User talk:Wizardman/ACE2011

Burned out?

It's a fair point, and probably not overly off the mark to a degree. Admittedly, my motivation has had a sharp decline this year, for a number of reasons (not all of which are related to Wikipedia itself, mind you – having two change of jobs in 2011 when I am used to staying for years at a single one did drain me emotionally).

That said, part of what demotivated me was what I felt was the abandonment of the projects by the Foundation, and what I perceived to be a complete disconnect from reality that was poised to destroy some of our foundational principles (the Pokémon filter "referendum" is illustrative, though hardly unique). In fact, part of the reason why I volunteered to accompany Brad on the WMF meetings is that I needed to see what the Foundation was doing for the projects to decide whether I would run for a new term at all.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I came back from those meetings with enthusiasm and renewed faith. I wouldn't have run if I didn't feel I could give two more years and pull my weight. — Coren ^(talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Was the 'enthusiasm and renewed faith' purely arbitration related, or would you be able to channel that enthusiasm into other areas if you were not re-elected? I'm asking because my default position on arbitrators running for re-election is that they need to show why they should continue rather than (as I think is best) taking a proper break, re-engaging with the community, allowing fresh blood to step forward, and coming back refreshed (if there is any need to return). If you want me to ask these questions on your candidate questions page, I'll do that in the next few days (along with the other candidates). Carcharoth (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's best qualified as "project(s) related" rather than "arbitration related". If I'm not reelected, I'll certainly find some way I can contribute but it's probably not going to be on the front lines again. My interests, and skill, direct me towards the more meta aspects of the projects (that has, indeed, always been the case); and I'm more likely to invest in the larger foundation-wide issues than make a half-hearted attempt at content contribution (which I was never really good at anyways). — Coren ^(talk) 21:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In a sense, it's what made you so tough to figure out. I know you work on the meta end, and I'm fine with the lack of article writing, since that was never your forte. My concern was mainly with the edits dwindling to maybe one or two a day on a good month, basically. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm, uh, more than a little surprised that you would raise CSBot's idleness as a reason to oppose: I've been spending the better part of my free time for months to fix this (and, indeed, thanks to Erik Moller, we are nearing a fix with both Google and a workaround with Yahoo). Would you elaborate on your reasoning? — Coren ^(talk)

Rereading it again, that wasn't my intention. What I meant was that CSB did help a lot in keeping you working with the community. The messup was of course not on your end. I'll remove that part since it really doesn't help one way or the other.Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wonk note

FYI, we're going to try to do away with those "Statement talk" and "Candidate talk" links in favour of a single discussion page for each candidate (Candidate talk), to reduce some of the byzantine sprawl of election pages. Skomorokh 13:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Points 4 and 5 and questions from last year

Was reading your points 4 and 5, and was wondering what precisely you mean by them. When you say 'Whether they seem to be "thinkers" or "doers"', I presume you are saying that you favour doers rather than thinkers - it's not entirely clear. Point 5, you say 'letter' versus' 'spirit' of rules, and I presume that you favour those who follow the spirit of the rules (that is more obvious than for point 4). But is it not the case that often in order to appreciate the "spirit" of the rules, you need to be more of a "thinker" than a "doer"? Or are you looking for thoughtful doers?

The second bit is wondering if you would have time to look at the questions I asked last year (here) and see if you think those were useful (it was all done a bit late lest year, I'm trying to do them this weekend this year). What I really want to do is come up with a new set of questions, so if you are willing and can think of any, please let me know. I now need to look up the questions I asked former/current arbs last year, as I seem to have forgotten to link them from that page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I addressed your first note, and I actually like the questions asked on the second note; puts the candidate in a more realistic position that they may face. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that stuff about points 4 and 5. I'm struggling, though, to find time to write a new set of questions, let alone write something myself, so I might have to recycle the ones there. Really need to get the ball rolling tomorrow if I'm going to do anything along those lines at all. Interesting to read what others have said so far. Also, now the full set of candidates is in, it is possible to start thinking about it a bit more. 7 seats available, 18 candidates, 5 current arbs standing for re-election (3 current arbs chose not to stand again), 1 former arb standing for re-election, 12 others at least 2 of which are very unlikely to be elected and a fair few 'weaker' candidates (as least from what I can tell from a rough look at the list - a few names I don't recognise at all, but some (non-arb) names there that I'd consider supporting based on what I remember of them). Could be an interesting election. I think it should result in 7 seats being filled with good candidates, as long as voters are conscientious and read what the candidates have said and vote on that as a whole, rather than on single issues. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Inactivity

Hi Wizardman - I wondered if anyone would pick up on my unusually high level of inactivity this year. I was inactive for a total of 5 cases this year. The first two, Kehrli and Monty Hall Problem, I was out of the country with limited internet access for most of the case time. The second group (Mick MacNee, Cirt & Jayen and Manipulation of BLPs) occurred while I sat on the committee monitoring the Personal Image Filter WMF-wide plebiscite, which wound up requiring far more of my attention than I had anticipated when agreeing to take on that role. I've always been one to be very thorough in reading evidence and considering cases, so when I am not in a position to do that, I think it's better to list myself as inactive on a case than to vote without an in-depth understanding of the issues. Of the two current cases, I am recused on the one that is being voted on now, and active on the other. Risker (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For info

You may wish to take a look at this.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Read a bit more carefully...

You might want to go back and read the wording of my oppose for the finding, and note that I opposed the overreaching wording and dilution by addition of weaker diffs, rather than the necessity and appropriateness of a finding. Reexamining it in that light, I think you'll see that my analysis was entirely well-considered and you've mischaracterized my approach to that case. In that case, my oppose was not enough to prompt a revised FoF that was more concise and well supported; now that I've been an Arb for longer, I would have no hesitation proposing my own alternate wording. Likewise, while I respect your right to opine on my motivations as an arb, I don't think your belief that I'm out to "punish" Orangemarlin has any basis in fact: I've been quite vocal, and you can ask any of the other arbs to confirm this, that we not excuse editors who absent themselves during proceedings, as has been the recent tradition. Orangemarlin's proposed sanctions entirely stem from his own statements (and those of his anatomy). Note that I've supported suspending the sanctions, even though I think the FoF is clear enough. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork comment

I just read the comment here on SilkTork: "I would compare his likely arb style to Carcharoth's when he was on the committee; take that however you may." How on earth am I going to be able to form my own opinion now on SilkTork's candidacy? I'll be forever comparing him to me... BTW, are you the "resident hardass" you refer to in the Jclemens comment? I always thought that was Kirill or bainer (no offence intended to either if they are reading this)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)