User talk:MZMcBride/ACE2009

See, I get putting a "troll" on the committee, but keeping someone off because of stability/burnout issues? A third of the arbs will resign within eighteen months anyway; it might as well be entertaining. Mackensen (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still mulling it all over. There's little doubt in my mind that some of these people are simply guaranteed to fold at some point if elected. Though I see your point about inconsistent treatment.... Some of them, though, they've already had their ragequits and breakdowns. Does that mean they've gotten over that phase or does that mean they're now more prone for a relapse? And, as you note, does it matter? I didn't realize you were still active. Why the hell aren't you running? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See, that's the beautiful thing. I can spend a year in the article space doing what I like and everybody forgets I'm around. That's *exactly* why I'm not running this year ;). The only reason to not put someone on the committee is a legitimate concern about leaking privileged communications and what not, though I'm sure it'll happen (in a big way) at some point. Otherwise, let's liven it up. In re ragequits, nothing stops you from doing it again. The question is whether the person (a) recognizes the chain of events which caused it and (b) is determined to change how they interact with the project. Mackensen (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The odds

What are they? Steve Smith (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

4:1 burnout to not, I think. Your frustration with Wikipedia's governance is going to grow exponentially if you're elected. I can't see many routes that don't lead to burnout, though I could be wrong! --MZMcBride (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, those are generous odds. If I aspired to become the Pete Rose of ArbCom, I'd take them. Steve Smith (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)