User talk:Inomyabcs

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Mishandling of the Roku content deletion issue

@Inomyabcs: i mentioned this on the Talk:Roku page but probably should have brought it to this page in the first place (i am still learning). I don't understand how - with a heart in the right place - did you end up muddling this case? Here is a quick recap of the events:

1. @Mdann52 engaged in edit warring with multiple editors to impose mass deletions on Roku (8/18, 8/19) instead of following this WP:CAUTIOUS you cited.
2. Then an unexperienced editor - User:Lexeus (2 page edits total) - used the wrong template while asking nicely to revert @Mdann52, which caused a "Semi-protected edit request" to be created. Obvious mistake, if you look at the diff (how is a semi-protection going to help against a registered user Mdann52?).
3. Editors discussed under that section: everyone else (7 or 8 people) argued against the deletions, while @Mdann52 showed nothing for his claims of puffery and lack of sources - but disregarded the apparent consensus and re-deleted again on 8/28.
4. And then, 8/29 - we get you, Inomyabcs - who right here does the most messed up thing in the whole story - instead of leaving the existing consensus, you seemingly(?) put it aside and formally opened a completely new discussion, with a topic you changed slightly - the way you understood it. Why?
5. Three days later you warned me "do not edit contested content while there is an open discussion" but i don't understand why did you de-facto side with Mdann52 by (a) making his 8/28 deletion a "fait accompli" with your RfC and (b) making editors re-do the discussion from the beginning?
6. Your judgement on the consent seems wrong. 9/29 you commented that Mdann52's is "getting the bulk of the acceptance from the other editors" - yet just a few hours later an experienced, uninvolved editor (which someone summoned from AN/RFC) determined the consensus to be just the opposite.

With this said, i have a question - how did all this happen?
Specifically your role in it (#4, #5). You seem well intended - but i am having difficulty matching the biased outcome with the good intentions and that puzzles me.
I understand you don't "owe" me an explanation but will appreciate if you explain. I am still learning the customs around here. Were you "bound" to act in that particular way by some procedures? EnTerr (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@EnTerr: Sorry for the long delay. I felt too involved in the Roku discussion and felt I had to step away for a bit. Quite simply, when I came across this issue, I was patrolling the Edit Requests page and landed on the table restoration request by Lexeus. By that point there was consternation over adding/removing the table and a few edit reversals had already occurred. This really wasn't a valid use of an edit request and I closed it since it was on the backlog for over 14 days. As a compromise and where I started my chain of errors, was that I opened it as a Request for Comment (RfC). I still feel it should have been a RfC, but I should have expanded the topic from the narrow scope of Policy to include Electronics, Technology, and Television. That was my first error. The second was trying to guide the discussion, after posting I would recuse myself from doing just that. The intent was not to vote since my opinion was to keep the table, but by trying to guide the discussion I was inserting my bias toward that opinion. The third error was making this my first guided discussion and not making that clear from the start, since I didn't have practice other than reading a few other RfCs. Hopefully, that gives you insight into my thought process. I did learn quite a bit, but I don't think I learned enough to be good at guiding any other RfCs. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Inomyabcs. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)