User talk:Monty845/ACE2011

Spelling[edit]

Just to note, you've misspelled "Courcelles" in your guide. Risker (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for letting me know. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMC and your voter guide[edit]

The William M Connolley guide isn't in the voter guides template, and I'd argue wasn't written "responsibly, seriously and in good faith" and thus couldn't be in the voter guides section. I'm not sure why you're choosing to include it. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see your argument, though I can see counter points as well. For me the key point is that the author appears to have written the guide with the intent of advocating others vote in certain ways. I'm still not sure I should include it, but my current thinking is that how out of line the guide is with all the others says more about it then a thousand words here could. If more guides like it start showing up in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2011 voter guides I will certainly re-evaluate my position regarding similar guides. I'm also open to being convinced to remove it, but at the moment I'm gravitating towards keeping it in. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't want to feed the notion that there is some guide writers cabal that some of the guide related RFC discussion was concerned about. While I personally will pay no heed to that particular guide, and while I would hope few are, some voters may be influenced by his opinions. That said, I don't plan to come to his defense if he tries to include it in the ACE2011 template. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a lack of WP:AGF from SM there William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commment from an outside observer[edit]

Hey, you point out the cut off line of the 7 most supported candidates in the voters guide. It should be mentioned somewhere that the ranking and collection of all voters guide has zero standing in the ultimate voting. In the end there will be several hundred voters, so the thoughts of 10 of them though interesting and informative, don't call for a cut line. Drorzm (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already made an oblique reference to the actual vote being what counts, but I think it would be fair to add a further disclaimer as a bullet point. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that a guide writer appears to have decided to remain neutral, I am recording it is a no vote.[edit]

That is ambiguous. When I first read it, I thought you meant "A vote No". Now I think you mean "Abstention". Might be worth clarifying William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just tracking the language that the actual vote will use. The secure poll interface will default to "No Vote" which will be counted as an abstention. I would have prefered it be Abstain myself, but it seems a bit late to try to amend things. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I haven't read the how-to-vote bit yet. Sufficient unto the day and all William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Play nice[edit]

This is another person's userspace, so please, be respectful of that user's probable wishes. Barring contrary instruction, I am restoring Monty's guide to the overall look and feel that it had. In related news if the guides continue to become a major source of useless partisan conflict instead of informative guides for voters, I may delist them all.--Tznkai (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai,

My links were added on the 29th. Monty edited on the 30th.

You should respect his user-space.

You may email Monty to request instruction.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be untrue or at least deceptive. Monty's last edit to this guide was as of 06:41, 27 November 2011 and you added the links as of 01:59, 29 November 2011. There are no grounds to infer that at any point he's even cared to notice what is going on here and approve of any of it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the change. I don't really have much of an opinion on the links. On the one hand, I don't think they are very useful, someone who wants to view the individual rationales from a particular guide can find them through the guide link easily enough. On the other, I don't think the links do much harm, the only reason I can think of to remove them would be that they may slightly promote the one guide over the others, but I personally don't think they will do that. My approach was to leave them be, but I'm certainly not going to go through and add similar links to the other guides. If there is a strong argument for removing the links, I'm open to hearing it, I'm certainly not very set in my opinion on them. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Monty845, I don't see the links as a big deal one way or the other. --El on ka 19:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple concerns in that Monty is still listed as a coordinator, and this guide in general appears to be less of a personal guide and more of a neutral meta-guide. Kiefer's column, in addition to be worded oddly, also is blue linked, which I think will attract disproportionate attention and the appearance of endorsement. Unlike other guides, this is a meta guide, so its become a sort of territory that various guide writers may jostle over, such as what happened between Sven and Kiefer. To put it another way, I can easily see a guide like this becoming institutionally a part of the years election (and just as easily not) and as such, it should be as neutral and blandly informative as possible. So in all I'd prefer they conform as much as possible to the overall set up.

That all having been said, a voter guide is ultimately an individual userspace writing, so its Monty's call, including to not make a call.--Tznkai (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced the links are a problem. While it is certainly possible someone may interpret the links the way you fear, I think it is unlikely. While it is in my userspace, I wont exert ownership of it if you want to form a consensus somewhere to decide the issue. Also, if there is support for institutionalizing the guide, that would be fine with me, though I know there are some who don't like that it gives visibility to some of the more controversial guide writers. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai,

I added the links to this page the 29th. Monty's last edit to Wikipedia was the 30th.

Your statement "this appears to be untrue or at least deceptive" was false, but may be explicable by ignorance.

If you wish to review a user's contributions, just go to the top of the page and look at the user tab; click it; then you will see a list of choices, among them "contributions". Clicking on "contributions", you will then see Monty's most recent 20-50-100-200-500 edits.

Does this help?

Putting a new user like Monty in charge of an ArbCom election is a bit too much of an affirmation of this being the Wiki "that anyone can edit". Maybe next year the coordinators should be required to know how to use the user interface?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was totally uncalled for, and I was tempted to strike it. Kiefer, you were just through this, if you can't learn to interact with people without insulting them, eventually one of those is going to get filed and the consensus is going to be for kicking you off the project. Maybe not now, but if you keep this up, sooner rather than later. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven,

You ignored Tznakai's falsehood or at least personal attack, "This appears to be untrue or at least deceptive."

If you cannot learn to interact with people without engaging in gross partisanship, consensus is going to be for ignoring further partisan scoldings.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your credibility for delivering such scoldings would be increased by your not having written that Roger Davies had "a God complex", etc., in your guide to the elections. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this on my talk page, but that, and this, mark the last time that I'll be responding to you, as I'd rather not have this escalate any further, and I don't see any way of that not happening if this thread continues. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

missing guides?[edit]

There appears to be 3 guides missing from this table - 1 2 3 195.59.45.126 (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the voting guides included in the ACE2011 template are also in my guide. I have chosen not to include those that are not so included until the authors take an affirmative step to make them a serious, public guide. If any of those authors would like their guides included, I will be happy to add them if requested. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]