User talk:Ealdgyth/2021 Arb Election votes

Izno

Since I was pinged, I wanted to engage on some of the criticism here. Take as much of this response with a grain of salt as you please.

Ugh. No. No. No. We should not be allowing fait accompli editing such as Magioladitis and Rich's... just no.

I submitted evidence in Magioladitis 1 that I thought made it fairly clear that his continuing adminship and behavior was not okay. As for Rich, no, I was also not okay with his editing, though with less to show. The line in question isn't about the two editors specifically, but that there have been multiple bot-related ArbCom cases (Betacommand went unlisted because that was a decade ago at this point) because of users who didn't also respect our bot policy (among others) and at least one Wikipedian norm. That consequently adds at least one major dampening effect to moving forward on changing that same policy, even were it the case that it could be changed without those cases existing because of other factors.

Unequivocally, I agree with the final case results for both users.

it should be if it's going to be used for any sort of directing of edits on the encyclopedia.

I am not sure what 'directing of edits" means. Can you clarify what you want it to mean? We strongly discourage canvassing on Discord. Editors of course use it for active collaboration, but at the end of the day, "consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing". (I was in part responsible for the current framing of that line three years ago, see WT:Consensus/Archive 20#Workshop on amending guidance for off-wiki discussions.)

That it's being treated like IRC is just plain wrong, no matter what a bunch of discord users managed to swarm a discussion into their own preferred decision.

I won't discuss the RFC here, which I think is what you're referring to most obliquely, but if you're going to comment on that RFC further than noting I didn't !vote in it (I did leave a comment), you should be more direct as to how you think my involvement matters (whether or not that is positively or negatively). Izno (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your reply to the question was "For example, while I respect our policy on WP:COSMETIC changes, I think a lot of good could be done to regularize wikitext, making it easier for newcomers, even though those changes would not make a difference in the final rendered output." Mag and Rich did exactly that sort of editing... and pushed it through in such volume that it became fait accompli. I do not think that "regularizing wikitext" is a good thing and frankly, just on that would never be able to support your canidacy for ArbCom. Frankly, I think bot policy and enforcement needs major strengthening and enforcing to keep bot operations more restricted, not changed to loosen it (which would be the case if we moved to allow regularlizing of wikitext). As for "directing" - if its used for "collaboration" ... then edits are being decided off wiki, and either the discord needs to be allowed to be used in dispute resolution or it needs to stop allowing collaboration in a public area. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Audited content

We're not electing folks to create audited content, but since it's something you care about... I did once stumble into a Featured List nomination credit under my previous username Bazj (talk · contribs) - Special:Permalink/375510811#List of Watford F.C. seasons. Thanks for your work on a guide. Cabayi (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)