User talk:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011

Jclemens' entry[edit]

I have also been active as an OTRS volunteer, and have edited extensively with User:Jclemens-public, which could reasonably be included in my edit totals if you're so inclined. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up about OTRS; I have added it. I have also added a small note linked from the column header about how I am only including the primary account's edits in the edit count. I wish I could say it's for some principled reason, but honestly it's mostly because of laziness. If you want to make the changes for all the candidates' rows, you are welcome to edit the guide :) NW (Talk) 04:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I get how it's not trivial to add those together--and it's probably not a big deal anyways. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and FWIW, Risker is active on OTRS, too. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update to the statement you linked to[edit]

For purposes of clarification, DeltaQuad was making comments in the channel as this mess was going on, which is why I knew he was there.

Also, I have now been harassed three times, not two, by TechEssentialls staff. The same Wikipedia user/staff member who threatened to take me to ArbCom went on a taunting spree a few days back.

Sven Manguard Wha? 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCC[edit]

Hi NuclearWarfare, I notice your comments about ARBCC. While I was the one who posted the initial proposed decision, this was the result of a three-way collaboration between Rlevse, Newyorkbrad and myself. My focus was on principles, the general findings of fact, and one or two of the proposed remedies. I've commented elsewhere that something we've not done well is the management of cases with multiple "drafting arbitrators". It's a tough balance that we need to work on, but it requires teamwork and trust, and I'd really rather see more "en banc" proposed decisions (which ARBCC eventually became, as almost every arbitrator added one or more proposals) than assigning credit and/or blame to one or two individual arbitrators. These decisions are supposed to be our key focus, and this is where *Arbcom* needs to do more work on effective collaboration. At the time that I posted the initial proposed decision, I was well aware that it was incomplete; in this case, the community got to watch the rest of the decision being built by the entire team. Risker (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting statement. By default, I assume that you approved of the initial PD at the time, and still do so, since you have not indicated otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

The email you mention probably refers to this thread, wrapped up with this diff from February 2010. Roger Davies ^talk 21:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]