User talk:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009

Longevity

This is a very useful guide, Sandy. Thank you for creating it. One comment thus far:

"Longevity. Because of the problem with ArbCom being diminished in 2009 by resignations, I'll be considering longevity as a factor this year."

In terms of the evidence candidates provide in their statements and responses, are you referring to their (1) track-record of staying out their term (in the case of ex-arbs, such as Kirill and Fred Bauder, and those seeking re-election, such as Coren); or (2) explicit indications that they are prepared to serve out their two-year term; or (3) other indications that they do or don't have the staying power for the job?

On this point, it's hard to match the point with the decision-making process that voters face. Tony (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So far, considering the candidates, it's been mostly a concern that new editors, with limited content building experience, might be prone to burn out once they hit the realities of ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Toot!

For what it's worth, I agree with the importance of having strong content contributors on ArbCom (though it's always a little bittersweet when they get a seat as it will invariably diminish those contributions for a long while); but I think you may be underestimating the importance of having a number of sitting arbs who are more meta. Devoting a great deal of effort towards building articles is a very significant emotional and intellectual investment that fosters (or requires?) a very specific mindset about where priorities lie — and not an undesirable one — but one which tends to cause a little bit of tunnel vision that could be detrimental if it were the only one.

I don't try to pass off as an article writer because that's not what I am: I find my skills are best used in infrastructure, organization, and process. This unavoidably weakens my perspective on what the heavy contributors see as self-evident; but it allows me a level of detachment and a view of the "bigger picture" that is also valuable but harder to reach from deep within mainspace. That is probably why some of my former colleagues appreciated my presence enough to endorse my candidacy despite my being so very different from them.

Yes, singing the praises of the presence of meta arbs on the committee is accompanied by the tooting of my own horn.  :-) But I wouldn't be running for a new mandate if I didn't think I brought something of genuine value to the committee and the community by having it. — Coren ^(talk) 16:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"No article building"

I think this is not entirely accurate, and could be seen as offensive. Every edit to an article that improves it in some way is building it (though I personally dislike the phrase "building"). I also disagree with the idea that just because somebody hasn't written the "best" articles (best being debatable) they are somehow unsuitable for arbcom. Articles writers are all well and good, but Wikipedia has many useful and clueful people who have never written and never will because they can't. I don't think it is fair to dump every non-article writer into one group that are inadequate, because they perhaps don't want to go through the GA/FAC ritual. Perhaps they don't have the time, or the resources to. There are many reasons. Overall, there is much more to look at than whether they made a FA or not. I've written two FAs, and several GAs, but it's completely meaningless because I would make a terrible arbitrator, and I know everyone would have let me know if I had run. Majorly talk 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't "dump every non-article writer" (NYB wasn't particularly an article writer), but they do have to somehow demonstrate longevity, clear concise writing, and an understanding of the community in addition to dispute resolution. The Fat Man wasn't particularly an article writer, but I knew he wrote clearly and would bring needed qualities to ArbCom and I endorsed him. Coren's answers do that, while some FA/GA writers' answers don't. Lack of article contributions when combined with lack of longevity on Wiki does concern me, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate further on why you oppose Hersfold? While content contributions are important, the Committee needs to have the willingness and ability to factor in community concerns and views and allign them with their own in a number of cases. I consider Hersfold to be one such user who can, based on my own interactions during an arbitration case, and I think of as an asset to arbitration, much like another arbitrator currently on ArbCom. I didn't detect any lack of understanding as to the issues that face any contributors, but perhaps you would be OK with pointing to something more specific that I may have missed? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, perhaps it would be helpful if you present specific examples of what you are talking about. Remember, this page is based on Sandy's personal interactions with and observations of the candidates. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandy's rationale for opposing Hersfold seemed to be "limited content contributions"; this is an issue as it may reflect "a possible lack of understanding of issues facing top content contributors or engagment with the Wiki community in mainspace". My question more specifically invites a response on what was considered in coming to this view - was it solely numbers, or were there other specific edits too? If it was the latter, I was hoping to review the edits myself (to see if I myself have missed anything), should Sandy be willing to provide those edits of course. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The only editor I've supported who doesn't have top content work is Coren, and I've supported him because of his answers to the questions and arb experience; I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for here? I've rarely encountered Hersfold, and want to see more active content builders on ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to know if it was purely content building or something else (in which case I would've wanted to know more about the something else). Cheers for clarifying (for me). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Drama mongers

It is best not to be dismissive of any editor's concerns by calling them a "drama monger". That term means is "a dispute that I don't care about". What may seem trivial to others may be important to the people involved. My main areas of administrative interest are working with disruptive editors to try to turn them in a better direction, or to show them the door when that doesn't work, and protecting our productive editors from any form of persecution. I'm not going to abandon that work to make myself more electable. If more admins and senior editors [Jehochman grins diabolically] would help with this work, that would be wonderful. Among this year's best candidates (per you, and I agree) is an editor who's featured article work was suggested by me, and who I later helped extricate from a conflict with one of these so-called "drama mongers". If he's elected and I'm not, I will be quite satisfied with the results. Jehochman ^Talk 05:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Better now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but please write whatever you feel to be appropriate. One of the questioners asked me specifically about the term "drama" and I agreed to stop using it in favor of more specific or descriptive terminology. I choose not to stand idly by while other editors are attacked, such as here. If that makes me unelectable, that's more than fine with me. Your comment "Disengage from certain factions completely for a year" certainly is good advice. I will do that, but they may try to force an engagement. All considered, your statements about me are fair. Jehochman ^Talk 06:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your statistics

Hi Sandy. While your opinions and characterizations are your own concern, I'm somewhat taken aback by the claim that there ware 9 editors supporting changing the article to 3 opposed. Can you post a link or diff to a discussion where this took place? Unfortunately the link you posted is to your characterization, where you appear to gather editors names who had different concerns over the course of some one year. Perhaps you were careless in constructing the link, or the sections shifted. Can you post a link to the actual 9-3 discussion?

Also, I'm a bit concerned you are alleging we would neither add material nor change the article name. While the article name change failed at RfC, as you well know because you were a participant, with only five of eleven supporting the name change, it does appear that we made considerable additions to the article on 20 October 2008 at your request. Accordingly, your statements seem inaccurate, and I am concerned because you were obviously personally involved. I'm willing to chalk these severe factual errors in matters in which you were personally involved to distractions at a bad time for you, for which I've expressed my sympathy.

Of course, I expect that any matter that you cannot support through diffs, you would promptly remove.

Looking forward to resolving these matters amicably and simply. I just ask that you subject what you wrote to rigid fact checking yourself. Thank you for the feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I already linked directly to the nine versus three (although there were subsequently more than nine). The article name change did not fail at the talk page RFC; the result was inconclusive, with plenty of support for the name change. The more important factor was the article owners' resistance to including biographical info in a bio, while insisting on keeping gratuitous info about the mother. It is contradictory to refuse to include more expansive bio info while simultaneously refusing to change the name to a "Disappearance of" article. The changes I suggested to the article were only partially implemented after great resistance and unnecessary fuss. I don't see any factual errors in my statement, although I removed part of it because the section is so long and it's your answers to the questions that concern me more.

In general terms, you were among my final seven candidates, who met other criteria (longevity, top content contributions, etc.) and for whom I based my final decisions on the answers to the questions. Your answers could have helped me overcome previous concerns, but they didn't; in fact, they raised more concerns. Interestingly, one of your most thorough and best answers was to MastCell's Mattisse question, which is really a matter of little consequence to many voters, while you overlooked more important issues or were vague in your other responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gee, why all the explanation? I merely asked you to remove incorrect material. Most of it is gone. Your opinion is your own, you have every right to publicize it, and you owe me no explanation for it. As you've removed most of the material I've objected to, that resolves the matter. Got some image work to do. Later, Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am staying neural

"I am staying neural on Jehochman"? Is that paralipsis or parapraxis? Eubulides (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone's reading carefully :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman

I question part of the rationale for your stance on Jehochman. Isn't engaging "many intractible disputes [and] disruptive editors" what good admins are supposed to do? Isn't the arbitrators' main job dealing with those "intractible disputes [and] disruptive editors"—the ones where lesser dispute resolution processes can't do the job? Are you really saying that Jehochman could be a more electable candidate in a year if he were a less diligent admin?—Finell 19:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No: my suggestion is that he will be more electable if he leaves the problems of handling certain editors in the hands of other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)