This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
I followed the link provided by Robert McClenon in
his answer to
my question, which was: Can you lead to any former example where a leading presidential candidate of the polls was rightfully deemed as not notable?
but there I found nothing that would justify to deem a leading presidential candidate not notable. I even found
WP:POLITICIAN, and there
Nataša Pirc Musar is rather obviously notable. If McClenon makes the choice to defend the withholding of notable info regarding a presidential election as an Arb. and even defends this with Wikipedia policy,
(which he really did in his answer), it wouldn't support the Wikipedia spirit of providing information for free. Said that, he also said he wasn't sure if he understands the question, so I hope he can clarify what he meant.
Paradise Chronicle (
talk)
11:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Robert defends not moving her back to main space with Wikipedia policy.If anything, I think this is a good thing. casualdejekyll 14:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to give a counter-argument. Yesterday, Robert proposed a community ban for a user that was immediately shut down as being excessive. While some might think this is a moot point, given the user was indefinitely blocked (and indeed, I had suggested was a sockpuppet), I can't vote for arbs who immediately plump for the most draconian reaction possible out of all the options. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
While reading the voter guides, I noticed a common theme that irked me greatly: people choosing to oppose McClenon because he's not an administrator. On paper, this is completely valid: adminship gives a lot of useful tools that an arb can make great use of. What irks me about this is Elonka and Pythoncoder opposing on the rationale that failing RfA means you can't get the community's trust, even the latter user specifying that it is a "regretful" oppose.
This doesn't make any sense to me at all. The entire point of having an election instead of just picking random admins or whatever (like has been suggested) is to judge the community's trust. I was under the impression that the goal was to determine what the community's trust of Robert and other candidates is? Those RfAs were five and fifteen years ago, respectfully. Many admins haven't even had an account for that long. They're so old that they aren't really an accurate measure of community trust at all beyond the most general terms, which suggest that at the very least a good 40% of the 2017 community trusted him. A lot can change in 5 years. A vote that is effectively "I would support if you were an admin" is complete bollocks if we want to keep insisting that adminship isn't a requirement, especially since as far as I can tell, of all four of the voter guides that advocate for and against candidates, only one brings up an argument against Robert not based on his flags. So is "failing RfA five years ago automatically disqualifies you from arbitration" really going to be a popular enough position to make McClenon lose? I hope that most who oppose McClenon have a non-flags related reason for doing so, and they just haven't shared it - these votes boil down to "he lost the !vote before, so he must lose the vote again", and I'm afraid that voters as a whole are taking this rationale and not looking at Robert's actual contributions (which I have already talked far too much about above).
On the opposing hand, what
Giraffer said, Outside of permissions, he matches the admin candidates in his profile and background for the role, and will be a real test of the community's opinion on adminship as a precursor to becoming an arbitrator
, seems to hit the nail on the head for me: people opposing because "not an admin" are de facto making adminship a requirement for ARBCOM, when it seems like there is a significant fraction of the community opposed to that. I can't see a difference between Robert's qualifications and most of the admin candidates', and if that puts me in the minority of voters, then so be it.
casualdejekyll
22:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
I followed the link provided by Robert McClenon in
his answer to
my question, which was: Can you lead to any former example where a leading presidential candidate of the polls was rightfully deemed as not notable?
but there I found nothing that would justify to deem a leading presidential candidate not notable. I even found
WP:POLITICIAN, and there
Nataša Pirc Musar is rather obviously notable. If McClenon makes the choice to defend the withholding of notable info regarding a presidential election as an Arb. and even defends this with Wikipedia policy,
(which he really did in his answer), it wouldn't support the Wikipedia spirit of providing information for free. Said that, he also said he wasn't sure if he understands the question, so I hope he can clarify what he meant.
Paradise Chronicle (
talk)
11:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Robert defends not moving her back to main space with Wikipedia policy.If anything, I think this is a good thing. casualdejekyll 14:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to give a counter-argument. Yesterday, Robert proposed a community ban for a user that was immediately shut down as being excessive. While some might think this is a moot point, given the user was indefinitely blocked (and indeed, I had suggested was a sockpuppet), I can't vote for arbs who immediately plump for the most draconian reaction possible out of all the options. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
While reading the voter guides, I noticed a common theme that irked me greatly: people choosing to oppose McClenon because he's not an administrator. On paper, this is completely valid: adminship gives a lot of useful tools that an arb can make great use of. What irks me about this is Elonka and Pythoncoder opposing on the rationale that failing RfA means you can't get the community's trust, even the latter user specifying that it is a "regretful" oppose.
This doesn't make any sense to me at all. The entire point of having an election instead of just picking random admins or whatever (like has been suggested) is to judge the community's trust. I was under the impression that the goal was to determine what the community's trust of Robert and other candidates is? Those RfAs were five and fifteen years ago, respectfully. Many admins haven't even had an account for that long. They're so old that they aren't really an accurate measure of community trust at all beyond the most general terms, which suggest that at the very least a good 40% of the 2017 community trusted him. A lot can change in 5 years. A vote that is effectively "I would support if you were an admin" is complete bollocks if we want to keep insisting that adminship isn't a requirement, especially since as far as I can tell, of all four of the voter guides that advocate for and against candidates, only one brings up an argument against Robert not based on his flags. So is "failing RfA five years ago automatically disqualifies you from arbitration" really going to be a popular enough position to make McClenon lose? I hope that most who oppose McClenon have a non-flags related reason for doing so, and they just haven't shared it - these votes boil down to "he lost the !vote before, so he must lose the vote again", and I'm afraid that voters as a whole are taking this rationale and not looking at Robert's actual contributions (which I have already talked far too much about above).
On the opposing hand, what
Giraffer said, Outside of permissions, he matches the admin candidates in his profile and background for the role, and will be a real test of the community's opinion on adminship as a precursor to becoming an arbitrator
, seems to hit the nail on the head for me: people opposing because "not an admin" are de facto making adminship a requirement for ARBCOM, when it seems like there is a significant fraction of the community opposed to that. I can't see a difference between Robert's qualifications and most of the admin candidates', and if that puts me in the minority of voters, then so be it.
casualdejekyll
22:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)