User talk:Lar/ACE2010
Intro[edit]
This is the talk page for the table page showing my opinions. Please keep it non technical. If you want to discuss the markup, or the row template used in it, please use the row talk page instead. Thanks.
Please respect my talk page guidelines:
- User:Lar/Pooh Policy (post here, get a reply here, post elsewhere, get a reply elsewhere)
- User:Lar/Eeyore Policy (My page, my rules, within reason... stuff said here stays here, you can strike if you like but your words remain... I refactor as needed. No edit warring)
Note that there was some pretty lively (but very well mannered) discussion at last year's talk page (User talk:Lar/ACE2009) as well as at the year before (User talk:Lar/ACE2008) and it would be swell if we had the same here.
Have fun!
Edit counts and writing guides and speaking freely about arbitrators[edit]
Any chance you can rustle up a more accurate figure for Giano's edit count? While I'm here, I'd like to thank you for writing this guide. I would write my own, but the candidates I'd be most qualified to comment on are those I should (for the sake of propriety) refrain from commenting on, as what I know of them comes from working with them. Can you see a way past this conundrum? Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- My guide combines the edit counts for Giano's three main accounts, if you want to steal it without doing the math. NW (Talk) 03:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- My guide deliberately mentions ONLY the current totals (which are accurate across renames, but not across "I QUIT!... no, I'm back under a new ID... no, I QUIT!, no I'm back again")... the previous accounts are dead to me :). As for your connundrum it's unfortunate, we all want to know how the sausage is made, but it may be best if you stay mum. Once you're not an arb maybe you can blast away with impunity. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I considered standing down a month early to enable me to speak more freely. That would still be the most principled thing to do, but I'm reading in particular the comments made in these guides about former and sitting arbs (the ones standing for re-election) and I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with what people are saying in the guides, and also disagreeing with what some candidates are saying in their candidate statements! But it is mostly based on my memories of how they performed when on ArbCom at the same time as me. In same cases (e.g. Stephen Bain and Newyorkbrad and FT2) some of the time they were on ArbCom was before I was there (from December 2008 onwards - all three were on ArbCom for a year before I arrived), so I don't have a complete picture, but I do have a partial picture. For others (John Vandenberg, Casliber, Shell Kinney and SirFozzie), I was there the whole time they were, so I have a more complete picture. This election is different, in that it has seven former or current arbs running - I don't think we've ever seen that high a number before. Maybe a good starting point would be the candidate statements. What should I do if, for instance, I feel a candidate is over-stating the extent of their achievements while on ArbCom? Obviously their public record can be examined by anyone, but what about claims about work they did off-wiki related to ArbCom? It is difficult to discuss this publicly, but it seems acceptable for candidates to make claims about it in their candidacies. Should there at least be independent verifications of such claims? Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, a serious question, I thought you were mostly just joking around, sorry! Honestly, I don't know. If it's a serious misstatement you ought to find a way to make the community aware, I think. Perhaps share your information with a former arb who is not standing? Maybe they could speak out. But isn't your term almost over? Maybe it's not as big a conflict as you think it is. I guess I wouldn't (were I you) speak out about minor things but if it's egregious, yes, I guess you should. Perhaps talk to KnightLago and/or Steve Smith? Rather than writing a guide, just make comments in the candidate discussion sections? Guide writers will pick the info up I expect. Hope some of those ideas help... ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth, if you feel a candidate statement by a current or former arb is misleading, you need to share your feelings with them about it privately and suggest that they amend their statement. If they decline to do so or don't respond to your concern, then you may need to publicly air it. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lar and Cla68 for the advice. Lar, yes, my term is nearly over (I thought those following the elections were aware of that already? I also updated the notice on my user pages, but clearly no-one looks at that). KnightLago and FayssalF are the other arbs whose terms expire who have not stood for re-election. Three arbs whose terms were expiring have stood, and four former arbs have stood. Wizardman is a former arbitrator who has written an election guide. I think that covers everything. I will review the statement of arbs and former arbs and see if their statements on off-wiki achievements tally with my perception of what happened, and then see where I go from there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Popping back here for a brief update: (1) I've made a post here; (2) I'll be asking questions on the questions and question talk pages as I get replies from the candidates; (3) I'll also comment on the talk pages of the various guides at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lar and Cla68 for the advice. Lar, yes, my term is nearly over (I thought those following the elections were aware of that already? I also updated the notice on my user pages, but clearly no-one looks at that). KnightLago and FayssalF are the other arbs whose terms expire who have not stood for re-election. Three arbs whose terms were expiring have stood, and four former arbs have stood. Wizardman is a former arbitrator who has written an election guide. I think that covers everything. I will review the statement of arbs and former arbs and see if their statements on off-wiki achievements tally with my perception of what happened, and then see where I go from there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth, if you feel a candidate statement by a current or former arb is misleading, you need to share your feelings with them about it privately and suggest that they amend their statement. If they decline to do so or don't respond to your concern, then you may need to publicly air it. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, a serious question, I thought you were mostly just joking around, sorry! Honestly, I don't know. If it's a serious misstatement you ought to find a way to make the community aware, I think. Perhaps share your information with a former arb who is not standing? Maybe they could speak out. But isn't your term almost over? Maybe it's not as big a conflict as you think it is. I guess I wouldn't (were I you) speak out about minor things but if it's egregious, yes, I guess you should. Perhaps talk to KnightLago and/or Steve Smith? Rather than writing a guide, just make comments in the candidate discussion sections? Guide writers will pick the info up I expect. Hope some of those ideas help... ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I considered standing down a month early to enable me to speak more freely. That would still be the most principled thing to do, but I'm reading in particular the comments made in these guides about former and sitting arbs (the ones standing for re-election) and I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with what people are saying in the guides, and also disagreeing with what some candidates are saying in their candidate statements! But it is mostly based on my memories of how they performed when on ArbCom at the same time as me. In same cases (e.g. Stephen Bain and Newyorkbrad and FT2) some of the time they were on ArbCom was before I was there (from December 2008 onwards - all three were on ArbCom for a year before I arrived), so I don't have a complete picture, but I do have a partial picture. For others (John Vandenberg, Casliber, Shell Kinney and SirFozzie), I was there the whole time they were, so I have a more complete picture. This election is different, in that it has seven former or current arbs running - I don't think we've ever seen that high a number before. Maybe a good starting point would be the candidate statements. What should I do if, for instance, I feel a candidate is over-stating the extent of their achievements while on ArbCom? Obviously their public record can be examined by anyone, but what about claims about work they did off-wiki related to ArbCom? It is difficult to discuss this publicly, but it seems acceptable for candidates to make claims about it in their candidacies. Should there at least be independent verifications of such claims? Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- My guide deliberately mentions ONLY the current totals (which are accurate across renames, but not across "I QUIT!... no, I'm back under a new ID... no, I QUIT!, no I'm back again")... the previous accounts are dead to me :). As for your connundrum it's unfortunate, we all want to know how the sausage is made, but it may be best if you stay mum. Once you're not an arb maybe you can blast away with impunity. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In fairness…[edit]
…if you're going to oppose Brad for lenience, you certainly ought to be opposing me, since I'm explicitly saying (repeatedly) that we need to go back to the old "blocking as the last resort" position. – iridescent 23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- You don't have the track record as an arbitrator that he does. Maybe I'll oppose you next time. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
US Rep/Senator/Governor[edit]
Ooops, I need to go back and edit my question, I was thinking one of the two major party candidates. IMO, it would be hard to find a candidate from either the democratic party or republican party, who didn't have sufficeint coverage to warrant an article. Anyways, I appreciate your comments and you had great questions, really made me think..---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're still not thinking hard enough. I can run in the primary as a candidate of the underdog party in a dominant district quite easily... little cost and little effort to get on that ballot and people often do this to see if they can build organization. Far easier than running in the general as a Libertarian, since the duopoly likes their stranglehold and keeps minor parties down. As a primary candidate, I am "a candidate, from one of the major parties, for US rep" and yet I am not sufficiently covered (I might get a bit of coverage as the 11th contender but it won't confer notability). ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)