User talk:Vaulter/ACE2013

Secret

See my reply to AutomaticStrikeout about my "risk of resigning" here User_talk:AutomaticStrikeout#User:AutomaticStrikeout/ACE2013. I know its a major concern with many voters but surprisingly I wasn't asked a question about it yet which I could go into more detail. Thanks Secret ^account 02:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I may reconsider. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Candidate guide

Hi. I would like to ask you to correct something on your candidate guide page that is in error. The opinion column states that I "remains under fairly strict sanctions...." I am currently under no sanctions at all. I don't have an issue with your opposition of my candidacy, it is certainly your right, but I would ask that it be based on facts. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 01:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I corrected it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Richwales — ArbCom and content disputes

Hi. My position is actually much more constrained than "Rich is in favor of expanding ArbComm's powers to let the committee make rulings on content disputes". As I tried to explain in my answers to the various questions, I am willing to support the idea of ArbCom's getting involved in content disputes in certain very narrowly limited circumstances — such as when a seemingly intractable content dispute is closely linked to "civil POV pushing" or some other other user conduct matter (in which cases I believe ArbCom shouldn't be so quick to shy away from tackling the issue because a content dispute is part of the picture) — or when a content dispute relates specifically to disagreements over the interpretation of the BLP policy (where we might sometimes be required by the WMF to go beyond, or even ignore, a consensus). The community has so far shied away from giving ArbCom any authority to deal with content disputes, but I believe it may be better to ask the community to explore this subject more carefully, rather than just keep on insisting that the matter is not up for discussion even when a small change might help in some difficult cases. In any case, rest assured that I have no intention of trying to do an end run around the community and force upon them this sort of expansion of ArbCom's remit if it turns out there is no support even for the minor changes I'm talking about. If you feel that my even bringing up the question disqualifies me as a worthy arb candidate, then this probably won't convince you, and so be it. But I hope you'll reconsider. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that your comments are much more nuanced than my comments, but as you alluded to at the end, I am firmly against the committee having any say in content disputes. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)