Who gets the WR endorsement for Arbcom09, Could be the kiss of death? Options

[radek]

Well, I'm new here so I'm not sure which one you are. But yes Ruslik's up there too, as is Steve and Kirill. And yes, I picked Wehwalt over the other two due to the 'there's more to content than featured articles' aspect of content creation. It's quite possible that Wehwalt just did a better job of advertising himself as a content creator then others (which for the purposes of the election may have been a bad thing).

Very good - in the future you might just want to shy away from such phrases as "the guy that actually writes content". In return, I'll try to shy away from behaving like a twit.

(And I'd tell you which one I am, but I think I've acquitted myself rather badly here. If you look really hard, you can probably figure it out, though.)

Ah, so you made me go back and read the middle pages of this thread more carefully.

Usually I'm pretty good at avoiding these gender-specific terms when they're not appropriate though here it was meant to refer to Wehwalt who I assumed was a guy named walt. But sure, good advice.

Mostly I just wanted to pipe up and say something in support of Wehwalt who was getting no love on this thread, despite being, IMO, a very good candidate.

[A Horse With No Name]

Mostly I just wanted to pipe up and say something in support of Wehwalt who was getting no love on this thread, despite being, IMO, a very good candidate.

He is a good guy, but he isn't silly enough to warrant attention. The ideal candidate is smart and silly at the same time. Wehwalt has the smart part down -- he needs to work on the silly stuff.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Usually I'm pretty good at avoiding these gender-specific terms when they're not appropriate though here it was meant to refer to Wehwalt who I assumed was a guy named walt. But sure, good advice.

Wehwalt actually is a guy, though I don't believe he's named Walt (he explains his username here). I was objecting to the definite article combined with the singular, rather than to the gender.

[radek]

I get a kick out of how FA's and GA's an author writes make someone a more qualified arbitrator. I have always thought that Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Thoreau, and other well-known writers would have made great Supreme Court Justices.

Not a good analogy. If the only purpose of the United States of America were to write as many Great American Novels as possible, then yes, they would have made great Supreme Court Justices.

Point being, the reason why they wouldn't in reality, is that because in reality the Supreme Court adjudicates a very diverse society whose only "purpose" is something like "pursuit of happiness" or whatever. Wikipedia on the other hand has a much more narrow, specific purpose - write an encyclopedia.

A better analogy would be something like a regulator of a particular industry - got to pick somebody who at least has some clue how the widgets are made. Or here's another, crazier, one; chaplain on a ship out at sea - definitely need somebody who understands the travails of ordinary sailors, not some stinkin' land rat.

[everyking]

Given only one choice in this particular poll I threw the politics and self-interest out the window and went with Wehwalt since he seems like the guy that actually writes content unlike the rest of the "Professional Wiki Politicians" (PWPs - I realize most of the readership even here belongs to that category in some sense) on the list (don't know much else beside that about him). That criteria also made Cla the runner up.

I don't like to be petulant, but I'm feeling a little left out, here.

Actively participating in this thread without making one of the pledges suggests that you are unwilling to make them. If that's the case, you (and a few others!) will have one more oppose vote in your tally.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Actively participating in this thread without making one of the pledges suggests that you are unwilling to make them. If that's the case, you (and a few others!) will have one more oppose vote in your tally.

You are correct. And I don't mind opposes; I do, apparently, mind opposes that stem from a belief that I'm not interested in writing content.

[radek]

Usually I'm pretty good at avoiding these gender-specific terms when they're not appropriate though here it was meant to refer to Wehwalt who I assumed was a guy named walt. But sure, good advice.

Wehwalt actually is a guy, though I don't believe he's named Walt (he explains his username here). I was objecting to the definite article combined with the singular, rather than to the gender.

Ok, "one of the folks" then. Blame it on the fact that the WR poll lets you choose only one folk.

Actively participating in this thread without making one of the pledges suggests that you are unwilling to make them. If that's the case, you (and a few others!) will have one more oppose vote in your tally.

I do, apparently, mind opposes that stem from a belief that I'm not interested in writing content.

I didn't mean to suggest that (nor that I 'opposed' everyone but him in the actual voting) - I only meant to suggest that Wehwalt seemed MORE content oriented than others. Again, here we only get to choose one and apparently I'm the only one who chose him. Which seemed weird to me.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I didn't mean to suggest that (nor that I 'opposed' everyone but him in the actual voting) - I only meant to suggest that Wehwalt seemed MORE content oriented than others. Again, here we only get to choose one and apparently I'm the only one who chose him. Which seemed weird to me.

No, I understand, we're good. I apologize for the shitheadery; it's unlike me (or so I like to think).

[everyking]

Actively participating in this thread without making one of the pledges suggests that you are unwilling to make them. If that's the case, you (and a few others!) will have one more oppose vote in your tally.

You are correct. And I don't mind opposes; I do, apparently, mind opposes that stem from a belief that I'm not interested in writing content.

So you're actually taking some positions here as a candidate: you're opposed to ArbCom transparency, and you're in favor of me getting run over by a dump truck (again). I guess I have to at least give you a point for honesty.

[Sarcasticidealist]

So you're actually taking some positions here as a candidate: you're opposed to ArbCom transparency, and you're in favor of me getting run over by a dump truck (again). I guess I have to at least give you a point for honesty.

1. I'm opposed to the degree of transparency that I understand you to be asking for, yes. I think this David Gerard case is one in which, with the benefit of hindsight, ArbCom probably should have been somewhat less open about its deliberations.

2. I'm fairly up on the situation that led to your desysop. I'm much less up on the Phil Sandifer situation. If I'm elected and the situation comes up, I'll evaluate it at that time (or recuse, if you feel that I couldn't be impartial given our interactions here). I'm certainly not going to go promising specific votes on cases that may or may not come up.

3. I have not stopped beating my wife.

[Cla68]

Given only one choice in this particular poll I threw the politics and self-interest out the window and went with Wehwalt since he seems like the guy that actually writes content unlike the rest of the "Professional Wiki Politicians" (PWPs - I realize most of the readership even here belongs to that category in some sense) on the list (don't know much else beside that about him). That criteria also made Cla the runner up.

I don't like to be petulant, but I'm feeling a little left out, here.

Actively participating in this thread without making one of the pledges suggests that you are unwilling to make them. If that's the case, you (and a few others!) will have one more oppose vote in your tally.

I already stated in my answers to the questions on my candidate page that I was committed to openness. I've made it clear that I don't think you have been treated fairly in the past, but the most recent ArbCom ruling on your situation seemed reasonable to me. So, I guess I can't make the pledge that you're looking for.

[everyking]

I already stated in my answers to the questions on my candidate page that I was committed to openness. I've made it clear that I don't think you have been treated fairly in the past, but the most recent ArbCom ruling on your situation seemed reasonable to me. So, I guess I can't make the pledge that you're looking for.

You never addressed my question about RfA. Why is it that you've never run again?

[MBisanz]

Cla68 is too good for ArbCom, it'd be the ruin of him.

I don't understand why he's running for ArbCom when he's not an admin. I don't think there's much doubt at all that he'd pass an RfA now, so why doesn't he run for that again? Having only admins run for ArbCom has two benefits: first, it requires that every candidate has already received a community endorsement and thus it helps to filter out the waste-of-time candidates, and second, it requires that every candidate have had some experience working on administrative tasks and the implementation of rules--it seems like an arbitrator who didn't have that experience could be at a serious disadvantage. But having said all that, Cla68 can have my vote if he just makes a pledge on one of the two issues I described earlier in the thread.

It is probably worth noting the bar for election to arbcom is around 50% and the bar for election to adminship is still at the 70-75% range, so for him it is probably about the same odds if not easier for arbcom.

[Cla68]

I already stated in my answers to the questions on my candidate page that I was committed to openness. I've made it clear that I don't think you have been treated fairly in the past, but the most recent ArbCom ruling on your situation seemed reasonable to me. So, I guess I can't make the pledge that you're looking for.

You never addressed my question about RfA. Why is it that you've never run again?

No one who has offered to nominate me has followed through and actually posted the nomination. I'm not upset about it. If I really wanted to try to be an admin I'm sure I could have just asked enough people until I found someone willing and able to follow through.

In my answers to the questions on my candidate page, I stated that I felt that having admin privileges was necessary for the position. Thinking about it more, however, I realize that whenever I've wanted or needed to read an admin deleted page or needed admin assistance in some other way, I've never had any trouble finding a helpful admin to provide assistance. So, if I'm elected and the Committee decides not to grant me admin privileges, I don't think that will be a big deal.

[Jon Awbrey]

Some People are apparently not getting the Joke …

Hey! All You People not getting the Joke —

You Are The Joke !!!

[dtobias]

My interview with Cla68: Ogg, MP3

[A Horse With No Name]

My interview with Cla68: Ogg, MP3

Phooey! No talk about the real issues: Tiger Woods' girlfriends, breast implants, blondes versus brunettes versus redheads, etc. What kind of interview is this?

[Cla68]

My interview with Cla68: Ogg, MP3

Looks like a couple of editors didn't approve of the interview.

[everyking]

I already stated in my answers to the questions on my candidate page that I was committed to openness. I've made it clear that I don't think you have been treated fairly in the past, but the most recent ArbCom ruling on your situation seemed reasonable to me. So, I guess I can't make the pledge that you're looking for.

You never addressed my question about RfA. Why is it that you've never run again?

No one who has offered to nominate me has followed through and actually posted the nomination. I'm not upset about it. If I really wanted to try to be an admin I'm sure I could have just asked enough people until I found someone willing and able to follow through.

In my answers to the questions on my candidate page, I stated that I felt that having admin privileges was necessary for the position. Thinking about it more, however, I realize that whenever I've wanted or needed to read an admin deleted page or needed admin assistance in some other way, I've never had any trouble finding a helpful admin to provide assistance. So, if I'm elected and the Committee decides not to grant me admin privileges, I don't think that will be a big deal.

That seems reasonable. I think someone should be an admin before becoming an arbitrator, although it wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me if someone was otherwise a good candidate. Another question, though: why do you think it's reasonable for the ArbCom to classify me as some kind of stalker? Do you seriously believe I've done anything to warrant that? If any kind of "restraining order" were necessary, don't you think a mutual restriction would be more reasonable in light of the history?

[wjhonson]

My interview with Cla68: Ogg, MP3

Dan, ban "Ah" from your vocabulary.
Since a few poo poo heads didn't want the link exposed anywhere useful, I've linked you up here

Wikipedia Arbcom Elections 2009 -- My Picks


Your public demands a transcript.

This post has been edited by wjhonson: Thu 3rd December 2009, 10:54pm