Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2016 elections/Candidates

{| style="width:90%; border:1px solid #A3B1BF;" cellspacing="10" align="center"




 * Links for Iazyges:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated processes (FLC, FLRC)?
 * A: Some, I have mostly stayed within MILHIST when reviewing FLC's


 * 2. Why do you believe you'd make a good delegate?
 * A: I am a fast learner, I have done some work in PR, some work in GA, and some work in the A class for MILHIST, overall I believe I would make a good candidate based on willingness and time to learn, paired with (some) experience in the subject.


 * 3. Are you aware of the the procedures on closing FLC/FLRC candidates?
 * A: Yes, although I question a user subpage being the best way to hold it.


 * 4. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
 * A: (in CT) I am usually on from around 7-7:20, and around 3:3-8:00 on weekdays, and most of saturday other than at around 2:00-4:50 PM. For sunday I am on at around 12:00 PM-8 PM


 * 5. Question from PresN: Why are you interested in becoming an FLC delegate?
 * A: Partly for experience, I feel that I could gain a lot of experience working on the inside (if the community wants me). A lot of free time, and a desire to take on responsibility, all around mostly for the community.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 6. Question from Giants2008: What one change, if any, would you make to improve the featured list process?
 * A Hm, that is a difficult one, I would say the creation of a bot much like Legobot with RFC, due to the fact that FLC is separated into sections (history, Video gaming, biology, etc etc), this could be facilitated by programming a bot, or else have an already existing bot expand into sending messages much like the "please comment on" of RFC, it would say "Please review." Obviously you would be able to set a limit like RFC, and choose areas. This would be done in order to pull more interest in the area, as FLC's rarely pull more than a few responders, and often getting more than a handful of responders takes months. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 7. Question from User:Dharmadhyaksha: FLCs get low response and also take longer time than FACs despite the fact that mostly the content present in lists is far less than what articles have. Do you think this should change and how do you plan to if yes?
 * A. Yes, it definitely should change, I think one of the best way to improve responses would be to take the sections of the FLC, like art or history, and put in RFC-like code, and allow people to set a maximum of how many of that category they would like to be sent, it would contain a link, and be something like "Review Requested", the only problem with this would be advertising the creation of the bot to the community, because the bot cannot raise responses if only the amount of people who normally review see it and sign up for it, so if it is created, it would have to be advertised.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Links for The Rambling Man:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated processes (FLC, FLRC)?
 * A: I've done a few dozen FLs and used to be both a FL director and delegate.


 * 2. Why do you believe you'd make a good delegate?
 * A: Plenty of experience and an eye for detail. Plus I'll have plenty of time on my hands in days and weeks to come.


 * 3. Are you aware of the the procedures on closing FLC/FLRC candidates?
 * A: Yes.


 * 4. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
 * A: Usually around UTC daytime hours.


 * 5. Question from PresN: It's been nearly 4.5 years since you were last an FLC director; why are you interested in becoming an FLC delegate again?
 * A: I've got some more time on my hands (as I indicated above) and I'd like to get back to some more content-based activities.


 * 6. Question from Chris Troutman: You're facing an ARBCOM decision due to some suboptimal actions on your part. Why would the community place you in any position of trust in light of this situation?
 * A: Great question. Yes, I've been sanctioned for being uncivil, something which I accept.  I didn't accept the manner in which the case was conducted, but that's neither here nor there.  I am a simple editor and have done nothing in my editing history to jeopardise or compromise the featured list process.  In fact I've been a very strong advocate of the FL process, being part of the push to get it featured on the main page.  As to why the community would trust me?  That's not a real question.  There's no such thing as "community trust".  The trust in my ability to a good job here will boil down to the individuals that know what I do and my pledge to those who don't that I will not disappoint them here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 7. Question from User:Dharmadhyaksha: FLCs get low response and also take longer time than FACs despite the fact that mostly the content present in lists is far less than what articles have. Do you think this should change and how do you plan to if yes?
 * A. Yes, I think this should change. I don't honestly know how you can make more people interested in a particular process.  When I directed it, I was keen to get folks to review other folks' lists, and getting some main page exposure (i.e. WP:TFL) was a proper carrot.  Realistically it's not down to FL delegates to sell the FL process to the rest of the world, but more main page exposure wouldn't be a bad thing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)