QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 26th May 2009, 12:12am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 25th May 2009, 11:46pm)
Gee, after looking into Boothroyd's past activities, I must declare my amazement at how corrupt Wikipedia was shown to be in his case.
EATCODO —Every Abuse That Can Occur Does OccurGiven the utter lack of accountability in the system, it's a safe bet that the actual level of corruption is 10 to 100 times what they ever get around to discovering.
Jon (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
Indeed. Ironically, Slim Virgin and Majorly seem to agree with you! They miss the point and irony, of course.
QUOTE
Suggestion for the future
Could we make it a stipulation in future that all ArbCom candidates must publicly disclose previous accounts before the election? If there are privacy concerns, they should at least disclose publicly the number of accounts, timeframe, and number of edits with those accounts, then send the usernames to Jimbo.
As things stand, some candidates are asked if they've had previous accounts, and some aren't. Some give clear answers, some give ambiguous ones. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The names should be sent to the AC, not Jimmy. One point of failure is unacceptable, and the trend is to move away from the old model. If people don't trust to disclose to the AC itself, why are they even running? rootology/equality 03:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
They may well be asked to disclose, but people lie. Majorly talk 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The names of accounts can't be sent to the ArbCom if there are privacy concerns, because we don't know who all members of the ArbCom are, as this case shows clearly. We can't ask people to send names of previous accounts that might identify them into a void. If not Jimbo, then Cary, but it has to be a known, named, responsible person. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The simple solution for this is the ensure that the current committee is trusted by the community. This is needed for other reasons, and is part of why this why this is happening right now. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Part of the reason it's not fair to ask people to trust it is that we don't know who everyone is (or used to be), so we can't just say "the solution is for the Committtee to be trusted." It's a vicious circle. Best thing is if ArbCom candidates are formally asked to disclose upfront. If they can be trusted, they won't mind doing it, surely. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)