User talk:SebastianHelm/ArbCom elections 2007

Starting the table

Replied on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FT2

I've followed up your note and added a few links. I've tried carefully to keep it

reasonable; the main priorities being 1/ relevant arbcom experience, and 2/

genuinely exceptional links that aren't obvious.

Hopefully it looks okay to you. I let the "..." stand in for most of them, as it's

intended. Thought I'd drop a courtesy note though to let you know.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - As I'm regularly involved in arbcom and conflict resolution work,

there's a lot of cases that showcase the range of work. A couple of items

missing that seem useful, left for your review and decision if you think they're

useful:

Mediation work: listed

here

Other conflict work: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=User_talk:FT2&diff=168322502&oldid=168296862]

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your enthusiasm! You already got so many good links that

you're exploding the confines of the table :-)

I think the "Mediation, coaching, mentorship" link is definitely worth

including. Maybe we should use the letter "m" for this. I am also considering

"M" for "routinely med/c/m", to correspond to "A". What do you think?

— Sebastian 17:08, 28 November 2007

(UTC)

I just looked at all your links in the Portfolio column, and I think you could

leave out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate

_statements/FT2/Questions_for_the_candidate&diff=173632790&oldid=1736

20335 the link to questions from the candidate] since this is already on the

radar for voters here and because you have

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=User_talk:FT2&diff=169490808&oldid=169384729 Euryalus's great

praise]. I would also leave out [leave out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_4&diff=prev&oldid=15

5892171 TerriersFan's endorsement] since it requires some work for voters

to understand it, and since I am sure you will get similar endorsements from

your voters. — Sebastian 17:38, 28

November 2007 (UTC)

"m" for mediation work would definitely make sense. My concern was that I

felt it wouldn't seem neutral to over edit my own link section, and felt more

comfortable raising it here for you to address how you see fit. That way it's a

neutral decision. I'd be wary of a forest of symbols, but this one extra may be

valuable. I assume by "M" you mant "mediation committee regular work"?

The point is, anyone not already an arbcom member, might be legitimately

asked to demonstrate cases they have worked on that showcase their

suitability for the role - and that's true whether the work would be mediation,

clerking, disputes, conflicts, project pages, whatever. So the other thing is,

looking at the symbols used, I'd change "A", and keep it purely for arbcom

members. This isn't aimed at anyone, rather, it's because clerk work really

isn't the same as actual arbcom case work and (as in the case of Flonight

last year) some people see the distinction as crucially important. Clerks may

or may not have arb experience, but a proportion of users will probably wish

to review their actual work. You already have an entry in the "Notes" column

for arbcom clerks which is better. As for the rest, overall this table needs to be

a neutral one. I'm wary of making much in the way of edits for that reason,

beyond the style and size you have set. It's better practice that you make any

significant changes beyond that. If you advise on the links, I'll edit them within

those parameters. Many thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:44, 28 November 2007

(UTC)

Well, I'm not neutral, either. In fact, I have been thinking about

campaigning for you. :-)

While I do hope that the Portfolio links prove valuable to voters, I wouldn't

overvalue them. They are just little reminders. At best, they are something like

barnstars. It's only natural that they're subjective. I hope voters will use them

the way I do: If theyre absent from the table, it raises a red flag. If someone

whose statement I liked has some, then I'll vote for them. If

I'm undecided about a candidate, I do some spot checks. (That's why I

recommended taking out the less obvious ones.)

As to the "A", I disagree with you, but I will bring it up on [[Wikipedia

talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary

table#Portfolio column]] without mentioning your name. —

Sebastian 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=User_talk:SebastianHelm&diff=174425974&oldid=174425192 your

tweak]: Please see my rationale for the capital letters at [[Wikipedia

talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary

table#Portfolio column]]. — Sebastian 19:36,

28 November 2007 (UTC)

Alexia Death

I have and will be inactive due to real life situations for a little while more. I will

see early December how this will translate to my candidacy for arbcom. Most

likely I will withdraw it. There are more rewarding projects calling out to me

and my time is limited, tho I will always be around as a watchful eye.--Alexia

Death the Grey (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(will reply on User talk:Alexia Death —

Sebastian 06:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why base vote on portfolios?

You know...most people decide on who to vote for by reading the responses

to questions, reviewing candidates' various logs, researching how they

handle conflict. I was truly shocked that you would decide your votes based

on who completed this portfolio. Some of these candidates have answered

over 100 questions from editors, answers that required research, thought,

and familiarity with the wide scope of the encyclopedia. And some

candidates declined to participate because they were not comfortable with

the format selected.

While every editor has the right to support or oppose the candidates of their

choice for whatever reason they feel is relevant(or for no reason

whatsoever), I have to say that posting that someone didn't fill out a non-

mandatory table is a bit over the top. Please reconsider.

Risker 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting your concern here. I think it is an important

consideration for me as a voter if an arbcom candidate backs up eir claims

with links. Any candicy is a claim that a candidate is good for the job. If I don't

see any link to back that claim up, I have three reasons to vote against that

candidate: (1) Making unsubstantiated claims is not a trait that I want to see

in an arbitrator. (2) The candidate did not reply to my legitimate and relevant

question. (3) It appears the candidate may be good at talking about emself,

but is not able or willing to show proof for good work. —

Sebastian 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I posted some links for you per your oppose. --

Hemlock Martinis 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will look at it. — Sebastian

00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it, but some of them seemed misleading. I'm not sure how your

opinions on renaming or deleting articles indicate an experience with

ArbCom. Moreover, I read several of your statements, and while I read a lot

of categorical statements, I did not see a single one of them backed up. To

the contrary, when called to explain, you reply with yet more opinionated and

unsourced statements like "it's not a matter of

validity"[1]. Sorry, my vote

has to remain "Oppose". — Sebastian 01:23,

4 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. For the record, the validity quote was within the context of the

discussion and shouldn't be taken at face value. Thank you for giving me a

shot at least! :) --Hemlock Martinis 01:49, 4

December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - that was a good reply! —

Sebastian 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano

Please note, I did not refuse to fill out you portofolio, I said I did not know how

to. I do not understand table, my brain will not work that way with all those

letters and symbols jumbled together like that. Giano 07:19,

4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't catch that you have a ~~handicap~~disability - I would

have gladly offered you my help! To serve as an arbitrator, you need to have

some way to back up your points. So, how about if you just give me the links

in the way that you would also use on ArbCom, and I translate it? —

Sebastian 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a handicap, I have a problem called dyslexia which is endured

and coped with by many millions of people. It is nothing to be ashamed of,

and I suffer chronically from it. If any editor wants information on help and

dealing with similar problem or thinks they have a child with the problem they

are welcome to email me. Many children thought slow at school often have

an undiagnosed form of dyslexia but if it is diagnosed young enough, which

it often is today, it need not be a problem. It cannot be cured but it can be

coped with. You are welcome to your oppose but please read my posts very

carefully (as I have to do) before making comments like this

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%

3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007%2FVote%

2FGiano_II&diff=175602851&oldid=175602546]. I prefer to stay well away

from any tables. Most of the pages I write do not have them. I cannot read

them, I don't like them. I stay away from themm and I lead a full happy and

successful life without them. Giano 19:08, 4 December 2007

(UTC)

I am sorry if I offended you - that was absolutely not my intention. I was not

trying to give any label your problem; all I was saying that I am accepting it

and I am willing to help. If I had known of your problem then I would not have

worded my vote in the same way. But it is still correct: I am not asking you to

work with any tables. I am only asking for links. And so far you have

consistently refused to provide any links. As I wrote above: "To serve as an

arbitrator, you need to have some way to back up your points." I am still

keeping my simple offer: You give me the links, and I shall put them in the

table. — Sebastian 20:04, 4 December 2007

(UTC)

Let me be the one to worry about backing up my points! I do very well

thanks. Giano (talk) 21:21, 4 December

2007 (UTC)

Wizardman

I've added a little bit, if I have time I'll do more tomorrow. Just pointing out that

I'm on it and replied on my talk page, since I got a new post right after my

reply, so it may have gotten lost in translation :) Wizardman 19:21, 4 December 2007

(UTC)

Thanks, I noticed it! I just haven't gotten around to actually looking at them

yet! — Sebastian 20:07, 4 December 2007

(UTC)

FayssalF

Hi Sebastian. Thanks for the note. I believe that everything is accurate. I may

add the MILHIST coordinator role but not sure where to add it. Portfolio? --

FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and for adding the links. I think it might be clearer

to link directly to the coordinator section. —

Sebastian 07:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manning Bartlett

Hi Sebastian

Sorry for not responding sooner - I've been moving apartment since Tuesday and only just noticed your request. With it being this close to the end of the election, and as I'm really not a leading contender I'm wondering if it is even worth the effort :) Let me know how you feel about it. I will only be online erratically in the next two days as well. Regards Manning (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know how many people actually go by the portfolio, and I don't know if there will be many last minute voters. I already put the link to the WikiProject concept in the table; it would be nice if you had a link for fleshing out WP:NPOV. Since people felt you weren't so active, you could point to some older contributions. You don't have a "bragsheet", do you?

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. I really wish you better success at the election. Maybe next time? It seems, all you need is to be logged in more often, and work on your SPOV position. — Sebastian 09:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe - I'm perfectly happy with the election result, what was personally important to me was that I offered, not whether I won. Having done so, my sense of duty towards the project has been satisfied. In terms of logging in more often, I'm contemplating it, but I like anonymity, and I don't like the "my edit count is higher than yours" nonsense that goes on. As far as a brag sheet - I'll never have one, as I dislike such things on principle. And my SPOV position won't change, it was developed over years of experience about what will work best for the project :) Take care and all the best, Manning (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice reply! And I'm sorry, I realize that my comment about SPOV may have been a bit patronizing. Maybe all you need to work on is convince other people, then. You could start with me, sometime next year. :-) — Sebastian 03:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]