escalating conflict with multiple editors, that needed to be stopped, as it was wasting volunteer time and patience. A lot of people were patiently explaining things to you, which doesn't give you license to ignore them, abuse their patience, or endlessly argue. A read of WP:BLUDGEON, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and WP:WIKILAWYERING, all of which describe many of your edits, and WP:BATTLEGROUND summarizes what I see in your treatment of other editors. People get blocked for that kind of behavior. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and privileges can be revoked.

As for all of the administrators who have encountered you, I see nothing of concern there, you have been treated appropriately and patiently. There are limits, and administrators are here to enforce those limits, by blocking if that's what it takes. That you have taken offense at being called out for your conduct isn't our concern, and isn't a justification for lengthy searches for some sort of vindication or punishment of thiose you perceive as opponents. .

I strongly advise you to stop treating Wikipedia as a forum for pseudo-legalistic argumentation. Editors and administrators have limited patience with that kind of conduct.

And don't use AI of any kind, we're not interested in reading lengthy machine-generated commentary. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• I ignored nobody
• 320 words seems very short
• Sorry, edits? I did not edit anything recently, as far as I remember? I was active in the discuss/talk section of articles I wanted to change. Working on consensus like recommended by the guidelines. My last edit of an article was in May 2023. Compare: https://i.postimg.cc/Vk1Hpv8h/grafik.png
• Proper Conflict Resolution and a more balanced approach would have been enough
• I feel that my views and positions have been largely ignored in our discussions. Given that, I’m unsure how else to make my perspective heard, everything I say is automatically perceived as attack
• Blocking was absolutely unnecessary, I asked for clarification of the practice but my questions were ignored, so I checked the written policy but it deviates that heavily of their actions, so I am quite naturally confused
• Admins advised me to be less rude, after I tried and they still perceived it as such, so I turned to GPT helping me to check my comments for rudeness. It helps to check whether I address all points or overlook aspects. A critical thought before replying. If that approach to fulfill what was demanded is now seen as problematic, I would appreciate guidance on how to improve my communication without compromising my intent

Looking forward to a more friendly, collaborative and cooperative environment.

HubertSchuf (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chief Digital Transformation Officer (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ktkvtsh was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chief Digital Transformation Officer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HubertSchuf! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)