User talk:Wizardman/ACE2010

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This is for writing what I consider the most informative guide to the 2010 ArbCom elections. Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon Question

Hi, thanks for writing this interesting guide. I'm not really tooled up in my wiki-jargon and wondered what you mean when you talk about ATV/MTV ratings? Thanks. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just realized probably no one understood what that meant. I added in a note that they basically mean how long it took arbs to vote on a case. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Oppose

I've been querying election guide writers who've specifically cited my BLP positions as concerning in opposes, so you're not the only one getting this question, but have you read through Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/Jclemens/Questions#BLP_Issues? If so, I'd be interested in honest feedback on what you believe to be incorrect about my BLP stance(s). I've said and done so much with respect to BLPs over the past year or two, that your oppose itself doesn't tell me all that much. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the trick is my rationale is twofold. For the most part, I do like your answer to the BLP issue. There are different levels we have to look at and react to each accordingly. However, based on some discussions I've seen from you, you seem to take a tighter approach to dealing with the BLP matter. That doesn't mean you put it away and ignore it, it's just different from the way I would go. If I had to point out a deal-breaker, it'd probably be in part four of your answer. I think there should be some negotiation if the subject actually has a problem with it, and in some cases, no consensus should absolutely default to delete (I've done it myself before). The "soft on BLP" tag is probably a misnomer, but I've always been more of the hardheaded "ends justify means" type of guy (to the surprise of probably no one). It was a tough oppose call to make, really the RfC was the deal breaker, not any of the BLP stuff. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. IAR is the epitome of "the ends justify the means", but I really do see the entire BLP issue as a tightrope between harm to persons and alienation of occasional editors. Of course, BLP isn't the only reason occasional editors might be put-off by the ever-increasing set of guidelines and expectations that they'll be asked to master, but that's another topic.

Most of the other guide writers haven't considered the RfC a problem--not sure if they considered that I'd taken to heart what I could have done differently to avoid that outcome, that it was primarily driven by three users who (at that point) clearly had an axe to grind with me, or that of those three one has gone on hiatus after being sanctioned by ArbCom and the other two I've since had cordial relations with. Or, of course, there's still the possibility many simply haven't bothered reading about it. Feel free to ask a question about it. It'll get it out in the open, I'm willing to talk candidly about it, and the community should be able to appraise it openly. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi Wizardman, thanks for putting together a guide, I know how much work they are! One question about PhilKnight though, you say you are supporting in part because of his working on WP:MEDCOM. However, though he has indeed been on the Committee for over a year, it turns out that he hasn't actually done anything substantive. He even confirmed this on his questions page. So, perhaps you might wish to modify that part of your comment? --El on ka 07:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman, PhilKnight did not actually say "I did not do anything substantive". Please read his response to the question and his candidate statement to see what he actually said. PhilKnight is one of the Mediation Cabal coordinators. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of? Jehochman ^Talk 09:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; I thought he was a medcom coordinator when I was thinking medcab for some reason. Modified that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --El on ka 00:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Though my statement says I haven't followed any cases in detail, I've certainly followed along with certain cases over the years and understand the timeline and the workflow for-the-mostpart. So while I understand how the process works, I'm just not well-prepared to offer any deep-thought opinions on why Abc case was handled well or why Xyz was a clusterfuck. =] (I realize this probably does not change your overall position, and that is not my intent) –xeno^talk 14:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; it sounded like you were an outsider when I originally read it, and while I'm not opposed to that, I don't know if the sudden change in scenery would be good. The letter/spirit of rules thing was my oppose reasoning rather than the above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]