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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. WormTT( talk) 14:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. WormTT( talk) 14:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)