User talk:The Rambling Man/Arbcom voting guide

Audience

Hi there,

Wandered onto your talk page and thus found your voting guide that way. It's good - are you planning on adding it to the list on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates either soon or after nominations? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosebagbear, I've added it to the category, I had no intention of doing more than that, but if someone else thinks that'd be helpful, I'd have no objections. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content

I was the primary editor on one featured article: Kate Sheppard. I did create a couple of featured lists a long time ago, but as standards rose over time they were demoted with no opposition from me.-gadfium 00:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"To be clear, I do not particularly want to be on the Arbitration Committee"

I mean I nearly wrote this myself as I'd much rather be writing content but have had a really bad feeling since Framgate of the distinct possibility of things going really really pear-shaped at some point in the near future. I'm not sure if I can prevent it but I sure as hell will give it my best shot. Hence my running. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

TRM, you were de-sysopped for cause. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Chris, helpful stuff! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman I think TRM's answer to my question is as good a response to your question as any. Unless I'm misunderstanding the question. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link in case anyone's interested. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

I think we're done here, with, ironically, a standing Arb and fellow candidate going public and criticising me with his feelings about my feelings about fellow candidates. I'm not sure if it's irony, hypocrisy or just a plain old-fashioned fuck up. Either way, enough, the damage has been done. WTT is still the best candidate standing right now, and ironically I won't be changing my guide, but this could have been handled so much better..... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi TRM. Standing in an Arbcom election and having a voter guide for that same election is unseemly. I do think it's showing poor judgement to be in both groups. The guides do get read, and make a difference to the election. I'd personally request, that you choose to either be a candidate or a guide writer. And yes, I'm aware that I'm sacrificing my "golden ticket" on this. Worm^TT(talk) 09:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. I'm going to vote in the Arbcom elections. I have thoughts on everyone including myself. Perhaps you should add this to the Arbcom RFC next year, banning those who participate from having a guide? I guess, also, if you think it really is "poor judgement" then I'm sure the voters will reflect that too. Your golden ticket is secure, whether it's written here or not. And why haven't you offered this advice to every one doing this, just a subset? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, it already is. However, I would be arguing against that - I absolutely do not want it banned, people should have the right to do so if they want, I just don't like it. The voter guides really do make a difference to the outcome of the election, I've been following them for years and you can see by the views and the aggregated results that they tie pretty closely. Having candidates directly influencing the vote on other candidates is a pretty big conflict of interests - it encourage attacks, tactical voting, and overall makes a bit of a mockery of the system. As I say, this is just an opinion and one I'd rather say directly to you rather than whinge about it elsewhere. If you don't want to get rid, that's fine - as I say, I'll be arguing that you (and others) should keep the right to do so in next years RfC. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've only spotted 2 that are doing the voter guide and candidate combination, and I've offered my thoughts to both. I'll look again if I've missed anyone. I did, I've now added the note there too Worm^TT(talk) 10:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really interesting perspective. I guess this marks out Wikipedia as unique that standing candidates should be disallowed or discouraged by a sitting Arb from giving their personal feelings on others running. Nowhere in any other democratic system in the universe is such an approach disallowed/discouraged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia elections are odd. We don't do "campaigning" in the same way, indeed "canvassing" is banned in other areas. I guess it's the "AGF" thing, we focus on the positive rather than the negative. I know I'm a sitting arb / candidate, but given that I'm also "supported" by all three guides that I've suggested removal of, I felt I was in a reasonable position to make the request. You are by no means beholden to the request as it's a personal request, I have no authority in the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 10:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "it already is", are you referring to a ban on guides from running candidates? If so, that would be the most appropriate message I would have imagined, rather than the "poor judgement"/"unseemly" thing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it already is on the docket for the WP:ACERFC2020 discussion. It's not banned and as I say, I'd argue against banning. Worm^TT(talk) 10:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I'll credit our users with a level of intelligence that means they are able to determine themselves whether they think my comments on other candidates (which happens in every other democratic system in the universe) are "unseemly" or demonstrative of "poor judgement". By the sounds of things, it'll only reduce the support for me: I'd rather that than compromise my thoughts and feelings here. That smacks of censorship to me, and something which is entirely undemocratic. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been considering this issue since you nominated yourself, and I'm somewhat inclined to learn towards WTT's rough position - it's non-ideal but shouldn't be prohibited. Obviously any candidate could do it, but I'd rather our ARBCOM elections didn't involve candidates criticising others - particularly because if everyone got into the game, the guides could become suspect with thoughts of tactical reviewing (you do me and I'll do you). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think our voting users have enough intelligence to handle that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the candidates have voting guides. I can't see anything wrong with it, especially as (in this case) TRM talks up so many of the other candidates. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the candidates to whom it has also been intimated that candidates should not write voter guides and that I should decide whether I want to write one or not be a candidate. Believing this to be the case, I have removed my guide, and then to be told a few minutes ago by another Bureaucrat that I did not need to remove it. With all due respect to WTT, I think he is out of order. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, User:Worm That Turned, it's okay for you to pop round calling other candidate's behaviour "unseemly" and showing "poor judgement" in numerous locations, candidates against whom you yourself are running, but it's not okay for me to state my personal opinions on people's ability to the job of Arbitrator in my user space? I see. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, I fully expected my comments to not be read except by the parties in question. I was specifically trying to appeal to the individuals and not make a fuss on that outside the guide talk pages (historically relatively unviewed pages) - and yes, I do feel strongly that the there is a conflict of interest between writing a guide and standing in the election.
I'll admit, I've mucked this up - but my intent was to talk to the individuals, not complain publicly. Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what emails are for. How disappointing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, I considered email, but felt that would be closer to strong-arming. I'm happy to take my lumps, and I'd rather do so transparently - people can see what I said. Worm^TT(talk) 14:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but don't you see it's you that has done the damage to those of us who have shown "poor judgement" by bringing this up in multiple locations across Wikipedia? You'll be fine, but your approach here has been much worse than anything the guides in our user space could ever have done. Three of us now labelled as behaving in an "unseemly" fashion and showing "poor judgement" by a very popular sitting Arb who happens to be running against the three of us. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, Oh, I do. Hence the phrases "I've mucked this up" and "I'm happy to take my lumps". Worm^TT(talk) 14:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They won't be your lumps, they'll be ours now a popular candidate has declared his personal opinions on three others as unseemly and showing poor judgement. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, my negative comments are limited to the three candidate voter guides, which have ~200 page views in total (many of which will be me returning). Compare to your voter guide, which alone has 1100. If you think it would help, you have my blessing to blank this entire conversation (and at the other two guide talk pages). It was not my intention to damage any of your election prospects. Worm^TT(talk) 14:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think these are the only places this is being discussed, I'm afraid you're very much mistaken. The damage is done whether the conversation is blanked or not. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, if there's political damage incurred, which there probably isn't, it will be to Dave's chances, not yours. I don't think anyone is going to care a whit if candidates have guides. Engaging with other candidates on the matter isn't particularly prudent, however. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. You of all people know that Dave's a shoo in right now, regardless of what he's done here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.