User talk:Gerda Arendt/ACE 2015

Precious?
And this if you're still willing to count it. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I gave Precious to those who did not support to desysop Yngvadottir. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Similarly precious, for life but not in the context of my question #2: Callanecc (685), GorillaWarfare (672), Kirill Lokshin (261), LFaraone (694), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair, thanks for replying. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No.?
It's not clear to me what No. refers to. Is this a score you are giving the candidates, the higher the better? Liz Read! Talk! 12:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The number in the Precious list, the lower the better (the longer the trust), - mentioned by Callanecc above. - No, I don't give any advice, just observations. My personal view is probably clear, for example that there is a consensus when the only argument "against" is "I wrote this article". Surprises me again and again how people think it would get any clearer with more participants. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, Gerda. I think the value for me in voting guides is that they all seem to offer different perspectives on the candidates based on what they value, their assessments and how well the editor believe the candidate would fit into work as an arbitrator. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Go study ;) - only I will not guide. Someone precious to me, for whatever years ago, could still seem not a good arb to me, and if for me, not necessarily for you. I will not support someone who supported to desysop Yngvadottir, for example. Yes, it was "correct", but for me, it was not "right". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that my rather provoking "Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles" didn't cause a reaction so far. I am also surprised how many candidates comment on the recent AE case while I used it only as an example (of unfortunately many possible) and asked for suggestions (!) to overcome the present state of "enforcement", - a term I would be happy to drop completely, as not appropriate between volunteer collaborators on the same project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Mahensingha?
Listed on your chart as "retired" but still on the ballot paper and no mention of retirement on their user page or talk page? Pam D  12:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:PamD, User:Mahensingha is blocked for a week. This happened on the 28th and led to a very temporary retirement - the notice was added and later removed. So the chart should no longer say retired. Doug Weller (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation! Pam  D  13:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No more blocked or retired. The issue is redressed with the active participation of good wikipedians who asked admin to rethink. But, I really don't know Why does it happen to me at this juncture.--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015
Hi. Now it's over, while we're waiting for the results I can now expand on some of the thoughts I expressed during the campaign. Whether you supported or opposed my candidacy is of course entirely up to you - important is that you participated in the process. Whether or not I am offered a seat on the Committee is immaterial - I'm not sure I ever wanted to stand in the first place. If I am elected, I will concern myself with the day-to-day work of the Committee. If not, I will seek to bring about reforms of the electoral process, mainly focusing on the need for questions and voter guides to be at least objective and kept free of gender related and other socio-political barnstorming. I will be looking to you for support, and once again, thank you for taking part in this year's ACE. Regards,--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)