User talk:East718/ACE2008

Carcharoth

I was reading your comments on Carcharoth, you mention Slrubenstein 2 as an RFAR he commented in, but as best as I can figure, no such RFAR existed and he did not comment at the SlrubensteinII RFC. Am I missing something? MBisanz ^talk 13:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably confusing them with Charles Matthews. I really need to drink less when making these things... :P east718 // talk // email // 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a serious candidacy"

What, pray tell, is "not serious" about my candidacy? I probably won't win, but that doesn't mean I'm not quite serious indeed about running and trying to win so I can make Wikipedia better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've answered it yourself. Your refusal to entertain questions and your general history with the community make your chances of winning impossible; since you're intelligent enough to recognize this, I can't think of any reason you'd want to stay in the race except as some sort of social experiment at the expense of the community's valuable time. I'm sorry, but I can't buy that somebody is taking their candidacy seriously when they already know it's doomed. east718 // talk // email // 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply: I have to try; otherwise I have already lost not only this battle but the entire war. I fail to see what's so incredible about that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mainspace, Science and Other Thoughts

or

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Politics

Hey there. At your invitation, a few semirandom thoughts about me and why I'm seeking a seat on the committee.

First, as I've almost eloquently covered elsewhere, what I'm mostly bringing is a reader's perspective. I have very little mainspace skill, and I tend to inflict it rarely on articles; but I do have good observation skills, and I know I can bring my understanding of what ails Wikipedia to bear in the task of protecting it. There are also advantages to being, to some degree, an outsider to editing disputes: it also means that I'm not involved in those disputes, that I can bring the perspective of the reader witnessing the tremors and trembling of the actual articles when dispute rages (something which the involved editors too often loose sight of).

Which isn't to say that I'm a mainspace virgin either. While my limited talent has restricted my forays mostly to the gnomish, I did garner some experience in neutralizing, or even creation of articles. I add references when I can, fix for academic accuracy when I am familiar with the literature, and so forth. I make no pretense that I am a great researcher, or a good author of articles — but that's not what I claim to bring to ArbCom either. I think — no, I know — the Committee needs a balanced composition, of authors and project space specialists, of mediators and enforcers. A committee works when, and only when, it is diverse.

Sadly, the process of getting that seat requires a certain amount of politics. Reality dictates that it's mostly about who you antagonize or not, and I am enough of a realist to realize that, even though I have (or at least I believe I have) a reputation as being nonpartisan and fair, one answer given too categorically can (and has been known to) sink a candidacy under a flurry of opposition from entire groups of editors far too willing to look for potential allies or foes amongst the candidates instead of who could do a fair job. Perhaps that's why you found my answer to Rspeer's question to be uninspiring. Science isn't a point of view; but it is the best way to explain and describe the universe known to mankind; and our duty to be accurate as a work of reference means that it should be our yardstick to reality— that popular beliefs tell us nothing about what is, only about what people think. — Coren ^(talk) 05:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this doesn't really address anything we discussed before, and I believe I told you why a writer's perspective to dispute resolution is more important than a reader's perspective: we have enough people that are managing PR aspects of the project, but not enough whom are grounded enough in articles to appreciate what those who actually write content go through. I also went through your back AN and AE posts, and did note that what you've done in the past has generally backed up what you're telling me now with regards to the prominence hard science should have in the project; if I'm impressed and you haven't had the politically motivated "bowls of shit" I was telling you about hurled at you yet, you must be doing something right. :) I'm glad to support you. east718 // talk // email // 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

only so you know

We don't have to go back and forth about this, but on the topic of User:East718/ACE2008:

You said, Formerly placed under editing restrictions by ArbCom for unseemly conduct relating to the sexuality of living persons

Wholly untrue. The subject, Nick Adams (actor), died in 1968. That I have always strongly disagreed with the arbcom ruling is beside the point here.

You said, evaded these restrictions with a sockpuppet.

Wholly untrue. When I did change my username, it was at the suggestion of Fred Bauder, about a year after the ruling, at which time he said I could edit as I pleased. I've never socked, and I can only guess that your saying I have done is an honest mistake.

I thought I should speak to this. Thanks for reading my comments and all the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East, please correct your assertions if they are wrong. Derogatory comments that are not supported by the evidence should be removed immediately. I've checked Gwen's story and it matches with my understanding. Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, Gwen's summary of events above isn't really accurate. The final remedies in Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone placed Wyss (among others) under an indefinite probation and ban from making edits relating to any person's sexual orientation; these restrictions were set to expire on December 24, 2006 if no violations had occured. The Gwen Gale account stated editing in a prohibited manner in early December 2006 ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]), so it's not very candid to say "a year after the ruling," implying that the sanctions had already expired. Fred Bauder is also not the final arbiter of the committee's wishes; I have never seen an ArbCom-issued remedy vacated by a single member. Lastly, I don't believe I've made any derogatory, uncivil or hateful comments; I pointed out a couple facts about the sockpuppetry in a dispassionate manner, then provided some comments about their style as an admin - and zero-tolerance isn't a bad thing either. When evaluating somebody, criticism is necessary; it is not derogatory to say that one has poor judgment if you believe that they do. Please tell me exactly what you find problematic and I'll strike it. east718 // talk // email // 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your assertions about me are unsupported. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East, from what I've read, Gwen Gale's version of events is generally recognized as true. (And I think by more arbitrators than just Fred). Plus, if we assume Gwen is rational (and I think we can...) - what would be the purpose of registering a sock account to violate a ban in the month its set to expire? Did you find any edits during the weeks between when Gwen started editing as Gwen and the expiration of the ban that were problematic of themselves? This particular issue has been examined on admin boards (including AE) and found to contain no misconduct on Gwen's part. Maybe its moot at this point since she's withdrawn, but I think you should include the mitigating evidence along with your couple of facts about sockpuppetry if what you are aiming for is dispassionate analysis. Avruch^T 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And although it may not be relevant, I also opposed Gwen in the election for a reason similar to the "zero tolerance" approach you cited. Avruch^T 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, Gwen Gale, to her credit, never edited in a monolithic disruptive manner during December 2006. I disagree that ban evasion doesn't constitute misconduct though; your mileage may vary. The only discussion I could find about this was this old AN thread, and I notice people are split even there. I think that both our views have merit to them, but the basic facts are not in dispute. I have revised the main page per your helpful suggestion though. east718 // talk // email // 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]