User talk:Tryptofish/ACE2023

Page views

(check views)

880 total views over the election period. Almost all of them the first day of voting, and the day before that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary style at WP:HJP

On the one hand, I had to be convinced of using summary style and I have said afterwards I would never want to do it again because of how much time it took me. On the otherhand, the format did allow me to get a better feel for what had happened with the conduct in the topic area than if we'd had some kind of word limits. Specifcally the extended format, complemented by his thoughtful participation in the case, brought me to a warmer view of Volunteer Marek. And other arbs expressed their appreciation for what it meant for their going through the evidence. So I think your comment There should have been no need for a separate evidence summary page.) places too much at Wugs feet, because I think ArbCom trying to improve its processes is something we should constantly be doing. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest in what I wrote, and for taking the time to comment here. I think I would have much less of a concern about the summary of evidence if the case had strictly stayed away from content issues and the summary page had just been used to sift through a lot of evidence about conduct. But an awful lot of that particular summary of evidence page strikes me as summarizing what source x said about y. I think you know that I have a long track record of supporting and encouraging efforts for ArbCom to improve its processes, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't criticize efforts that went astray, especially when the candidate continues to defend things where it would have been better to acknowledge that it didn't work. (Mostly, he just said that it was too much effort.) As for your warmer view of VM, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that, because I'm quite sure that he didn't get a warm feeling from ArbCom during the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Dissatisfaction

I'm sorry you're unhappy at the answer I gave to your question. The question's premise that we didn't "have a request from the community" was mistaken. The request was off-wiki. The committee stepped in as filer in order to preserve the privacy of that request. Cabayi (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply (and please do keep in mind that I'm supporting you, because this isn't a single-issue matter for me). I attempted to write that question in such a way that candidates could have leeway in how they wanted to respond to it, and that's why I said "accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them", which in fact was not asserting that there was never a request from the community. It's fine that you wanted to point out the existence of a private request. However, that was all that you said about that case, before pivoting to the Lourdes case. And you emphasized that Arbs are themselves community members, and you took the position that the only responsibility is to "maintain a visible disinterest in the cases". I disagree, in that it's necessary to do that, but not sufficient. There's a real danger in ArbCom deciding to open a full case, based on asking the community to trust that there are good reasons for doing so, and then just maintaining "a visible disinterest". Other candidates acknowledged that; you did not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)