User talk:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012

Hurry up

Hurry up, damnit, I'm F5-ing the page like a frenzied ape in a cage. Want. To. Read. Your. Take on things. Nao. --87.79.47.119 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lolz. [1] [2]. --87.79.47.119 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Have fun ... you're gonna be busy for a while :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Straight facts

You're entirely welcome to oppose me (there are a number of fairly good reasons; my relative inactivity being one mentioned at intervals and much more likely to have been influential last year than that supposed scandal), but I would very much appreciate if you avoided implying untruths. While my comment to Giano was ill-considered and intemperate (and, I should point out, self-reverted within a minute when I realized that I went over the line), it has never been "hidden". The deletion of the page it occurred on was entirely coincidental and unrelated, and I made certain that it was visible despite it having been deleted as soon as I was informed that the page had been deleted. — Coren ^(talk) 23:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Coren, but I don't have any means of verifying what was removed (since it is all gone), and certainly the conversation involved comments from Shell Kinney that were also troubling (so I'm sure that a lot has been covered up), and there is no record of that part. Having said that, I do not want to leave anything that you consider untrue on the page. Will linking to this conversation from your section on the page satisfy you or resolve your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It would. Of course, I can't speak for Shell; but as for the text of my comment or the timeline of its life on the page (i.e.: I write it, self-revert within a minute, Giano restores it some hours minutes later) you can ask any administrator you trust to take a look at the deleted page and verify – there was no oversight involved. — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't need verification of that part: I do know that you self-reverted, as I mentioned in last year's guide ... I will try to address that here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've updated-- is that satisfactory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I still think you're begging the question that there is a causal link between that incident, my not having been reelected, and the subsequent deletion of the page; but that you link to this discussion here is quite sufficient. The only thing that really bugged me is the implication that I had wanted or tried to hide that faux-pas, or that anyone did so on my behalf. I don't do hiding stuff under carpets.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not intend for that causal link to be implied-- only to state that the evidence is no longer available. I don't believe I said or implied that you had anything to do with the removal-- in fact, I link to the MFD. How can I correct the wording to resolve your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, the current wording is entirely sufficient, especially given that it links to this brief discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 00:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarify

Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia.

• "... this reactionary post shows an over-the-top disregard for content contributors"

The way I have attempted to treat the guides is that each is that person's opinion, and they are welcome to it. Just merely occasionally attempting to try to clarify any post of mine (or thoughts of mine) which I am guessing may need clarification.

So with that in mind, I just wanted to clarify that my concerns are about the process(es) and absolutely not about content contributors.

And I'll note the irony I feel that somehow I seem to have gained the emnity from those on different "sides" of that FA situation. I opposed a ban of an editor, and I opposed entrusting someone with extra tools. My comments were made per the community discussion under discussion (a community ban proposal in one case and an RfA in another). Neither of my choices in each discussion had much to do with that situation.

Anyway, as far as the FA process, here are two links if you would like to read some recent comments. This, and the end of this discussion touches on it as well. - jc37 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

While I am empathize with you about what I consider to be the ridiculous hounding that you are enduring as a result of a valid oppose on Pumpkin Sky/Rlevse's RFA, your opposition to the banning of Merridew, and your confusing stances on FAC and TFAR (which by the way further some misperceptions that have taken hold about TFAR) are not strengthening the case that you are ready to serve as an arb. Pick your battles-- engaging with a small group who hold an isolated view and will never drop the stick rarely ends well. Best regards (and thank you for adding my guide to the template-- much appreciated). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

When this is done, regardless of the outcome of the AE, I have been considering starting an RfC concerning the elections. For example, there are things I'm seeing going on which have been (mostly) stamped out at RfA, and I think should probably be dealt with here as well.

As for your other three points,

I offered my thoughts in the ban discussion. I'll accept that you consider them naive. And when it comes to Wikipedia, perhaps I am a hopeless idealist. I believe in the fundamental principles of the project. And I don't want to see those undermined, even with the best of intentions.

One thing that I wish had come out of this year is the community do an RfC concerning bans, RTV, fresh starts, etc.

If others are to be believed, the socking related to them appears to unfortunately be common. And if so, then that needs to be dealt with. Else we'll have more JM and PS situations. Popularity shouldn't make one exempt from policy. (NOTAVOTE, after all.) And policy should deal with "the situation on the ground", as it were.

And I was more actively following FA a few years ago. (I vaguely recall supporting that merge a few years ago, though my memory is hazy on that. And at this point, seeing how it has gone, I'm currently thinking that undoing the merge(s) may be the right way to go.)

And you are not the first to suggest that I may have a mistaken impression of the process(es). I've looked again (and again) recently (as part of one of those discussions I linked to) and am not seeing how I was mistaken. but as (I would hope) an open minded person, I welcome edumacation : )

Due to a nice discussion I had with casliber, I've been tempted to try a dry run of an article through the process (it'll likely fail) just to see the process "from the inside" again (been awhile). Not to mention to see about improving that article : ) - But I have so many other discussions I'm working on/planning, that it's on the back burner atm.

As for "choose your battles" - I'll cop to that. If I see something that I think needs addressing, I try to. It's probably not the politically savvy thing to do, I know. But my focus is the project, not me. After all, I'm merely just one Wikipedian. Course, it does make requests like this a bit more challenging : )

(As for that specific situation, I've disengaged from it.)

Anyway, my goal isn't to change your mind. After all, there are several who say they genuinely like me, but are still opposing because they prefer me directed elsewhere, and others opposing for all sorts of other reasons (including my unfortunate use of the words "wheel warring" when (in my head anyway) I had meant wheel usage/turns of the wheel. Though I do find it interesting how denotatively "set in stone" people seem to consider WHEEL (at least in their guides), since those concepts have been under discussion and in flux, at least since the zscout situation. And especially since as recent as this year an admin was admonished as the second turner of the wheel. (A case which, as I noted, was part of why I felt I needed to go to arbcom to review such a situation.) But hey, I supposedly have no clue about policy, so what do I know? : )

In the end, this'll be successful, or not, and life goes on. While I obviously take the confidentiality issues seriously, beyond that, this is pretty much just another set of responsibilities to help out the community and thus the project. And it's time limited to boot : )

So with that in mind, it's amazing to me that in some ways it's actually worse than RfX : ) - jc37 01:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you're welcome. Just another case of me trying to be helpful : ) - jc37 01:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt

In a discussion elsewhere, Wehwalt went off-topic and said:[3]

I will not comment on the Elen-Sandy situation, much as I am tempted to, but note that Elen is a lesson for Timotheus Canens in two years, if he doesn't toe the party line if elected. He's the fair hair boy per the same election guide which so supported Elen two years ago, for pulling the trigger on Br'er Rabbit's wikicide, but boy he better vote to form or he'll hear about it!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted that after stating you would not comment on the situation, you went off-topic and did just that. I'm putting my response here because you used that page inappropriately.

The differences between the environment in 2010 and 2012 are discussed in my guide: in 2010, we had an unfortunate RFC that forced us to grow the Committee size considerably at the same time it made several other changes that led to unforeseen circumstances. Yes, in hindsight it was wrong to pick the least bad of a poor pool so we could fill out a Committee that was too large, which is why I advocate a different voting stance this year.

Further, there are appreciable differences between T. Canens of 2012 and Elen of the Roads in 2010: first, T. Canens is not a freshly-minted admin about whom little is known, and second, T. Canens has been very active in Arb Enforcement, whereas Elen wasn't active in arb issues and in hindsight was not up to the pressures of ArbCom. I don't expect T. Canens to be crying on the shoulders of folks who will later betray him (poor judgment) about confidential matters because he "needed someone to talk to". Of course, if he did that (and later even lied to the Committee about it), I would oppose him in the future. At any rate, he's been an admin long enough, and he's been active in Arb Enforcement.

And finally, if you are implying that I am unlikely to support candidates who have different opinions than mine over the years, my record shows that to be false (and you know it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's put this another way. T. Canens has 4,931 mainspace edits, which is 16% of his total edits. Last month he managed only six edits to an article, and just three the month before. The most edits that he has made to any article has been 47 to Liu_Yong_(Qing_Dynasty), which is still a stub. What does he spend his time on? Overwhelmingly, it appears - over 50% of edits - on various admin noticeboards. So he seems to have very little experience at all. The profile looks very much like Elen's, who started actively editing a few months earlier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In terms of article work, yes. But in terms of knowing how she would behave as an admin, she had only been an admin for about six weeks before the elections, while Canens has been at it for two and a half years now. We don't have good content contributors among the candidates this year, so we can't choose based on that. And Canens has worked in the area of arb enforcement. You are correct that he could turn out to be as disappointing as EotR has been (where what we most hear about is her "real job in the UK"-- hint, this is not the UK, and this is not the "real world", this is the internet where there is no governance whatsoever and if you confide in imaginary friends it's likely to come back on you), but at least he's had more preparation for the job stresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The "real life" jobs Elen claims are "work in local government" and "complaints officer". Elen's actions in the last two years fit a number of negative stereotypes of mid-level bureaucrats, and this is a curious statement from someone claiming "years of experience of identifying the issues out of a morass of data, and finding the appropriate response to the problem based on policy and experience". Gimmetoo (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading through Tim's RfA, there were a number of opposes on the basis of a limited main content edit record. One editor noted that he found it difficult to write anything at all . He subsequently made no effort whatsoever to remedy the situation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If we had a top content contributor in the running this year, I'd be supporting. RichWales has written FAs, but I will not fall afoul again to repeat the mistake made in 2010, where we elected an arb who was a freshly minted admin, unprepared for the job stresses, so I can't yet support RichWales. The "collaborations" that resulted in FAs with Keilana's name attached had issues (of the kind that made those FACs stand out in my memory). We don't have content people to support. And, speaking of content people, I would like to hear more from Cas on this whole debacle: he was a mentor to Merridew, so had a viewpoint and I wonder why he didn't detect Merridew's socking at FAC or if he knew about it, has been silent in the debacle, but supports EotR and Keilana. I'm a bit concerned that he has a guide up that endorses Sock and RTV-breaching fans but does not disclose his past involvement as a mentor to Merridew. He has not voted on the motion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't even think it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't unthink it; I pinged Cas. Considering this year's RFC discusses disclosures (and I added a boatload of disclosure verbiage), I'm concerned that neither Sven's nor Cas's guides give such disclosures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was thunking. Luckily, you seem to be not thunking it.... wheew. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

hmmmm ... inquiring minds want to know !!! I mean, sheesh, I had to dig through boatloads of old Merridew/Davenbelle cases in archives to realize that there waa a Mattisse-style mentoring plan in place there, with all the same mistakes made. Do most folks know that? The Merridew history is longer and even more dismal than the Mattisse situation, Cas was the mentor, and for those who knew Merridew, that he was the FAC sock should have been apparent. Why, someone pls explain, do these folks support such a disruptive user? What are the friendships involved here? And how does forcing a citation style preference on the entire 'pedia (while ignoring glaring prose issues among his "associates" aka "friends") make him a valuable contributor? Article after article, he goes through and makes changes to citation style while leaving glaring prose issues in place-- a summary of what WP:QAI is about. Go dig through the arb archives on Davenbelle/Merridew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I need to update that - Keilana is new to the whole debate with Davenbelle/Merridew and has seen his good side (and he does have one) without witnessing directly alot of the problems that have occurred over the past several years. And I've worked with Keilana on some content lately. She impresses as an optimist and sincere person who has done some content. I think that she wouldn't be divisive on the issue.

Regarding Merridew, I was unhappy with some of the behaviour in the probationary period of the unban (i.e. with ongoing conflict with A Nobody (talk · contribs)) when I was mentoring him, however I was not listened to when I pointed this out. Either by him or by others. Since then, I have seen spurts of productivity. I did not know at all about Alarbus being him. He does have alot to offer, however his anger got the better of him and the plug was finally pulled as we all know.

Regarding my guide, I have been meaning to update it. I have seen it from the other side in more detail and there are more questions. I will post something shortly but was intrigued at what other viewpoints arose.

And finally, before anyone complains about me doing content-editing - I find that relaxing. I don't find this so, and have a sense of fatigue about it all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas, for the quick response. What concerns me is how similar the Merridew situation is to the Mattisse one, in that they were allowed to disrupt for too long because of friends supporting them, and well-meaning but misguided attempts to mentor. I don't share your optimism about Keilana because her RFA nomination of Rlevse makes her sound like she has the perception and maturity of a high-schooler, and I don't think someone like that will do well on ArbCOm. (I wish I could still find content editing relaxing, but what is going on in med articles is anything but. Hopefully once the university term ends, I can just clean up all the damage at once, and forget another dismal term.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And Wehwalt continues off topic; apparently he is suggesting now that Moni3 blocked Rlevse on *my cue*, and again, Wehwalt is allowed to lodge that kind of non-AGF claim on an arb page. Methinks the man doth protest too much. And I chuckle at the notion that anyone could tell Moni3 what to do! And I doubt anyone will say a word to Wehwalt about his posts there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A few comments

Hi Sandy. Thanks for writing the guide, I do find them informative each year. I thought I might ask for a little clarification on your comments if you have a little time. You say you are opposing my candidacy on two factors, Jack Merridew and "[you] always opt for arbs who Just Do Not Engage in off-Wiki Correspondence about arb matters. Period."

Regarding the Jack Merridew point, I'm not going to try and persuade you, as I came out with a different opinion to many editors. I think that a case would have been much more helpful there, with actual evidence being presented. As for my oppose, the request for banning was based primarily on sockpuppetry and that was what I addressed in my comment. Missing the "taunting and hounding", well, perhaps I should have looked further, but that's what happens when you come into a case mid way through and only address part of it. Anyway, I can understand you opposing just on that.

The main reason for this note though was the "Just Do Not Engage in off-Wiki Correspondence about arb matters". I was quite surprised to see this, as I do not believe I have engaged in off-wiki correspondence about arb matters. I expanded on what happened here, I emailed Elen as I have emailed many users when I worry they are having a difficult time on Wikipedia. On the whole leak situation, I've been quite vocal regarding transparency on Arbcom (per my questions page, this year and last), transparency which would have meant there was nothing to leak in the first place.

If there's anything I can clarify further, or you'd like to discuss with me, I'd be happy to answer. Worm^TT(talk) 14:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as for "net negative", I find it a horribly derogatory term which does not take into account the long term effects of Wikipedia. An editor who writes a Featured Article is likely to have added to human knowledge many years down the line, and as such would have to do a lot of damage to become "net" negative. However, long term disruptive users, who I do not necessarily see as a "net" negative, do need to be removed - and I clarified that further on. I don't like the way we throw around comments which marginalise people's work, just because they've become problematic, it's a question of tact in the way we do things. I'll be adding net negative to my list of contradictions, if it helps you see where I'm coming from. Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, WTT ... I missed a piece there about the correspondence, and now have a better picture. I will (for now) add a link to this conversation from my guide, but later today when I have more time, have a new look at your section with an eye towards a better rewrite. Thanks for the feedback ... we are short on qualified candidates, and I do appreciate hearing from those who have been hard decisions, and I apologize that my guide left you in the "off-wiki gossipers" category (for lack of a better term). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry Sandy, I understand why it happened and I thank you for correcting it. I'll keep an eye on the page in case there's anything further you'd like to discuss. Worm^TT(talk) 08:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)