Jump to content

User talk:Sleyece

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 10 days ago by Sleyece in topic Please assume good faith




I'm currently in an election. Sleyece (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Concerning your current election: Keep in mind the formal requirements.
"Each member and candidate must: Comply with the UCoC."
In the UCOC itself I see a certain section.
"In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not."
I also see some sections about respect, empathy, good faith, civility and politeness. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 16:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Der-Wir-Ing My concerns have been properly addressed. If it is the Election Committee's decision that I violated this part of the UCOC, but the violation was exclusive to the election, and it was in the course of raising otherwise justified concerns, then you may remove my candidate profile from the election. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Final warning


Hi, I've been following your comments for a while here and they are not up to Meta's expectations for how people behave here. Further rudeness/demands, asking unrelated questions to ElectCom or other decision-making bodies, or other actions that would fall under the NOTHERE page on enwiki will result in a block. I have been hesitant to act up until now as you're standing for election to the U4C and I don't want to interfere with that process - but enough is enough. Thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ajraddatz Everything I've done is on the power of the Draft Charter as it stands. Are you on ELECTCOM? (rhetorical question) What co-equal body are you acting on the authority of? As you said, I'm a U4C candidate, and the closest thing to a U4C member seated. This "Final Warning" stuff is why; the other candidates are afraid of retaliation or discrimination if they speak out without an official elected office. Why have you been "hesitant to act up until now"? Is it because I've been flashing my co-equal token everywhere like an FBI badge and the Draft Charter gives it Foundational Weight? -- Sleyece (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@KTC@AbhiSuryawanshi@Der-Wir-Ing -- Sleyece (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have been hesitant to act because I don't want to bias voters against you when they see "this user has been blocked" on your contributions page. I have also reinstated the original topic of this section. Please note that pinging people into unrelated discussions is also disruptive, and that sort of behaviour will result in a block if it continues. If I can give some nice advice, just walk away for a day and come back tomorrow. See if any of this seems as important or pressing as it does right now. Seeing every interaction you have on Meta and enwiki as a battleground will not end well. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll be taking a sabbatical from all projects for the period 4/7/24-4/21/24. I'll check my email and talk pages for election updates or messages. This user feels like the charter has some gaps in it, and it was Drafted into Full Force quite quickly. This user is very emotionally drained. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Battleground is an understatement. They're certainly not equipped with an appropriate temperament to serve and handle the responsibility that goes along with it. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would like to contend that it was a battleground in general, and I was just sort of caught up in it. I am considering dropping out of the election; I hope the UCoCC is ready for it's responsibilities when seated in any case. It is not easy work. I am considering quitting participating in the Foundation altogether. It seems like every time I put myself out there, someone tells me that If I keep trying my best I'll get blocked. No one goes into any detail. It's all just warnings and policing. I thought this was the entire purpose of the Draft Charter. It seems I didn't understand what I was in for when I demanded to be treated as a co-equal while being a candidate because I certainly didn't expect the entire body of the Meta Admins and the En Wiki Admins to do it at once. I mean, I asked for it, sure, but I'm ready to quit trying now. That's enough for me. -- Sleyece (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No one is repressing you for trying and no one is treating you as less than an equal, the issue is the way in which you go about things. This is a good example. Receive pushback, fail to recognize why pushback is happening, and then quit/give up without self reflection. This is a serious position and if you're not willing to self reflect and grow based on feedback you receive then that's problematic. I wish you the best, but people shouldn't leave over disagreements and not getting their way. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying here. I really am. I've done a lot of self reflection as evidencied here in the "Your userpage" section. Like I said, I was literally asking for it. I'm not saying anyone is pushing me off the platform. I'm saying yesterday took a lot out of me. I have to learn when I take on big responsibilities, they have big consequences, but I don't want pity. I won't leave the projects, but I'm going to need a little time off. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I debated adding more, because I know it must seem like admins/editors are grouping up against you at this point, but I wanted to respond to a couple of things and offer some more advice. First of all, my earlier comments were not a threat to block you after the election, and my suggestion to take a break was not an order - I recommend taking some time off to anyone involved in a wiki-conflict, to hopefully gain some perspective and let the emotions settle.
On enwiki, you expressed concern that you didn't fully understand some of the policies. That's ok - we are happy to help, if you are receptive to learn. Related to the U4C and its charter, there are a few core misunderstandings that I have seen:
Related to the scope of the U4C and acting in lieu of the committee: Until the U4C is elected, existing governance processes continue. For UCOC violations, that means that local admins/arbcoms are the final authority until the U4C is in place. For structural issues, the Meta RFC process as implemented by stewards is the current process. You (or any other candidate in the election) cannot start unilaterally acting on behalf of the yet-to-be-elected U4C. When the U4C is in place, it will act only as a committee, meaning that individual members of the committee will not have the sort of individualistic responsibility you seem to have taken upon yourself. And finally on this topic - the structural issues that the U4C will be involved in are more along the lines of an entire wiki failing to adequately police certain content or behaviour. It would not be acting on individual content cases (like the Tiffany Henyard page). I highly doubt anything from enwiki would end up in front of the U4C, because enwiki is one project that represents about 30% of Wikimedia editors and content and has very mature governance structures and processes.
Related to being treated as co-equal: in the U4C charter and enforcement guidelines, the U4C is identified as being co-equal to other high level decision-making bodies. All this means is that the U4C cannot accept appeals of decisions taken by those other bodies, outside of systemic failure cases. See Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter#4.2.1. Jurisdiction. Even if you were on the U4C, a local admin (the capacity I am acting in here) would still be within their rights to warn you if they believed you were violating a local policy.
If you have any other questions, I would be happy to answer them. As I said above, I know it probably feels like people are grouping up against you, and I know that isn't a comfortable feeling. But we're trying to help - we can see that you have good intentions, and are trying to provide you with advice and guidance that will keep you around as a productive contributor. I do agree with the advice you have been given elsewhere - step back from this advanced back-end governance stuff, focus on non-contentious content work, and expand as you get more experience. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to study the Jurisdiction section carefully, and I'm sorry for saying yesterday that I was being treated poorly in certain replies I've since edited. It felt like that for obvious reasons, but I've said several times now that I was asking for it quite literally. I just didn't fully comprehend what I was asking for. I'm also curious as to whether or not the U4C can take appeals from co-equal bodies on Meta or only those from other projects? -- Sleyece (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries! I understand how you felt, and I can imagine your frusteration when you were trying to help but people were reacting poorly. Under the U4C charter and enforcement guidelines, the U4C cannot accept appeals of decisions taken by co-equal bodies on Meta or other projects, except for systemic failure cases. To use a legal analogy, the U4C will have original jurisdiction over systemic failure cases related to the UCOC, and appellate jurisdiction over decisions taken by non-co-equal bodies on individual projects. It was designed this way to prevent the U4C from turning into a Wiki Supreme CourtTM and to ensure that local projects retain the ability to handle their own internal affairs to the extent possible. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reminder to vote now to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously voted in the 2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) election.

This is a reminder that if you have not voted yet on the ratification of the final Wikimedia Movement Charter draft, please do so by July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC.

You can read the final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter in your language. Following that, check on whether you are eligible to vote. If you are eligible, cast your vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 15:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please assume good faith


Between the election and the announcement of the Special election the Wikipedia Admins "ferret" and "Hey man im Josh" made it clear through unsolicited cross-project Administration that I'm no longer welcome to consider English Wikipedia my home as evidenced here.

Care to elaborate on your bold and serious accusation here? I'd highly suggest retracting those comments and apologising to both of those users in question. --SHB2000 (tc) 13:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

ferret accused me of "smearing the process" with no evidence or explanation. I can't AGF if I'm attacked in bad faith first. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"It's probably time to stop smearing the process and those involved. -- ferret (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)" I read this as Bad Faith cross project administration. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, you were doing that through your excessive incivility. You had the opportunity to reflect on your behaviour, but instead decided to pursue this further by name-calling and further accusing both users in question of "Bad Faith cross project administration." You're well past your final warning so I'm blocking you for 1 week to reflect on your behaviour. ferret and josh aren't the problems here, it's you. --SHB2000 (tc) 13:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I feel like I've been the subject of Systemic Bias due to my Genetic Information. I have been singled out in a way that would need to be voted on by a quorum of the U4C. Specifically, due to having Phenylketonuria, I'm being treated as less than a functional adult in a way that violates the U4C Charter. This also violates the principles of the Foundation. This is not in line with what the Community agreed to. I'll strike or revert (whichever is preferable) the reference to the two Wikipedia Admins when I have access to do so again. This block, I feel, is in violation of the U4C Charter and interferes with an election. I was participating in Good Faith to accomplish the goal of a functional U4C. I also feel that as a Candidate this block erroneously hurts my chances in the Special Election by intentionally making sure I have a very recent block log. Surely, this block will be used as an excuse for why I'm ineligible or inadequate in some election chart in the near future, and that was partly the motivation for the block. If the U4C has the power to exercise Requesting adjudication review without a quorum I would like them to do so in regard to this block. I understand the U4C may not be willing to exercise that power; it may decide of it's own accord there would need to be a quorum to do so. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're not helping yourself by further making bold and serious accusations like you did here. --SHB2000 (tc) 00:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I struck through the part that made it seem like an individual accusation. I meant systemic failure overall. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your U4C Special Election statement


I'm reaching out because of your nomination statement for the 2024 U4C Special Election. I strongly encourage you to revise your statement to remove aspersions and to properly represent facts.

I worked with other Wikipedians to increase the "List of Presidents of the United States" to a Featured List. The addition of "National Union Party" in the list is a result of my influence. I've since relegated myself to the Relativity Project on Wikipedia. Between the election and the announcement of the Special election the Wikipedia Admins "ferret" and "Hey man im Josh" made it clear through unsolicited cross-project Administration that I'm no longer welcome to consider English Wikipedia my home as evidenced here.

  • What part of that link is supposed to be evidence that I’ve made it clear you’re not welcome at the English Wikipedia?
    • My only comment on that page: “What makes you think we'll get the same result as last time? We may have entirely different candidates, some of whom may receive overwhelming support for all we know.
  • Regarding when I reached out on the English Wikipedia about the list, as I stated here, I was not reaching out to as an administrator, but as a regular at featured list candidates.
  • Here is a link to the discussion, where I brought up the fact they you not a significant contributor to the list (it was removed, per WP:OWNTALK
  • At the time I reached out to you about the userbox on your page I was an FLC regular, as I mentioned in that discussion. Since that time, I’ve actually become an FLC delegate (essentially a coordinator for the featured list process). While the definition of “significant contributor” is vague, if someone were to nominate a list like that now with the contributions you made, I’d be seriously considering whether to reject the submission based on a lack of contributions to the article.
    • Side note, I don't actually care enough that I was going to fight over your userbox, I just thought you'd genuinely care enough to properly represent the situation.
  • You also threatened to report me for saying you had a piss poor attitude, which you did and still do, after I warned you about editing other user’s comments (since you had done so to me multiple times)

You are, OBVIOUSLY welcome on English Wikipedia, and we’d love to have you if your intention is to contribute positively and constructively. With that said, your temperament and pattern of misrepresenting situations, such as this token thing you keep bringing up that you can’t explain to anybody (because it doesn’t exist), are extremely concerning. Those on the U4C are held to a higher standard, a standard you do not currently meet. Maybe some day, if you work at it, that’s a place you can be, but at this point, it’s extremely clear that you do not belong on the committee based on your nomination statement alone. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You were actually in the clear technically because you were extra hard on me only when I was a candidate, and I did not have the usual protections afforded to a regular user. Thank you very much for saying I'm welcome on EnWiki. I appreciate it. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply