User talk:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2010
Query[edit]
Why do your criteria involve political issues that have nothing to do with the role of arbitrators? For example, ArbCom will not decide how or whether the RfA process will be reformed. Tony (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Short answer, more after the weekend: where a candidate stands on whether RFA reform, a desysop process, etc tells me a lot about the candidate and whether I want them on arbcom. It's not only about what ArbCom is empowered to decide, but where a candidate stands on issues that significantly impact the Project. And I hope some part of admin reform may include an ArbCom subcommittee eventually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's up to the community, not ArbCom, to reform RfA, or not. Why does a candidate's views for or against RFA reform affect their ability to be a good arb? I can easily image four scenarios: a candidate who wants RFA reform and is completely mismatched for the role of arbitrator; pro-reform and well-qualified to be an arb; anti-reform and mismatched; and anti-reform and well-qualified. Even quizzing a candidate about how they think RFA should or should not be reformed will not necessarily reveal the key parts of their skill-base in relation to the challenges of being an arb.
I am concerned that the election is being politicised. Tony (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- My guide is my opinion: in my opinion, any candidate who doesn't see the need for a more strident approach to admin misuse of tools is not going to rule well in such cases if elected. We've seen plenty of coddling of disruptive editors, as well-- is that also "political"? Of course all elections are political, by definition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with SandyGeorgia on this. A candidate's stance on issues, even if those issues may not be directly arb-related, help to tell us a lot about that particular candidate. For example, whether or not a candidate has ever written an FA, is an important yardstick. While an arb, the individual may never need to hear any case about article content, never need to hear any case about whether or not an article should be at Featured status, may never participate in an improvement drive to get another article to FA. But I still see it as essential that a candidate understand and have personally experienced that process, before I am comfortable supporting them as an arbitrator. If a candidate has never been intimately involved with the process of Wikipedia's primary purpose, writing articles, I don't think they should be an arb. There are other issues as well, that I want to make sure that an arb understands, before I could offer them my support. It tells me about their sense of judgment, and their awareness of major issues affecting the wiki. --Elonka 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- "whether or not a candidate has ever written an FA, is an important yardstick"—oh well, I fail straight away. Not that I'm standing. "any case about article content, never need to hear any case about whether or not an article should be at Featured status, may never participate in an improvement drive to get another article to FA"—these are not issues that ArbCom deals with. It is the last call for dispute resolution and behavioural issues that the community is not set up to deal with. @Sandy: "any candidate who doesn't see the need for a more strident approach to admin misuse of tools is not going to rule well in such cases if elected"—ah, well that's different from their views on reforming the RfA process. Important distinction.Tony (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's not in my guide (FAs)? I haven't had time to edit this guide, and won't for several days ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I just brought it up as a factor that voters may consider (and definitely have considered in the past) when choosing whether or not to support a candidate, even if it's not arb-related. --Elonka 14:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh goodness, I'm in such a hurry today and have so much to do, I hadn't realized Elonka had posted here or Tony was responding to that-- carry on, but I'm tooooooo busy today! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I just brought it up as a factor that voters may consider (and definitely have considered in the past) when choosing whether or not to support a candidate, even if it's not arb-related. --Elonka 14:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- "whether or not a candidate has ever written an FA, is an important yardstick"—oh well, I fail straight away. Not that I'm standing. "any case about article content, never need to hear any case about whether or not an article should be at Featured status, may never participate in an improvement drive to get another article to FA"—these are not issues that ArbCom deals with. It is the last call for dispute resolution and behavioural issues that the community is not set up to deal with. @Sandy: "any candidate who doesn't see the need for a more strident approach to admin misuse of tools is not going to rule well in such cases if elected"—ah, well that's different from their views on reforming the RfA process. Important distinction.Tony (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with SandyGeorgia on this. A candidate's stance on issues, even if those issues may not be directly arb-related, help to tell us a lot about that particular candidate. For example, whether or not a candidate has ever written an FA, is an important yardstick. While an arb, the individual may never need to hear any case about article content, never need to hear any case about whether or not an article should be at Featured status, may never participate in an improvement drive to get another article to FA. But I still see it as essential that a candidate understand and have personally experienced that process, before I am comfortable supporting them as an arbitrator. If a candidate has never been intimately involved with the process of Wikipedia's primary purpose, writing articles, I don't think they should be an arb. There are other issues as well, that I want to make sure that an arb understands, before I could offer them my support. It tells me about their sense of judgment, and their awareness of major issues affecting the wiki. --Elonka 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- My guide is my opinion: in my opinion, any candidate who doesn't see the need for a more strident approach to admin misuse of tools is not going to rule well in such cases if elected. We've seen plenty of coddling of disruptive editors, as well-- is that also "political"? Of course all elections are political, by definition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's up to the community, not ArbCom, to reform RfA, or not. Why does a candidate's views for or against RFA reform affect their ability to be a good arb? I can easily image four scenarios: a candidate who wants RFA reform and is completely mismatched for the role of arbitrator; pro-reform and well-qualified to be an arb; anti-reform and mismatched; and anti-reform and well-qualified. Even quizzing a candidate about how they think RFA should or should not be reformed will not necessarily reveal the key parts of their skill-base in relation to the challenges of being an arb.
- Tony1: I'm with Sandy on this, questions and concerns about issues that ArbCom may or may not be able to influence directly do matter and are relevant. My personal view of a candidate's suitability for the job is colored by their views on various matters. There is no way I will ever support a candidate who says "there is no BLP problem", or "we are way too strict with those who show ownership and engage in factional behavior" for example. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The election guide template[edit]
(As I told Privatemusings) I'd say that if you want to list your guide on the template, you need to carry the template on your guide too. If only to make navigation easier but also out of fairness since it carries some general disclaimers. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The template is there! (Will do more on this once I have time, next week.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have a link to it, to be sure, but it doesn't seem to be displaying at the top (or bottom) like on the guide of most other folks, at least not for me. I could add it for you I suppose? I figured I'd rather just raise it to your attention though. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm in an airport, Lar... I'll work on it next week when I write this darn thing! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have a link to it, to be sure, but it doesn't seem to be displaying at the top (or bottom) like on the guide of most other folks, at least not for me. I could add it for you I suppose? I figured I'd rather just raise it to your attention though. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Mates[edit]
Sandy, you seem to be supporting your mates at FAC. Tony (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think my seven supports so far are all merited; is there one of the four FA writers you think I should be opposing? Or is there someone I'm opposing you think I should be supporting? I can think of many FA writers I would oppose, but they fortunately aren't running. The whole idea of an "arb skillset" doesn't sit as well with me as three basic characteristics I look for: longevity, trust and diligence. I know FA writers well, and wouldn't you expect that someone with the ability to write FAs might be more likely to handle arb duties well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No I wouldn't. Arbcom surely isn't about making articles nice and neat for FA. I notice you did a similar thing when you went on the rampage to try and get Ling.Nut to pass an RfA recently Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut you started to criticise users for supporting much less worthy RfAs (candidates who had in your opinion not got the FA credentials). I saw your criticism as directed against thoughtful voters such as myself. I had not seen your name before and I initially thought you were a novice troll at the time, it is only since then I have learned that you are an established contributor with a lot of experience. Polargeo (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see, so an "arb skillset" is the same as an FAC one. Tony (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Polargeo, why are you here? Since I'm a "novice troll" and you are clearly imagining that I "went on [a] rampage to try and get Ling.Nut to pass an RfA" (since I never did any such thing), please take your rants off of my Votes page, as they have nothing to do with this page, and I can't consider you a "thoughtful voter" if you don't take time to read comments and inform yourself of the background. @ Tony, no, but I already said what I considered an "arb skillset to be", it wasn't that, I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to disagree with you that writing is most important, and you can certainly read what I did say. You didn't answer my questions, so I'll consider the matter closed via evasion and deflection, and I will stick to "longevity, trust, and diligence" as essential parts of *my* "arb skillset". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I said I initially thought you were a novice troll not that I think you are now. I was simply trying to show you the initial impression I had of you at the Ling Nut RfA when you popped up with all of your comments. Since then I was then genuinely surprised to find that you were a serious contributor to FAs. When I am talking to editors such as yourself I try to be as candid as possible so that lessons can be learned. As to your criticism "if you don't take time to read comments and inform yourself of the background" I actually corresponded with Ling.Nut during the RfA and on reflection changed my vote to neutral so I believe your comment on me not taking time to inform myself should be addressed at yourself rather than me as you obviously are just firing off an ill informed rebuke at me there. Polargeo (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care how you voted on Ling.Nut, I don't care how anyone voted on Ling.Nut (which you would know if you had bothered to read the RFA and stop misrepresenting my views). Now, you are trolling my arbvotes page, your commentary has nothing to do with this page, I have little concern for you initial impression of me as I scarcely have time to worry how ill-informed editors feel about me. Now move along, as nothing you are writing here has anything to do with this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I don't think your opinions here are too bad. I do think your attempts to stop me having a guide were pretty despicable though. Polargeo (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find the revenge on Shell Kinney for attacking you and your fellow FA reviewers amusing. In this you drop Rlevse like a sack of poo. I look forward to seeing the next editor you drop in this fashion when they become inconvenient. Polargeo (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care how you voted on Ling.Nut, I don't care how anyone voted on Ling.Nut (which you would know if you had bothered to read the RFA and stop misrepresenting my views). Now, you are trolling my arbvotes page, your commentary has nothing to do with this page, I have little concern for you initial impression of me as I scarcely have time to worry how ill-informed editors feel about me. Now move along, as nothing you are writing here has anything to do with this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I said I initially thought you were a novice troll not that I think you are now. I was simply trying to show you the initial impression I had of you at the Ling Nut RfA when you popped up with all of your comments. Since then I was then genuinely surprised to find that you were a serious contributor to FAs. When I am talking to editors such as yourself I try to be as candid as possible so that lessons can be learned. As to your criticism "if you don't take time to read comments and inform yourself of the background" I actually corresponded with Ling.Nut during the RfA and on reflection changed my vote to neutral so I believe your comment on me not taking time to inform myself should be addressed at yourself rather than me as you obviously are just firing off an ill informed rebuke at me there. Polargeo (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Polargeo, why are you here? Since I'm a "novice troll" and you are clearly imagining that I "went on [a] rampage to try and get Ling.Nut to pass an RfA" (since I never did any such thing), please take your rants off of my Votes page, as they have nothing to do with this page, and I can't consider you a "thoughtful voter" if you don't take time to read comments and inform yourself of the background. @ Tony, no, but I already said what I considered an "arb skillset to be", it wasn't that, I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to disagree with you that writing is most important, and you can certainly read what I did say. You didn't answer my questions, so I'll consider the matter closed via evasion and deflection, and I will stick to "longevity, trust, and diligence" as essential parts of *my* "arb skillset". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see, so an "arb skillset" is the same as an FAC one. Tony (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- No I wouldn't. Arbcom surely isn't about making articles nice and neat for FA. I notice you did a similar thing when you went on the rampage to try and get Ling.Nut to pass an RfA recently Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut you started to criticise users for supporting much less worthy RfAs (candidates who had in your opinion not got the FA credentials). I saw your criticism as directed against thoughtful voters such as myself. I had not seen your name before and I initially thought you were a novice troll at the time, it is only since then I have learned that you are an established contributor with a lot of experience. Polargeo (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo, you need to either pay better attention, or go talk to someone who has time for your careless inattention. First, what on earth are you talking about with my "[my] attempts to stop [you] from having a guide"? Never happened-- sorry if you have comprehension issues. Or is it narcissism? You had nothing to do with that conversation-- please don't think everything is All About You just because you happened to be a tangential part of another discussion. Second, "revenge on Shell Kinney for attacking ... FA"? Again, you aren't paying attention. Try to come up to speed. If you can't, please take your incoherent rambling elsewhere. You may have the last (mistaken) word, as I could spend all day correcting your rambling mistakes if I were so inclined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, you're being uncivil, whether or not Polargio gives cause to be irritated. It's not helping. Now, could you check and complain about my summary of your guide please? I'm going to bed soon. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Election_report Tony (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since when is asking another editor to stop trolling my talk and misrepresenting me "uncivil"? No one asked him to come here and tell stories. Anyway, will look as soon as I have a moment, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Template based on User:Lar/ACE2010/row[edit]
I've created a modification of User:Lar/ACE2010/row at User:Geometry guy/arbcand. It is under development, but if you copy it into your user space, it should detect your user name, so that if you use it in your tables, the links will be adapted to you. Geometry guy 22:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it works without copying over the template (I tested it), but in the latter case you can customize it. Geometry guy 01:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, G guy, but I think Lar fixed his now so that it's generic to other users. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- It links to Lar's questions, which is hardly generic! But if you are not planning to ask any questions yourself, it don't matter much... Geometry guy 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you meant ... I wanted a link to Lar's questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- It links to Lar's questions, which is hardly generic! But if you are not planning to ask any questions yourself, it don't matter much... Geometry guy 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, G guy, but I think Lar fixed his now so that it's generic to other users. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: Iridescent[edit]
I believe Iridescent is a "she", not a "he". You may want to update your comments about her. -- llywrch (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- If so, perhaps "correct" rather than "update" would be a better way of putting it, unless, of course, there has been a change ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- If Iri wants a gender change in my guide, Iri will say so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)