Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ 2009 ArbCom Elections _ The circus hits town

Posted by: privatemusings

So the nominations for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009 are open. In other news, the voting method, the no. of candidates being elected, and their terms are not yet established, so if you'd like to nominate yourself for an indeterminate amount of time, to be decided in an indeterminate way, to a committee of indeterminate no. roll up, roll up, roll up :-)

ps. I was feeling a bit amused by the above, and decided to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Withdrawn_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=324960295(partly as an intensely thought through socio-political and philosophical comment on the elections and the process) - unfortunately it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Withdrawn_candidates&diff=324961291&oldid=324960295. I'm not sure if that means I'm running or not.

Posted by: dtobias

I don't think they were actually saying that you can't withdraw your candidacy, but only conditioning this upon your actually being a candidate to begin with.

Posted by: Wizardman

I promise not to run in this year's election.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Wizardman @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:12am) *

I promise not to run in this year's election.


No objections from me--I would not vote for the re-election of any sitting arbitrator due to the wrongful treatment I received at the hands of the ArbCom this year. But I would be interested to know what, if anything, you feel you've accomplished as an arbitrator?

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 10th November 2009, 4:20am) *

QUOTE(Wizardman @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:12am) *

I promise not to run in this year's election.


No objections from me--I would not vote for the re-election of any sitting arbitrator due to the wrongful treatment I received at the hands of the ArbCom this year. But I would be interested to know what, if anything, you feel you've accomplished as an arbitrator?


I think the ArbCom's performance this year was the best since the ArbCom was established. They've got a ways to go, but I think they made some progress.

Posted by: Wizardman

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 9th November 2009, 11:20pm) *

QUOTE(Wizardman @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:12am) *

I promise not to run in this year's election.


No objections from me--I would not vote for the re-election of any sitting arbitrator due to the wrongful treatment I received at the hands of the ArbCom this year. But I would be interested to know what, if anything, you feel you've accomplished as an arbitrator?


Well, seeing as how my motions kept your restrictions from remaining indefinite and how I supported the complete lifting the second time through...

But it's obviously natural to be anti-arbcom when you've been sanctioned by them. As for accomplishments, my drafted cases were handled quick. No three month battlegrounds from this guy.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Wizardman @ Tue 10th November 2009, 4:40am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 9th November 2009, 11:20pm) *

QUOTE(Wizardman @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:12am) *

I promise not to run in this year's election.


No objections from me--I would not vote for the re-election of any sitting arbitrator due to the wrongful treatment I received at the hands of the ArbCom this year. But I would be interested to know what, if anything, you feel you've accomplished as an arbitrator?


Well, seeing as how my motions kept your restrictions from remaining indefinite and how I supported the complete lifting the second time through...

But it's obviously natural to be anti-arbcom when you've been sanctioned by them. As for accomplishments, my drafted cases were handled quick. No three month battlegrounds from this guy.


Your speed in handling your cases was appreciated. One reason why you all need to create more sub-committees is to handle other matters so that you all can concentrate on cases.

By the way, I believe I'm under ArbCom sanction also, and it's similar to Everyking's. I'm ok with it, however.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Wizardman @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:40am) *

Well, seeing as how my motions kept your restrictions from remaining indefinite and how I supported the complete lifting the second time through...

But it's obviously natural to be anti-arbcom when you've been sanctioned by them. As for accomplishments, my drafted cases were handled quick. No three month battlegrounds from this guy.


True, I'd forgotten about that--a few arbitrators did vote to lift the sanctions, so in that respect I was too harsh. But when I was talking about accomplishments, I wasn't really talking about issues of speed and productivity. What I really meant was "how did you contribute to the development of the ArbCom's working philosophy and relationship with the community?" Do you think you facilitated the continuation of the status quo, or do you think the ArbCom has improved in some basic way through your contributions?

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:48am) *

By the way, I believe I'm under ArbCom sanction also, and it's similar to Everyking's. I'm ok with it, however.


You're an ArbCom-convicted stalker like me? In that case, I must say that it was highly irresponsible of the ArbCom to appoint you to its short-lived "Advisory Council"--after all, we stalkers are extremely dangerous people. laugh.gif Did they put you under Tony Sidaway's mentorship too? That's when you know they really like you!

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 10th November 2009, 3:25pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 10th November 2009, 4:20am) *

QUOTE(Wizardman @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:12am) *

I promise not to run in this year's election.


No objections from me--I would not vote for the re-election of any sitting arbitrator due to the wrongful treatment I received at the hands of the ArbCom this year. But I would be interested to know what, if anything, you feel you've accomplished as an arbitrator?


I think the ArbCom's performance this year was the best since the ArbCom was established. They've got a ways to go, but I think they made some progress.


Likewise. Big improvement.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(Viridae @ Mon 9th November 2009, 9:55pm) *
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 10th November 2009, 3:25pm) *
I think the ArbCom's performance this year was the best since the ArbCom was established. They've got a ways to go, but I think they made some progress.
Likewise. Big improvement.

Right. A big improvement from "insanely inept well beyond any attempt at parody" to simply "incredibly slow-moving and dunderheaded, giving a bad connotation to the words 'abitration' and 'committee'". Also a big move from actively corrupt to merely incompetent.

You guys are like the child who sees a pile of crap under the tree on Christmas morning and assumes there must be a pony under there somewhere.

Posted by: Somey

I guess the way I see it, the current ArbCom is an improvement on previous versions in so far as they seem to understand that the way to herd cats is not to simply stand somewhere and yell "heeere, kitty-kitty." They seem willing to at least try new approaches, though I don't think we can say that they've found one that works yet.

Logically, as Wikipedia content becomes more stable, the community becomes more unstable, as various individuals and factions fight over less and less "free" territory until everything becomes contested in some way. They'll eventually have to split the ArbCom up into different groups based on type-of-dispute, just to handle the increasing workload - but as long as membership is more a popularity contest than a review of who's qualified at dispute-resolution, it's doubtful this will do much more than make the system more bureaucratic.

Ironically, increased user attrition is probably the one positive thing the ArbCom and its descendants can look forward to. If they're all smart enough to encourage it, the whole thing might even become somewhat manageable again.

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 10th November 2009, 1:55am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 10th November 2009, 3:25pm) *

I think the ArbCom's performance this year was the best since the ArbCom was established. They've got a ways to go, but I think they made some progress.


Likewise. Big improvement.

Me three. But then I would say that, woudn't I?

Posted by: thekohser

The current ArbCom proved to me that it will not tolerate someone who calls passionately for stronger ethics and better accountability within the Wikipedia community, but I have to say, they did so in a largely non-confrontational way. Also, Risker's re-ban of my primary account has liberated me to do the other things I'm happier doing on Wikipedia, without detection or interference. So, that's a good thing.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Improvement or not, the level at which the Arbcom operates remains appallingly poor. There is not a single current member that I would ever vote for, nor do I see any suitable candidates.

Rather, I would like to see the entire inquisition, oops ... institution, abandoned.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 10th November 2009, 12:16am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Mon 9th November 2009, 9:55pm) *
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 10th November 2009, 3:25pm) *
I think the ArbCom's performance this year was the best since the ArbCom was established. They've got a ways to go, but I think they made some progress.
Likewise. Big improvement.

Right. A big improvement from "insanely inept well beyond any attempt at parody" to simply "incredibly slow-moving and dunderheaded, giving a bad connotation to the words 'abitration' and 'committee'". Also a big move from actively corrupt to merely incompetent.


Of course, how effective it is is ultimately irrelevant, since it is illegitimate by virtue of the manner in which it was established.

I will be running again, on the same platform as last year: to decline every case presented to it to try and prevent it from actually being able to do anything.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Tue 10th November 2009, 8:24am) *

Improvement or not, the level at which the Arbcom operates remains appallingly poor. There is not a single current member that I would ever vote for, nor do I see any suitable candidates.

Rather, I would like to see the entire inquisition, oops ... institution, abandoned.


With the possible exception of Newyorkbrad, the Arbcom membership has repeatedly shown itself to be utterly incapable of handling any responsibility that requires transparency, tact and intelligence. At best, their behavior has been inconsistent. At worst, they have displayed high levels of arrogance, venality and blatant lying that has given the committee's rulings the scent of an unflushed toilet.

In many ways, Arbcom is a thankless task. But does that mean that only the stupidest members of the "community" are willing to handle the task?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 10th November 2009, 9:18am) *

In many ways, Arbcom is a thankless task. But does that mean that only the stupidest members of the "community" are willing to handle the task?


As with all things in life, you get what you pay for.

Posted by: Jaranda

So far a slow start for nominations compared to last year, one user who I'm not familar with his work (Fritzpoll), and another who's just trolling that page and I highly recomend he withdraw(Kmweber).

Posted by: Nerd

Arbcom has improved a tad since last year. Just a tad though. There are, however, still too many useless arbitrators, who fail to deal with actual problematic disputes that are harming the project, and on the other hand will immediately seek to sanction somebody who is unpopular, or who made one mistake that did not effect the encyclopedia in any way. They have their priorities all wrong, that much is clear.

Posted by: thekohser

Criteria:

Editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits as of 00:00 UTC on 10 November 2009. For the purposes of this requirement, deleted edits may be counted.

Editors must be either 18 years of age or older, or of majority age in their place of residence, whichever is higher.

Editors will be required (per this thread) to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats. (See also, WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit.)




How do I determine if I've 1,000 mainspace edits across Thekohser and Wikipedia Review?


Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:40pm) *

So far a slow start for nominations compared to last year, one user who I'm not familar with his work (Fritzpoll)

Fritzpoll runs a bot which updates a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO in Lara's user-space.

Not sure but this could be intended to replace the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Living_people which was created following my http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-April/093087.html. That page was regularly updated by one Erwin85Bot until somebody shut it down in July 2009.

Fritzpoll's bot has (or had) another task to list articles found on other-language Wikipedias but not on English. I know I found literal thousands of such topics myself when researching rivers/mountains/lakes etc. of central and eastern Europe, and I translated maybe a dozen of them. I'd be happy to see a more coordinated effort in that area.

From what I've seen I'm pleased with his work, but I'd have to see the other candidates before commenting further.

QUOTE

another who's just trolling that page and I highly recomend he withdraw(Kmweber).

Hah!

So ummm… why do you hate Wikipedia? tongue.gif

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th November 2009, 6:12pm) *

Criteria:

Editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits as of 00:00 UTC on 10 November 2009. For the purposes of this requirement, deleted edits may be counted.

Editors must be either 18 years of age or older, or of majority age in their place of residence, whichever is higher.

Editors will be required (per this thread) to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats. (See also, WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit.)




How do I determine if I've 1,000 mainspace edits across Thekohser and Wikipedia Review?


Eh, you're banned. If you're banned you don't exist.

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Tue 10th November 2009, 1:53pm) *

I will be running again, on the same platform as last year: to decline every case presented to it to try and prevent it from actually being able to do anything.


Since when did Kurt get unbanned?

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 10th November 2009, 2:16pm) *


Since when did Kurt get unbanned?


He left Wikipedia during the ban discussion. Cf. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Kurt_Weber

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th November 2009, 3:12pm) *
How do I determine if I've 1,000 mainspace edits across Thekohser and Wikipedia Review?
Like http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Thekohser〈=en&wiki=wikipedia.

(You do.)

Edit: Actually, by my count Thekohser alone has 1073 mainspace edits, counting deleted ones (I counted the deleted ones manually, since I'm not aware of any way to automatically sort them by namespace).

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 10th November 2009, 7:23pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th November 2009, 3:12pm) *
How do I determine if I've 1,000 mainspace edits across Thekohser and Wikipedia Review?
Like http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Thekohser〈=en&wiki=wikipedia.

(You do.)

Edit: Actually, by my count Thekohser alone has 1073 mainspace edits, counting deleted ones (I counted the deleted ones manually, since I'm not aware of any way to automatically sort them by namespace).

Your links are fuxored, see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27215.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 10th November 2009, 4:41pm) *
Your links are fuxored, see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27215.
I won't even pretend to be capable of understanding how that happened. Still, they now produce the amusing statement "wikipedia is not a valid wiki", so that's something.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 10th November 2009, 11:40am) *

and another who's just trolling that page and I highly recomend he withdraw(Kmweber).


No, I'm not.

Posted by: Fritz

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 10th November 2009, 6:12pm) *


Fritzpoll's bot has (or had) another task to list articles found on other-language Wikipedias but not on English. I know I found literal thousands of such topics myself when researching rivers/mountains/lakes etc. of central and eastern Europe, and I translated maybe a dozen of them. I'd be happy to see a more coordinated effort in that area.



This bot is running (as we speak) and some of it's output can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Danish/Missing articles. Template at the bottom of that page shows that not much is done so far, but that's because the thing takes an age to run for each Wikipedia. Current doing the German Wikipedia so that'll be a few days.

I saw Jenna/Lara request a bot for the BLP AfDs and fulfilled it because it's a worthwhile thing to keep track of all things BLP-related on-wiki.

Posted by: thekohser

The criteria say nothing about being banned.

So, if I've got the necessary edits, heck, if someone wants to nominate me...

Greg

Posted by: Shalom

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 10th November 2009, 2:23pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th November 2009, 3:12pm) *
How do I determine if I've 1,000 mainspace edits across Thekohser and Wikipedia Review?
Like http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Thekohser〈=en&wiki=wikipedia.

I clicked that link and it said "wikipedia is not a valid wiki". biggrin.gif (Oh, you already noted as much.)

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th November 2009, 9:34pm) *

The criteria say nothing about being banned.

So, if I've got the necessary edits, heck, if someone wants to nominate me...

Greg


You've found a loophole. Congratulations.

It would be kind of impossible to, you know, answer questions and such, and if an arbitrator can't even edit... actually, that sounds like a good idea!

Posted by: Happy drinker

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 10th November 2009, 11:42pm) *

It would be kind of impossible to, you know, answer questions and such, and if an arbitrator can't even edit... actually, that sounds like a good idea!

He can do everything on his talk page. And of course he could get his case reviewed by the ArbCom.

Hm, yes, I'd vote for him.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 10th November 2009, 6:42pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th November 2009, 9:34pm) *

The criteria say nothing about being banned.

So, if I've got the necessary edits, heck, if someone wants to nominate me...

Greg


You've found a loophole. Congratulations.

It would be kind of impossible to, you know, answer questions and such, and if an arbitrator can't even edit... actually, that sounds like a good idea!


ArbCom is self-nom only...

Posted by: EricBarbour

I wonder.....should I bring up certain Arbcommers' chronic inability to deal with
the Notorious Shankbone, causing them to ignore or refuse personal requests
from WPers in good standing, including a number of admins?

Just wondering.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 10th November 2009, 11:05pm) *

I wonder.....should I bring up certain Arbcommers' chronic inability to deal with
the Notorious Shankbone, causing them to ignore or refuse personal requests
from WPers in good standing, including a number of admins?

Just wondering.


The FT2/OrangeMarlin fiasco probably has made the Committee reluctant to take the initiative on their own to censure editors who are causing too many problems for the wiki. Thus, they have to wait until someone takes the time to build a case against the problematic individuals and then make a formal RfAR.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th November 2009, 7:12pm) *

Criteria:

Editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits as of 00:00 UTC on 10 November 2009. For the purposes of this requirement, deleted edits may be counted.

So, users that up their count by randomly removing external links from bunches of pages, or by stalking someone and reverting all their edits, will quickly qualify, whereas users that carefully prepare new articles in their userspace until they think they're ready to publish, never will.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Wed 11th November 2009, 1:24am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th November 2009, 7:12pm) *

Criteria:

Editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits as of 00:00 UTC on 10 November 2009. For the purposes of this requirement, deleted edits may be counted.

So, users that up their count by randomly removing external links from bunches of pages, or by stalking someone and reverting all their edits, will quickly qualify, whereas users that carefully prepare new articles in their userspace until they think they're ready to publish, never will.

Don't know about never, but basically yeah.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I am almost bored enough to run. Almost. Not quite.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:54pm) *

He can do everything on his talk page. And of course he could get his case reviewed by the ArbCom.


I would expect that it would be regarded as the proper thing to do for him to recuse himself from any proceedings related to such a case.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 10th November 2009, 8:58pm) *
I would expect that it would be regarded as the proper thing to do for him to recuse himself from any proceedings related to such a case.
Yes, but since when has it been proper for members of the ArbCom to do the proper thing?

Posted by: thekohser

Is Kurt Weber aware of the fact that http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Schiedsgericht#R.C3.BCcktrittsbegr.C3.BCndung when it became clear to them that they lacked a community mandate?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Tue 10th November 2009, 10:24pm) *
So, users that up their count by randomly removing external links from bunches of pages, or by stalking someone and reverting all their edits, will quickly qualify, whereas users that carefully prepare new articles in their userspace until they think they're ready to publish, never will.
That's why they should move the articles from their userspace rather than just copying and pasting.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 11th November 2009, 5:26am) *

Is Kurt Weber aware of the fact that http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Schiedsgericht#R.C3.BCcktrittsbegr.C3.BCndung when it became clear to them that they lacked a community mandate?


How was that situation addressed? Did their ArbCom shut down, did it continue with only two members, or did they quickly bring in new members?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:54pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 10th November 2009, 11:42pm) *

It would be kind of impossible to, you know, answer questions and such, and if an arbitrator can't even edit... actually, that sounds like a good idea!

He can do everything on his talk page. And of course he could get his case reviewed by the ArbCom.

Hm, yes, I'd vote for him.


Why not? The whole "banned" editor concept is a piece of shit -- the current arbitrators themselves openly acknowledge the policy doesn't work and cannot be enforced, but they are too stupid to address changing it. Greg's candidacy could be used to raise the issue of so-called "banned" and "indef blocked" editors -- a contradiction in an environment that bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- and question how a "community" united on the concept of creating a reference text has become subdivided with inconsistent enforcement of policies.

Run, Greg, run! wink.gif

Posted by: Happy drinker

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:06pm) *

Greg's candidacy could be used to raise the issue of so-called "banned" and "indef blocked" editors -- a contradiction in an environment that bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- and question how a "community" united on the concept of creating a reference text has become subdivided with inconsistent enforcement of policies.

It's been discussed before, including Greg's case and one or two others that will no doubt be familiar to many here. Greg may be interested to know that I supported his unblock and was one of several people left with their credibility dented when he rapidly achieved a re-block.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Wed 11th November 2009, 12:07pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:06pm) *

Greg's candidacy could be used to raise the issue of so-called "banned" and "indef blocked" editors -- a contradiction in an environment that bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- and question how a "community" united on the concept of creating a reference text has become subdivided with inconsistent enforcement of policies.

It's been discussed before, including Greg's case and one or two others that will no doubt be familiar to many here. Greg may be interested to know that I supported his unblock and was one of several people left with their credibility dented when he rapidly achieved a re-block.


He didn't "achieve" a reblock -- Arbcom's stupidest arbitrator took it upon herself to reblock him because of some sassy edit summaries that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive to Wikipedia's well-being. ermm.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 12:10pm) *

QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Wed 11th November 2009, 12:07pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:06pm) *

Greg's candidacy could be used to raise the issue of so-called "banned" and "indef blocked" editors -- a contradiction in an environment that bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- and question how a "community" united on the concept of creating a reference text has become subdivided with inconsistent enforcement of policies.

It's been discussed before, including Greg's case and one or two others that will no doubt be familiar to many here. Greg may be interested to know that I supported his unblock and was one of several people left with their credibility dented when he rapidly achieved a re-block.


He didn't "achieve" a reblock -- Arbcom's stupidest arbitrator took it upon herself to reblock him because of some sassy edit summaries that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive to Wikipedia's well-being. ermm.gif


I'm sorry that I disappointed you, Happy Drinker. How did you feel about Shoemaker's Holiday deliberately withholding from Sage Ross the audio file of the Board candidates' interviews, in the very face of Ross saying that he would edit the file in a fair and impartial manner?

I agree with Horsey's interpretation here. In the end, I'm really more able to achieve what I want to achieve on Wikipedia, without interference, by being "banned" under my best-known identities. So, ultimately, while it is a ding on my outside-Wikipedia reputation, I guess; practically speaking, banned is the better way to go.

Thanks for your unblock support, though! You were one among about 30 people. I hope they're not all similarly duped as you are to be "dented" by what was in reality a stupid re-ban.

Posted by: Happy drinker

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 6:10pm) *

He didn't "achieve" a reblock -- Arbcom's stupidest arbitrator took it upon herself to reblock him because of some sassy edit summaries that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive to Wikipedia's well-being. ermm.gif

I chose the word "achieve" carefully. Note I didn't say "earn".

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 11th November 2009, 6:30pm) *

Thanks for your unblock support, though! You were one among about 30 people. I hope they're not all similarly duped as you are to be "dented" by what was in reality a stupid re-ban.

It was more than 30; there was a great deal behind the scenes. Of course, if yopu can prove that the ban was stupid, you can appeal and good luck to you. However, I suspect that you won't get as much support as last time.

Posted by: Nerd

At the rate things are going, every candidate who runs will be getting elected. Risker http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=325264095 the number of candidates running last year compared to this year. It's kinda low, but understandable.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Nerd @ Wed 11th November 2009, 1:03pm) *

At the rate things are going, every candidate who runs will be getting elected. Risker http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=325264095 the number of candidates running last year compared to this year. It's kinda low, but understandable.


Risker also notes that “the manner in which arbitrators, supposedly selected for their good judgment and wise counsel, are treated with suspicion, condescension and distrust from the moment of their appointment, has been pointed out to me by several highly respected editors as the reason that they are not interested in participating.” This, of course, is a phony argument.

“Highly respected editors” don’t have to fear being “treated with suspicion, condescension and distrust” if they do not act in a manner that triggers suspicion, condescension and distrust from the “community.”

You cannot vigorously prosecute some people for sockpuppetry while openly stating that you are allowing others to operate socks without fear of being blocked. You cannot loudly yank away the “tools” without due process from an adult admin with no history of abusing his rank but quietly return the tools to a desysopped teenager with a blatant history of irresponsible behavior. You cannot claim that you welcome dialogue with editors but then censor attempts by the “community” to ask questions of the arbitrators or ignore the comments left by the “community” in RfArb.

Unfortunately, Risker and her posse keep forgetting that they need to flush their own toilets before complaining about the smell from other bathrooms. As usual, Arbcom is pretending the rest of the "community" is out of step and they are the only ones who are right.


Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 6:21pm) *

As usual, Arbcom is pretending the rest of the "community" is out of step and they are the only ones who are right.


This is one of the biggest problems with arbcom - they think too highly of themselves and their position.

And despite moaning and groaning about all the abuse arbitrators get, Coren is running again. I think he has had his time, and failed to do a decent job this past year.

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 11th November 2009, 2:58am) *
I would expect that it would be regarded as the proper thing to do for him to recuse himself from any proceedings related to such a case.


There is no rule requiring him to do so, however, and there is broad precedent for Arbcom members not recusing from matters in which they are widely considered to be involved.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 10th November 2009, 9:40am) *

So far a slow start for nominations compared to last year, one user who I'm not familar with his work (Fritzpoll), and another who's just trolling that page and I highly recomend he withdraw(Kmweber).
Who is Chutznik (T-C-L-K-R-D) ? His or her platform has these attractive features:
QUOTE
When in doubt, desysop an administrator. If doubt exists whether an admin retains the community's trust, the default should be to desysop and refer back to the community. I see no distinction between "desysop" and "require a reconfirmation vote."

When in doubt, do not ban users, and unban those who sincerely request it. If we are serious that "anyone can edit" this encyclopedia, we must stop handing out bans like candy. ArbCom has trended toward topic-bans instead of site-bans where possible, but it can go further. Durova's Wikipedia:Standard offer would guide my approach. If a user can and wants to improve the encyclopedia, we should grant them a legitimate return.


Edit: Oho, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=300676001:
QUOTE
I have alternatively "retired" or had indef-blocked five accounts with 100 or more edits (Placeholder account, Shalom, Buki ben Yogli, Crystal whacker, Kivel).

We also have him saying in reply to Iridescent,
QUOTE
I never posted death threats against you on WR, as you claim.


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 10:10am) *

He didn't "achieve" a reblock -- Arbcom's stupidest arbitrator took it upon herself to reblock him because of some sassy edit summaries that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive to Wikipedia's well-being. ermm.gif

Is this like medals in the armed forces, with a difference between "winning" them and "earning" them? You earn some, you can only win others?

Some earn reblocks, some achieve reblocks, some have reblocks thrust upon them.... ermm.gif

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 11th November 2009, 10:12pm) *

We also have him saying in reply to Iridescent,
QUOTE
I never posted death threats against you on WR, as you claim.


http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23411&st=63 (I don't think it's a remotely credible threat, given that he doesn't know my name, age, employer or place of residence, but it's certainly there.)


(adding) - Oh, I thought he'd re-raised the matter - I didn't realize you were quoting a months-old post. Let it lie. If you're going to link to that thread, best to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_10#Renaming_this_thread.3F, as that was one of those threads where context was significant (albeit a thread in which sentiments are expressed that would make most WR readers choke on their Coco Pops).

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 12th November 2009, 12:13am) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 11th November 2009, 10:12pm) *

We also have him saying in reply to Iridescent,
QUOTE
I never posted death threats against you on WR, as you claim.


http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23411&st=63 (I don't think it's a remotely credible threat, given that he doesn't know my name, age, employer or place of residence, but it's certainly there.)


Looks like he's referring to killing your reputation rather than ending your life.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 10th November 2009, 7:09am) *

Ironically, increased user attrition is probably the one positive thing the ArbCom and its descendants can look forward to. If they're all smart enough to encourage it, the whole thing might even become somewhat manageable again.


I guess one way to do this is by being more severe in handing out bans? I thought that the leaders of the recent Eastern Europe mailing list should have received lifetime bans instead of one year topic bans, and even those may not pass.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? laugh.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:44am) *

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? laugh.gif

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 10th November 2009, 3:20pm) *

QUOTE(Wizardman @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:12am) *

I promise not to run in this year's election.


No objections from me--I would not vote for the re-election of any sitting arbitrator due to the wrongful treatment I received at the hands of the ArbCom this year. But I would be interested to know what, if anything, you feel you've accomplished as an arbitrator?


I thought it was good to hammer out some consensus on West Bank and Ireland naming issues, if we're talking about how the functioning of arbcom has impacted on the lay of the wiki-land. I was personally hoping for a shifting in thinking of adminship - i.e. the fact that admin conduct was more readily reviewed, and some people were desysopped, and hoping that this would lead folks to be more lenient in voting at RfAs (i.e. increase security that poor admin conduct would be reviewed more easily) to create a more fluid admin-nonadmin interface (how's that for management-speak? laugh.gif ) - but you get the idea.

Cas


Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th November 2009, 8:55pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:44am) *

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? laugh.gif

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

A couple in the very early days. See [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries#Arbitration Committee members (former)]] for the particulars, if you're curious.

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 12th November 2009, 2:17am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th November 2009, 8:55pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:44am) *

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? laugh.gif

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

A couple in the very early days. See [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries#Arbitration Committee members (former)]] for the particulars, if you're curious.

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

I can understand that it would present practical difficulties for a non-administrator to be elected as an arbitrator, I was just curious.

It seems to me that a similar objection might be raised in the case of non-administrators commenting at AN/I though, where they may equally well not have all of the relevant information available to them. Isn't it about time this ever-increasing mish-mash of admin tools was debundled, so that you could grant only the right to view deleted revisions, for instance?

Yeah, i know it'll never happen, but just as a reference point, when you, Newyorkbrad, passed RfA, rights like abuse filters and flagged revisions didn't exist. Don't you think that it's slightly dishonest for administrators to claim a mandate for the use of tools that didn't even exist when they were "promoted", yet to deny access to them to others?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 11th November 2009, 8:17pm) *
If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)
The Mediawiki software includes a "role" that has all the viewing privileges, but none of the change privileges, of an admin. Wikipedia does not avail themselves of this role, but it does exist.

It is my opinion that all arbitrators should have their rights reduced (or, as appropriate, increased) to this role for the duration of their tenure, to reduce the risk of being judge, jury, and executioner.


QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th November 2009, 8:24pm) *
It seems to me that a similar objection might be raised in the case of non-administrators commenting at AN/I though, where they may equally well not have all of the relevant information available to them. Isn't it about time this ever-increasing mish-mash of admin tools was debundled, so that you could grant only the right to view deleted revisions, for instance?

Yeah, i know it'll never happen, but just as a reference point, when you, Newyorkbrad, passed RfA, rights like abuse filters and flagged revisions didn't exist. Don't you think that it's slightly dishonest for administrators to claim a mandate for the use of tools that didn't even exist when they were "promoted", yet to deny access to them to others?
It is past time that Wikipedia deubndled admin tools. There are many admins who I would trust to use some, but not all, of the tools responsibly; debundling them would make it much easier to grant these people only the rights that they can be trusted to use responsibily.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:06am) *
It is past time that Wikipedia deubndled admin tools. There are many admins who I would trust to use some, but not all, of the tools responsibly; debundling them would make it much easier to grant these people only the rights that they can be trusted to use responsibily.

It might also make the whole desysoping thing less traumatic if administrators didn't necessarily have to lose all of their tools, only the one(s) they'd proved themselves incompetent to use,

Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 12th November 2009, 2:06pm) *

It is my opinion that....



Now why not just say, "I think that...." - although I concede the other carries so much gravitas biggrin.gif

Debundling tools is an interesting idea - what are you proposing? All be debundled so folks can ask for any combination of bits and pieces?

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th November 2009, 9:24pm) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 12th November 2009, 2:17am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th November 2009, 8:55pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:44am) *

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? laugh.gif

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

A couple in the very early days. See [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries#Arbitration Committee members (former)]] for the particulars, if you're curious.

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

I can understand that it would present practical difficulties for a non-administrator to be elected as an arbitrator, I was just curious.

It seems to me that a similar objection might be raised in the case of non-administrators commenting at AN/I though, where they may equally well not have all of the relevant information available to them. Isn't it about time this ever-increasing mish-mash of admin tools was debundled, so that you could grant only the right to view deleted revisions, for instance?

Yeah, i know it'll never happen, but just as a reference point, when you, Newyorkbrad, passed RfA, rights like abuse filters and flagged revisions didn't exist. Don't you think that it's slightly dishonest for administrators to claim a mandate for the use of tools that didn't even exist when they were "promoted", yet to deny access to them to others?

Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

As I understand it, though, we don't deny use of those particular tools to qualified others. In particular, my understanding is that there would be lots more users approved as "revision flaggers" (or whatever it will be called) than just the administator corps. (And no, I have no more information than anyone else about the timing of flagged revisions.)

FWIW, following up on your earlier question, the last person seriously asked to run for ArbCom who wasn't an administrator yet was probably me. (There was a campaign to "draft" me for arbitrator in December 2006, when I'd been seriously editing for about five months or so, and which was before my RfA in January 2007. I told everyone that I was too new and was waiting a year, and got experience in '07 as a Clerk instead.)

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:30am) *
Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

Then you clearly don't pay much attention to RfA. No reason why you should either, to be fair.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th November 2009, 10:35pm) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:30am) *
Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

Then you clearly don't pay much attention to RfA.

I pay a fair amount of attention to it, though I'm not always in agreement with the results, but that goes for everyone.

Your original question, though, doesn't suggest what a better answer would be. If a new feature accessible to admins is introduced, do you think that all 1000+ administrators should have to pass a new sub-RfA before being given access to that feature? That would be a terrible time-sink, if it could be organized at all.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th November 2009, 10:35pm) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:30am) *
Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

Then you clearly don't pay much attention to RfA. No reason why you should either, to be fair.


These idiots do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#The_Drought_at_RFA

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 11th November 2009, 10:39pm) *
If a new feature accessible to admins is introduced, do you think that all 1000+ administrators should have to pass a new sub-RfA before being given access to that feature? That would be a terrible time-sink, if it could be organized at all.


It would also be a substantial loss of admins -- at least half of them would fail their second RfA go-round, if not more.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:39am) *
If a new feature accessible to admins is introduced, do you think that all 1000+ administrators should have to pass a new sub-RfA before being given access to that feature?

In a word, yes. Anything else is simply dishonest.

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:41am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th November 2009, 10:35pm) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:30am) *
Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

Then you clearly don't pay much attention to RfA. No reason why you should either, to be fair.
These idiots do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#The_Drought_at_RFA

That talk page has got to be just about one of the most useless in the whole of wikipedia.

Posted by: Kevin

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:41pm) *


These idiots do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#The_Drought_at_RFA



Is there a graph to show the number of admin promotions vs kilobytes of pointless talk at WT:RFA?

Posted by: Anonymous editor

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Tue 10th November 2009, 2:48pm) *

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 10th November 2009, 11:40am) *

and another who's just trolling that page and I highly recomend he withdraw(Kmweber).


No, I'm not.


Yes, you are.


This is fun.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:30am) *

FWIW, following up on your earlier question, the last person seriously asked to run for ArbCom who wasn't an administrator yet was probably me. (There was a campaign to "draft" me for arbitrator in December 2006, when I'd been seriously editing for about five months or so, and which was before my RfA in January 2007. I told everyone that I was too new and was waiting a year, and got experience in '07 as a Clerk instead.)

Bullshit, it was Giano. You can't have forgotten.

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 12th November 2009, 4:00am) *

That talk page has got to be just about one of the most useless in the whole of wikipedia.

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&since=&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 12th November 2009, 2:48pm) *

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&since=&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html

There was once a time when I thought things could be changed.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 12th November 2009, 9:48am) *

Bullshit, it was Giano. You can't have forgotten.

You are right about Giano, of course. I'll let the readership decide whether it's more likely that something slipped my mind or that I was BSing, since of course I'm widely known for making stuff up like that.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 12th November 2009, 11:59am) *

I'm widely known for making stuff up like that.


Occupational Avocational Hazard

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Happy drinker

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 12th November 2009, 4:06am) *

There are many admins who I would trust to use some, but not all, of the tools responsibly; debundling them would make it much easier to grant these people only the rights that they can be trusted to use responsibily.

I value Kelly's opinion and I suspect we have many of the same people in mind. However, by definition an admin has passed RfA hence has the trust of the community to use all the tools. If he/she abuses any of the tools there should be consideration of a desysop, removing all the tools.

If they ever do debundle, then of course you'd have RfAs for each set of tools.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:48pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 12th November 2009, 4:00am) *

That talk page has got to be just about one of the most useless in the whole of wikipedia.

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&since=&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html


I think that's the best laugh I've had all day.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 11th November 2009, 9:17pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th November 2009, 8:55pm) *

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

A couple in the very early days. See [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries#Arbitration Committee members (former)]] for the particulars, if you're curious.

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

There's nothing to say that an administrator must pass "Requests for adminship" to become one. In fact, there is a diff floating around somewhere from Jimmy from within the past year saying exactly the opposite.

If someone can "win" the Arbitration Committee election, there is absolutely no reason for them to not automatically be granted adminship. Adminship is about trust, after all.

That said, as far as I'm aware, it would be trivial to have a steward create a custom user group for the English Wikipedia that only included certain user rights (like the user right to view deleted content) without including the rest of the admin package.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 12th November 2009, 10:55pm) *

That said, as far as I'm aware, it would be trivial to have a steward create a custom user group for the English Wikipedia that only included certain user rights (like the user right to view deleted content) without including the rest of the admin package.


It would be trivial, but would it be trivial getting approval from the community to do it?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Well http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements&curid=24772366&diff=325536446&oldid=325526647?

Posted by: Guest

Its Bauder Time!

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 13th November 2009, 1:27am) *

Well http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements&curid=24772366&diff=325536446&oldid=325526647?


I suppose it's appropriate--if there's gonna be a circus, everyone's favorite "clown" ought to be involved. laugh.gif

Seriously, whatever my criticisms of the current ArbCom might be, it's no longer the hopelessly corrupt and destructive entity that it was when Fred Bauder was on it. The idea of bringing any of those old arbs back is laughable--Bauder should go clown around with his own "Wikinfo" project, supposing it still exists, and leave WP in peace.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Thu 12th November 2009, 3:42pm) *
However, by definition an admin has passed RfA hence has the trust of the community to use all the tools.
This is demonstrably false, of course. There several tools that are not within the scope of the privileges of an ordinary administrator, and so passing RfA does not gain one "all the tools". On top of that, RfA isn't about trust, it's about politics; passing RfA merely demonstrates that the candidate has sucked enough of the right cocks and not too many of the wrong ones, and very little more.

I've only heard two arguments so far against debundling; they are (a) "It would be too much bother" and (b) "I worked hard to get those tools; you can take them away from me over my dead body and not a moment sooner". The first argument at least has some merit; Wikipedia wold be wise to ban anyone who makes the latter.

I leave it to the observer to decide which of these arguments is being offered by Happy Drunkard.

Posted by: Guest

QUOTE(Guest @ Fri 13th November 2009, 12:44am) *

Its Bauder Time!

For some reason, we unregistered users are able to post in this thread. What's the special occasion?

Posted by: Enter my name?

I'll be damned.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(Guest @ Thu 12th November 2009, 9:28pm) *

QUOTE(Guest @ Fri 13th November 2009, 12:44am) *

Its Bauder Time!

For some reason, we unregistered users are able to post in this thread. What's the special occasion?

If you didn't think you'd be able to post in the thread, what led you to try?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

What a choice...Jehochman, Bauder, Wehwalt, Kurt, Shalom, Foz...

To quote Peggy Lee...is that all there is? ermm.gif

QUOTE(Enter my name? @ Thu 12th November 2009, 9:32pm) *

I'll be damned.


You will be. wink.gif

Posted by: Guest

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Fri 13th November 2009, 2:32am) *

QUOTE(Guest @ Thu 12th November 2009, 9:28pm) *

QUOTE(Guest @ Fri 13th November 2009, 12:44am) *

Its Bauder Time!

For some reason, we unregistered users are able to post in this thread. What's the special occasion?

If you didn't think you'd be able to post in the thread, what led you to try?

I saw that another unregistered user had posted, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Posted by: Happy drinker

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 13th November 2009, 2:53am) *

I leave it to the observer to decide which of these arguments is being offered by Happy Drunkard.

My argument is that when I !vote on an RfA, I am considering whether to trust that person with the full spectrum of tools. Were it possible to !vote for someone to have only a few of them, say only the right to grant rollback, I might well support someone whom I would oppose for the full spectrum. Would others agree?

Posted by: Jaranda

I didn't see one clear cut candidate yet, only one candidate I'll prob support so far.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Fri 13th November 2009, 11:46am) *

My argument is that when I !vote on an RfA, I am considering whether to trust that person with the full spectrum of tools. Were it possible to !vote for someone to have only a few of them, say only the right to grant rollback, I might well support someone whom I would oppose for the full spectrum. Would others agree?


I vote according to eye candy -- if I have to look at these characters, they should at least be easy on the eyeballs. evilgrin.gif

Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes? unsure.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Fri 13th November 2009, 4:46pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 13th November 2009, 2:53am) *

I leave it to the observer to decide which of these arguments is being offered by Happy Drunkard.

My argument is that when I !vote on an RfA, I am considering whether to trust that person with the full spectrum of tools. Were it possible to !vote for someone to have only a few of them, say only the right to grant rollback, I might well support someone whom I would oppose for the full spectrum. Would others agree?

Partly, because it seems clear as day that the tools ought to be unbundled.

However, I don't recall there being any RfA vote on whether the present lot of admins ought to be able to edit abuse filters, for instance. Your argument only makes sense if there's a static set of tools, which there isn't.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 13th November 2009, 9:03am) *
I vote according to eye candy -- if I have to look at these characters, they should at least be easy on the eyeballs. evilgrin.gif
Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes? unsure.gif

In hell, they chop all the penises off.

I defy you to prove to us that any of the current candidates still has one.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19121 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19177 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19308 as if they have any dangly bits left.....

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Fri 13th November 2009, 4:47pm) *

I didn't see one clear cut candidate yet, only one candidate I'll prob support so far.

Yeah, so far it looks like Fritz, Kurt, and Fred. In that order.

Posted by: SirFozzie

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Fri 13th November 2009, 5:35pm) *

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Fri 13th November 2009, 4:47pm) *

I didn't see one clear cut candidate yet, only one candidate I'll prob support so far.

Yeah, so far it looks like Fritz, Kurt, and Fred. In that order.


Wow, that stings. *laughs*

Posted by: Limey

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 13th November 2009, 9:43pm) *

QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Fri 13th November 2009, 4:46pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 13th November 2009, 2:53am) *

I leave it to the observer to decide which of these arguments is being offered by Happy Drunkard.

My argument is that when I !vote on an RfA, I am considering whether to trust that person with the full spectrum of tools. Were it possible to !vote for someone to have only a few of them, say only the right to grant rollback, I might well support someone whom I would oppose for the full spectrum. Would others agree?

Partly, because it seems clear as day that the tools ought to be unbundled.

However, I don't recall there being any RfA vote on whether the present lot of admins ought to be able to edit abuse filters, for instance. Your argument only makes sense if there's a static set of tools, which there isn't.


Unbundling the tools is dumb. What people really want to do is unbundle the tasks, something that can not be accomplished technically. The basic tools are the block/unblock button and the delete/undelete button and protecting/unprotecting/editing protected pages. The other stuff (view deleted, history merge, granting rollback/ip-block exempt, etc.) is peripheral. These same basic tools are used in totally different tasks.

An admin who wants to focus on vandalism, for example, needs block/unblock just like some one who is planning to deal with serious disputes and delete (for speedies, primarily) just like someone who wants to close AfDs. There are plenty of people that I would trust to play countervandalism who I would not trust to close a contentious BLP AfD or wade into an intense content dispute, but the technical tools involved are exactly the same.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 13th November 2009, 4:52pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 13th November 2009, 9:03am) *
I vote according to eye candy -- if I have to look at these characters, they should at least be easy on the eyeballs. evilgrin.gif
Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes? unsure.gif

In hell, they chop all the penises off.

I defy you to prove to us that any of the current candidates still has one.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19121 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19177 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19308 as if they have any dangly bits left.....



Sorry, that is one investigative assignment I will have to pass on. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: InkBlot

I'd run, but I have less than 50 mainspace edits. Which is ironic, as that'd be the basis of my candidacy. biggrin.gif

Posted by: AGK

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:06pm) *
Greg's candidacy could be used to raise the issue of so-called "banned" and "indef blocked" editors -- a contradiction in an environment that bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- and question how a "community" united on the concept of creating a reference text has become subdivided with inconsistent enforcement of policies.
You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell? You think we should allow them to keep editing, so that we might honour our motto?

It seems that the horse is speaking horse shit.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(AGK @ Tue 17th November 2009, 3:37am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:06pm) *
Greg's candidacy could be used to raise the issue of so-called "banned" and "indef blocked" editors -- a contradiction in an environment that bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- and question how a "community" united on the concept of creating a reference text has become subdivided with inconsistent enforcement of policies.
You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell? You think we should allow them to keep editing, so that we might honour our motto?

It seems that the horse is speaking horse shit.


What about people banned or otherwise sanctioned merely for falling on the wrong side of some personal dispute, for holding the wrong viewpoints or making the wrong enemies?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 16th November 2009, 9:37pm) *
You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell? You think we should allow them to keep editing, so that we might honour our motto?


Why not? There are about a dozen of them serving on Arbcom now. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Jaranda

Candidates are still weak at best. [[User:Unomi]] contribs are interesting, should be discussed in a seperate post.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 16th November 2009, 9:37pm) *

You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell?


Wow, did I do all that? I think I'd need to see some diffs.

Posted by: Lar

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Non-individual_individual_questions, which lead to User_talk:Lar#Request_to_reduce_volume.2Fnumber_of_questions and to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Gigantic_.22individual.22_questions_directed_at_every_candidate

I may be biased but I find the last topic title choice somewhat pejorative. Could be me of course... I do like to hear myself talk!

With Kato not around I don't know if we'll see the same level of analysis of answers this year. But I hope these questions are useful.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 18th November 2009, 6:44am) *

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Non-individual_individual_questions, which lead to User_talk:Lar#Request_to_reduce_volume.2Fnumber_of_questions and to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Gigantic_.22individual.22_questions_directed_at_every_candidate

I may be biased but I find the last topic title choice somewhat pejorative. Could be me of course... I do like to hear myself talk!

With Kato not around I don't know if we'll see the same level of analysis of answers this year. But I hope these questions are useful.
Well, it's completely unreasonable to expect people involved in a project to produce an encyclopedia to be able to read and write.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 18th November 2009, 12:44pm) *

I can sympathize somewhat, but only because tolerance for morbid logorrhoea (even that which borders on self-parody) has become a de facto job requirement for arbcombatants. If one does not have an attention span conducive to your battery of questions, they'll never be able to stomach the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=247090972&diff=prev in which their colleagues often delight.
QUOTE

Could be me of course... I do like to hear myself talk!

Then why don't you run for arbcom, you pompous…

Posted by: Jaranda

AGK just tossed his hat to run, strongest candidate I see so far. Xavexgoem also entered last night, now the strong candiates are starting to join, still mostly weak though.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I thought about running, just for the fun of it, but Newyorkbrad talked me out of it.

It really amuses me that people are bitching about being asked lots of questions, and that there are people who are being "put off" from running because of all the questions being asked. It's as if they have no concept of what arbitrators are supposed to be doing, and merely see this as another quest that has to be completed in order to get yet another shiny badge. The MMORPG mentality continues to dominate Wikipedian thought.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

I'm put off by lots of questions, but that's just because probably 65% of the questions I'm being asked (I haven't counted) are totally irrelevant to my candidacy since they assume I'll actually be bothering to wield power I do not legitimately possess like everyone else running intends to do.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 18th November 2009, 7:44am) *

Apparently some find my questions too long.


Anyone who doesn't want to hear these can always stick Lego pieces in their ears. evilgrin.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 18th November 2009, 2:33pm) *

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 18th November 2009, 7:44am) *

Apparently some find my questions too long.


Anyone who doesn't want to hear these can always stick Lego pieces in their ears. evilgrin.gif



That would not be hygienic. There is no telling where those things have been.

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 18th November 2009, 11:31am) *

Then why don't you run for arbcom, you pompous…

Your support is charming, as always.

Why don't you run?

Posted by: Mathsci

The list is quite depressing. I would have supported Shell Kinney this time, if she'd run. And certainly Thatcher, Allison or MastCell.

There are a few people on the list whom I could vote for, but certainly nowhere near eight.

But all these clerks, as far as the eye can see ... and then our old friend Jehochman, yet again.

Will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherine_de_Burgh/Catherine_Bonkbuster be running?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 18th November 2009, 3:38pm) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 18th November 2009, 11:31am) *

Then why don't you run for arbcom, you pompous…

Your support is charming, as always.

Why don't you run?


Hey, you show Big Mama some respect, ya hear? hrmph.gif

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 18th November 2009, 4:48pm) *

Hey, you show Big Mama
{{citation needed}}
QUOTE
some respect, ya hear? hrmph.gif

Gotta give it to get it... and I'm holding up my end.

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Wed 18th November 2009, 3:26pm) *

I'm put off by lots of questions, but that's just because probably 65% of the questions I'm being asked (I haven't counted) are totally irrelevant to my candidacy since they assume I'll actually be bothering to wield power I do not legitimately possess like everyone else running intends to do.

I think some might say that it's your candidacy that's "totally irrelevant" and that it's clue rather than power that you "do not legitimately possess"

But I could be wrong.

Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 19th November 2009, 2:49am) *

I thought about running, just for the fun of it, but Newyorkbrad talked me out of it.

It really amuses me that people are bitching about being asked lots of questions, and that there are people who are being "put off" from running because of all the questions being asked. It's as if they have no concept of what arbitrators are supposed to be doing, and merely see this as another quest that has to be completed in order to get yet another shiny badge. The MMORPG mentality continues to dominate Wikipedian thought.


The questions can be a challenge - the thought provoking bit was worthwhile though - as in http://Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Casliber/Questions_for_the_candidate#Additional_questions_from_Pixelface where I copped a question from Pixelface with seresin querying a clarification. Given as both editors have fairly opposed views on inclusionism/deletionism, I was rather bemused. Turned out both opposed me anyway though laugh.gif

PS: Link has a letter limit so paste 'http://Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Casliber/Questions_for_the_candidate#Additional_questions_from_Pixelface'

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 18th November 2009, 5:14pm) *

Gotta give it to get it... and I'm holding up my end.


I think you are confusing me with a certain Wiki News reporter/photographer. wtf.gif

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 18th November 2009, 9:29pm) *

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 18th November 2009, 5:14pm) *

Gotta give it to get it... and I'm holding up my end.


I think you are confusing me with a certain Wiki News reporter/photographer. wtf.gif

Um, no... you're a horse.

Posted by: everyking

Since arbitrators ignore the community after they're elected, it's only fair that the community should bombard them with questions now; they won't get an answer at any other time.

I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates so far. Any candidate who wants to secure my vote should state that they will conduct all of their ArbCom-related discussions on-wiki, not on the mailing list, unless private information is involved. (That doesn't apply to a few current and former arbitrators such as Bauder and Kirill--my opinion of them is already so low that they could do nothing to redeem themselves.)

Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 19th November 2009, 2:52pm) *

I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates so far. Any candidate who wants to secure my vote should state that they will conduct all of their ArbCom-related discussions on-wiki, not on the mailing list, unless private information is involved. (That doesn't apply to a few current and former arbitrators such as Bauder and Kirill--my opinion of them is already so low that they could do nothing to redeem themselves.)


Who would you vote for then? Names not ideals please.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

RHMED is running -- with the very, very best candidate statement of all time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACE2009/C#RMHED

By all means, we need him on Arbcom! boing.gif

Posted by: Mike R

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 8:51am) *

RHMED is running -- with the very, very best candidate statement of all time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACE2009/C#RMHED


I'm not sure whether it's a better candidate statement than that of the guy who ran on the "stone cold chillin'" platform a couple years back.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Mike R @ Thu 19th November 2009, 10:00am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 8:51am) *

RHMED is running -- with the very, very best candidate statement of all time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACE2009/C#RMHED


I'm not sure whether it's a better candidate statement than that of the guy who ran on the "stone cold chillin'" platform a couple years back.


At least he shows some concern for the babes in wood.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 19th November 2009, 3:13pm) *

At least he shows some concern for the babes in wood.

Oh no he hasn't.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 18th November 2009, 8:38pm) *

Your support is charming, as always.

I'm just saying as you've accrued most of the other prestigious titles already, this one should be a piece of cake.

Plus you meet most of the informal qualifications for this position. I weren't kinda trying to be polite, I'd list all of them.

Go for it. Looking at this year's candidates, you'll probably win.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Thu 19th November 2009, 4:40pm) *

Go for it. Looking at this year's candidates, you'll probably win.

Looking at this year's candidates, Horsey would probably win. I'm not sure there's eight people on that list who I'd trust to count to twenty without taking off their shoes.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 19th November 2009, 11:47am) *

Looking at this year's candidates, Horsey would probably win.


I would never consider running -- masochism is not among my vices. dry.gif

Personally, I want to see RHMED, Kurt, Chuznit and Cla68 on the board. Within a few weeks, the Arbcom mantra will be "Toga! Toga! Toga! Toga!" laugh.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 19th November 2009, 1:47pm) *
I'm not sure there's eight people on that list who I'd trust to count to twenty without taking off their shoes.
I'll have you know that I wear open-toed sandals in case I'm ever called upon to count that high.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 19th November 2009, 12:01pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 19th November 2009, 1:47pm) *
I'm not sure there's eight people on that list who I'd trust to count to twenty without taking off their shoes.
I'll have you know that I wear open-toed sandals in case I'm ever called upon to count that high.


Be glad that you aren't being asked to count to 21. wink.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 11:57am) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 19th November 2009, 11:47am) *

Looking at this year's candidates, Horsey would probably win.


masochism is not among my vices. dry.gif


Masochism is a vice!?

Jon wtf.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

I just looked through the candidates' statements again.

I know RHMED is trying to be funny on purpose -- are the other guys really serious?

I like the addition of the audio recording "A Conversation with Jehochman"...oh, brother, if this is any evidence, then it seems like anyone with a pulse can get a Yale degree. wacko.gif

Posted by: AGK

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 19th November 2009, 3:52am) *

I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates so far. Any candidate who wants to secure my vote should state that they will conduct all of their ArbCom-related discussions on-wiki, not on the mailing list, unless private information is involved. (That doesn't apply to a few current and former arbitrators such as Bauder and Kirill--my opinion of them is already so low that they could do nothing to redeem themselves.)
Actually, as part of my candidacy I promise to do something like that: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK/Platform

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 7:20pm) *

I know RHMED is trying to be funny on purpose -- are the other guys really serious?

I like the addition of the audio recording "A Conversation with Jehochman"...oh, brother, if this is any evidence, then it seems like anyone with a pulse can get a Yale degree. wacko.gif
There's no need to denigrate him. I actually thought he was well-informed about every aspect of the project that Privatemusings brought up.

And if by "serious" you mean that we are running with the aim of doing a good job and that we hope to be elected, then yes, I think most of us are. I certainly am.

(I'm aware that I am mostly responding to stuff that most would ignore smile.gif.)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 2:20pm) *


I like the addition of the audio recording "A Conversation with Jehochman"...oh, brother, if this is any evidence, then it seems like anyone with a pulse can get a Yale degree. wacko.gif



Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(AGK @ Thu 19th November 2009, 8:39pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 19th November 2009, 3:52am) *

I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates so far. Any candidate who wants to secure my vote should state that they will conduct all of their ArbCom-related discussions on-wiki, not on the mailing list, unless private information is involved. (That doesn't apply to a few current and former arbitrators such as Bauder and Kirill--my opinion of them is already so low that they could do nothing to redeem themselves.)
Actually, as part of my candidacy I promise to do something like that: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK/Platform


Very good. Lack of transparency and community engagement is the ArbCom's biggest long-term problem, and it seems like you have some understanding of that, so you'll have my vote.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(AGK @ Thu 19th November 2009, 2:39pm) *
There's no need to denigrate him.


I know, but I'm not getting paid to write this stuff. If you want a happy horse, slip some moolah in my feedbag and I'll compose sonnets of praise. unhappy.gif

QUOTE(AGK @ Thu 19th November 2009, 2:39pm) *
And if by "serious" you mean that we are running with the aim of doing a good job and that we hope to be elected, then yes, I think most of us are. I certainly am.


Okay, but I am confused about this campaign promise of yours:

"If the community brings a problematic administrator to the committee whilst I am sitting on it, I will vote to launch proceedings to scrutinise the administrator—and will support only measures which fully neutralise the problems with that administrator."

Now I don't understand three things:

1. What are you sitting on, the administrator or the committee? If you are sitting on the administrator, how much do you weigh? And if you are very heavy and have to sit on someone who is rail thin, like MZMcBride, do you think that such behavior by yourself is safe? I mean, we have five million law school students and five million eight-year-olds on Wikipedia, but I don't think there is any physician in the ranks.

2. How do you plan to "scrutinise the administrator"? Do you have to buy latex gloves? Or will a feather duster do? And would you consider wearing a French maid's costume if you had to use a feather duster?

3. How do you plan to "fully neutralise the problems with that administrator"? Will you personally use blunt instruments or hand-to-hand combat, or do you plan to outsource the task to the administrators at the Wiki Cosa Nostra?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 4:49pm) *
I don't think there is any physician in the ranks.
Until quite recently, we had one on ArbCom.

Posted by: AGK

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 7:49pm) *
QUOTE(AGK @ Thu 19th November 2009, 2:39pm) *
And if by "serious" you mean that we are running with the aim of doing a good job and that we hope to be elected, then yes, I think most of us are. I certainly am.
Okay, but I am confused about this campaign promise of yours:

"If the community brings a problematic administrator to the committee whilst I am sitting on it, I will vote to launch proceedings to scrutinise the administrator—and will support only measures which fully neutralise the problems with that administrator."

Now I don't understand three things:

1. What are you sitting on, the administrator or the committee? If you are sitting on the administrator, how much do you weigh? And if you are very heavy and have to sit on someone who is rail thin, like MZMcBride, do you think that such behavior by yourself is safe? I mean, we have five million law school students and five million eight-year-olds on Wikipedia, but I don't think there is any physician in the ranks.

2. How do you plan to "scrutinise the administrator"? Do you have to buy latex gloves? Or will a feather duster do? And would you consider wearing a French maid's costume if you had to use a feather duster?

3. How do you plan to "fully neutralise the problems with that administrator"? Will you personally use blunt instruments or hand-to-hand combat, or do you plan to outsource the task to the administrators at the Wiki Cosa Nostra?


Couldn't you pick on the wording of my main candidate statement and not the supplementary page? I'm ten words over the word limit for my statement, and I need to find something to cut out :-)

But yes, that sentence was hideously worded. It's been fixed up.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 19th November 2009, 2:51pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 4:49pm) *
I don't think there is any physician in the ranks.
Until quite recently, we had one on ArbCom.


Seriously? An active MD? The real open-your-mouth-and-say-Ah type?

Well, if we had a doctor, I have to ask that person the obvious question:


Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Thu 19th November 2009, 12:40pm) *

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 18th November 2009, 8:38pm) *

Your support is charming, as always.

I'm just saying as you've accrued most of the other prestigious titles
{{citation needed}} (that this particular title is prestigious)
QUOTE

already, this one should be a piece of cake.

Plus you meet most of the informal qualifications for this position. I weren't kinda trying to be polite
{{citation needed}} (that you're trying to be polite)
QUOTE
, I'd list all of them.

Go for it. Looking at this year's candidates, you'll probably win.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 8:57am) *
Personally, I want to see RHMED, Kurt, Chuznit and Cla68 on the board. Within a few weeks, the Arbcom mantra will be "Toga! Toga! Toga! Toga!" laugh.gif

That would be most excellent, dude. Sadly, I would not be surprised if Hochman, that legendary twat's twat and butt-snorkel, ends up winning a seat.

Posted by: everyking

I'd like to see some candidates saying they'll promote the creation of a community governance structure and resist the accumulation of power into the ArbCom's hands.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 20th November 2009, 1:08am) *

I'd like to see some candidates saying they'll promote the creation of a community governance structure and resist the accumulation of power into the ArbCom's hands.


I think you should run for class president.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 20th November 2009, 12:08am) *

I'd like to see some candidates saying they'll promote the creation of a community governance structure and resist the accumulation of power into the ArbCom's hands.


Hello; have we met?

Posted by: One

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 6:21pm) *

Risker also notes that “the manner in which arbitrators, supposedly selected for their good judgment and wise counsel, are treated with suspicion, condescension and distrust from the moment of their appointment, has been pointed out to me by several highly respected editors as the reason that they are not interested in participating.” This, of course, is a phony argument.

Horsey, is there a good reason that anyone should spend dozens of hours a week on a hobby as a nominal figurehead whose best efforts can be swept away by predictable "community" discord? Consider that an arbitrator's only compensation is insults from anyone and everyone--perhaps people like you, who rail against arbitrators because they don't each read every Bible-long ArbCom workshop page, and who think that users of an internet site should be given due process rights rivaling those given to criminal defendants--without the paid lawyers or judges, of course.

I know that the job of WikiArbitrator might seem attractive to you in the abstract, but first consider that there are starving kids in China, wrongfully convicted innocents in prison, and unwritten Great American Novels--not to mention more mundane things like job hunting, gardening, and netflix.

Why should a rational adult misspend time this way? I would like to know; it's not a purely academic question.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 4:10pm) *
Consider that an arbitrator's only compensation is insults from anyone and everyone--perhaps people like you, who rail against arbitrators because they don't each read every Bible-long ArbCom workshop page, and who think that users of an internet site should be given due process rights rivaling those given to criminal defendants--without the paid lawyers or judges, of course.


Call me old-fashioned, by I believe that if anyone wants to share an opinion during a discussion, I listen to the opinion with respect and not slosh it off. And I believe that if someone is accused of doing something wrong that they should be allowed to have the right to voice their side of the story. Likewise, if someone is accused of wrongdoing, I don't support stonewalling or censorship in lieu of an honest answer.

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 4:10pm) *
I know that the job of WikiArbitrator might seem attractive to you in the abstract, but first consider that there are starving kids in China, wrongfully convicted innocents in prison, and unwritten Great American Novels--not to mention more mundane things like job hunting, gardening, and netflix.


The Chinese government (of which I am not a member) is responsible for its population. I am aware that the prison system swallows up innocent people - one of my best friends was jailed on bogus charges. And the Great American novel has been written - it just hasn't been published.

Plus, I've already stated that I see no purpose for Arbcom -- serious academic publishing endeavors do not require such a body.

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 4:10pm) *

Why should a rational adult misspend time this way? I would like to know; it's not a purely academic question.


I would recommend programming movies at the Pioneer Theater in New York City (which both of us, oddly enough, have done at one time). Sadly, that venue is gone.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 20th November 2009, 9:23pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 4:10pm) *
Consider that an arbitrator's only compensation is insults from anyone and everyone--perhaps people like you, who rail against arbitrators because they don't each read every Bible-long ArbCom workshop page, and who think that users of an internet site should be given due process rights rivaling those given to criminal defendants--without the paid lawyers or judges, of course.


Call me old-fashioned, by I believe that if anyone wants to share an opinion during a discussion, I listen to the opinion with respect and not slosh it off. And I believe that if someone is accused of doing something wrong that they should be allowed to have the right to voice their side of the story. Likewise, if someone is accused of wrongdoing, I don't support stonewalling or censorship in lieu of an honest answer.

QUOTE(Nerd @ Fri 20th November 2009, 3:35pm) *
I know that the job of WikiArbitrator might seem attractive to you in the abstract, but first consider that there are starving kids in China, wrongfully convicted innocents in prison, and unwritten Great American Novels--not to mention more mundane things like job hunting, gardening, and netflix.


The Chinese government (of which I am not a member) is responsible for its population. I am aware that the prison system swallows up innocent people - one of my best friends was jailed on bogus charges. And the Great American novel has been written - it just hasn't been published.

Plus, I've already stated that I see no purpose for Arbcom -- serious academic publishing endeavors do not require such a body.

QUOTE(Nerd @ Fri 20th November 2009, 3:35pm) *
Why should a rational adult misspend time this way? I would like to know; it's not a purely academic question.


I would recommend programming movies at the Pioneer Theater in New York City (which both of us, oddly enough, have done at one time). Sadly, that venue is gone.


Why are you putting my name in quotes I did not write? You've done this before.

Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(Nerd @ Fri 20th November 2009, 4:29pm) *

Why are you putting my name in quotes I did not write? You've done this before.


Maybe he finds that One is a nerd.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Nerd @ Fri 20th November 2009, 4:29pm) *


Why are you putting my name in quotes I did not write? You've done this before.


Whoops! Wrong cut and paste job. Will fix. Sorry, character. tongue.gif

Posted by: One

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 20th November 2009, 9:23pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 4:10pm) *
Consider that an arbitrator's only compensation is insults from anyone and everyone--perhaps people like you, who rail against arbitrators because they don't each read every Bible-long ArbCom workshop page, and who think that users of an internet site should be given due process rights rivaling those given to criminal defendants--without the paid lawyers or judges, of course.


Call me old-fashioned, by I believe that if anyone wants to share an opinion during a discussion, I listen to the opinion with respect and not slosh it off. And I believe that if someone is accused of doing something wrong that they should be allowed to have the right to voice their side of the story. Likewise, if someone is accused of wrongdoing, I don't support stonewalling or censorship in lieu of an honest answer.

I agree. Perhaps I'm old fashioned for not savoring the words of every spectator shouting from the gallery.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 4:39pm) *

I agree. Perhaps I'm old fashioned for not savoring the words of every spectator shouting from the gallery.


No one is shouting from a gallery. We are talking about people who take the time to sit down and write up their concerns, with the belief (obviously mistaken) that someone will listen to and think about their ideas.


Posted by: One

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 20th November 2009, 9:56pm) *

No one is shouting from a gallery.

Have you seen RFAR?

I'm apparently not talking about what you're talking about.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 3:10pm) *
I know that the job of WikiArbitrator might seem attractive to you in the abstract, but first consider that there are starving kids in China, wrongfully convicted innocents in prison, and unwritten Great American Novels--not to mention more mundane things like job hunting, gardening, and netflix.
Or playing Flash games on Facebook.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 20th November 2009, 10:55pm) *

Or playing Flash games on Facebook.

That's what they do over at Eisenhower HS anyway. ohmy.gif

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 20th November 2009, 10:55pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 3:10pm) *
I know that the job of WikiArbitrator might seem attractive to you in the abstract, but first consider that there are starving kids in China, wrongfully convicted innocents in prison, and unwritten Great American Novels--not to mention more mundane things like job hunting, gardening, and netflix.
Or playing Flash games on Facebook.

Kelly, I live to beat your score on Bejeweled Blitz.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 5:05pm) *

I'm apparently not talking about what you're talking about.


Apparently. dry.gif

So...did "Trapped by the Mormons" ever come out on DVD? I interviewed Ian Allen but never got a thank you after the interview ran to publicize its Pioneer screenings.

And did you ever get to see "Plan 10 from Outer Space"? I reviewed that for Wired Magazine years ago - my introduction to LDS cinema.

(If you folks have no idea what I am talking about, don't worry -- this is an open private message to One. wink.gif )

Posted by: One

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sat 21st November 2009, 1:20am) *

And did you ever get to see "Plan 10 from Outer Space"? I reviewed that for Wired Magazine years ago - my introduction to LDS cinema.

Yeah. The director Trent Harris loaned me what he called the one and only print of the film; I managed not to destroy it. One of the lucky few people who saw it in Chicago (what I assume to be the film's Chicago debut) was so inspired that they wrote http://www.typography.com/ask/showBlog.php?kwID=74&blogID=35.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 19th November 2009, 10:16am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 19th November 2009, 11:57am) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 19th November 2009, 11:47am) *

Looking at this year's candidates, Horsey would probably win.


masochism is not among my vices. dry.gif


Masochism is a vice!?

Jon wtf.gif


Only for Mormons and Catholics. Self-abuse, you know. Temple of the soul. rolleyes.gif


Posted by: thekohser

Can you imagine a church having an "Arbitration Committee" where they'd have to hear out heated disputes between different parishioners within the congregation?

Can you imagine a corporation having an "Arbitration Committee" where they'd have to hear out heated disputes between different managers within the organization?

Can you imagine a sports league having an "Arbitration Committee" where they'd have to hear out heated disputes between different coaches within the league?

Can you imagine a restaurant having an "Arbitration Committee" where they'd have to hear out heated disputes between the waiters within the establishment?

In that sense, then, can you imagine an encyclopedia having an "Arbitration Committee"?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 20th November 2009, 7:40pm) *
In that sense, then, can you imagine an encyclopedia having an "Arbitration Committee"?

I don't have to imagine it. It's already here, in living color. sick.gif

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 10:10pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 6:21pm) *

Risker also notes that “the manner in which arbitrators, supposedly selected for their good judgment and wise counsel, are treated with suspicion, condescension and distrust from the moment of their appointment, has been pointed out to me by several highly respected editors as the reason that they are not interested in participating.” This, of course, is a phony argument.

Horsey, is there a good reason that anyone should spend dozens of hours a week on a hobby as a nominal figurehead whose best efforts can be swept away by predictable "community" discord? Consider that an arbitrator's only compensation is insults from anyone and everyone--perhaps people like you, who rail against arbitrators because they don't each read every Bible-long ArbCom workshop page, and who think that users of an internet site should be given due process rights rivaling those given to criminal defendants--without the paid lawyers or judges, of course.


Who would ever imagine that the playground bully would be held in contempt by the other children? If the ArbCom wants to be respected by the community, it should treat the community with respect.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 21st November 2009, 6:34am) *

QUOTE(One @ Fri 20th November 2009, 10:10pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 6:21pm) *

Risker also notes that “the manner in which arbitrators, supposedly selected for their good judgment and wise counsel, are treated with suspicion, condescension and distrust from the moment of their appointment, has been pointed out to me by several highly respected editors as the reason that they are not interested in participating.” This, of course, is a phony argument.

Horsey, is there a good reason that anyone should spend dozens of hours a week on a hobby as a nominal figurehead whose best efforts can be swept away by predictable "community" discord? Consider that an arbitrator's only compensation is insults from anyone and everyone--perhaps people like you, who rail against arbitrators because they don't each read every Bible-long ArbCom workshop page, and who think that users of an internet site should be given due process rights rivaling those given to criminal defendants--without the paid lawyers or judges, of course.


Who would ever imagine that the playground bully would be held in contempt by the other children? If the ArbCom wants to be respected by the community, it should treat the community with respect.


What is your definition of "the community" Everyking? Mine includes all the editors who work on topics that interest them but have never heard of the Arbcom, or if they have, know nothing about it more than that it exists.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 21st November 2009, 8:20am) *
What is your definition of "the community" Everyking? Mine includes all the editors who work on topics that interest them but have never heard of the Arbcom, or if they have, know nothing about it more than that it exists.
Decisions are made by those who show up. The problem is that Wikipedia's decision-makers have no ethical standard that requires that they give even lip service to the concerns of those who don't show up. Worse yet, Wikipedia practice tends to encourage making decisions based on discussions in obscure corners of the WikiUniverse, and also tends to punish efforts to publicize such discussions. So it requires a substantial time commitment in order to know where and when one must show up in order to participate in decisions, more than most people are willing to commit to a hobby.

Fundamentally, everyking isn't any more interested in 'the community' than anyone else on Wikipedia is. What everyking wants is personal vindication, and he is siding with 'the community' for the sole reason that he thinks that 'the community' (as he has conceptualized it) is more likely to give it to him than the power brokers currently entrenched in Wikipedia. In his construction, 'the community' is the enemy of 'the ArbCom', and since the ArbCom is his enemy, the community must needs be his friend. The reality is that the ArbCom that Wikipedia has is the ArbCom that the community (or at least that part of it which chooses to show up for elections) has chosen; they are but faces of the same coin.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 20th November 2009, 9:25pm) *
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 20th November 2009, 7:40pm) *
In that sense, then, can you imagine an encyclopedia having an "Arbitration Committee"?
I don't have to imagine it. It's already here, in living color. sick.gif

I think Greg's point, a very good one, is that Wikipedia can hardly be called an encyclopedia, and ArbCom can hardly be called Arbitrators. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader whether it qualifies as a committee under the normal definition of that word.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(gomi @ Sat 21st November 2009, 4:23pm) *
I think Greg's point, a very good one, is that Wikipedia can hardly be called an encyclopedia, and ArbCom can hardly be called Arbitrators. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader whether it qualifies as a committee under the normal definition of that word.
While I quite like Wikipedia criticism and wish as fervently as anybody that there was more of it around here (the good kind, not the Eric-Barbour-saying-something-self-evident-and-following-it-with-a-barfy-emoticon kind), Wikipedia critics would do well to stop focussing on semantics.

To illustrate what I mean, let's consider this (hypothetical) quote from circa 1455:

"Books are made by monks with quills, and don't require ungainly machines, therefore the Gutenberg Bible can hardly be called a book."

Wikipedia shares some characteristics with encyclopaedias (it contains articles on subjects and does not define its scope by discipline) and differs in other ways from them (encyclopaedias are written by named experts, encyclopaedias are reasonably reliable). Whether the similarities are great enough to justify calling Wikipedia an encyclopaedia is a question that's as uninteresting as it is irrelevant.

(Things are somewhat more clearcut, although probably neither more interesting nor more relevant, with regards to the Arbitration Committee, which is certainly a committee and just as certainly not engaged in arbitration.)

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sat 21st November 2009, 1:07pm) *

(Things are somewhat more clearcut, although probably neither more interesting nor more relevant, with regards to the Arbitration Committee, which is certainly a committee and just as certainly not engaged in arbitration.)

"Judgement Tribunal" would certainly be better. Not too many people would say a military judgement tribunal "arbitrates" anything; but what it DOES do, is something much like what happens at.. "ArbCom."

Milton "Where's my airquotes?" Roe

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Sat 21st November 2009, 6:09pm) *

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.

Of course you don't understand. But don't worry, most of the voters understand (why not to vote for you) just fine.

Posted by: Mathsci

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy, shortly after being banned from the EEML case for a week with no prior warning by trainee clerk Manning Bartlett. Slightly later he also gave Jehochman a mild warning by email. Here is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision&oldid=327013651#Slightly_off_topic between Shell Kinney and Jehochman.

He also gave a warning to Thatcher a month ago, but the warning had to be toned down considerably and he admitted he had over-reacted.

On the other hand Manning did not warn his other fellow clerk AGK for inflammatory language on the case pages. Instead he wrote a glowing endorsement of AGK for the elections.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 8:31am) *

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy, shortly after being banned with from the EEML case for a week with no prior warning by trainee clerk Manning Bartlett. Slightly later he also gave Jehochman a mild warning by email. Here is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision&oldid=327013651#Slightly_off_topic between Shell Kinney and Jehochman.

He also gave a warning to Thatcher a month ago, but the warning had to be toned down considerably and he admitted he had over-reacted.

On the other hand Manning did not warn his other fellow clerk AGK for inflammatory language on the case pages. Instead he wrote a glowing endorsement of AGK for the elections.


Probably worth noting that Manning is user #100, meaning he has been here for nearly all of the shit ever to occur on the wiki. Also worth noting that while I was involved in the EEML case and thus unable to help out with clerking, Manning has a rather commendable job cutting through the usual amounts of crap in these complex cases and has not done so simply by cutting out the small names, but also taking on the big names with almost no backup from the arbs, et. al., so I'm having a hard time criticizing him for bringing order to the wastelands.

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Sat 21st November 2009, 10:09pm) *

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.


Well, I am voting for you - in the oppose section. Primarily this is because you have not answered my question. Should you answer my question, of course, I shall oppose you for the responses given.

Whatever they are.

Posted by: Mathsci

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 8:41am) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 8:31am) *

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy, shortly after being banned with from the EEML case for a week with no prior warning by trainee clerk Manning Bartlett. Slightly later he also gave Jehochman a mild warning by email. Here is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision&oldid=327013651#Slightly_off_topic between Shell Kinney and Jehochman.

He also gave a warning to Thatcher a month ago, but the warning had to be toned down considerably and he admitted he had over-reacted.

On the other hand Manning did not warn his other fellow clerk AGK for inflammatory language on the case pages. Instead he wrote a glowing endorsement of AGK for the elections.


Probably worth noting that Manning is user #100, meaning he has been here for nearly all of the shit ever to occur on the wiki. Also worth noting that while I was involved in the EEML case and thus unable to help out with clerking, Manning has a rather commendable job cutting through the usual amounts of crap in these complex cases and has not done so simply by cutting out the small names, but also taking on the big names with almost no backup from the arbs, et. al., so I'm having a hard time criticizing him for bringing order to the wastelands.


Well, ArbCom was not happy about Manning's actions and have removed the ban. See this discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shell_Kinney#ArbCom_Case_Ban. I understand that EEML is a particularly troublesome case, but bans like this to respected admins send out the wrong messages about participating in ArbCom cases. Besides, usually Shell and Thatcher make very good and sensible points.

That cannot be said about Jehochman: I would use the word "inconsistent" to describe him. I listened to his interview with Private Musings. His voice is not quite as squeaky as Adam Cuerdon's audio demo on wikivoices. Private Musings on the other hand has the reassuring laid back voice of an English pirate radio DJ ....

Manning Bartlett has also deleted his user page, blanked his talk page, resigned as clerk and sysop ...

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 2:55pm) *

Manning Bartlett has also deleted his user page, blanked his talk page, resigned as clerk and sysop ...


...and went back into his cave (or is that Puff the Magic Dragon -- after a while, all of these oversized reptilian creatures look alike). smile.gif

Posted by: trenton

Shelly, Jehochman (to a lesser extant), and particularly AGK are just grandstanding before the arbcom election.

I could tell AGK was going to run for the arbcom election when he switched from obsequious arbcom clerk mode to arbcom critic mode http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=323366899.

Here's hoping for another !! type block if any of the current candidates really wants to stand out.

Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 6:25am) *

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Sat 21st November 2009, 10:09pm) *

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.


Well, I am voting for you - in the oppose section. Primarily this is because you have not answered my question. Should you answer my question, of course, I shall oppose you for the responses given.

Whatever they are.


LHVU - you need to give Kurt some encouragement. Try to find a positive out of all this

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 12:41am) *

Probably worth noting that Manning is user #100, meaning he has been here for nearly all of the shit ever to occur on the wiki. Also worth noting that while I was involved in the EEML case and thus unable to help out with clerking, Manning has a rather commendable job cutting through the usual amounts of crap in these complex cases and has not done so simply by cutting out the small names, but also taking on the big names with almost no backup from the arbs, et. al., so I'm having a hard time criticizing him for bringing order to the wastelands.

QUOTE(Mathsci)
Manning Bartlett has also deleted his user page, blanked his talk page, resigned as clerk and sysop ...


Now where is that metal Wall of Remembrance for the people that Wikipedia has chewed up and spat out in various ways, over the years?

I know we put that Wall of Remembrance somewhere. Was it in Washington, D.C., or some place in Cyberspace DC? DC Comics? Bizarro World?

It's got Ryan Jordan and Larry Sanger and so on, on it. And this Maning Whatisface should go there if we get around to it.

Some are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians

But those are only the ones that haven't been obviously corrupted, hammered, or burned out.


MR

P.S. Checkout the snide insertions of "sic" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy, whenever Jimbo does something really clueless, like refer to the user as "EssJay" or "Mr. Ryan". As in "Mr. Ryan was a friend..." wink.gif

A really GOOD friend. laugh.gif

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(Casliber @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 11:07pm) *

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 6:25am) *

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Sat 21st November 2009, 10:09pm) *

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.


Well, I am voting for you - in the oppose section. Primarily this is because you have not answered my question. Should you answer my question, of course, I shall oppose you for the responses given.

Whatever they are.


LHVU - you need to give Kurt some encouragement. Try to find a positive out of all this


Encouraging trolls is pretty bad form.

However, calling a troll out for trolling is also drama-stoking, which makes Durova a troll, and me a troll for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber_3#Outside_view_by_Scott_MacDonald.

What's new? This is the wikiway.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

YOU'RE A TROLL!
AND YOU'RE A TROLL!
AND YOU'RE A TROLL!

EVERYONE IS A TROLL!

Even Newyorkbrad is still confused by this.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 12:09am) *

YOU'RE A TROLL!
AND YOU'RE A TROLL!
AND YOU'RE A TROLL!

EVERYONE IS A TROLL!

Even Newyorkbrad is still confused by this.


There's still some people want to invoke AFG at this point.

However, invoking AGF is, naturally, just moralistic trolling.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

And we http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber_3#Scott_Mac.27s_opinion

QUOTE
Scott Mac's opinion

It would be more Wikipedian to attempt to communicate before posting an opinion which is certainly discourteous and arguably a personal attack. Scott Mac's syllogism suffers from the false dichotomy fallacy. Suppose one grants his premise that Kmweber is a troll (noting the incivility in passing). It does not necessarily follow that the solution to every type of trolling is to ignore it completely. Carry that premise to extremes and nobody would ever get blocked, because warnings and block notices constitute feedback. A lot less formal dispute resolution would occur at this site. This was initiated with the idea that if he were reasonable he would communicate reasonably, and if not then at least it would divert the disruption from his chosen high profile venue to a different venue where he didn't want to be. The premise of this RfC was set out pretty clearly, and I would hope that experienced Wikipedians could disagree respectfully. Durova369 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The premiss of this RFC is bollocks. You state that you hope "Kmweber evaluates the reactions here at this RfC ... edits productively in mainspace for one year to regain the community’s confidence...". Is that really why you filled this? A good faith attempt to help Kurt see the light? You are not remotely stupid enough to believe that an RfC will do anything of the sort. You know that this RfC will either encourage his trolling, or encourage others to stoke the drama by trying to ban/bar him. This is an attempt to provoke drama, why is fairly consistent with your M.O. Having said that, my intervention is only likely to stoke it further, which makes me either a fool or an accomplice in crime. Maybe I should have said nothing. But then, "it does not neccessarily follow that the solution to every type of trolling is to ignore it completely".--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I am at a loss as to what useful purpose an RFC on Kurt Weber's conduct could possibly serve.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 2:31am) *

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy...


Her? Is she the sole babe in the bunch? wub.gif

And, while we are at it, why is this template being included online? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ACE_2009_guides

I mean, really, who gives a flying fuck what these people think of the candidates? dry.gif

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 1:39am) *

I am at a loss as to what useful purpose an RFC on Kurt Weber's conduct could possibly serve.


Kelly, I'm surprised at you.

I serves the obvious and oldest of Wiki-purposes. You of all people should recognise a troll when you see one.

Such activity is, apparently, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott_MacDonald#The_RfC. (Yes, that's somewhat surreal.)

Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 12:54pm) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 2:31am) *

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy...


Her? Is she the sole babe in the bunch? wub.gif

And, while we are at it, why is this template being included online? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ACE_2009_guides

I mean, really, who gives a flying fuck what these people think of the candidates? dry.gif


Oh I dunno, a few folks do .... collaborative homework-doing and short-cut creating is very current laugh.gif

why is that funny pink emoticon a "wub" anyway...is it some US-only thing?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 7:54pm) *
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 1:39am) *
I am at a loss as to what useful purpose an RFC on Kurt Weber's conduct could possibly serve.
Kelly, I'm surprised at you.

I serves the obvious and oldest of Wiki-purposes. You of all people should recognise a troll when you see one.

Such activity is, apparently, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott_MacDonald#The_RfC. (Yes, that's somewhat surreal.)
I said useful purpose.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 11:13pm) *

Some are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians

But those are only the ones that haven't been obviously corrupted, hammered, or burned out.

To be fair, I was listed on that page for a while until I removed myself. Maybe somebody will put me back, who knows…

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 10:01pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 11:13pm) *

Some are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians

But those are only the ones that haven't been obviously corrupted, hammered, or burned out.

To be fair, I was listed on that page for a while until I removed myself. Maybe somebody will put me back, who knows…


No list for missed Wikipedians?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I shouldn't be on that list. I'm not "missing". I left. "Missing" implies that nobody knows where I went, or that I might someday be "found" again.

I would view it favorably if my name were removed from that list.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 11:02pm) *

I shouldn't be on that list. I'm not "missing". I left. "Missing" implies that nobody knows where I went, or that I might someday be "found" again.

I would view it favorably if my name were removed from that list.

Strangely, my old username appears on the list as well. Why, I have no idea. huh.gif

Actually, the stated purpose of the list "is to provide a reminder to us of those who have left and their reasons for doing so." Still, I agree that "Missing Wikipedians" is a misleading title. "Wikipedians Who Buggered Off" or "Wikipedians That Told Us To Go Piss Up A Rope" would be more accurate.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 6:38pm) *
And we http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber_3#Scott_Mac.27s_opinion

QUOTE
Scott Mac's opinion

It would be more Wikipedian to attempt to communicate before posting an opinion which is certainly discourteous and arguably a personal attack. Scott Mac's syllogism suffers from the false dichotomy fallacy. Suppose one grants his premise that Kmweber is a troll (noting the incivility in passing). It does not necessarily follow that the solution to every type of trolling is to ignore it completely. Carry that premise to extremes and nobody would ever get blocked, because warnings and block notices constitute feedback. A lot less formal dispute resolution would occur at this site. This was initiated with the idea that if he were reasonable he would communicate reasonably, and if not then at least it would divert the disruption from his chosen high profile venue to a different venue where he didn't want to be. The premise of this RfC was set out pretty clearly, and I would hope that experienced Wikipedians could disagree respectfully. Durova369 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll all have to pardon me for pretending to take any of this seriously, but I suppose it should be pointed out that it isn't a "false dichotomy" to suggest that "trolling" should be ignored; in this case it's simply an argument from experience, which is perhaps better known as a priori reasoning. That doesn't mean Mr. MacDonald/Glasgow is correct in his approach to Mr. Weber, but it does perhaps suggest that Ms. Durova lacks an appreciation of the finer points of logic.

At some point they might have had to address the question of whether or not Mr. Weber's ArbCom candidacy is actually "disruptive" in some way, or just a relatively harmless diversion. If any of them are concerned about the ArbCom elections being seen by the general community as a farce, they should probably worry more about things they can still actually control.

QUOTE
The premiss of this RFC is bollocks. You state that you hope "Kmweber evaluates the reactions here at this RfC ... edits productively in mainspace for one year to regain the community’s confidence...". Is that really why you filled this? A good faith attempt to help Kurt see the light? You are not remotely stupid enough to believe that an RfC will do anything of the sort..... --Scott Mac (Doc) 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Weber is an interesting case in some ways, in that he does his best to follow the basic rules of WP civility and decorum while espousing a bizarre (and somewhat radical) interpretation of an already-insane ideology to anyone who will listen. But since the basic ideology he espouses is the one Wikipedia is fundamentally based on, this makes it more difficult to manufacture an adequate non-hypocritical ban-pretext to make him simply "go away."

The real problem for the WP'ers is that the technology (be it MediaWiki or the web in general) doesn't give them an effective means of distancing themselves from people like Mr. Weber without explicitly banning them. Concepts like "mediation" and "arbitration" are of no practical relevance in his case... Their only real alternative is to subtly broadcast vague and general hints that everyone should ignore him, but some people don't take hints as well as others, obviously.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 10:02pm) *

I shouldn't be on that list. I'm not "missing". I left. "Missing" implies that nobody knows where I went, or that I might someday be "found" again.

I would view it favorably if my name were removed from that list.

I'm curious to know what happens if you leave with your userpage blanked except for:

I'M LEAVING WP FOREVER
BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF POO-POO HEADS


Do you suppose they'd put you on the missing list?

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 12:02am) *

I shouldn't be on that list. I'm not "missing". I left. "Missing" implies that nobody knows where I went, or that I might someday be "found" again.

I would view it favorably if my name were removed from that list.

Steve http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians&diff=327418701&oldid=326926641.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 1:37am) *

I'm curious to know what happens if you leave with your userpage blanked except for:

I'M LEAVING WP FOREVER
BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF POO-POO HEADS


Do you suppose they'd put you on the missing list?


They wait a few days until you inevitably return. My favorite breakdown is Tanthalas39 from late February -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tanthalas39&diff=273706358&oldid=264562383 -- he was back a few days later, pretending nothing happened.

Posted by: dtobias

I've http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Arb09/Unomi for Wikivoices... and unlike some others in the past, I wasted no time in getting it online, both in the "official" open-source-format Ogg version and http://ntww.dan.info/archives/2009-arbcom-unomi.mp3. (Sorry about the noisy audio whenever I speak... I probably need to get a better microphone instead of the old cheap one I've kept through about three different computers over the past decade.)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 8:54pm) *

I serves the obvious and oldest of Wiki-purposes. You of all people should recognise a troll when you see one.


Yes, but she undoubtedly applauds them when she sees them. smile.gif

Posted by: AGK

QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 10:51pm) *

Shelly, Jehochman (to a lesser extant), and particularly AGK are just grandstanding before the arbcom election.

I could tell AGK was going to run for the arbcom election when he switched from obsequious arbcom clerk mode to arbcom critic mode http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=323366899.
I toe the line, and I get opposed for not being free-thinking. I actually speak my mind, and I get called a grand-stander. There really is no satisfying people, is there?

I stand by my comments there. Remedies like that are useless. I'm hardly grandstanding by making a comment on a case discussion page: it's not like they receive a lot of attention, is it? smile.gif
QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 7:31am) *

On the other hand Manning did not warn his other fellow clerk AGK for inflammatory language on the case pages. Instead he wrote a glowing endorsement of AGK for the elections.
Oh, hush you. I did not use "inflammatory language." Strong criticism of a proposed committee decision is a quite different thing. I also explained myself quite extensively on the same page where Manning offered his endorsement.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 9:56pm) *

I toe the line, and I get opposed for not being free-thinking. I actually speak my mind, and I get called a grand-stander. There really is no satisfying people, is there?

I for one would be satisfied just knowing you don't care what I think.

Granted I don't think this sentiment scales well to the rest of the "community".

Posted by: One

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 9:25pm) *

I've http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Arb09/Unomi for Wikivoices... and unlike some others in the past, I wasted no time in getting it online, both in the "official" open-source-format Ogg version and http://ntww.dan.info/archives/2009-arbcom-unomi.mp3. (Sorry about the noisy audio whenever I speak... I probably need to get a better microphone instead of the old cheap one I've kept through about three different computers over the past decade.)

I was interviewed by Durova about this time last year. It was right before the Thanksgiving holiday. I remember because I was still in school. I think it was soon after

Durova has signaled her dislike of me several times, but I wouldn't mind hearing it at this late date. As I recall, it was soon after One = CHL became widely known.

Posted by: AGK

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 10:07pm) *

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 9:56pm) *

I toe the line, and I get opposed for not being free-thinking. I actually speak my mind, and I get called a grand-stander. There really is no satisfying people, is there?

I for one would be satisfied just knowing you don't care what I think.

Granted I don't think this sentiment scales well to the rest of the "community".
Who said I don't care what you think?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 4:29pm) *

I've http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Arb09/Unomi for Wikivoices... and unlike some others in the past, I wasted no time in getting it online, both in the "official" open-source-format Ogg version and http://ntww.dan.info/archives/2009-arbcom-unomi.mp3. (Sorry about the noisy audio whenever I speak... I probably need to get a better microphone instead of the old cheap one I've kept through about three different computers over the past decade.)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 8:54pm) *

I serves the obvious and oldest of Wiki-purposes. You of all people should recognise a troll when you see one.


Yes, but she undoubtedly applauds them when she sees them. smile.gif


So we have two babes running for Arbcom? Horsey says: vote for them! boing.gif

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 5:40pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 4:29pm) *

I've http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Arb09/Unomi for Wikivoices... and unlike some others in the past, I wasted no time in getting it online, both in the "official" open-source-format Ogg version and http://ntww.dan.info/archives/2009-arbcom-unomi.mp3. (Sorry about the noisy audio whenever I speak... I probably need to get a better microphone instead of the old cheap one I've kept through about three different computers over the past decade.)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 8:54pm) *

I serves the obvious and oldest of Wiki-purposes. You of all people should recognise a troll when you see one.


Yes, but she undoubtedly applauds them when she sees them. smile.gif


So we have two babes running for Arbcom? Horsey says: vote for them! boing.gif


Unomi is a guy, not a "babe".

Posted by: Mathsci

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 10:56pm) *

QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 10:51pm) *

Shelly, Jehochman (to a lesser extant), and particularly AGK are just grandstanding before the arbcom election.

I could tell AGK was going to run for the arbcom election when he switched from obsequious arbcom clerk mode to arbcom critic mode http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=323366899.
I toe the line, and I get opposed for not being free-thinking. I actually speak my mind, and I get called a grand-stander. There really is no satisfying people, is there?

I stand by my comments there. Remedies like that are useless. I'm hardly grandstanding by making a comment on a case discussion page: it's not like they receive a lot of attention, is it? smile.gif
QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 22nd November 2009, 7:31am) *

On the other hand Manning did not warn his other fellow clerk AGK for inflammatory language on the case pages. Instead he wrote a glowing endorsement of AGK for the elections.
Oh, hush you. I did not use "inflammatory language." Strong criticism of a proposed committee decision is a quite different thing. I also explained myself quite extensively on the same page where Manning offered his endorsement.


Speaking up for Piotrus??

Seriously, I think the ArbCom clerks generally do a good job and do their best to be helpful. . But why are so many of them running for election this year?

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 11:34pm) *

Seriously, I think the ArbCom clerks generally do a good job and do their best to be helpful. . But why are so many of them running for election this year?

Why not? Why else would they have volunteered to clerk?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 6:17pm) *

Unomi is a guy, not a "babe".


Phooey! hrmph.gif

Posted by: Jaranda

I joined the hellfest, seriously we need candidates that will protect our article writers and valued contributers, and deal with no bs. Don't be afraid to ask me questions.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 24th November 2009, 2:57pm) *

I joined the hellfest, seriously we need candidates that will protect our article writers and valued contributers, and deal with no bs. Don't be afraid to ask me questions.


...what? C'mon Jaranda, you do realise the chances of you winning are nil?

Posted by: Fritz

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:05pm) *

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 24th November 2009, 2:57pm) *

I joined the hellfest, seriously we need candidates that will protect our article writers and valued contributers, and deal with no bs. Don't be afraid to ask me questions.


...what? C'mon Jaranda, you do realise the chances of you winning are nil?

What are the chances of any of us winning? The general feeling (rightly or wrongly) is that the current nominees are lacking something. With nine hours to go, how would you fancy the job, Nerd? smile.gif

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Fritz @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:25pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:05pm) *

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 24th November 2009, 2:57pm) *

I joined the hellfest, seriously we need candidates that will protect our article writers and valued contributers, and deal with no bs. Don't be afraid to ask me questions.


...what? C'mon Jaranda, you do realise the chances of you winning are nil?

What are the chances of any of us winning? The general feeling (rightly or wrongly) is that the current nominees are lacking something. With nine hours to go, how would you fancy the job, Nerd? smile.gif


Who is to say that I'm not already running?

Posted by: Fritz

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:28pm) *

QUOTE(Fritz @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:25pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:05pm) *

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 24th November 2009, 2:57pm) *

I joined the hellfest, seriously we need candidates that will protect our article writers and valued contributers, and deal with no bs. Don't be afraid to ask me questions.


...what? C'mon Jaranda, you do realise the chances of you winning are nil?

What are the chances of any of us winning? The general feeling (rightly or wrongly) is that the current nominees are lacking something. With nine hours to go, how would you fancy the job, Nerd? smile.gif


Who is to say that I'm not already running?


A very good point - I shan't enquire further.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Fritz @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:31pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:28pm) *

QUOTE(Fritz @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:25pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:05pm) *

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 24th November 2009, 2:57pm) *

I joined the hellfest, seriously we need candidates that will protect our article writers and valued contributers, and deal with no bs. Don't be afraid to ask me questions.


...what? C'mon Jaranda, you do realise the chances of you winning are nil?

What are the chances of any of us winning? The general feeling (rightly or wrongly) is that the current nominees are lacking something. With nine hours to go, how would you fancy the job, Nerd? smile.gif


Who is to say that I'm not already running?


A very good point - I shan't enquire further.


Someone will have to win, unless every person gets the same amount of support/opposition. Then it'll be up to Jimbo I suppose.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 24th November 2009, 10:32am) *

Then it'll be up to Jimbo, I suppose.



Thanks for e-lustrating the meaning of suppository.

Ja Ja boing.gif


Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 7:05pm) *
QUOTE(Mathsci @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 11:34pm) *
Seriously, I think the ArbCom clerks generally do a good job and do their best to be helpful. . But why are so many of them running for election this year?
Why not? Why else would they have volunteered to clerk?

It is now well-established that clerkship is the standard stepping stone to the ArbCom.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:52am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 7:05pm) *
QUOTE(Mathsci @ Mon 23rd November 2009, 11:34pm) *
Seriously, I think the ArbCom clerks generally do a good job and do their best to be helpful. . But why are so many of them running for election this year?
Why not? Why else would they have volunteered to clerk?

It is now well-established that clerkship is the standard stepping stone to the ArbCom.

Yep. The Supreme ArbCom. And you can be chosen for clerkship if you've been previously a member of the Law (T-C-L-K-R-D) Undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) Review, or something like that. It's all very legalistic.

Somebody said that one definition of depression is when you spend a long time climbing a corporate ladder, or some kind of other ladder, only to find out that it's leaning against the wrong wall. mellow.gif Boy, does that ever apply to Wikipedia.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

In the months after I got appointed to the ArbCom after serving as a member of the Mediation Cabal, we saw a whole bunch of obvious stairclimbers sign up to be MedCab moderators. Ever since Newyorkbrad made the move from ArbCom Clerk to ArbCom (and then subsequently Wizardman, who made the same move), the stairclimbers have identified the clerkship as the Obvious Thing To Do In Order To Reach The Brass Ring. Since the community doesn't yet think of the clerks as being All That Important, this works out well for gnomish types with aspirations of authority.

Eventually the community will figure out that ArbCom clerks are Important, and create some idiotically complicated political structure around their appointment (hey, everyking, why don't you start demanding that ArbCom clerks be popularly elected, that should make for some good fun), but for now that's the short track to fame and fortune, apparently.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 24th November 2009, 11:54am) *

Eventually the community will figure out that ArbCom clerks are Important, and create some idiotically complicated political structure around their appointment (hey, Everyking, why don't you start demanding that ArbCom clerks be popularly elected, that should make for some good fun), but for now that's the short track to fame and fortune, apparently.


They really ought to simplify the carear advice down to something like:

Insert Nose Here

Jon hrmph.gif

Posted by: trenton

And the great wiki-philosophers of our time descend to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FArbitration_Committee_2_is_now_Closed and read the tea leaves in its search.

QUOTE
Consensus is discovered not counted through the application whatever rules people have imagined there are. RfCs provide clues, not clear cut answers.


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(trenton @ Tue 24th November 2009, 1:28pm) *

And the great wiki-philosophers of our time descend to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FArbitration_Committee_2_is_now_Closed and read the tea leaves in its search.

QUOTE
Consensus is discovered not counted through the application whatever rules people have imagined there are. RfCs provide clues, not clear cut answers.


Yeah. It strikes like revelation, an epiphany, a great bolt of providential enlightment. And if you don't get it, it must because you're either stupid or a troll. Since *I* see it. mad.gif



=======================

Magnet notes on James Joyce's refrigerator---

1) call bank
2) dry cleaner
3) forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race
4) call mom

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 24th November 2009, 9:19pm) *

Magnet notes on James Joyce's refrigerator---

1) call bank
2) dry cleaner
3) forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race
4) call mom

laugh.gif Is that from The Far Side?

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(trenton @ Tue 24th November 2009, 9:28pm) *

And the great wiki-philosophers of our time descend to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FArbitration_Committee_2_is_now_Closed and read the tea leaves in its search.

QUOTE
Consensus is discovered not counted through the application whatever rules people have imagined there are. RfCs provide clues, not clear cut answers.



This sort of nonsense is a prime example of why the admin culture is so wrongheaded and why RfA is such a nightmare. Empowering admins to "discover" consensus through some means that's impossible to define (if there were a definition, it would be something like "whatever I think it ought to be, except possibly if what I think it ought to be is so entirely unpopular that I would face a serious backlash") elevates admins to the role of wise elders, or even mystics. The community becomes a mere advisory board and the word "consensus" ceases to have any real meaning at all.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 24th November 2009, 2:39pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 24th November 2009, 9:19pm) *

Magnet notes on James Joyce's refrigerator---

1) call bank
2) dry cleaner
3) forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race
4) call mom

laugh.gif Is that from The Far Side?

I don't think so, but it's Larson type humor all right. I got it out of a biography of Joseph Campbell I happened to be reading, and I dunno where he got it. Possibly it says. Iif you're interested. I can look it up.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 24th November 2009, 5:54pm) *

In the months after I got appointed to the ArbCom after serving as a member of the Mediation Cabal, we saw a whole bunch of obvious stairclimbers sign up to be MedCab moderators. Ever since Newyorkbrad made the move from ArbCom Clerk to ArbCom (and then subsequently Wizardman, who made the same move), the stairclimbers have identified the clerkship as the Obvious Thing To Do In Order To Reach The Brass Ring. Since the community doesn't yet think of the clerks as being All That Important, this works out well for gnomish types with aspirations of authority.

Eventually the community will figure out that ArbCom clerks are Important, and create some idiotically complicated political structure around their appointment (hey, everyking, why don't you start demanding that ArbCom clerks be popularly elected, that should make for some good fun), but for now that's the short track to fame and fortune, apparently.


Clerks shouldn't have any power, and electing them would effectively empower them by giving them a community mandate. I don't think there's a problem with clerks. People can vote for whoever they want, and in any case NYB and Wizardman are two of the most reasonable arbitrators.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Jaranda @ Tue 24th November 2009, 3:57pm) *

I joined the hellfest, seriously we need candidates that will protect our article writers and valued contributers, and deal with no bs. Don't be afraid to ask me questions.


How long since the last time you quit the project? How long until you quit again? We need candidates who'll stay on the job. Also, if you want to be a successful arbitrator, you need to be able to tolerate a lot of BS. Complex problem-solving among groups of people necessarily involves a healthy tolerance for BS.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 25th November 2009, 12:52am) *

Clerks shouldn't have any power, and electing them would effectively empower them by giving them a community mandate. I don't think there's a problem with clerks. People can vote for whoever they want, and in any case NYB and Wizardman are two of the most reasonable arbitrators.

Why is it then that you would http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27206&st=0&p=203803&#entry203803? Who are the Thomas Jeffersons you imagine in the community? And how would any body elected by the "community" avoid the fundamental problems you perceive in ArbCom?

ArbCom is widely criticized, but in many ways, your criticisms are the opposite of conventional wisdom. Many users--especially those banned by the "community"--fault ArbCom for not standing up to the community enough, for not making independent assessments where we ought to, and for giving too much weight to influential howls on case talk pages.

I've always found these critiques much more persuasive than your criticisms, Everyking. "Community consensus" is often a process where interested editors self-select to control debates for or against some common purpose. Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts, but much of it seems little more than political and interpersonal power struggles.

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

You often praise the community, Everyking, but I've never heard your proposal for how the "community" could make decisions without the problems we often see on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(One @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:17am) *

I've always found these critiques much more persuasive than your criticisms, Everyking. "Community consensus" is often a process where interested editors self-select to control debates for or against some common purpose. Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts, but much of it seems little more than political and interpersonal power struggles.

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

You often praise the community, Everyking, but I've never heard your proposal for how the "community" could make decisions without the problems we often see on Wikipedia.


I try to remember what it was like to be an editor working on building WW2 articles with no idea where ANI, RfAR, or Jimbo's talk page were even located. I imagine, based on my own memory, that editors like that don't care exactly how ArbCom or any other governance committee in Wikipedia is functioning. I believe what those editors care about is if disputes are ultimately being resolved, if rule-breaking, POV-pushing editor and admin behavior is being corrected, and if the project is being administered in a way that helps ensure that it will be around for awhile. That means that what One is saying above makes a lot of sense.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *
Who are the Thomas Jeffersons you imagine in the community?


And are those Jeffersons going to finally admit to having a bit of woo-woo with Sally Hemings? (The Monticello folks can't keep denying this anymore, you know!) evilgrin.gif


QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *

Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts...


And if you believe that, you will obviously be bidding on this http://fitnessnyc.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/family-vacations-brooklyn-bridge.jpg ermm.gif

QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *
Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.


That's like saying syphilis is a more enjoyable affliction than gonorrhea. wacko.gif


QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *
It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community"...


Sort of like desysopping Lara and GlassCobra despite a total absence of community consensus for such an action? bored.gif


Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 24th November 2009, 9:04pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *
Who are the Thomas Jeffersons you imagine in the community?


And are those Jeffersons going to finally admit to having a bit of woo-woo with Sally Hemings? (The Monticello folks can't keep denying this anymore, you know!) evilgrin.gif


QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *

Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts...


And if you believe that, you will obviously be bidding on this http://fitnessnyc.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/family-vacations-brooklyn-bridge.jpg ermm.gif

QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *
Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.


That's like saying syphilis is a more enjoyable affliction than gonorrhea. wacko.gif


QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *
It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community"...


Sort of like desysopping Lara and GlassCobra despite a total absence of community consensus for such an action? bored.gif



I think the constant grinding interaction with "the community" that was One's prize for being elected to ArbCom has had a tonic like effect on him. I expect him to break though to some kind of meaningful critique of Wikipedia at any moment. His tone, at least, is well down that path already.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 24th November 2009, 9:11pm) *

I think the constant grinding interaction with "the community" that was One's prize for being elected to ArbCom has had a tonic like effect on him.


Some of that "logic" suggests there is plenty of gin in that tonic!

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 24th November 2009, 9:27pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 24th November 2009, 9:11pm) *

I think the constant grinding interaction with "the community" that was One's prize for being elected to ArbCom has had a tonic like effect on him.


Some of that "logic" suggests there is plenty of gin in that tonic!


Won't be long till there's mostly cat in that tonic.

Jon oldtimer.gif

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(One @ Wed 25th November 2009, 2:17am) *

Why is it then that you would http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27206&st=0&p=203803&#entry203803? Who are the Thomas Jeffersons you imagine in the community? And how would any body elected by the "community" avoid the fundamental problems you perceive in ArbCom?

ArbCom is widely criticized, but in many ways, your criticisms are the opposite of conventional wisdom. Many users--especially those banned by the "community"--fault ArbCom for not standing up to the community enough, for not making independent assessments where we ought to, and for giving too much weight to influential howls on case talk pages.

I've always found these critiques much more persuasive than your criticisms, Everyking. "Community consensus" is often a process where interested editors self-select to control debates for or against some common purpose. Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts, but much of it seems little more than political and interpersonal power struggles.

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

You often praise the community, Everyking, but I've never heard your proposal for how the "community" could make decisions without the problems we often see on Wikipedia.


The ArbCom is not an "even-handed decision maker" in any sense. Its rulings have always been fundamentally based on the political strength and influence of case participants and frequently involve harsh and unfair treatment of the volunteers devoting their time to help develop the project. Its decision-making process is completely opaque, done in secret so that it can't be reviewed. Yes, the ArbCom is somewhat better than it was in years past, but that's only because the community made its voice heard and forced some improvement. It's ironic that you were one of the candidates elected by the community as part of that reformist sentiment, isn't it?

In essence, the ArbCom, as an elite and draconian body of decision-makers operating in secret, is antithetical to the whole nature of Wikipedia, and the clash between the basic ideas underpinning the project and the reality of authority as exercised by the ArbCom has significantly undermined the project's health over the long-term. The ArbCom's consistent indulgence of admin abuse and punishment of ordinary content contributors is reflected in the project's general administrative culture. How many good contributors have been banned as a result of all that, and how many more have left in frustration? How much better would Wikipedia's content be today if its arbitrators and administrators had not been driving contributors away for years? My view is that community-based governance would better reflect the collaborative, bottom-up values at the heart of the project, and that would in turn help to refocus the admin culture and promote a more friendly and fair editorial environment. I can't guarantee that would happen, but I can at least guarantee that it wouldn't be any worse than the current arrangement.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.


There's a lot of truth to that. Unfortunately, however, the concept that a politician claims to represent some sort of "silent majority" instead of the vocal minority who actually express opinions within the community is itself something often used (in Wikipedia and elsewhere) as a tactic in the wars of politics and personalities, to push through something that few have actually expressed support for because it's allegedly what the "normal" members really want even though they're too apathetic to actually say it.

Posted by: One

You missed my question for you, everyking. I've seen you rant about ArbCom's tyranny several times.

My question is: what extant or imagined "community" dispute resolution process would be better and less capricious than ArbCom? Do you think ANI is a panacea? Do you even imagine it's preferable to ArbCom? If so, why? If not, I hope you could explain what would be better.

At any rate, I should point out that Wizardman was never a clerk, although three former clerks were elected last year.

As has been drawn to my attention, Arbitrator/former clerks include FloNight (2006), Brad (2007), Coren-Rlevse (2008), and John Vandenberg (former clerk, also 2008). Kelly Martin could also be included on this list, but her short-lived arbcom seat is not noted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AC/C#List_of_clerks.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Will Wonders Never Cease!?

I never thought I'd be awarding one of these highly prised prizes to Mister DT — but what the hey, fair is fair — and here it is:

QUOTE

Per Angusta Ad Augusta In A Nut'sHell
Star Of Arete

``````````````Z.................

http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm

wink.gif


Yumpin Yiminy boing.gif

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 25th November 2009, 7:44am) *

QUOTE(One @ Tue 24th November 2009, 8:17pm) *

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.


There's a lot of truth to that. Unfortunately, however, the concept that a politician claims to represent some sort of "silent majority" instead of the vocal minority who actually express opinions within the community is itself something often used (in Wikipedia and elsewhere) as a tactic in the wars of politics and personalities, to push through something that few have actually expressed support for because it's allegedly what the "normal" members really want even though they're too apathetic to actually say it.


Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:22am) *
In essence, the ArbCom, as an elite and draconian body of decision-makers operating in secret, is antithetical to the whole nature of Wikipedia, and the clash between the basic ideas underpinning the project and the reality of authority as exercised by the ArbCom has significantly undermined the project's health over the long-term. The ArbCom's consistent indulgence of admin abuse and punishment of ordinary content contributors is reflected in the project's general administrative culture. How many good contributors have been banned as a result of all that, and how many more have left in frustration? How much better would Wikipedia's content be today if its arbitrators and administrators had not been driving contributors away for years? My view is that community-based governance would better reflect the collaborative, bottom-up values at the heart of the project, and that would in turn help to refocus the admin culture and promote a more friendly and fair editorial environment. I can't guarantee that would happen, but I can at least guarantee that it wouldn't be any worse than the current arrangement.


For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

Some people see Arbcom as the top tier of the system. Sadly, Arbcom also seems to confirm the old saying about shit floating to the surface. This may explain a group of people who have repeatedly shown themselves to be vindictive, evasive, hypocritical, blatantly dishonest ("Oh, that e-mail from six weeks ago?"), rude, unwilling to enforce clearly defined policies (the Risker-approved socks) but eager to invent new policies if it means silencing people they dislike (Risker, again, in her re-block of Greg for...edit summaries?), and clearly not interested in hearing what many people have to say (dismissing input from concerned editors as "shouting from the gallery").

I blame a lot of the high-publicized defections of Wikipedia's editorial population (see the Wall Street Journal article from this week) on Arbcom's inability to dial down the drama decibels. If anything, Arbcom has been pouring fuel on the fire by encouraging more drama through its increasingly erratic inability to govern in a manner that suggests responsible people are in charge.

P.S. I should add that I don't know any of these people outside of Wikipedia and it is easy to assume that they are probably very pleasant and very intelligent in real life -- Wikipedia has a way of bringing out the worst in people.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(One @ Wed 25th November 2009, 3:55pm) *

You missed my question for you, everyking. I've seen you rant about ArbCom's tyranny several times.

My question is: what extant or imagined "community" dispute resolution process would be better and less capricious than ArbCom? Do you think ANI is a panacea? Do you even imagine it's preferable to ArbCom? If so, why? If not, I hope you could explain what would be better.

At any rate, I should point out that Wizardman was never a clerk, although three former clerks were elected last year.

As has been drawn to my attention, Arbitrator/former clerks include FloNight (2006), Brad (2007), Coren-Rlevse (2008), and John Vandenberg (former clerk, also 2008). Kelly Martin could also be included on this list, but her short-lived arbcom seat is not noted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AC/C#List_of_clerks.


I don't think you fully understand my position. I haven't said the ArbCom should be replaced in its dispute resolution functions by anything--I've only said that it should operate openly and engage with the community. I have said that the ArbCom should be restricted to simply resolving disputes between users, and I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:59pm) *
I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.
Ever read Catch-22? Or at least heard the term?

Posted by: One

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 25th November 2009, 4:59pm) *

I don't think you fully understand my position. I haven't said the ArbCom should be replaced in its dispute resolution functions by anything--I've only said that it should operate openly and engage with the community.

Moving the goalposts then, how should ArbCom "engage with the community"? Do you believe that any board on the site represents the community? I do not. One of the main problems with the site is that warring cliques have far too much influence. Do you have a proposal for "engaging the community" which avoids this problem?

QUOTE
I have said that the ArbCom should be restricted to simply resolving disputes between users, and I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.

Tyrannical arbitrators tried to create the shell of such a structure (hoped that they would form a sort of constitutional committee to create a governance structure), but it was effectively vetoed by ANI regulars. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cat_congress_mired_in_sunbeam.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(One @ Wed 25th November 2009, 8:30pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 25th November 2009, 4:59pm) *

I don't think you fully understand my position. I haven't said the ArbCom should be replaced in its dispute resolution functions by anything--I've only said that it should operate openly and engage with the community.

Moving the goalposts then, how should ArbCom "engage with the community"? Do you believe that any board on the site represents the community? I do not. One of the main problems with the site is that warring cliques have far too much influence. Do you have a proposal for "engaging the community" which avoids this problem?

QUOTE
I have said that the ArbCom should be restricted to simply resolving disputes between users, and I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.

Tyrannical arbitrators tried to create the shell of such a structure (hoped that they would form a sort of constitutional committee to create a governance structure), but it was effectively vetoed by ANI regulars. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cat_congress_mired_in_sunbeam.

One of the ways I quickly screen discussions/threads about how evil the arbcom has become is to look at if the person making the allegations has ever accepted that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Parties_instructed Unless someone frames it as "I did X and Y wrong, but they totally screwed me on Z," I tend to keep screen out http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sore+loser complaints.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:36pm) *
One of the ways I quickly screen discussions/threads about how evil the arbcom has become is to look at if the person making the allegations has ever accepted that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Parties_instructed Unless someone frames it as "I did X and Y wrong, but they totally screwed me on Z," I tend to keep screen out http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sore+loser complaints.


I'm curious to know how you deal with situations in which the individual in question has, in fact, done absolutely nothing wrong.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(One @ Wed 25th November 2009, 8:55am) *
Kelly Martin could also be included on this list, but her short-lived arbcom seat is not noted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AC/C#List_of_clerks.
Uh, dear, I was appointed Head Clerk after my term as an Arbitrator had ended. Exactly the reverse of the situation in question.

I apologize for suggesting that Wizardman has been a clerk. I had gotten that impression at some point. He certainly is wonky enough to have been one.


QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:59am) *
I have said that the ArbCom should be restricted to simply resolving disputes between users, and I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.
The 'community' has absolutely no interest in developing such a structure. The only way such a structure will ever be erected is if it (or at least its precursor) is put in place by fiat, and the only entities with the power to possibly pull that off are the Foundation, Jimmy Wales, and the ArbCom.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:36pm) *
One of the ways I quickly screen discussions/threads about how evil the arbcom has become is to look at if the person making the allegations has ever accepted that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Parties_instructed Unless someone frames it as "I did X and Y wrong, but they totally screwed me on Z," I tend to keep screen out http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sore+loser complaints.

I thought open snarkiness was beneath you, Mr. Bisanz?

Remember, it was Sarah Palin. You can hardly blame people for thinking the BLP strictures were largely inapplicable - not only is she a household name at this point, and a divisive political figure, she's a MILF, too. It's like a triple-whammy.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 25th November 2009, 9:05pm) *

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:36pm) *
One of the ways I quickly screen discussions/threads about how evil the arbcom has become is to look at if the person making the allegations has ever accepted that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Parties_instructed Unless someone frames it as "I did X and Y wrong, but they totally screwed me on Z," I tend to keep screen out http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sore+loser complaints.

I thought open snarkiness was beneath you, Mr. Bisanz?

Remember, it was Sarah Palin. You can hardly blame people for thinking the BLP strictures were largely inapplicable - not only is she a household name at this point, and a divisive political figure, she's a MILF, too. It's like a triple-whammy.

Well seeing as this week I was accused of being overly defensive of Barack Obama's reputation, I suppose I am in equipoise.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:56pm) *
The 'community' has absolutely no interest in developing such a structure. The only way such a structure will ever be erected is if it (or at least its precursor) is put in place by fiat, and the only entities with the power to possibly pull that off are the Foundation, Jimmy Wales, and the ArbCom.

...at which point, the current somewhat-debatable trend towards a reduction in the number of active WP editors will probably become a stampede for the exits. That would be a good thing, of course, but the fact that the system is ungovernable (and therefore institutionally irresponsible) is one of its main attractions for most of the current community members.

Still, you have to wonder - if they did that, would the existing community slowly be replaced by people who understand the need for such things as editorial standards (beyond simplistic notions of "notability") and effective governance structures...? IMO probably not, but it would make the whole thing less objectionable.

Posted by: MBisanz

Also worth adding that if Everyking ever said something like "in the past I was mean to Phil and he didn't deserve what I did to him and I've learned not to treat people like that even if I disagree with them strongly," I suspect he would pass RFA or whatever it is he wants with extreme ease.

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 25th November 2009, 9:10pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:56pm) *
The 'community' has absolutely no interest in developing such a structure. The only way such a structure will ever be erected is if it (or at least its precursor) is put in place by fiat, and the only entities with the power to possibly pull that off are the Foundation, Jimmy Wales, and the ArbCom.

...at which point, the current somewhat-debatable trend towards a reduction in the number of active WP editors will probably become a stampede for the exits. That would be a good thing, of course, but the fact that the system is ungovernable (and therefore institutionally irresponsible) is one of its main attractions for most of the current community members.

Still, you have to wonder - if they did that, would the existing community slowly be replaced by people who understand the need for such things as editorial standards (beyond simplistic notions of "notability") and effective governance structures...? IMO probably not, but it would make the whole thing less objectionable.

One of the outcomes I can think of Somey is that of the wounded animal. If editors leave in droves, but because of pagerank, namebrand, etc, people keep using WP, then the BLP and POV situations will only worsen as WP descends into an Myspace-like existence, only with more dangerous credibility than Myspace could ever hope for.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 25th November 2009, 2:10pm) *
Well seeing as this week I was accused of being overly defensive of Barack Obama's reputation, I suppose I am in equipoise.

Perhaps... Either way, Obama is both male and largely sane, and while he's a fairly good-looking guy by most accounts, he's just not going to get the kind of "unwanted" attention that Palin gets from the internet's dominant male/sexually-frustrated demographic.

I'm not sure what this means in relation to your feelings about Mr. McBride's actions during the incident in question, though. Generally speaking I would have taken your side in the dispute, and would do so roughly 9 times out of ten in similar situations, but it really is difficult for me to morally justify any action that might be seen as positive by the Palinistas, in any way whatsoever.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 25th November 2009, 2:10pm) *
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:56pm) *
The 'community' has absolutely no interest in developing such a structure. The only way such a structure will ever be erected is if it (or at least its precursor) is put in place by fiat, and the only entities with the power to possibly pull that off are the Foundation, Jimmy Wales, and the ArbCom.
...at which point, the current somewhat-debatable trend towards a reduction in the number of active WP editors will probably become a stampede for the exits. That would be a good thing, of course, but the fact that the system is ungovernable (and therefore institutionally irresponsible) is one of its main attractions for most of the current community members.
Indeed, and I believe Jimmy and the Foundation both know it, which is why they both act to obstruct and delay changes that might impact "participation". It's very clear that Jimmy and the WMF view participation as one of the most important metrics of performance for Wikipedia, and are very unwilling to do anything that might compromise participation. I don't have a good theory as to why they think participation is such a key metric, though.

Online intentional communities have always had to pay a lot of attention to participation: too little and you don't hold people's attention; too much and you get overwhelmed and lose your focus. It's obvious to me, at least, that Wikipedia's community is way overshot and needs to contract for its own health. Most online intentional communities, however, do not survive their initial post-overshoot contraction; they tend to contract below the point of ongoing viability. The trick to survival (which very few communities manage) is to resist the urge to get caught up in the exuberance of the initial expansion and to start layering in organizational structures and controls as the community expands. If Wikipedia survives, it will be because it finds the sweet spot during its contraction to introduce just the right amount of community structure to enable the remaining community to effectively organize and redirect its efforts to halt the contraction and resume effective, meaningful, targeted recruitment of the people they need.

QUOTE
Still, you have to wonder - if they did that, would the existing community slowly be replaced by people who understand the need for such things as editorial standards (beyond simplistic notions of "notability") and effective governance structures...? IMO probably not, but it would make the whole thing less objectionable.
The odds are against them, but it's not out of the question. It mostly depends on whether a competent leader arises within the community or not.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 25th November 2009, 2:15pm) *
One of the outcomes I can think of Somey is that of the wounded animal. If editors leave in droves, but because of pagerank, namebrand, etc, people keep using WP, then the BLP and POV situations will only worsen as WP descends into an Myspace-like existence, only with more dangerous credibility than Myspace could ever hope for.

Well, exactly. Trying to guess the likely endgame for WP, both in the medium and long terms, is one of my own chief interests here, and that has always struck me as a highly likely scenario. However, it will probably be accompanied by a move towards a lockdown/stabilization strategy, which is also how the public will probably see it. (And how did we get so off-topic? It's Everyking's fault again, isn't it? hrmph.gif )

Eventually an alternative to WP might come along, prior to which there would be a period of fits-and-starts as competitors start up and mostly fail, due to the financial problems inherent in any business model that involves providing a free online information reference... Meanwhile, the idea of an international government-subsidized reference site (whether or not based on WP content) seems almost inconceivable now, but in ten years, who knows? Weirder things have been suggested. They might even continue to allow open/anonymous editing, in some form or other.

Either way, I do believe the trend towards editor non-retention is real (though maybe not as pronounced as the WSJ says it is), and I don't think there's any way to really stop it, aside from deleting numerous articles on major topics relating to popular culture, and/or dropping "notability" standards drastically in the short term. I hope they don't do either of those things, but once panic sets in, unpredictability is usually not far behind. hmmm.gif

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 25th November 2009, 9:30pm) *

Either way, I do believe the trend towards editor non-retention is real (though maybe not as pronounced as the WSJ says it is), and I don't think there's any way to really stop it, aside from deleting numerous articles on major topics relating to popular culture, and/or dropping "notability" standards drastically in the short term. I hope they don't do either of those things, but once panic sets in, unpredictability is usually not far behind. hmmm.gif

I've been pushing against that trend at WP:WP-ET by encouraging thoughtful analysis of change, but everyone keeps sticking their heads in the sand or saying we have to eliminate CSD to encourage more article growth </hyperbole>

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 25th November 2009, 8:30pm) *

Eventually an alternative to WP might come along, prior to which there would be a period of fits-and-starts as competitors start up and mostly fail, due to the financial problems inherent in any business model that involves providing a free online information reference... Meanwhile, the idea of an international government-subsidized reference site (whether or not based on WP content) seems almost inconceivable now, but in ten years, who knows? Weirder things have been suggested. They might even continue to allow open/anonymous editing, in some form or other.

Well, the UK is about to do it with possibly the best set of mapping data in the world - Ordnance Survey are going to give away their mapping online as it is seen as a critical resource for providing useful information.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 25th November 2009, 8:15pm) *

Also worth adding that if Everyking ever said something like "in the past I was mean to Phil and he didn't deserve what I did to him and I've learned not to treat people like that even if I disagree with them strongly," I suspect he would pass RFA or whatever it is he wants with extreme ease.

I believe it's well established that everyking wants vindication much more than adminship. He could have had the latter a long time ago. It's not even worth thinking about.

At any rate, I don't really care how much contrition everyking shows, or whether he accepts that he has ever done anything wrong. I don't have a strong opinion on that subject, and I really don't care if he holds tastefully modest views about himself. I'm interested in ArbCom, not everyking.

I'm curious about everyking's vision for Wikipedia. He doesn't like how ArbCom deliberates in secret--we all know that--and he values the "community" above all else, but I don't understand how he thinks ArbCom should operate. If it's "ArbCom ought to ask ANI what it thinks," I'm not persuaded. I have not heard any concrete alternative explanation of what "ArbCom engaging the community" might look like.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 25th November 2009, 2:38pm) *
I've been pushing against that trend at WP:WP-ET by encouraging thoughtful analysis of change, but everyone keeps sticking their heads in the sand or saying we have to eliminate CSD to encourage more article growth </hyperbole>

Assuming you mean "allow" more article growth rather than "encourage," I guess I could agree with that. In http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27465&view=findpost&p=206227, I pointed out that the particular statistic being reported on (change in discrete editors-per-day, or whatever it was) could be seen as partially bogus, i.e., skewed by cheating that's always been endemic to the system, but which is being reduced over time as people either get tired of doing it, or get better at stopping it.

Not that I particularly care one way or the other, but proper management of such as system (if that's even possible) also requires that WP'ers not get too worked up over any one particular negative (or positive) statistic, but rather analyze all their statistics as an overall picture and act accordingly. You (Mr. Bisanz) are probably one of the few people on WP who's even capable of doing that, but even if you manage to get it right, I suspect you're going to be an almost-lone voice in the wilderness for some time to come.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 25th November 2009, 3:10pm) *

...at which point, the current somewhat-debatable trend towards a reduction in the number of active WP editors will probably become a stampede for the exits. That would be a good thing, of course, but the fact that the system is ungovernable (and therefore institutionally irresponsible) is one of its main attractions for most of the current community members.

Still, you have to wonder - if they did that, would the existing community slowly be replaced by people who understand the need for such things as editorial standards (beyond simplistic notions of "notability") and effective governance structures...? IMO probably not, but it would make the whole thing less objectionable.


If I can cut in…

I doubt there will be a wave of replacements. Web sites that spring a leak never truly regain their cred – think of AOL, Friendster and MySpace. The WSJ article was the worst publicity for WMF – the writing is on the wall for anyone who wants to read it.

If there is a wave of new editors, it will probably come from the high school and college kids who have come of age tapping into Wikipedia’s none-too-reliable articles. For the most part, the kids seem more amused by the antics and the drama generated across the “community,” and they will happily pick up the chaos torch and run wildly in new direction. We can probably expect to see many more of these young people – though the idea of having 10,000 Ironholds clones is enough to inspire homicide. Needless to say, this demographic will make a bad situation worse.

Responsible adults, however, will either stay away from Wikipedia or get out once they realize how things operate. Professional writers don’t need Wikipedia – no byline and no pay? Academics and business professionals don’t have time for the likes of Uncle G. or Ottava or Tanthalas39 – and why write for Wikipedia when you can get yourself noticed in, say, the Harvard Business Review or some sort of professional journal? And responsible adults with families, professions and real life interests won’t care about whether David Shankbone’s biography meets WP:BIO standards.

While Arbcom is not helping matters and is clearly souring many people today, I suspect that any future catastrophe will not be of their doing. Their focus is very narrow and they are only interested in bullying a tiny clique that seems to thrive on negative energy. Any genuine wreckage will probably be a Seigenthaler-type controversy that will continue to confirm WP’s nonexistent editorial standards and irresponsible structure. Arbcom will come in afterwards to flush the toilet, but knowing them they'll probably wind up flooding the lavatory.

Posted by: Mathsci

We've now moved onto the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.

This must be an example of the law of conservation of dramah on WP.

Just as the Ottava Rima case was quietening down,

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 25th November 2009, 9:01pm) *

Responsible adults, however, will either stay away from Wikipedia or get out once they realize how things operate. Professional writers don’t need Wikipedia – no byline and no pay? Academics and business professionals don’t have time for the likes of Uncle G. or Ottava or Tanthalas39 – and why write for Wikipedia when you can get yourself noticed in, say, the Harvard Business Review or some sort of professional journal?

As for the earth-folk who are not professional writers or academics or business moguls or whatever—but are (or at least always try to be) responsible adults… what do you recommend for them?

Oh yeah I forgot: blogging. dry.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 25th November 2009, 4:08pm) *
As for the earth-folk who are not professional writers or academics or business moguls or whatever—but are (or at least always try to be) responsible adults… what do you recommend for them?
Sorry, they lose. Wikipedia is yet another tragedy of the commons, in this regards: the lack of meaningful, enforcible rules regarding the use of the unitary commons results in the destruction of the commons. Self-regulation of commons never works, because only responsible people choose to self-regulate, which leaves the irresponsible to take short-term profits at the long-term expense of everyone.

Don't like this? Tough. That's the reality of human nature.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Wed 25th November 2009, 9:57pm) *

We've now moved onto the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.

Oh wow… I wouldn't take an even-money bet as to who will win this case if it actually opens. Mutually assured bannination would be great, but failing that any other combination of sanctions would be a net positive.

Of course, that alone means arb.com will strategically decline to hear any of it.

This is suitable for a thread of its own, and will probably be split apart soon enough.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 25th November 2009, 5:08pm) *

As for the earth-folk who are not professional writers or academics or business moguls or whatever—but are (or at least always try to be) responsible adults… what do you recommend for them?

Oh yeah I forgot: blogging. dry.gif


No, not at all. Real blogging takes time and dedication -- most people don't want that. That's why 95% of blogs are unfinished bits of business that consist of two-to-four entries that abruptly stop at one point.

The earth-folk, as you put it, will probably stay on Facebook for their Net goof-off time -- until the next big thing comes along online. There are plenty of game and hobby sites to keep people busy, too. Most people go on the Net to chill and have fun, not write articles (let alone get snapped at by some idiot teenage admin).

# # #

Quote of the day to Jehochman: "User:FT2, User:Alison, and User:Elonka have made serious accusations against me on the election pages. These accusations are based in part on private correspondence. Although this may not have been their intention, the effect is to smear my reputation..."

What reputation? blink.gif

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 25th November 2009, 8:27pm) *
If Wikipedia survives, it will be because it finds the sweet spot during its contraction to introduce just the right amount of community structure to enable the remaining community to effectively organize and redirect its efforts to halt the contraction and resume effective, meaningful, targeted recruitment of the people they need.


Yes, that's the key. Wikipedia needs to install just the right amount of governance to reduce some of the chaos, but not so much that it ends up like Citizendium.

There are some wikiprojects which I think will continue to progress at the same rate even if a mass exodus for the door takes place. Military History, for example, will continue to enjoy good participation, because that project is structured well and its contributors are editors, like me, who enjoy having a forum where they can simply explore their hobby, videlicet studying and writing about military history.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 25th November 2009, 3:08pm) *

As for the earth-folk who are not professional writers or academics or business moguls or whatever—but are (or at least always try to be) responsible adults… what do you recommend for them?

Aha! It strikes me suddenly that right now, WP really IS a sort of dictatorship of the proletariat! It never happened elsewhere in the real world (well, maybe Cambodia for a while under Pol Pot), but in this bit of walled virtual-reality, no problemo! blink.gif

It has to be that way. We know the bourgeoisie are off somewhere else, doing business and actually making money. And one hardly encounters any intelligentsia on WP either. tongue.gif So what's left? Yep, proles.

Posted by: dtobias

My next Wikivoices interview is up: Steve Smith (Sarcasticidealist).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/2009-arbcom-steve-smith.ogg
http://ntww.dan.info/archives/2009-arbcom-steve-smith.mp3

Nobody will ever accuse me of holding back election interview podcasts, whether for nefarious reasons or sheer laziness!

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:22pm) *

Nobody will ever accuse me of holding back election interview podcasts, whether for nefarious reasons or sheer laziness!


Too boring, sorry. You need to borrow some shtick from Howard Stern, Dan -- locker room humor is what sells with listeners, kiddo. evilgrin.gif


Posted by: Mathsci

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 25th November 2009, 11:30pm) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Wed 25th November 2009, 9:57pm) *

We've now moved onto the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.

Oh wow… I wouldn't take an even-money bet as to who will win this case if it actually opens. Mutually assured bannination would be great, but failing that any other combination of sanctions would be a net positive.

Of course, that alone means arb.com will strategically decline to hear any of it.

This is suitable for a thread of its own, and will probably be split apart soon enough.


Fortunately it looks as if ArbCom are declining the case - it might then become an RfC/U on Jehochman. He has a history of proposing something vigorously one day, getting people behind him and then, on a whim, abandoning it. He never seems to have any sense that he has led other people astray, wasted time or caused unnecessary offense. This certainly was the case when he was acting as the behind-the-scenes ringleader to get Elonka desysopped. Now he claims that he was acting in a "fit of pique". Apart from Alison, none of those mentioned in the case have unblemished reputations: but I think Jehochman will probably be forced to abandon his election candidacy, whether an RfC/U happens or not.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Thu 26th November 2009, 1:32am) *
I think Jehochman will probably be forced to abandon his election candidacy, whether an RfC/U happens or not.
Without commenting on underlying merits, the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 25th November 2009, 11:30pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:22pm) *

Nobody will ever accuse me of holding back election interview podcasts, whether for nefarious reasons or sheer laziness!


Too boring, sorry. You need to borrow some shtick from Howard Stern, Dan -- locker room humor is what sells with listeners, kiddo. evilgrin.gif


I was trying for a serious, informative interview, not a shock-jock act.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 26th November 2009, 2:01am) *
I was trying for a serious, informative interview, not a shock-jock act.
That'd explain why you edited out all my penis jokes.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 26th November 2009, 12:01am) *


I was trying for a serious, informative interview, not a shock-jock act.


Phooey -- serious is overrated. hrmph.gif

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Wed 25th November 2009, 3:42pm) *

I'm curious to know how you deal with situations in which the individual in question has, in fact, done absolutely nothing wrong.

When one of those comes along, do let us know.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 26th November 2009, 12:03am) *
That'd explain why you edited out all my penis jokes.


We need a bootleg of the full interview: Steve Smith, Uncut. evilgrin.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:59pm) *
the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.
Damn, if I had known there was to be a secret ballot, I would have run. So much more fun that way.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 26th November 2009, 12:21am) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:59pm) *
the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.
Damn, if I had known there was to be a secret ballot, I would have run. So much more fun that way.


I think you still have a few days to choose to run; isn't the deadline Dec. 1?

Edit: No, I guess nominations closed earlier; it's just voting that starts Dec. 1.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(One @ Wed 25th November 2009, 9:46pm) *

I'm curious about everyking's vision for Wikipedia. He doesn't like how ArbCom deliberates in secret--we all know that--and he values the "community" above all else, but I don't understand how he thinks ArbCom should operate. If it's "ArbCom ought to ask ANI what it thinks," I'm not persuaded. I have not heard any concrete alternative explanation of what "ArbCom engaging the community" might look like.


It seems fairly obvious to me, but I think an appropriate level of engagement would involve arbitrators asking specific questions to both case participants and the community at large, then discussing their ideas for resolving the problem at hand with case participants, the community at large, and the other arbitrators, all on-wiki. I wonder why you seem so perplexed by what I'm saying--is it because the ArbCom's outlook is so insular that arbitrators cannot imagine another way of doing business? My argument is that the ArbCom should concentrate on actual dispute resolution and should do so in the right spirit--the spirit most in accordance with Wikipedia's values, and the spirit most likely to achieve the desired results.

Posted by: MBisanz

[quote name='everyking' date='Thu 26th November 2009, 7:25am' post='206603']
[quote name='One' post='206541' date='Wed 25th November 2009, 9:46pm']
. . . should do so in the right spirit--the spirit most in accordance with Wikipedia's values, and the spirit most likely to achieve the desired results.
[/quote]
Umm, is it is proven that those three things intersect in any theoretical framework?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 26th November 2009, 12:25am) *
...then discussing their ideas for resolving the problem at hand with case participants, the community at large, and the other arbitrators, all on-wiki. I wonder why you seem so perplexed by what I'm saying--is it because the ArbCom's outlook is so insular that arbitrators cannot imagine another way of doing business?

I'd say it's because what you're describing sounds just like AN/I, isn't it? He just said he wasn't going to be persuaded by that. unsure.gif

You're a smart guy, EK - I thought it had become obvious to most people that effective decisionmaking, which (I would assume) includes dispute resolution, can't really occur in that kind of environment. You have to delegate those functions to a group that can work in some sort of seclusion from the chaos that surrounds them... It might be nice if ArbCom deliberations were all publicly visible, but if they were, nobody would participate in the cases. Meanwhile, people can already comment on proposed decisions, can't they? Nobody listens to those comments now, so why should they when all the secret deliberations are made public?

I'm probably not qualified to say one way or the other, but I'd say "lack of transparency" and "failure to interact with the larger community" are fairly low on the list of things that are wrong with the current system. I'd say "lack of core competence in behavioral psychology" is probably at the top, though I realize that might be taken as an insult by some ArbCom members. (Ehh, sorry about that. bored.gif )

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 25th November 2009, 9:15pm) *

Also worth adding that if Everyking ever said something like "in the past I was mean to Phil and he didn't deserve what I did to him and I've learned not to treat people like that even if I disagree with them strongly," I suspect he would pass RFA or whatever it is he wants with extreme ease.


And do you suppose that's a better path--engage in some kind of self-abasement ritual for political gain? Does that demonstrate good character? "Hey everybody, look how humble I am--now give me my sash and tiara!" laugh.gif

That's all foolishness. I will say what I believe to be true and will not make calculations based on what might win me the most votes. I am not right about everything, and I haven't been right about everything on Wikipedia over the years. In years past there were some admins who I criticized unfairly and there were some sanctioned users who I shouldn't have defended. If I think I'm right, I'll defend my position, and if I think I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge my error. That's all there is to it.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(One @ Wed 25th November 2009, 8:30pm) *

Tyrannical arbitrators tried to create the shell of such a structure (hoped that they would form a sort of constitutional committee to create a governance structure), but it was effectively vetoed by ANI regulars. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cat_congress_mired_in_sunbeam.


Top-down reform directed by the ArbCom? The ArbCom's record was already so appalling that it was absurd to imagine that it could competently and fairly oversee any kind of governance reform. There are other ways the ArbCom could have initiated a process without controlling it, but it wanted the control, and when its preferred process was shot down by the community, it just dropped the matter entirely. I don't remember any of you saying "OK, consensus is against us, so we'll try it your way."

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 26th November 2009, 1:14am) *
There are other ways the ArbCom could have initiated a process without controlling it, but it wanted the control, and when its preferred process was shot down by the community, it just dropped the matter entirely.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong (or that they were necessarily right), but what sort of improved governance system do you think would have resulted from a "process" without that kind of control? I thought the whole point of that was to avoid the sort of "cat-herding" exercise that has prevented such reforms from ever getting off the ground in the first place.

History suggests that mobs don't create working governmental structures - leaders create working governmental structures. Wikipedia doesn't really have leaders... Of course, if they did we would probably bash them incessantly here on WR regardless, but that's not really the point...

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:42am) *

For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) FROM revision WHERE rev_user != 0;
+-------------------------------+
| COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) |
+-------------------------------+
|                       3280645 |
+-------------------------------+
1 row in set (6 hours 34 min 19.09 sec)

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 0;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|  3813048 |
+----------+
1 row in set (11 min 55.70 sec)

That's registered users with (at least) one non-deleted edit and registered users with one edit (pretty much), respectively. 10.5 million is a pretty stupid figure to throw around. And of course your stats don't factor in things like eligibility requirements ('cause, as hard as it is to believe, some people are dishonest on the Internet).

It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AS615A_WIKI1_NS_20091122182426.gif seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 26th November 2009, 8:59am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:42am) *

For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) FROM revision WHERE rev_user != 0;
+-------------------------------+
| COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) |
+-------------------------------+
|                       3280645 |
+-------------------------------+
1 row in set (6 hours 34 min 19.09 sec)

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 0;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|  3813048 |
+----------+
1 row in set (11 min 55.70 sec)

That's registered users with (at least) one non-deleted edit and registered users with one edit (pretty much), respectively. 10.5 million is a pretty stupid figure to throw around. And of course your stats don't factor in things like eligibility requirements ('cause, as hard as it is to believe, some people are dishonest on the Internet).

It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AS615A_WIKI1_NS_20091122182426.gif seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.


I think a useful number would be the number of registered accounts that make at least 30 edits a month.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 26th November 2009, 4:20am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 26th November 2009, 8:59am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:42am) *

For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) FROM revision WHERE rev_user != 0;
+-------------------------------+
| COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) |
+-------------------------------+
|                       3280645 |
+-------------------------------+
1 row in set (6 hours 34 min 19.09 sec)

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 0;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|  3813048 |
+----------+
1 row in set (11 min 55.70 sec)

That's registered users with (at least) one non-deleted edit and registered users with one edit (pretty much), respectively. 10.5 million is a pretty stupid figure to throw around. And of course your stats don't factor in things like eligibility requirements ('cause, as hard as it is to believe, some people are dishonest on the Internet).

It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AS615A_WIKI1_NS_20091122182426.gif seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.


I think a useful number would be the number of registered accounts that make at least 30 edits a month.


Quick addendum:
CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 149;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|    88720 |
+----------+
1 row in set (29 min 22.24 sec)

Users with a stored edit count higher than 149. The voter eligibility requirement this year is 150 article edits before November 1, 2009. I suppose indefinitely blocked users also can't vote. This figure doesn't factor in these constraints, so the number of eligible voters is lower. You might say it's around 75,000, though you'd also have to consider the users who made 150 edits in 2003 and quit.... Lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say.

Posted by: Fritz

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 26th November 2009, 8:59am) *


It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AS615A_WIKI1_NS_20091122182426.gif seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.


Would a good metric for growth not be the number of editors active over fixed units of time? So, how many editors made at least one edit this month, last month, the month before, etc. That gives a better idea of the trend of the number of contributors to Wikipedia and then a decline can be determined. It's a lot of SQL runs though - I'd do it, but don't have the access needed smile.gif

Edit: re-reading, that might be exactly what you just said - need to get my coffee before I type further....

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 26th November 2009, 10:00am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 26th November 2009, 4:20am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 26th November 2009, 8:59am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:42am) *

For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) FROM revision WHERE rev_user != 0;
+-------------------------------+
| COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) |
+-------------------------------+
|                       3280645 |
+-------------------------------+
1 row in set (6 hours 34 min 19.09 sec)

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 0;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|  3813048 |
+----------+
1 row in set (11 min 55.70 sec)

That's registered users with (at least) one non-deleted edit and registered users with one edit (pretty much), respectively. 10.5 million is a pretty stupid figure to throw around. And of course your stats don't factor in things like eligibility requirements ('cause, as hard as it is to believe, some people are dishonest on the Internet).

It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AS615A_WIKI1_NS_20091122182426.gif seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.


I think a useful number would be the number of registered accounts that make at least 30 edits a month.


Quick addendum:
CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 149;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|    88720 |
+----------+
1 row in set (29 min 22.24 sec)

Users with a stored edit count higher than 149. The voter eligibility requirement this year is 150 article edits before November 1, 2009. I suppose indefinitely blocked users also can't vote. This figure doesn't factor in these constraints, so the number of eligible voters is lower. You might say it's around 75,000, though you'd also have to consider the users who made 150 edits in 2003 and quit.... Lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say.


Thanks MZ. So, 75,000 en.wikipedia editors with more than 149 edits. Of which, about 300-400 will vote in the upcoming ArbCom election.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Whether it is 1 million, 100,000 or 10,000 regular editors who would consider themselves Wikipedians (and I'd tend to the latter) the actual voters do not seem to be representative. How many people vote in ArbCom?

However, the governance structure should not be representing the interests of the editors, they should be representing the interests of the encyclopedia. WMF has never franchised the consumers of the effort whether it is directly or indirectly through some representative body.

It might well be if the governance structures represented the masses of consumers, then the governance would not be focused on the petty vendettas of aggrieved drama mongers, but would instead simply toss all the people aside as the arguments rarely have anything to do with anything constructive and productive.

For all the rule-making, I wonder if your average Wikipedian article is any better than 4 or 5 years ago? Not better as in more detailed, but does the rule-mongering produce a better quality article than what might have been expected with a general free for all with the occasional injection of sanity from outside?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 26th November 2009, 4:59am) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Thu 26th November 2009, 1:32am) *
I think Jehochman will probably be forced to abandon his election candidacy, whether an RfC/U happens or not.
Without commenting on underlying merits, the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.

Yes, but that's not because the ballots are secret (i.e. nobody can see who voted for what reason they provided), but because the tallies are secret (i.e. nobody can see how badly anyone is failing).

Of course these two scenarios need not go hand-in-hand, necessarily.

For now the "secret ballot" will make voters somewhat more likely to select Kurt. On the other hand many people will have also a healthy skepticism as to how secret a "secret ballot" could possibly remain, so this will reduce the degree to which "secret ballots" differ from public ballots (if all other factors are equal).

Stronger assurance of voters' privacy, combined with a functional scoreboard of (anonymized) machine-aggregated data kept up-to-date and visible throughout the voting phase, certainly would help counter the Abilene paradox which arises every year at about this time.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 26th November 2009, 3:59am) *

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.


Well, you obviously need a new hobby. See if Lar will let you play with his LEGO set. ermm.gif

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 26th November 2009, 5:17am) *

Thanks MZ. So, 75,000 en.wikipedia editors with more than 149 edits. Of which, about 300-400 will vote in the upcoming ArbCom election.


Which still is not representative of anything but a small clique. Arbcom is like that old Abbott and Costello routine:

Abbott: Remember, I'm the boss and you're nothing!
Costello: How do you like that - boss over nothing!

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 26th November 2009, 9:03am) *

Which still is not representative of anything but a small clique. Arbcom is like that old Abbott and Costello routing:


Who's on first?

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:59pm) *

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Thu 26th November 2009, 1:32am) *
I think Jehochman will probably be forced to abandon his election candidacy, whether an RfC/U happens or not.
Without commenting on underlying merits, the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.


It's also unwiki, makes corruption inevitable, and is unacceptable and needs to go. Now.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

That's a new one for me: the notion that secret ballots make corruption "inevitable".

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Thu 26th November 2009, 4:00pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:59pm) *

…the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.


It's also unwiki, makes corruption inevitable, and is unacceptable and needs to go. Now.

Maybe so, but it's also the only way you'd have a chance.

Careful what you wish for so early on.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 26th November 2009, 10:07am) *

That's a new one for me: the notion that secret ballots make corruption "inevitable".


It forces us to trust someone else not to lie about the outcome; and since the powers-that-be are already corrupt, this gives them a perfect opportunity to engage in further dishonesty.

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Thu 26th November 2009, 10:09am) *

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Thu 26th November 2009, 4:00pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 25th November 2009, 10:59pm) *

…the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.


It's also unwiki, makes corruption inevitable, and is unacceptable and needs to go. Now.

Maybe so, but it's also the only way you'd have a chance.


Principle is more important.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Thu 26th November 2009, 10:15am) *
It forces us to trust someone else not to lie about the outcome; and since the powers-that-be are already corrupt, this gives them a perfect opportunity to engage in further dishonesty.

Then I suspect the word you want is "possible," not "inevitable"...

Besides, what would be the goal of vote-counting fraud in this situation? I mean, sure, to prevent you, Kurt Weber, from being made an ArbCom member, that's a given - but other than that...? unsure.gif

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Thu 26th November 2009, 4:15pm) *

Principle is more important.

Defeatist. tongue.gif

Posted by: One

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 26th November 2009, 7:14am) *

I don't remember any of you saying "OK, consensus is against us, so we'll try it your way."

Your way is the community spontaneously organizing a government. Be my guest.

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 26th November 2009, 6:55am) *

I'm probably not qualified to say one way or the other, but I'd say "lack of transparency" and "failure to interact with the larger community" are fairly low on the list of things that are wrong with the current system. I'd say "lack of core competence in behavioral psychology" is probably at the top, though I realize that might be taken as an insult by some ArbCom members. (Ehh, sorry about that. bored.gif )

I think that's fair comment. One of ArbCom's problems is that it indulges in game playing maneuvers too often. In part, I think this is caused by paying too much attention to certain influential members of the community.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(One @ Thu 26th November 2009, 10:51am) *
I think that's fair comment. One of ArbCom's problems is that it indulges in game playing maneuvers too often. In part, I think this is caused by paying too much attention to certain influential members of the community.
Not to mention the several current members of the ArbCom who are clearly committed game players. I'd name names, but really, we know who I'm talking about.

One of the problems with popular election of the ArbCom is that it makes it easier for game players to get elected. This is a large part of why I favor the popular election a governing council, which would then (amongst its duties) appoint the members of the dispute resolution committee. The obvious trajectory by which this could be accomplished would be for the ArbCom to declare itself a 'governing council', appoint a new dispute resolution council, and transfer all dispute resolution functions to that council. However, the ArbCom, as currently constituted, is neither willing to nor interested in doing any such thing.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 26th November 2009, 5:33am) *

Whether it is 1 million, 100,000 or 10,000 regular editors who would consider themselves Wikipedians (and I'd tend to the latter) the actual voters do not seem to be representative. How many people vote in ArbCom?

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 26th November 2009, 9:03am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 26th November 2009, 5:17am) *

Thanks MZ. So, 75,000 en.wikipedia editors with more than 149 edits. Of which, about 300-400 will vote in the upcoming ArbCom election.


Which still is not representative of anything but a small clique.

The elections are widely advertised. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Posted by: dtobias

My next interview is with somebody who's, I think, widely followed here: Fred Bauder.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/2009-arbcom-fred-bauder.ogg

http://ntww.dan.info/archives/2009-arbcom-fred-bauder.mp3

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(One @ Thu 26th November 2009, 5:51pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 26th November 2009, 7:14am) *

I don't remember any of you saying "OK, consensus is against us, so we'll try it your way."

Your way is the community spontaneously organizing a government. Be my guest.


Actually, I proposed that the ArbCom could initiate a process, for example by setting up a referendum on policy changes and the creation of an elected governing committee. Instead, you prefer to frame it as though the only options are ArbCom-directed reform or reform initiated solely by the community.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 26th November 2009, 7:33am) *
For all the rule-making, I wonder if your average Wikipedian article is any better than 4 or 5 years ago?
Average? Very possibly not. But that's a misleading metric when the denominator has grown so rapidly. Is the one thousandth best Wikipedia article better today than the one thousandth best article of 4 or 5 years ago was? I don't think there's any doubt. Quality is certainly growing in the aggregate. Of course, so is total crap.

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Thu 26th November 2009, 9:33am) *
Yes, but that's not because the ballots are secret (i.e. nobody can see who voted for what reason they provided), but because the tallies are secret (i.e. nobody can see how badly anyone is failing).

Of course these two scenarios need not go hand-in-hand, necessarily.
You're correct. They commonly enough do go hand-in-hand that I felt safe conflating the two.

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 26th November 2009, 8:42pm) *
Actually, I proposed that the ArbCom could initiate a process, for example by setting up a referendum on policy changes and the creation of an elected governing committee.
You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 27th November 2009, 2:10am) *

You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)


Sure. I think that's the most realistic way for reform to happen. I object to the ArbCom supervising and dictating a reform process, but I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 26th November 2009, 9:03pm) *

I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.


http://www.beanogas.com/UofGas.aspx


Ja Ja sick.gif

Posted by: One

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 27th November 2009, 2:03am) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 27th November 2009, 2:10am) *

You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)


Sure. I think that's the most realistic way for reform to happen. I object to the ArbCom supervising and dictating a reform process, but I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.

We didn't have control over the planning committee. In fact, Kirill resigned his arb chair to rebut such criticism. Unfortunately, that didn't satisfy you, Slim Virgin, or any of the others opposed to the idea.

What exactly would it look like for ArbCom to initiate such a process? A referendum on whether the community wants a governance structure? Then what? From experience, the community will reflexively oppose a principle referendum until the details are known. In most cases, the community then opposes the proposal due to the details. How would we avoid this problem without even a hint of ArbCom control?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(One @ Fri 27th November 2009, 3:32am) *
We didn't have control over the planning committee. In fact, Kirill resigned his arb chair to rebut such criticism. Unfortunately, that didn't satisfy you, Slim Virgin, or any of the others opposed to the idea.
I presume that part of Everyking's response will be that the members were appointed by ArbCom, so it was just one degree removed from direct ArbCom control. That's a fair criticism. But do we really need to elect bodies that have no authority or power? On the other hand, how would Everyking et al have reacted if ArbCom had created a community-elected body that did have authority and power? My guess is that it would have been with something other than "Well, this has been imposed on the community without consensus, but that's okay because it's under the control of the community, via a mechanism set by ArbCom without community consensus". If I'm wrong about that, I'm thrilled, since it means that the Advisory Council's critics aren't as resistant as I'd imagined to actual decision-making. But I don't think I am wrong.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(One @ Fri 27th November 2009, 1:32am) *
What exactly would it look like for ArbCom to initiate such a process? A referendum on whether the community wants a governance structure? Then what? From experience, the community will reflexively oppose a principle referendum until the details are known. In most cases, the community then opposes the proposal due to the details. How would we avoid this problem without even a hint of ArbCom control?

Indeed, Wikipedia is in a box. Since a functional governance structure was not established when the project began, the emerging warring cliques have become increasingly entrenched, hostile, abusive, and incorrigibly corrupt. It takes visionary leadership to craft a functional and ethical governance structure, and Wikipedia lacks that in spades.