Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guettarda (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 27 December 2008 (→Season's Greetings: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am taking a short semi-Wikibreak to reconsider my participation in the project in light of the "footnoted quotes" ArbCom decision, the first remedy of which seems to be disdained by everyone who has had occasion to read it except for the eight arbitrators who voted for it; I am most sad to say that amongst that latter number are three individuals whose ArbCom candidacies I supported, for two of whom in particular I have had some respect, which fact probably, I must confess, contributes to my profound disillusionment here. (This is not one of those ridiculously dramatic, support-seeking gushings with which we are too often presented—I would hope that no one would be so invested in my presence as to be particularly concerned about whether I might leave because of my disagreement with some aspect of our enterprise—but only an honest accounting of the reason for which my editing may be even more sporadic than it has been of late and of the reason for which I find myself increasingly convinced that this is no longer the project I joined two-and-one-half years ago, notwithstanding that there does not exist a consensus amongst our community of users and editors for many of the changes that have come to pass. Joe 06:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Archive box collapsible

Just to clarify...

BQZip01's example article is USS George H. W. Bush, which sees vandalism from a wide array of logged in and anonomous editors. My reply to semi-protect is based in part on past experiences where in multiple IP adresses have added their two cents concerning the current Bush and his policies. I just wanted you to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to tack on to Cirt's thanks; although, I am not quite as clever as he is with templates. Thank you much for your confidence. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email; if you have a few moments of spare time, I'd very much appreciate it if you read it. Thanks. :) GlassCobra 16:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I must say, I'm incredibly impressed by and appreciative of the thoughtfulness and detail you've put into your support rationale. I've been uneasy with the whole "2b or not 2b" situation this entire election, especially since I've gotten nothing but opposes over the last twenty-four hours until you commented. Your single well-researched and carefully considered support means more to me than the deluge of opposition I've faced as of late. I'm both encouraged and sobered by your comments and will face the ArbCom balance-of-power issues with all due forethought and caution. Again, thank you so much for your vote of confidence, and happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi! I'm slightly surprised your comments on my candidacy. This is because I do not believe that ArbCom should be in the business of creating policy: policy is the responsibility of the community (with the caveat that it is difficult to forge consensus quickly). However, as I acknowledge, the realpolitik is that the effect of some ArbCom interpretations of policy will inevitably result in policy evolution. This do not mean that I support "judge-made" law. My specific solution is finding ways of creating a much better practical partnership between ArbCom and the community it serves. If I'm elected, that is the goal I'd be working towards.

On BLP, my comments are basically a risk assessment exercise, reflecting my experience in real life publishing. I don't think the current arrangements are commercially prudent especially as the "we are not publishers but webspace providers" defence has not yet been extensively reviewed by the US courts. That said, my comments on BLP do not represent a POV, because I really don't have one. (See my discussion with Seraphimblade starting here for more information.)

However, even if I did have a POV, I'm old enough and grown up enough to not let it intrude on the facts-and-current-policy equation necessary for ArbCom decisions. I have not incidentally had a single oppose from editors who know me well and their comments in support confirm my integrity. My integrity defines me and I would not dream of abusing the comunity's trust to push an agenda at ArbCom.

Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES  08:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications here and here. --ROGER DAVIES  11:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"inexperience and legalese" are second only in utility to irony, sarcasm, and facetiousness. ;) --Scott Mac (Doc) 09:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Chuckle :)

Wiki-greenness is a risk I agree: I sort of anticipated that and promised in my candidate statement to ease myself in during the first month or so, which of course I'd honour. In practical terms, this would mean avoiding being the casting vote until I've got my feet under the table. All in all though, I think I'll pick it up pretty quickly. My professional background is twenty-plus years working in the media (some tv, but mostly press) dealing with incredibly difficult and often highly manipulative people, ranging from celebrities with massive egos to outright crooks. I was also responsible for running a complaints department for a couple of years, dealing with (frequently overstated) compensation claims and fending off litigation (hence the legalese, I suppose). I'm much more hard-bitten than I appear at first sight :)) --ROGER DAVIES  12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Roger. I really should have started a new section above. The "inexperience and legalise" vs "sarcasm" dig was now aimed at you, but was a response to Joe's support vote, and his comment on mine, which are here. Whilst you may be a little green in places, you are far from being the cabbage that prompted that discourse. ;) --Scott Mac (Doc) 10:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings