User talk:Rspeer/ACE2008

Comment

Just to comment on the Rlevse section. All arbs are offered Checkuser when they become arbs. Also, I don't see how crat overlaps that much (if at all) with arbing. Its not like crats can desysop someone, nor do they have any other special tools that would matter (botting/debotting, renaming), and in the one case where arbcom was involved with an RFA (Carnildo_3), it was all non-arb crats who handled the crat side of the process. Ah well, just commenting. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point. The three-way thing I was describing doesn't make sense, but I still think separation of powers is important and bureaucrats shouldn't be arbs. The fact that bureaucrats' powers are boring doesn't really change that. Political analogy: you shouldn't be able to be a Secretary of State and be on the Supreme Court at the same time. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok, fair enough. MBisanz ^talk 06:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the off-wiki world, people normally resign the previous position when they're elected to an overlapping one. Perhaps it would be reasonable to ask bureaucrats to resign their position if they were appointed as arbs? I would agree that if WJBscribe were chosen as arb, he should probably resign his position as chair of WP:MEDCOM, due to conflict of interest -- he probably shouldn't be mediating cases that may be heading to ArbCom next, because then he'd just have to recuse. --El on ka 14:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note I remembered, User:Raul654 and User:Deskana were both Crats when they were elected Arbs and there was never an overlap between their activities. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. I stand corrected. --El on ka 00:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's happened before. I don't think it was such a good thing with Raul654 to be in charge of so much (being FAC director, a bureaucrat, and ArbCom) -- by giving people so many avenues to disagree with him, I think he weakened his effectiveness in all areas. In general, I'd like to see the leadership of Wikipedia in more hands, not fewer, and this means that I vote for separation of powers. It also means that bureaucrats stepping down isn't the answer. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late to the party. But I wanted to point out that b'crats actually have very little power. They either deal with SUL and other renaming issues (no meaningful power there) or they close RfAs. But they don't have any direct power to appoint admins: even in the 1% of cases where closing the RfA is a judgement call, one rarely sees a 'crat exert real authority (yes, we all know what the exceptions were). I think a sounder argument is that b'crats have a lot of clout and have tight connections with a lot of "clouty" people (how else would anyone survive RfB?). This is more problematic than their actual power as b'crats because the one thing ArbCom has repeatedly failed to protect is its independence from wikipolitics. The right analogy is not secretary of state + supreme court. It's secretary of state + secret lover of the chief justice. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I resemble that remark!

I prefer "measured" to "bland", though. :-)

FWIW, I indeed don't stand for a revolution but for incremental changes— perhaps that's why my statement and answers lack in sweeping and impressive declarations. OTOH, as I say on my talk page, "This user is a methodoligical naturalist, and knows the supernatural does not exist." If you're looking for someone who has no love for woo-woo, I qualify. — Coren ^(talk) 14:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably going to be interested in the little speech I've left on East's ACE talk page at his invitation since it touches on the same subject in greater detail. — Coren ^(talk) 06:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken: just because answers aren't attention-grabbing doesn't mean they're bad. I will review your answers again before voting starts and reconsider. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your humorous "editor guide guide guide"

Thanks, with your humorous "bonus" section, I can calm down myself with a big laughter. I guess, I can borrow your brilliant idea to my editor guide? --Caspian blue 20:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends: are you going to make your own voter guide guide guide? Fine by me, except I have to wonder about the effectiveness a guide where half of it is about yourself. Or are you going to make a voter guide guide guide guide about mine? In that case, I just may have to make a voter guide guide guide guide guide in which I remark with mild scorn (and, of course, mild hypocrisy) about your needless one-upmanship. ;)

Well, I would not be a copycat, so will see. But I think your "editor guide guide guide" is in fact derived from the MfD per the timing.--Caspian blue 21:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns

Hey there! I noticed your two concerns about me were whether or not I can handle the caseload and maintain a pseudonymous identity. First of all, while I would prefer to remain pseudonymous, if my identity were revealed by WR or someone else I wouldn't view it as a serious detriment and I would continue my ArbCom work. I take this position seriously and would not have become a candidate if I did not think I could maintain the level of activity and involvement the committee so desperately needs. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]