User talk:Elonka/ACE2020

Omitted

Hi Elonka. Thanks for your efforts in putting together a guide. ~~I notice, good, bad, or neutral, I am not included in the list of candidates. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)~~ I notice that my line is merged with BDD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Sorry for the error. Fixed. --El on ka 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

This isn't intended as a debate, I'm simply curious why your sole criterion for this seems to be adminship status, as if the roles were effectively identical, the skillset of a good Arb and a good admin interchangeable, or trust only of one kind and one establishment method. Especially given that adminship is, barring a serious mess-up, for life, while ArbCom is for a short term and subject to much more community scrutiny during tenure than the average admin will receive over many years. I don't mean this in any kind of "You're wrong!" way, but rather I'm trying to understand what various people's reasoning is for wanting to make adminship a prerequisite (when policy and the community as a whole do not). I am thinking that different people probably have different "admins-only" rationales (e.g., I have already encountered some technical/expediency related ones). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the skillsets are somewhat different; however, community trust is essential in both. I find that RfAs (and RfBs) are an excellent litmus test for community trust. They tend to be extremely visible, and the open and active discussions are very helpful. That said, I understand that they are not 100% accurate, as politics can play an active role, axes can be brought out for grinding, etc. I know that they can be a painful process.[1] Then again, being able to go through that process (repeatedly) can show many positive things: Patience, strength of character, an increase in the ability to distinguish between constructive and destructive criticism, especially to take the first kind onboard, and to develop a thick enough skin to withstand the latter. Repeated runs show that someone can learn from their mistakes, improve sensitivity to the interests of the community, etc. Your last run was in 2010, and it was extremely close. Why not try again, show that you've taken the community concerns onboard, and that you've been able to grow and mature? --El on ka 18:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly (as said in my "Questions" page when someone asked) it's because I don't have any interest in doing "the admin stuff", and don't have any present need for the tools (which in and of themselves are reasons the community would not want to grant them). I don't need them to do ArbCom work (CU/OS, which are available to all Arbs, actually provide ability to see deleted revisions already, and none of the other abilities - deleting pages, blocking, etc. - have anything to do with being an Arb). Scrutiny seems higher for ArbCom than for RfA (we only have a few seats, and the "power" – the ability to make a lasting mess of things, with decisions are are hard to reverse and which have no appeal channel – is much greater. By contrast, we can have an unlimited number of admins, and anything they do wrong can be undone easily. Someone did suggest that, if elected, and if I found lack of admin tools somehow an impediment, I could run for RfA while an Arb, asking for the tools for the duration of my Arbship. I would consider that if it seemed genuinely necessary. I really don't want to run around perpetually with the admin tools, since it's easy make a mistake if not thinking in "admin mode" all the time. It's easy to make tools-give-me-the-upper-hand errors, without thinking about it, even with just PageMover and TemplateEditor. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]