ArbCom nominations begin, Two weeks left to draft Wesley Options

After months of speculation on MBisanz' page, official candidacies are being accepted, and will be for the next two weeks. Standing candidates (scroll up for table of contents). Privatemusings is the first to cross form "likely" to actual candidacy.

Hopefully there will be some good dark horses.

Jdforrester has an interesting statement that concludes, "I do not expect to be given the community's support; nevertheless, I ask it, and welcome any and all questions."

This post has been edited by One:

Does anyone have any information about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235198954

I mean the jury stuff, not that I think it would work, but just wonder why this was not brought on WR. Have I missed something?

Hopefully there will be some good dark horses.

Apart from James F, who I could not imagine would run (then again, he seems to acknowledge how likely he is to be successful), there are no surprises so far.

After months of speculation on MBisanz' page, official candidacies are being accepted, and will be for the next two weeks. Standing candidate (scroll up for table of contents). Privatemusings is the first to cross form "likely" to actual candidacy. Hopefully there will be some good dark horses.

Jdforrester has an interesting statement that concludes, "I do not expect to be given the community's support; nevertheless, I ask it, and welcome any and all questions."

It's funny how he welcomes questions now, but throughout his ArbCom career he has been almost totally unresponsive. One question that springs to mind for me is: "Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?" Actually, that's a good question for all ArbCom candidates, but I dare not ask it lest I be accused of not having adequately informed myself before commenting.

Well.. here goes.... Wish me luck :/

Well.. here goes.... Wish me luck :/

Good luck. As certain of us are prevented from asking you the same questions on-wiki, would you be prepared to answer any questions here? What for example is your view of a regens arbitrator contributing to Wikipedia Review at all? What is your view on FT2's question about the delicate balance between the need for some decisions to be made in private, and the need for transparency?

Well, I've thrown my hat in the ring now, although Bishzilla is right beneath me, which is scary.

Well.. here goes.... Wish me luck :/

Good luck. As certain of us are prevented from asking you the same questions on-wiki, would you be prepared to answer any questions here? What for example is your view of a regens arbitrator contributing to Wikipedia Review at all? What is your view on FT2's question about the delicate balance between the need for some decisions to be made in private, and the need for transparency?

I'm willing to answer questions.

A) I don't see any problem with contributing to WR and being a sitting arbitrator. Brad and others before me have done so in the past. I may be restricted on what I CAN say, (don't expect me to even HINT about private discussions on the ArbCom list), but I won't let it run me off of WP OR WR.

B ) I think it really has to happen on a case by case basis. There has to be a really good reason to take a case private (I understand why ArbCom discussion should be and is private), but I think you can strike a balance between stating what you believe publicly, and keeping what the COMMITTEE is discussing private.

And Neil: don't worry, it's scarier below Bishzilla then above. Above you have to worry only about Bishzilla's atomic breath.. below.. if she falls.. *shudder* we go squit like a pimple (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

Would there be any value in as many people throwing their hats in the ring as possible in order to dilute the vote, and then perhaps getting someone "unusual" elected?

I really do hope The Fat Man Who Never Comes Back does stand - he'll be a populist pick of sorts, and his sense of humour would appeal.

He also has an ability to see Arbcom for what is is, and to cut through the waffle to make his point.

I really hope privatemusings gets it. It will be interesting to see if there is a showdown between he and jimbo if he wins.

Regardless, he has good ideas and I think he'd do well on the committee.

I really hope privatemusings gets it. It will be interesting to see if there is a showdown between he and jimbo if he wins.

Regardless, he has good ideas and I think he'd do well on the committee.

While I agree with your about some of his ideas, I think you're being more optimistic than privatemusings himself is. His comments make clear that he expects to lose.

At this point, I think Bishzilla is likely to receive less opposition votes (especially if users follow privatemusings wishes and only oppose him).

This post has been edited by One:

I really hope privatemusings gets it. It will be interesting to see if there is a showdown between he and jimbo if he wins.

Regardless, he has good ideas and I think he'd do well on the committee.

What is this RFC about, by the way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Privatemusings

It doesn't seem very good for him but then nothing is as it seems over there.

I really hope privatemusings gets it. It will be interesting to see if there is a showdown between he and jimbo if he wins.

Regardless, he has good ideas and I think he'd do well on the committee.

While I agree with your about some of his ideas, I think you're being more optimistic than privatemusings himself is. His comments make clear that he expects to lose.

At this point, I think Bishzilla is likely to receive less opposition votes (especially if users follow privatemusings wishes and only oppose him).

I didn't say I expect him to win. I just hope he does.

I really hope privatemusings gets it. It will be interesting to see if there is a showdown between he and jimbo if he wins.

Regardless, he has good ideas and I think he'd do well on the committee.

What is this RFC about, by the way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Privatemusings

It doesn't seem very good for him but then nothing is as it seems over there.

Looks to me like a sabotage attempt on PM. The timing is impeccable, and the players are right.

Looks to me like a sabotage attempt on PM. The timing is impeccable, and the players are right.

Can you unpack this for me?

First, what is being sabotaged? His ArbCom sanctions probably sunk his ArbCom candidacy before it started, if that's what you mean.

Second, what players? There seems to be commentary a very broad spectrum of users here.

His bid for arbcom is being sabotaged. Or rather, it looks that way. It's convenient that the RFC was brought up right before the nominations begin, over what doesn't look to be that serious of an issue. And notably it was an RFC, which I firmly believe does nothing but smear the parties involved without any outcome. Were it an Arbitration, and PM won, he could point to that and say "I was vindicated." Not so easy with an RFC. (thats not to say that the sanctions didn't do the job just as well).

As for the players, I see a number of people who are either on the arbitration committee, are interested in getting on it, have some sort of user rights granted by the arbitration committee, or are interested in getting those user rights.

I could be wrong, he could entirely deserve it. But it seems to me that for many of the RFC commentators, ulterior motives are at play.

This post has been edited by KStreetSlave:

Hey, look! White cat is in the running! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ments#White_Cat

I guess last year wasn't bad enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb.../Vote/White_Cat

So who's going to do worse? White Cat or Privatemusings? Or Justice America? I don't really care who wins - I mean, I do care, but I care more that people who aren't competent or disagree with my principles don't get on. In other words, I'd easily take more than five of the folks who have already submitted their names, and aside from Rlevse, I'm not hell-bent on any of them. But for entertainment value, picking up the bottom of the barrel should be fun.

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

After months of speculation on MBisanz' page, official candidacies are being accepted, and will be for the next two weeks.
Hopefully there will be some good dark horses.
<snip>

Question 14 is interesting; do study the answers the candidates makes.
And yes; Everyking asks a very relevant question, too. Will somebody brave add that question to all candidates?

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

Would you accept appointment from Jimbo against the community mandate? That's a great question. Anyone who answers "yes" can't expect community support, but I don't expect everyone to answer the question.

I'm willing to answer questions.

Why would anyone want to be a member of ARBCOM?

In my county we have this superior court judge who is like the `ringer' of judges in the entire state. He gets all the hard/sensational cases. A reporter once asked him "How does it feel to rule on all these important cases"? He answered "Very sad; all my cases are very sad".

One question that springs to mind for me is: "Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?" Actually, that's a good question for all ArbCom candidates, but I dare not ask it lest I be accused of not having adequately informed myself before commenting.

Now asked. Whether it stays live is another matter, but in the current climate IMO it's a damn good no-right-answer question.

His bid for arbcom is being sabotaged.

I like privatemusings. I really do. But he had basically no chance of winning anyway.

I get that his opponents might say "look, there's an RFC about you!" but they can already say, "look, you were blocked by ArbCom less than a year a go, and Jimbo personally said he hopes the community doesn't make such a poor choice!"

I honestly think ArbCom elections are not on many of these people's minds.

Hey, look! White cat is in the running! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ments#White_Cat

I guess last year wasn't bad enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb.../Vote/White_Cat

So who's going to do worse? White Cat or Privatemusings? Or Justice America? I don't really care who wins - I mean, I do care, but I care more that people who aren't competent or disagree with my principles don't get on. In other words, I'd easily take more than five of the folks who have already submitted their names, and aside from Rlevse, I'm not hell-bent on any of them. But for entertainment value, picking up the bottom of the barrel should be fun.

Jehochman would be a more interesting pick than Rlevse. For those who still think Arbcom worth something.

"Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?"

If I'm not one of the top 8 candidates, I don't think I would be appointed ANYWAY, but there would have to be a real good reason for someone else to be passed over for me to accept.

"Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?"

If I'm not one of the top 8 candidates, I don't think I would be appointed ANYWAY, but there would have to be a real good reason for someone else to be passed over for me to accept.

Let's say you're in ninth place, and Privatemusings is in seventh place. Jimbo won't appoint Privatemusings, so he excludes him from the list and you therefore move up to eighth place. How would you react in that scenario?

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. All right. Another question: how do you feel about the arbitration restrictions I've been subjected to for the last three years? If elected, you'll have to deal with that issue, so I'd like to know where you stand.

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. All right. Another question: how do you feel about the arbitration restrictions I've been subjected to for the last three years? If elected, you'll have to deal with that issue, so I'd like to know where you stand.

Hey Everyking, why aren't you running? I bet you could beat Jforrester (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. All right. Another question: how do you feel about the arbitration restrictions I've been subjected to for the last three years? If elected, you'll have to deal with that issue, so I'd like to know where you stand.

Hey Everyking, why aren't you running? I bet you could beat Jforrester (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Several reasons: I don't think I'd have a realistic chance of winning; I'm almost certain Jimbo would refuse to appoint me even if I did win; and I think ArbCom candidates should be current administrators, at least as a general rule.

One question that springs to mind for me is: "Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?" Actually, that's a good question for all ArbCom candidates, but I dare not ask it lest I be accused of not having adequately informed myself before commenting.

Now asked. Whether it stays live is another matter, but in the current climate IMO it's a damn good no-right-answer question.

Thanks, ED! (And I don´t see any reason to vote for anybody who doesn´t answer the question (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) )

everyking: I will be upfront: I'm not aware of the situation where you were sanctioned, and I'm not going to say something on a situation where I know nothing. I can promise a review, but I cannot promise that I'll see it one way or another.

everyking: I will be upfront: I'm not aware of the situation where you were sanctioned, and I'm not going to say something on a situation where I know nothing. I can promise a review, but I cannot promise that I'll see it one way or another.

If elected, you'll have to form an opinion on it, won't you? So why put it off? If you give me an answer prior to the election, that will help me make an informed judgment regarding your candidacy. Last year, I foolishly voted for some people who ended up supporting my sanctions, and you can see why I wouldn't want to make that mistake again.

…I'm almost certain Jimbo would refuse to appoint me even if I did win…

It would be a wonderful to force his hand, though. As it is now, he's able to deter perhaps a half-dozen people this way without even once having to take the hit to his reputation which would follow - and the reputation of the Arb-elect denied would transcend that of a mere arbitrator.

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

heh! well I'm a little surprised, to be honest, Foz :-) - I look forward to chatting a bit about this one if you're up for the voice thing at some point....

I know this election is (currently) considered to be a sort of advisory process.. but I really don't think it should be, and it continues to raise my eyebrow a bit that others don't find this a little more remarkable.

You're asking people to vote for you, whilst also stating that if the wrong people (or person!) receive more support you'd be cool ignoring the vote because obviously those voting.. um.. made a mistake?

ps. the chances of my wherewithal being put to the test seem slim, but given your refusal to comment above on matters you don't feel well informed about, I'm also curious as to the basis for your comment - I was under the impression that we didn't really know each other :-)

(although I'm sure we've 'met' somewhere?) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) PM.

ps. Vote me! :-)

This post has been edited by privatemusings:

One question that springs to mind for me is: "Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?" Actually, that's a good question for all ArbCom candidates, but I dare not ask it lest I be accused of not having adequately informed myself before commenting.

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

My answer: I don't think it's likely, as anyone likely to be passed over by Jimbo would probably have had enough things thrown at them through questions and voting to cause them to exit the "chosen few" before that situation arose.

Jimbo has the power - for better or worse - to pass on anyone he doesn't consider suitable. As those spots have to be filled, the next person down the list is the obvious choice. If it happens to be me, then so be it. I really don't think it's going to happen, though.

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

That's a tough question to ask the candidates. Even though I don't agree with the way Jimbo is running this ArbCom election, I don't think I would hold it against one of the candidates if they accepted an appointment after a higher vote-getter was disqualified by Jimbo. All the candidates want to make a difference by getting onto the ArbCom. If someone ahead of them is disqualified, even if its done unfairly by Jimbo or anyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean that the next candidate in line did anything wrong or cheated in any way.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

That's a tough question to ask the candidates. Even though I don't agree with the way Jimbo is running this ArbCom election, I don't think I would hold it against one of the candidates if they accepted an appointment after a higher vote-getter was disqualified by Jimbo. All the candidates want to make a difference by getting onto the ArbCom. If someone ahead of them is disqualified, even if its done unfairly by Jimbo or anyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean that the next candidate in line did anything wrong or cheated in any way.

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

At any rate, in the past he hasn't moved down to the next-highest, he's moved down to the highest former arbitrators with more than 50%. Consider that when voting for former arbitrators.


James F. did answer rootology's rather pointed question about this incident:

The Arbitrator in question was, of course, me. I'm not sure what further comment I can usefully give; I absolutely regret the concern raised through my being as honest as I was, and would chose to express my concerns differently if I were faced with the same situation again, but I cannot withdraw my edits in any meaningful way, so they remain.

Regret the concern...raised through being honest...would express concerns differently next time. Hmm.

Well, I do respect James for being straightforward in the past, and I also appreciate that he would not want an arbitrator unsupported by the community. He's at least got that right, although I still don't understand his apparent feelings toward Cla68.

This post has been edited by One:

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

That's a tough question to ask the candidates. Even though I don't agree with the way Jimbo is running this ArbCom election, I don't think I would hold it against one of the candidates if they accepted an appointment after a higher vote-getter was disqualified by Jimbo. All the candidates want to make a difference by getting onto the ArbCom. If someone ahead of them is disqualified, even if its done unfairly by Jimbo or anyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean that the next candidate in line did anything wrong or cheated in any way.

Yeah, it is a hard question. But the candidates should be asked hard questions, reams of them, as long as ArbCom has this kind of power.

That is not to say there is necessarily a right or wrong answer to this question.

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate.

If no one feels strongly about the issue, however, it would be grossly damaging to protest Jimbo's discretion.

So, like all political choices, it is up to the candidate to gauge the popular mood on this issue. It is also up to the populace to ensure the candidates are aware of the strength of feeling over it.

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate.

That's a good point. Voters could make this a requisite single issue. I'm a little surprised by SirFozzie's answer myself, which amounts to "I don't oppose Jimbo's unilateral acts when I agree with Jimbo." The whole point of the question makes candidates evaluate whether they actually oppose Jimbo's hand in selection, or if they think he's right about being a necessary check against bad candidates.


In other news, Charles Matthews now also seeks re-election. He cites his backslapping work in the BADSITES ArbCom, but doesn't provide a link. Here it is. It does indeed look like the work of compromise...

This post has been edited by One:

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate.

That's a good point. Voters could make this a requisite single issue. I'm a little surprised by SirFozzie's answer myself, which amounts to "I don't oppose Jimbo's unilateral acts when I agree with Jimbo." The whole point of the question makes candidates evaluate whether they actually oppose Jimbo's hand in selection, or if they think he's right about being a necessary check against bad candidates.

Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Then do the honest thing and resign in order to seek reconfirmation (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Wow George! You'll probably do worse than I did if I ran! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Then do the honest thing and resign in order to seek reconfirmation (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

What, and give Neil a chance to oppose me again?

Wow George! You'll probably do worse than I did if I ran! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I am a single issue candidate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...orge_The_Dragon

Who expects a single vote. With a one vote margin of error!

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment.

It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?

At risk of someone putting a LOLCAT up with the phrase "ARBCOM IZ SERIUZ BIZNESS".. I agree with Jimbo in that Privatemusings should not be considered as a serious candidate for ArbCom. The only way that he WOULD be elected to ArbCom would be through an American Idol style "Vote for the Lulz" wave of voters.

I agree with two statements put forth in the current RFC in PM:

For whatever reason, PM is friendly, affable -- and disruptive

....Cases and issues of the kind Privatemusings involves himself in, are often delicate and sensitive, and may result from serious (often emotive) on-wiki events. Demands of this kind with little tact or understanding of the fact, can often do more harm than good. As commented above, the mentor(s?) seem to view it that they are seen by him as an obstacle, not an aid to improvement. That's fairly worrying, more so as these are extremely level headed users who are "on his side"...

I have not observed many of the other 17 or so candidates for the ArbCom who have declared so far, so I can't say if I would feel the same way about any of the others. But while I feel in general that PM has the best of intentions in doing what he does, I do not think that PM would make a good arbitrator, and I would urge him to withdraw, as well a to take his (now former) mentors concerns to heart, and to improve on Wikipedia.

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

There's another way to protest though:

"I will not accept appointment to the arbitration committee if any of the top eight vote-getters are passed over by Jimbo."

This post has been edited by Random832:

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment.

It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?

A person should make a principled decision about something like this. Under certain circumstances, the correct course is to refuse to participate in something even if one knows that he or she will be replaced. The principled thing to do is to say: "No, I will not take the place of someone who received a stronger community mandate than I did." Furthermore, as others have mentioned, forcing Jimbo to go further down the list reduces the credibility of his appointments; he is more likely to refrain from picking and choosing arbitrators if many of the candidates disapprove of it, and particularly if the candidates next in line disapprove of it. If he goes ahead with it anyway, it will increase dissatisfaction with his role and increase the likelihood that he will be forced to relinquish it in the future.

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment.

It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?

A person should make a principled decision about something like this. Under certain circumstances, the correct course is to refuse to participate in something even if one knows that he or she will be replaced. The principled thing to do is to say: "No, I will not take the place of someone who received a stronger community mandate than I did." Furthermore, as others have mentioned, forcing Jimbo to go further down the list reduces the credibility of his appointments; he is more likely to refrain from picking and choosing arbitrators if many of the candidates disapprove of it, and particularly if the candidates next in line disapprove of it. If he goes ahead with it anyway, it will increase dissatisfaction with his role and increase the likelihood that he will be forced to relinquish it in the future.

I suppose that's where my other suggestion comes in - you don't have to be ninth to refuse.

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

There's another way to protest though:

"I will not accept appointment to the arbitration committee if any of the top eight vote-getters are passed over by Jimbo."

Now that would show commitment.

It would also be much more effective than what everyking proposes. Imagine if four of the top picks made this vow. If Jimbo wants to skip over someone, he doesn't just go to #9 (or #10 if the ninth agrees with everyking), he has to go down #9-12, and probably deeper if some of those candidates are similarly principled.

That said, I think LessHeard's comment below hits the mark.

This post has been edited by One:

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment.

It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?

It is also a question of whether you are running for the ArbCom under its present constitution in the belief that you are doing it for the best interests of the community, or whether you are challenging Jimbo's "right" to disregard in whole or part the wishes of the community (I don't see a way of squaring that circle of running on the ticket of doing both). If you are running on the basis you wish to serve the community to the best of your ability under the prevailing conditions - and you believe you can do that job - then I suggest you accept on whatever basis a place is offered to you because Jimbo is going to try very hard not to allow people who are running on an anti status quo (including the sodding band!) ticket to join the ArbCom (and by running on such an ideal is a perfect way to disenfranchise them, "The candidate has stated they have no interest in performing ArbCom work, and are protesting only the way the Committee is chosen, and therefore are illegible for consideration.") So, if you are running on the protest platform then accept you will not be given the nod... no matter where you place.

PM is running, it seems, the best campaign of that sort - being honest about wanting to be on the ArbCom for the purpose of influencing its working, believing that what they intend is to the betterment of the community, and having no chance of being selected whatever the vote. I think that there is also someone else running on that platform, which is why I am using my only support for them (I protest voted for Giano last time, this time I intend also to oppose anyone I truly don't think should be on the Committee.)

Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates.

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

I would have voted for Bishonen wholeheartedly but Bishzilla standing is frustratingly random when she could be a good candidate. I suppose the point is that they think Arbcom behaves like a joke or something. I may well still vote for her but it's a shame she isn't standing as herself, I humourlessly say (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years.

Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years.

Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic

I doubt that, but it doesn't really matter either way; what's important is that she did not answer my questions.

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years.

Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic

I doubt that, but it doesn't really matter either way; what's important is that she did not answer my questions.

Oh really? You doubt Bishzilla's satire?

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years.

Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic

I doubt that, but it doesn't really matter either way; what's important is that she did not answer my questions.

Oh really? You doubt Bishzilla's satire?

I'm pretty sure it's not satire, but like I said, it doesn't matter. How do you feel about this joke candidacy, Pumpkin Muffins?

The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.

The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.

If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.

I really do hope The Fat Man Who Never Comes Back does stand - he'll be a populist pick of sorts, and his sense of humour would appeal.

Apart from lack of motivation, interest and name recognition, I suspect the main reason TFM is not running is that my good man Outriggr/Whiskeydog (a delightful and gifted fellow whom you'd be glad to know) has reneged on his promise to make an epic campaign poster for our obese young friend.

I will note that, given the few candidates running relative to the number of committee spots available, if he did run, TFM might have a sporting chance!

I'd love to see Jimbo's face if some trolling, non-contributing jerk-off like the Fat Man came in 7th place.

Speaking of Jimbo soiling himself, where's Kurt Weber? Where's Tony Sidaway? I've got my popcorn, I've paid my admission, now I want my friggin' "Carnival of the Absurd" [nods to Kato], which brings me to Bishzilla...

I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win; while I find her alterego painfully unfunny in comparison to yours truly, Bishonen is a monster contributor (and the author of my favorite article of all time--it seriously makes me cry!); she's well-spoken (though a bit abrasive, at times), opinionated and cuts through the bullshit.

Even if she does stay "in character" during Arb Com cases (btw, I'd love to hear her responding to Virginia Slim's latest scandalous allegations of cyber-molestation in her insufferable, twee baby/cavemanspeak), it's impossible that Bishonen's intelligence and insight won't shine through the scaly reptilian schtick. I'll probably vote for her. Too bad "it" would have to recuse itself from 60% of all cases, since that many of them seem to involve her BFF Giano.

This post has been edited by Obesity:

I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win; while I find her alterego painfully unfunny in comparison to yours truly, Bishonen is a monster contributor (and the author of my favorite article of all time--it seriously makes me cry!); she's well-spoken (though a bit abrasive, at times), opinionated and cuts through the bullshit.

A great article. Lou Cameron, author of one of my favorite childhood books Iron Men with Wooden Wings (about WW I dogfighting) briefly alludes to this 1897 attempt to fly over the North Pole in a balloon, commenting as an aside that Andrée must have discovered an early source of LSD. Which just about sums this idea up. It's even better than Robert Falcon Scott taking ponies on an expedition to the South Pole.

Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates.

Phil Sandifer. October 2007.

"We also have to watch out, though - for fuckheads like ED and even Bagley we're, honestly, well-equipped to handle them as-is because they're so self-obviously stupid. But we have to remember, we are the 800 lb gorilla in most conflicts with people.

We are huge. We are a huge fucking website staffed by people who do not know how to run the ninth biggest website on Teh Intarwebs.

We are bigger than Blogger, bigger than eBay, and bigger than Amazon. We have no clue how to deal with that. And I count myself in that we.

I have no fucking clue why I am a powerful and trusted administrator on the ninth biggest website in the world."

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/kong.jpg)

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.

I really do hope The Fat Man Who Never Comes Back does stand - he'll be a populist pick of sorts, and his sense of humour would appeal.

Apart from lack of motivation, interest and name recognition, I suspect the main reason TFM is not running is that my good man Outriggr/Whiskeydog (a delightful and gifted fellow whom you'd be glad to know) has reneged on his promise to make an epic campaign poster for our obese young friend.

I'll make you one if you run.

You haven't seen my photoshop abilities, but still... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Speaking of Jimbo soiling himself, where's Kurt Weber? Where's Tony Sidaway? I've got my popcorn, I've paid my admission, now I want my friggin' "Carnival of the Absurd" [nods to Kato], which brings me to Bishzilla...

Kurt is banned from project space. I dunno if Tony knows where he is, but I wouldn't be surprised if he made a surprise appearance sometime during these elections. Not enough drama yet.

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.

I wonder if he still stands by that...

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.

I wonder if he still stands by that...

Quick turnaround:

Parts of it. I still think that we need to have some measure in place to help our volunteers when they need help. I'm reasonably convinced that there are logistical problems with the plan as I proposed it, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about the legal matters to take any sort of leadership role in developing a workable proposal.

I am still in awe of the power this project has developed since I joined it, and of the gravity of responsibilities administratorship entails.

Are there other spots you want specific clarification on? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have missed the gorilla.

As for the meat of his listhost post, I have no idea why the foundation would step in to legally defend its independent contributors.

This post has been edited by One:

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.

*jaw drop*

I can't quite comprehend that wikikids have such short memories.

Still, I guess composing the next "oooo look who's running for arbcom" post keeps folks too busy to look up and see what's what.

I can't quite comprehend that wikikids have such short memories.

Still, I guess composing the next "oooo look who's running for arbcom" post keeps folks too busy to look up and see what's what.

So when did you join WR the first time? Or do you encourage every user to read all the threads since the site was created?

If you don't value the content I provide this site, I want you to say it outright. I don't have to pollute this place with my wiki-childishness.

Let me tell you what's what. In case you have noticed, most the remaining meta critics have fucking left the building. Why? Well, because the owner of this site thought it would be fun to shit on the most prolific contributor. I've seen precisely zero evidence that this site is interested in remedying the situation. You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism. To my mind, that leaves you with us insufferable wikikids who want better for WP. Yeah, I'm sure we suck, but what else are you going to do? If WR isn't willing to be a kind of alternative Wikipedia watchlist, then no longer serves any purpose at all.

That's what's what.

This post has been edited by One:

I can't quite comprehend that wikikids have such short memories.

Still, I guess composing the next "oooo look who's running for arbcom" post keeps folks too busy to look up and see what's what.

So when did you join WR the first time? Or do you encourage every user to read all the threads since the site was created?

Actually, I would recommend that. It would be a better use of time than playing Fantasy Election, and would generally reduce the incidence of misinformed posts. You might learn something, too.

If you don't value the content I provide this site, I want you to say it outright. I don't have to pollute this place with my wiki-childishness.

I'm not sure how much more "outright" I could be. At least taking the time to click the link at the top of Kato's post, taking you to directly to the original email, before tapping out a reply questioning whether it was a "real quote", would have made for an improved post (or better still, no post at all).

Let me tell you what's what. In case you have noticed, most the remaining meta critics have fucking left the building. Why? Well, because the owner of this site thought it would be fun to shit on the most prolific contributor. I've seen precisely zero evidence that this site is interested in remedying the situation. You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism. To my mind, that leaves you with us insufferable wikikids who want better for WP. Yeah, I'm sure we suck, but what else are you going to do? If WR isn't willing to be a kind of alternative Wikipedia watchlist, then no longer serves any purpose at all.

It certainly serves the purpose of exposing what wikipedia really does to the "sum of human knowledge", and seems to have a track record of doing that pretty effectively. The continual demonstration of the "wikipedian" tendency to post the first damn thing that comes into their heads without doing some simple fact checking, or learning the lessons of very recent history, is all part of the mix, I guess. Tiresome, at times.

That's what's what.

Meanwhile, "arbcom elections" are still a sad parody, Sandifer still gets away with a weak backpedal from his unguarded bravado, and "wikipedians" carry on abusing real people.

That's what's what.

The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.

The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.

If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.

I think the Arbitration Committee plays an important role on Wikipedia, as is reflected in the amount of consternation (on-wiki and here, among other places) when something goes wrong with it, but I also agree that the committee is not as important as some people think it is, and that far too much drama surrounds the election process.

(Someone recently proposed on-wiki that to increase community input into the selection of arbitrators, there should be two ArbCom elections each year instead of one. Although this was a good-faith suggestion, it also qualified for my personal designation as a Really Bad Idea.)

I'm not sure how much more "outright" I could be. At least taking the time to click the link at the top of Kato's post, taking you to directly to the original email, before tapping out a reply questioning whether it was a "real quote", would have made for an improved post (or better still, no post at all).

I did click the link. I still find it surprising.

If you don't want to read about ArbCom, you could look at the title of the thread. I'm not exactly hiding the ball here. Apparently, you find my presence psychically troubling. Fine.

I'm not sure what contributors you want. But you clearly don't want me. There's nothing to learn but a stack of nonsense from Blissyu2, PoetGames, and idiotic attacks by the owner, who makes even my least informed posts look profound. I'm tired of the snide remarks I get from a site that welcomed DL's disturbing illnesses and Baxter's puppet playhouse.

This might seem pretextual, and it is somewhat. Last straw and all.

You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism.

If so, why did Jimbo mention US (Wikipedia Review) to Rachel Marsden in his little pre-sex chat, before collecting the data with which to have his lackey JzG fix her bio?

I'm always interested in more "deep" criticism of Wikipedia than I find here. Can you point out a source? Cause it sure isn't Seth Finkelstein or El Reg. They don't actually spend enough time wrestling with problems on WP to know what's going on, there.

Come on, One. If WP has some deep and basic problem that has been totally missed by WR's criticisms for all these years, and you're aware of it, then why why the hell haven't you mentioned it?

There is 'Important' in terms of the attention it gets and its inflated power, and there is 'important' in terms of working directly to better directly the alleged purpouse of Wikipedia. I have yet to see what direct advantage it has brought in bettering articles with their decision which could not have been decided by the community, which would have taken better decisions. It's a structure which drain the time and energy of those who are still naive to think that it will improve their experience with the project and the quality of the project itself. The Arbcom does nothing of the sort, it's the village circus, or an illusion show.

It's the equivalent of the legal system, which lack of all the advantage of a true legal system. Such a system pretend to be what it is not. I could have just said that its useless, worthless...

The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.

The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.

If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.

I think the Arbitration Committee plays an important role on Wikipedia, as is reflected in the amount of consternation (on-wiki and here, among other places) when something goes wrong with it, but I also agree that the committee is not as important as some people think it is, and that far too much drama surrounds the election process.

(Someone recently proposed on-wiki that to increase community input into the selection of arbitrators, there should be two ArbCom elections each year instead of one. Although this was a good-faith suggestion, it also qualified for my personal designation as a Really Bad Idea.)

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

I was thinking of John Wesley Hardin (T-H-L-K-D), but that wouldn't make any sense.

Or would it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

I was thinking of John Wesley Hardin (T-H-L-K-D), but that wouldn't make any sense.

Or would it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

My best guess is Wesley Clark.

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

That's what I thought of too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)

I was thinking of John Wesley Hardin (T-H-L-K-D), but that wouldn't make any sense.

Or would it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Sarcasticidealist is correct. Why One (One, don't storm off, btw! you are needed here; just ignore the oldschool WR curmudgeons; everyone else does) imagines that we will pick up on the Democratic party in-joke(?) is a mystery to me. That was an obscure one.

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/who_we_are.htm

Speaking of Mr. Crusher, poor Wil Wheaton! Why do these kid actors grow up looking so screwy? Don't cute kids ever make cute adults?

This post has been edited by Obesity:

Let me tell you what's what. In case you have noticed, most the remaining meta critics have fucking left the building. Why? Well, because the owner of this site thought it would be fun to shit on the most prolific contributor. I've seen precisely zero evidence that this site is interested in remedying the situation. You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism. To my mind, that leaves you with us insufferable wikikids who want better for WP. Yeah, I'm sure we suck, but what else are you going to do? If WR isn't willing to be a kind of alternative Wikipedia watchlist, then no longer serves any purpose at all.

One overstates his point somewhat - Cedric's rotten pillars come to mind as a worthy attempt to bring the Review back on track - but a mighty good point it remains. One might not like this, but recent prohibitions on identifying the real-life identities and personalities of internet pseudonyms - this while real-name contributors such as Brandt, Kohs and Merkey are attacked by swarms of pseuds - leaves us still one less thing to discuss that couldn't be equally well discussed at WP:WATERCOOLER. Really, what will be left? Pretty soon these supposedly unimportant Arbitrators will be banning people from this site, too (there was even one WR contributor - also a WP contributor, naturally - who thanked the Arbs for blocking me!)

Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates.

I think you're going to irritate the ArbCom by choosing this course of action. If you want to ask Sandifer a question, either ask it of all the candidates, or give a disclaimer at the beginning that says something like, "I can't ask this of all the candidates because it addresses a specific incident that only you were involved in..." or something like that. Then ask your question very politely. Then, if someone gives you a hard time about it, go ask ArbCom how you're supposed to participate in community open election processes if their sanction is going to be applied so ridiculously strictly.

The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.

The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.

If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.

I think a lot of what you say is true. But, ArbCom is as close to a governance/"adult supervision" body as Wikipedia has. So, rightly or wrongly, WP participants look to them for leadership. If WP had a committee to address the other concerns that fall outside ArbCom's purview, then much less attention would be paid to ArbCom and whatever it happens to be doing at any given moment.

Someone said once in another thread that it isn't in Jimbo's best interest to have an effective governance committee in en.wp, because that committee would probably send him packing and remove what little connection he still has to this project. Maybe that's true.

Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates.

I think you're going to irritate the ArbCom by choosing this course of action. If you want to ask Sandifer a question, either ask it of all the candidates, or give a disclaimer at the beginning that says something like, "I can't ask this of all the candidates because it addresses a specific incident that only you were involved in..." or something like that. Then ask your question very politely. Then, if someone gives you a hard time about it, go ask ArbCom how you're supposed to participate in community open election processes if their sanction is going to be applied so ridiculously strictly.

Wouldn't work--one of Phil's IRC pals would block me, my chances of getting my sanctions entirely removed would be shot to pieces, and the block would be used against me in a future RfA. No, I've learned the hard way that I must get clearance from the ArbCom before doing anything of this sort.

In other news, the candidate Bishonen/"Bishzilla" replied to my questions about the nature of her candidacy by accusing me of "misusing this page" for rhetorical purposes. You'd expect someone running for office to be a little nicer, wouldn't you? Sure, I suppose the questions were phrased a bit harshly, but she ought to be prepared to handle some tough questions if she's going to engage in ridiculous shenanigans like this. She's basically telling me to get the hell off her questions page. Now, for historical context, let me note that about three years ago she actually banned me from her talk page--told me not to ever show my low-down, dirty, no-good self around there ever again. Is this someone with the appropriate temperament to be an arbitrator?

This post has been edited by everyking:

TBH, I think a question about her tendency to ban people from her talk page is something that should be asked in its own right.

It's too bad that the Arbcom Election doesn't have live debates. That would make for a perfectly killer drinking game.

I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win;...

I'll probably vote for her. Too bad "it" would have to recuse itself from 60% of all cases, since that many of them seem to involve her BFF Giano.

Bishzilla just made the same observation, but upped the hyperbolic Giano-getting-sent-to-the-principal's office rate to 90%.

I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win;...

I'll probably vote for her. Too bad "it" would have to recuse itself from 60% of all cases, since that many of them seem to involve her BFF Giano.

Bishzilla just made the same observation, but upped the hyperbolic Giano-getting-sent-to-the-principal's office rate to 90%.

I don't have anything against Bishzilla that I can remember right now, but that caveman (cavewoman?) talk is getting on my nerves. ~~~~

I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win;...

I'll probably vote for her. Too bad "it" would have to recuse itself from 60% of all cases, since that many of them seem to involve her BFF Giano.

Bishzilla just made the same observation, but upped the hyperbolic Giano-getting-sent-to-the-principal's office rate to 90%.

I don't have anything against Bishzilla that I can remember right now, but that caveman (cavewoman?) talk is getting on my nerves. ~~~~

If you're signing yourself with four tildes on WR, it must be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I don't have anything against Bishzilla that I can remember right now, but that caveman (cavewoman?) talk is getting on my nerves. ~~~~

I'm not a big fan either, but I'm all for making a joke of the Committee in any idio(t)lect at our disposal.

Some selected stuff. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Also adminship isn't a rank of trust. [1]

Answer of Moreschi to the creation of the page with the header: You know you'll never be elected in a billion years, so why bother? [2]

Some selected stuff. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Also adminship isn't a rank of trust. [1]

Answer of Moreschi to the creation of the page with the header: You know you'll never be elected in a billion years, so why bother? [2]

Why on earth would you quote White Cat for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?

Some selected stuff. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Also adminship isn't a rank of trust. [1]

Answer of Moreschi to the creation of the page with the header: You know you'll never be elected in a billion years, so why bother? [2]

Why on earth would you quote White Cat for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?

Entertainment

Some selected stuff. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Also adminship isn't a rank of trust. [1]

Answer of Moreschi to the creation of the page with the header: You know you'll never be elected in a billion years, so why bother? [2]

Why on earth would you quote White Cat for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?

Hmmm... lets see... Because it's funny?

I'm not a big fan either, but I'm all for making a joke of the Committee in any idio(t)lect at our disposal.

On that note, why is Jehochman running? Not that he's an idiot (other than a wikipediot!) but why put himself, and potentially the whole arbcom, in a COI position on anything related to search engine optimization? Putting him on arbcom would probably not be as egregious as, say, electing the CEO of Halliburton to the Vice Presidency of the US, but it would still seem pretty egregious COI, for a sitting arb to be the CEO of an SEO company.

On that note, why is Jehochman running? Not that he's an idiot (other than a wikipediot!) but why put himself, and potentially the whole arbcom, in a COI position on anything related to search engine optimization? Putting him on arbcom would probably not be as egregious as, say, electing the CEO of Halliburton to the Vice Presidency of the US, but it would still seem pretty egregious COI, for a sitting arb to be the CEO of an SEO company.

How often does search engine optimisation come up as an issue for arbcom to deal with? Everybody has some sort of COI. It's best if it's declared, as at least it can be worked around/used to make him recuse/whatever.

On that note, why is Jehochman running? Not that he's an idiot (other than a wikipediot!) but why put himself, and potentially the whole arbcom, in a COI position on anything related to search engine optimization? Putting him on arbcom would probably not be as egregious as, say, electing the CEO of Halliburton to the Vice Presidency of the US, but it would still seem pretty egregious COI, for a sitting arb to be the CEO of an SEO company.

How often does search engine optimisation come up as an issue for arbcom to deal with? Everybody has some sort of COI. It's best if it's declared, as at least it can be worked around/used to make him recuse/whatever.

problem is, any article or group of links can be viewed as an element in an overall SEO strategy. any cases he'd decide on, that can affect content or have to do with linking, could be attacked on the basis of an appearance of COI, probably more damningly and irreversibly off-site than on WP. not saying that he would try to parley his influence on WP into influence in his industry, (like Jimbo has!) but putting him in this position would expose him to more accusations of this sort.

On that note, why is Jehochman running? Not that he's an idiot (other than a wikipediot!) but why put himself, and potentially the whole arbcom, in a COI position on anything related to search engine optimization? Putting him on arbcom would probably not be as egregious as, say, electing the CEO of Halliburton to the Vice Presidency of the US, but it would still seem pretty egregious COI, for a sitting arb to be the CEO of an SEO company.

How often does search engine optimisation come up as an issue for arbcom to deal with? Everybody has some sort of COI. It's best if it's declared, as at least it can be worked around/used to make him recuse/whatever.

problem is, any article or group of links can be viewed as an element in an overall SEO strategy. any cases he'd decide on, that can affect content or have to do with linking, could be attacked on the basis of an appearance of COI, probably more damningly and irreversibly off-site than on WP. not saying that he would try to parley his influence on WP into influence in his industry, (like Jimbo has!) but putting him in this position would expose him to more accusations of this sort.

Like the others say, everyone has a COI about something, he could abstain from any case *really* about that, although such a case would be unlikely IMHO. Jhochman is one of my favourites for arbcom (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

Giano's first comment of the election (I think) here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=251656960

Also someone called 'The Land Surveyor' has placed some questions about banned users to the candidates.

Science

ScienceApologist really rock here.

Science

ScienceApologist really rock here.

What do you know of Rlevse? I don't know his wikistuff well but what I've seen to me resembles the arbs that are currently in place.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

Science

ScienceApologist really rock here.

What do you know of Rlevse? I don't know his wikistuff well but what I've seen to me resembles the arbs that are currently in place.

i know he was quick to yell "stop harassing me!" after wordbomb showed yet again what a load of scumbags Rlevse's wikibuddies are. Somewhere there's a diff, perhaps wordbomb will have it handy.

Science

ScienceApologist really rock here.

What do you know of Rlevse? I don't know his wikistuff well but what I've seen to me resembles the arbs that are currently in place.

Exactly, that's exactly the problem with him. He is like the Arbs already there. ScienceApologist criticism are right to the point and exactly what is so wrong about the arbitration and administrators action in general.

Some may hate ScienceApologist, but any real change with the system would require people who are like minded. The problem is that this type of people are strong opinioned and will never achieve any concensus among such a heterogenous community. It's people like Rlevse who become arbitrator and the never ending circle continue turning. Rlevse is a scoot-like, and the type of zombie administrator who is unable of proper individual thinking anything beyond the 'stop your incivility' nonesense.

But I wish him to become an Arb, because it's by voting for people like him in a repeated fashion that they will see the nonesense the arbitration is.

I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win;...

I'll probably vote for her. Too bad "it" would have to recuse itself from 60% of all cases, since that many of them seem to involve her BFF Giano.

Bishzilla just made the same observation, but upped the hyperbolic Giano-getting-sent-to-the-principal's office rate to 90%.

Ah, but sadly it seems that Bishzilla has withdrawn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...lla_withdrawing

Personally I think she would have been one of the greatest Arbs ever, let's face it there was not much to beat, I shall not be running as the existing Arbs have made it quite clear they would refuse to have me, and Jimbo has said he won't appoint without their permission. However, it seems as one monster goes another comes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=252424152

and this one wants to be a less than constitutional Queen. They should plead for Bishzilla to return better the monster you know.

Giano

Drama warming up - Lar calls Kurt on his novel approach to candidates' questions (if in doubt, delete).

and this one wants to be a less than constitutional Queen. They should plead for Bishzilla to return better the monster you know.

Giano

JH: Have you ever been experienced?

LCDB: Answer: I am person of vast experience in a wide variety of fields and subjects, especially fields where I have gained much experience indeed. Regarding you veiled reference to popular music, I believe it should all be banned as it is entirely responsible for the lack of moral fibre prevalent amongst the youth of today. They should all be performing public services, not sitting about all day, fiddling with computers, taking drugs, intoxicating liquor and impregnating each other. If elected I shall ban all editing by the under 40s - Admins aged 14-and-a half will become a thing of the past. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from ...Candidate_statements/Catherine_de_Burgh/Questions_for_the_candidate

Catherine de Burgh is Giano's sock, right?

Drama warming up - Lar calls Kurt on his novel approach to candidates' questions (if in doubt, delete).

"Novel approach"?

They were irrelevant questions. I was not going to waste my time answering irrelevant questions, and leaving them there unanswered would have just cluttered up the page for people looking for the answers I did give.

If we're not allowed to remove questions period, then fine, but that needs to be stated up front so we know that. Don't assume I'm trying to do something nefarious here.

Drama warming up - Lar calls Kurt on his novel approach to candidates' questions (if in doubt, delete).

"Novel approach"?

They were irrelevant questions. I was not going to waste my time answering irrelevant questions, and leaving them there unanswered would have just cluttered up the page for people looking for the answers I did give.

If we're not allowed to remove questions period, then fine, but that needs to be stated up front so we know that. Don't assume I'm trying to do something nefarious here.

There is a big difference between removing a question and leaving it there unanswered. In fact, you could simply have answered, "I chose not to answer the question". You know full well that hiding the question creates a very different impression from a pointed refusal to answer and could well be interpreted as an attempt at deceit - voters are not going to check edit histories of the Q&A pages, are they?

I think it speaks volumes that someone seeking to be an arbitrator thinks that not answering a question from NYB that highlights your distinctive views on certain Wikipedians is an acceptable approach. The fact that you state in your edit summary that you cannot answer it honestly without being banned is pretty shocking - and I'm not sure whether it reflects worse on you for being involved in something where you have such a low opinion of your fellow editors, or them, if your views and expectations are valid.

Still, this is Wikipedia, and we know that real world ethics do not apply, so as a relative outsider I will just look on in amusement as advice and guidance of this surreal world would neither be welcome, nor would I be able to divine a rational solution acceptable to the asylum.

Still, I'd vote for you - just the sort of drama we need to disrupt Wikipedia - - why do you hate Wikipedia so?

There is a big difference between removing a question and leaving it there unanswered. In fact, you could simply have answered, "I chose not to answer the question".

Which would have created the same clutter I'm trying to eliminate.

You know full well that hiding the question creates a very different impression from a pointed refusal to answer and could well be interpreted as an attempt at deceit

Yeah, I see now that it could give some people that impression, but the thought didn't cross my mind at the time or I wouldn't have done it in the first place--or at least made a very public statement of what was going on, to clear the air.

I still operate in the real-world ethic where you assume people have good intentions unless they've made it quite obvious that that is not the case. Not that good intentions excuse everything, but even when they did something that needs to be undone then you deal with them as if they had good intentions unless it's clear they didn't. I haven't (and won't) submitted myself to the groupthink of always looking for any possible way to interpret any move I don't like as a deliberately malicious act. Concluding malice is only a last resort for me.

voters are not going to check edit histories of the Q&A pages, are they?

I typically do.

I think it speaks volumes that someone seeking to be an arbitrator thinks that not answering a question from NYB that highlights your distinctive views on certain Wikipedians is an acceptable approach.

What's unacceptable is the fact where I'm in a situation where I can't answer it. Do you really think I don't want to? I've said (on Wikipedia) in the past exactly what I would say in an honest answer to those questions, and I was threatened with community-banning if I ever said it on-wiki again.

I have to admit that refusing to answer a question from NewYorkBrad is not going to play well with just about every Wikipedia demographic.

Kurt's candidacy is just another demonstration of Wikipedia's fundamental vulnerability to trolls.

I have to admit that refusing to answer a question from NewYorkBrad is not going to play well with just about every Wikipedia demographic.

Kurt's candidacy is just another demonstration of Wikipedia's fundamental vulnerability to trolls.

Because we keep baiting and letting him continue what he does, so he's never going to go anywhere. He has about as much chance as you or I do of passing.

I have to admit that refusing to answer a question from NewYorkBrad is not going to play well with just about every Wikipedia demographic.

Kurt's candidacy is just another demonstration of Wikipedia's fundamental vulnerability to trolls.

My reading was that NYB was giving Kurt the opportunity to modify his position. (I know NYB can well talk for himself). I'd be pretty offended if a fellow member of WR stated unequivocally that I did not have the best interests of WR at heart, and given the chance to clarify or retract his views he clearly stated he would not do so. Bannable? Well, one would assume that Wikipedia is a big enough place for all sorts of views to survive, so I don't see why - but suited for high office, clearly not (wearing my non-cynical, rational hat for the moment).

Because we keep baiting and letting him continue what he does, so he's never going to go anywhere. He has about as much chance as you or I do of passing.

Because I've never done anything wrong.

The fact is, I'm the best thing that's ever happened to Wikipedia, and people are starting to realize that.

Everything I do is ultimately for Wikipedia's benefit.

My reading was that NYB was giving Kurt the opportunity to modify his position. (I know NYB can well talk for himself).

That's what I gathered from it too; but my position hasn't changed.

Because I've never done anything wrong.

The fact is, I'm the best thing that's ever happened to Wikipedia, and people are starting to realize that.

Everything I do is ultimately for Wikipedia's benefit.

I would probably take you a little more seriously if you weren't so full of yourself. I'm sure you have in mind what you think is best for Wikipedia, but seriously, you aren't the best thing that ever happened to it, and to say so yourself simply sounds weird. Nobody is the best thing that happened to it. You aren't so great you know.

That's what I gathered from it too; but my position hasn't changed.

I take that to mean that you still think NYB "hates Wikipedia." Fine.

But he asked you at least one question you've never answered (to my knowledge). Do you actually think that he and others hate Wikipedia, or is it a metaphor for having bad policy views? And it's it's the former, I would really like to know the last part of that question--what basis do you have for believing he actually hates Wikipedia considering alternative explanations?

There are three explanations for someone holding ideas and performing acts that are so blatantly detrimental to Wikipedia:
1) Ignorance
2) Insanity
3) Malice

At first I simply assumed it was the first; however, after repeated attempts to educate him (and others) of the error of their ways no change in their behavior came about. So then I progressed to #2, but it was quickly obvious that that was not the case.

That only left #3.

There are three explanations for someone holding ideas and performing acts that are so blatantly detrimental to Wikipedia:
1) Ignorance
2) Insanity
3) Malice

At first I simply assumed it was the first; however, after repeated attempts to educate him (and others) of the error of their ways no change in their behavior came about. So then I progressed to #2, but it was quickly obvious that that was not the case.

That only left #3.

For some odd reason, you've left off your list the single most salient cause of reactive behavior: Fear.

Perhaps you left off fear because you would substitute hate in place of fear.

Which brings me around to the title of one of the operas in The Ring of the Neener Bomb: "Fear and Loathing In Lost Vagueness."

It is well known that hate is a mask for fear.

And fear is what drives drama.

As far as I know, the brain does not have a Hate Lobe. But it does have a Fear Processor (the Amygdala, Hippocampus, and Hypothalamus). These are all clustered in the R-Complex (the "R" stands for Reptilian because the R-Complex comprises the entirety of the reptilian brain).

Bill Moyers refers to those whose politics are fear-driven as the "Reptilian Right" (and rightly so).

What I fear, by the way, is the reptilian response of ignorant admins wielding the arbitrary and capricious reigns of political power whilst in a state of fear of people who actually know what they're talking about.

Because we keep baiting and letting him continue what he does, so he's never going to go anywhere. He has about as much chance as you or I do of passing.

Because I've never done anything wrong.

The fact is, I'm the best thing that's ever happened to Wikipedia, and people are starting to realize that.

Everything I do is ultimately for Wikipedia's benefit.

I'm sure you believe that.

Have you considered that maybe other people don't hate Wikipedia, and in fact believe that what they do, even the parts you disagree with, are for Wikipedia's benefit?

But he asked you at least one question you've never answered (to my knowledge). Do you actually think that he and others hate Wikipedia, or is it a metaphor for having bad policy views? And it's it's the former, I would really like to know the last part of that question--what basis do you have for believing he actually hates Wikipedia considering alternative explanations?

I tend to read it as a parody of Colbert-style "why do you hate America?"

There are three explanations for someone holding ideas and performing acts that are so blatantly detrimental to Wikipedia:
1) Ignorance
2) Insanity
3) Malice

At first I simply assumed it was the first; however, after repeated attempts to educate him (and others) of the error of their ways no change in their behavior came about. So then I progressed to #2, but it was quickly obvious that that was not the case.

That only left #3.

Objectivist thinking on display, above. And some of you probably thought I was exaggerating in my comments in the thread I recently started on the matter.

Catherine de Burgh is Giano's sock, right?

Apparently so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=252651797

Shit meet fan.

Oh god. This is not going to be fun :/

EDIT: I should say if you're on Wikipedia, it's not going to be fun. For your average Wikipedia-Watcher, it's "Get out the Popcorn time!"

This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

You really don't need "multiple checkusers" to see that CdB = Giano; he's not making any great efforts to hide it. The block is moronic and the conclusion that it's a good hand account for winning votes for arbcom is just bizarre.

You really don't need "multiple checkusers" to see that CdB = Giano; he's not making any great efforts to hide it. The block is moronic and the conclusion that it's a good hand account for winning votes for arbcom is just bizarre.

Nah, David just thought that this year's election didn't have enough lulz in it yet.

David's being phenomenally stupid here, though; this is exactly the sort of nonsense that will just further widen the rift in the community between the writers and the admin-wonkers. Wikipedia needs both of these groups, preferably working together. Without the wonks the writers will be overrun by vandalism; without the writers the wonks will have no content to maintain. Chasing either off is bad policy, and Gothboy's little tantrum will just be seen as another shot across that divide. If Giano picks up the gauntlet, we'll be quite well assured of a fun holiday season.

It's enough for me to wonder if any of my socks is eligible to run; the added lulz would be more than worth it in the end.

Since David tried to pull the "talk to arbcom" bit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...k_of_User:Giano

Especially with Flo and others jumping in on this, I don't think it's going to last very long.

I would support a community ban of David Gerard at this point.

Since David tried to pull the "talk to arbcom" bit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...k_of_User:Giano

Especially with Flo and others jumping in on this, I don't think it's going to last very long.

Well, David could use a good drubbing. Really, it's time he moved on to disrupt some other internet forum; you'd think by now he have recognized that he's wasted enough time on Wikipedia.

I would support a community ban of David Gerard at this point.

While I think this is spectacularly bad judgment and I really would support removing his admin bit, admit it Kurt, you only want to community ban him because he wanted to take it to ArbCom, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Ehh...a lot of times when I do stuff like that it's just posturing.

But not always.

Someone frame that last quote from Kurt, please? Before it disappears? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

You really don't need "multiple checkusers" to see that CdB = Giano; he's not making any great efforts to hide it. The block is moronic and the conclusion that it's a good hand account for winning votes for arbcom is just bizarre.

Nah, David just thought that this year's election didn't have enough lulz in it yet.

David's being phenomenally stupid here, though; this is exactly the sort of nonsense that will just further widen the rift in the community between the writers and the admin-wonkers. Wikipedia needs both of these groups, preferably working together. Without the wonks the writers will be overrun by vandalism; without the writers the wonks will have no content to maintain. Chasing either off is bad policy, and Gothboy's little tantrum will just be seen as another shot across that divide. If Giano picks up the gauntlet, we'll be quite well assured of a fun holiday season.

I think you're confusing admins in general, who are overwhelmingly constructive, with people like Gerard, who are just cruel, vindictive bullies doing very little good work to counterbalance the harm they cause. People who devote themselves primarily to admin work are valuable (although I don't think anyone should be exclusively devoted to it), provided they do so with great respect for volunteers, for the community and its processes. Gerard and his ilk have no respect for any of the above; they believe they are so supremely invested with "clue" that they can do whatever they like and treat people as badly as they want. The rift isn't between editors and admins; it's between the community and the bullies.

I think Kelly understands the distinction. In fact, that seems to be what she's trying to express.

There's nothing wrong with being an admin or a wonk, as she points out, but Gerrard seems to have fired a provocation across the divide. That block helps perpetuate the "admins v. content contributors" mentality for no good reason.

This post has been edited by One:

I think Kelly understands the distinction. In fact, that seems to be what she's trying to express.

There's nothing wrong with being an admin or a wonk, as she points out, but Gerrard seems to have fired a provocation across the divide. That block helps perpetuate the "admins v. content contributors" mentality for no good reason.

My view is that Gerard is not representative of admins as a group; he's only representative of bullies. Why should it perpetuate any such mentality? Anyone can see that admins overwhelmingly opposed Gerard's block.

I think Kelly understands the distinction. In fact, that seems to be what she's trying to express.

There's nothing wrong with being an admin or a wonk, as she points out, but Gerrard seems to have fired a provocation across the divide. That block helps perpetuate the "admins v. content contributors" mentality for no good reason.

My view is that Gerard is not representative of admins as a group; he's only representative of bullies. Why should it perpetuate any such mentality? Anyone can see that admins overwhelmingly opposed Gerard's block.

From blocking Piperdown as a "sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Overstock.com", to blocking the IP range of an entire suburb of Salt Lake City, to making this block, Gerard has been at the center of several of the stupidest, most bush-league episodes in Wikipedia history. He must be so proud.

I think Kelly understands the distinction. In fact, that seems to be what she's trying to express.

There's nothing wrong with being an admin or a wonk, as she points out, but Gerrard seems to have fired a provocation across the divide. That block helps perpetuate the "admins v. content contributors" mentality for no good reason.

My view is that Gerard is not representative of admins as a group; he's only representative of bullies. Why should it perpetuate any such mentality? Anyone can see that admins overwhelmingly opposed Gerard's block.

From blocking Piperdown as a "sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Overstock.com", to blocking the IP range of an entire suburb of Salt Lake City, to making this block, Gerard has been at the center of several of the stupidest, most bush-league episodes in Wikipedia history. He must be so proud.

Don't forget that IP in Basingstoke, England. Which was also blocked as a "proxy of Bagley". Oh, and Gerard attempted (with Sandifer) to write an attack article on Judd Bagley out of spite, sourced largely to Gary Weiss. This was redirected after complaints from the community.

Don't forget that IP in Basingstoke, England. Which was also blocked as a "proxy of Bagley". Oh, and Gerard attempted (with Sandifer) to write an attack article on Judd Bagley out of spite, sourced largely to Gary Weiss. This was redirected after complaints from the community.

Amazingly, Mantanmoreland went the high(er) road on that score and voted to delete it...twice.

[[Judd Bagley]] was an uncommonly obvious attack article.

Don't forget that IP in Basingstoke, England. Which was also blocked as a "proxy of Bagley". Oh, and Gerard attempted (with Sandifer) to write an attack article on Judd Bagley out of spite, sourced largely to Gary Weiss. This was redirected after complaints from the community.

Amazingly, Mantanmoreland went the high(er) road on that score and voted to delete it...twice.

[[Judd Bagley]] was an uncommonly obvious attack article.

I don't think it was a matter of taking the high road. Some people wanted to hurt Bagley by making an attack article, others wanted to hurt him by denying him the attention.

Can we stop getting off-topic and let's talk about the candidates so far. This is my evaluation of the current candidates

1 AnthonyQBachler - statement seems more of a weak RFA candidacy rather than a ArbCom statement, answers shows no understanding of policy, 0% chance of winning, should withdraw.
2 Carcharoth - Most qualified candidate in my opinion, always been calm, reasonable and brilliant answers towards questions.
3 Casliber - A Kirill Lokshin style editor, should be elected easily.
4 Charles Matthews - Should be reelected, one of the more decent ArbCom members.
5 Cool Hand Luke - Nice statement, but some answers to questions shocks me, especially one questions about BLP and OTRS, hmm no.
6 Coren - Vandalfighter, no experience for ArbCom, shouldn't be elected.
7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.
8 George The Dragon - no chance, no experience, should withdraw to avoid any conflect.
9 Hemlock Martinis - no change from last year, results will be the same.
10 Hersfold - Better candidates for the job.
11 Jayvdb - Great statement so far, likely to be elected, has the experience for the job, and a good communicator.
12 Jdforrester - Likely to be unseated, owning the admins IRC channel is a negative, also one of the reasons why ArbCom was broken. Inactive at times. Doubt he'll get reelected without top support, remember Raul last year. Will attract the most combined votes. IRC will vote for him in droves.
13 Jehochman - process wonk, will be a borderline candidacy, made too many enemies in the project in my opinion to win. Will just cause more drama in ArbCom in my opinion
14 Justice America - Too suspicious, 168 edits!. No Chance
15 Kmweber - no chance, doubt will even get one vote.
16 Lankiveil - more qualified candidates out there, weak answers, not much of a chance.
17 NWA.Rep - Too controversial, shaky history. Good answers to the few questions he answered so far, willing to see the rest.
18 Privatemusings - Was banned, unbanned, banned again, unbanned again, hmm no.
19 Rlevse -Qualified, and highly respected around the project, I personally don't like some of his stances, but he'll likely be elected anyways, too popular.
20 RMHED - joke nomination.
21 Sam Korn - Was a good ArbCom member before burning out, I don't see how he won't burnout again.
22 Secret/Jaranda - Most controversial admin running, I think his candidacy will attract the most combined votes after Jdforrester, all depends on answers to questions. He's a favorite among some of the cabal crowd. I think he will make a good ArbCom member, but unlikely to be elected.
23 SirFozzie - Calm of reason, should be elected, participation in this forum and constant criticism of certain editors may kill among some crowds though. Recall is a plus.
24 Vassyana - Tad controversal in my opinion, will get opposed by some crowd, mediation experience is a plus. Borderline
25 White Cat - One of the most controversal editors running,
26 WilyD - Some of his recent AFD edits show lack of experience especially for an admin, no chance.
27 Wizardman - Mediation experience is good, but more qualified candidates out there, borderline.
28 WJBscribe - Should be elected easily, second most qualified candidate.

This post has been edited by Littleunknownadmin:

I'll be supporting seven people, since that's the number of seats supposedly open. Everyone else I'll be opposing. I have stated I would oppose some people, but may be changing my mind due to the number of poor candidates running. There are a few gems in there though who will be getting my strong support.

Welcome to WR Littleknownadmin.

Hopefully there will be some good dark horses.

Apart from James F, who I could not imagine would run (then again, he seems to acknowledge how likely he is to be successful), there are no surprises so far.

However, he is not ruling out Jimbo appointing him whatever the result of the election. See question 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb..._.5Banswered.5D

No surprises there.

Giano

8 George The Dragon - no chance, no experience, should withdraw to avoid any conflect.

Isn't that what many said about a certain Barack Obama not too long ago? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought your replies to the questions about civility were poor.

(a) Depends on the definition of 'civility'. The current arbitrary and narrow-minded conception is the issue for most of us who would like the freedom to tell trolls to get lost (and also to speak our mind to those dim-witted vandal fighters who regard any kind of work on the project as vandalism - see for instance the edit trail of Americanlinguist whose new article had all sorts of stupid templates slapped on it). Some of us don't suffer fools gladly.

((IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) Who actually cares about civility and equality among editors. Some of us care about building an encyclopedia not creating some utopian society. Join a political party if that's what you want.

So, sorry, you won't be getting my vote. And I don't vote for people with silly names either.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

Maybe your votes in last year's election? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought your replies to the questions about civility were poor.

(a) Depends on the definition of 'civility'. The current arbitrary and narrow-minded conception is the issue for most of us who would like the freedom to tell trolls to get lost (and also to speak our mind to those dim-witted vandal fighters who regard any kind of work on the project as vandalism - see for instance the edit trail of Americanlinguist whose new article had all sorts of stupid templates slapped on it). Some of us don't suffer fools gladly.

((IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) Who actually cares about civility and equality among editors. Some of us care about building an encyclopedia not creating some utopian society. Join a political party if that's what you want.

So, sorry, you won't be getting my vote. And I don't vote for people with silly names either.

As far as I am concerned, Peter, you or anyone else may tell trolls to get lost on Wikipedia; just do so politely. Too many people think civility means you can't say what you think, or express your views forcefully. My concept of civility, and the spirit WP:CIVIL was written in (if not adhered to by many) requires you to respect the other person's viewpoint, and comment on their contributions, not them.

"Not suffering fools gladly" is a commonly used, and exceptionally lame, excuse used by or on behalf of people who are unable to interact with others online in the same way they would interact with someone they met on the street.

This means, for example, that "fuck off" is not acceptable, whether said to a troll, a vandal, a newbie, an admin, whoever. If you don't understand that, I wouldn't want you to vote for me anyway. Especially as you think my awesome name is stupid.

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

Maybe your votes in last year's election? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I still think the clerks lost out when you made the step up to Arbcom (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

As far as I am concerned, Peter, you or anyone else may tell trolls to get lost on Wikipedia; just do so politely. Too many people think civility means you can't say what you think, or express your views forcefully. My concept of civility, and the spirit WP:CIVIL was written in (if not adhered to by many) requires you to respect the other person's viewpoint, and comment on their contributions, not them.

"Not suffering fools gladly" is a commonly used, and exceptionally lame, excuse used by or on behalf of people who are unable to interact with others online in the same way they would interact with someone they met on the street.

This means, for example, that "fuck off" is not acceptable, whether said to a troll, a vandal, a newbie, an admin, whoever.

But it's not telling someone to f-- off is it, it's anything close to the truth that can be used as an excuse to block or ban. Topically, see Giano's latest tirade below. He expresses his views forcefully and rightly so, but people confuse forcefulness with 'incivility'. If someone is a fool, tell them they are a fool, if they are a liar ... and so on. Wikipedia Review would not exist except for the impossibility of telling the truth over there anymore.

So Brad, what has the Arbcom done about this situation so far? In emails yesterday to you and others I said I was prepared to ignore Thatcher and the other one, if gerard was dealt with. So far I see nothing has been done. It is left to me to sort it out, and prevent similar abuse. According to you, I should not be cross with Thatcher, I should not be cross with the other one - presumably I should not be cross with Gerard because he is the pet of Jimbo and the Arbcom, and let's face it no-one is allowed to tell Jimbo that his tame checkuser is a lying cheat. Who invades and violates privacy at a whim. Why is this? What services does he perform for you all, that give him such protection? Giano (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I went to bed musing on this whole civiilty thing, trying to figure some sort of algorithm about why (and what) it is the problem - I guess it is something along the lines thus:

*A posotive and collaborative atmosphere is highly important (if not essential) to the whole collaborative editing thing.

*Thus, any posting or exchange which gratuitously aims to deteriorate the atmosphere between editors is a no-no. This includes baiting and snide remarks of people already angry as well as 'incivility'. I always try to look at the malignance or intent rather than the language, so an explosive 'fuck off' means less than something really cutting or demeaning said with polite language.

Not sure where to go with this as yet, I suppose trawling through all the archives (oh gawd...)....to see if I am not reinventing the wheel

I agree in principle, Casliber.

The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users--whether their article editing is problematic or benign.

I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.

I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.

I agree in principle, Casliber.

The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users--whether their article editing is problematic or benign.

I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.

I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.

The old blocking rules identified 'disruption' as a valid reason for blocking. It was subjective and required an administrators judgment to interpret and use. Then, a couple of years ago the words 'civil' and 'civility' were thrown into the block policy. Then some admins started blocking for 'civility' whenever Giano made a good point. I personally find the stupidity of those admins far more disruptive, not to mention offensive, than anything Giano ever did.

Well, I guess waht I also mean is situations of 'upping the ante' and recognising that as a problem, and also inciting others. Anyway...still need to check archives (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

Weeklong IRC blocks without warning or discussion should be controversial…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160459355

I agree in principle, Casliber.

The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users--whether their article editing is problematic or benign.

I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.

I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.

The big problem is that "civility" is one of the few things you can block someone for, or get someone blocked for, and make it stick. Sockpuppeting as well, and spamming. But that is about all.

But "persistant fringe POV pusher"? Very hard. "Disinterested in working together but polite?" Very hard.

So people grasp at the straws that have traction.

The big problem is that "civility" is one of the few things you can block someone for, or get someone blocked for, and make it stick. Sockpuppeting as well, and spamming. But that is about all.

But "persistant fringe POV pusher"? Very hard. "Disinterested in working together but polite?" Very hard.

So people grasp at the straws that have traction.

I agree 100%. That's why civil POV pushing really can be a problem. But that's a problem of Wikipedia where we look at the behavior rather than the expertise. Our anti-elitism, and all that.

I went to bed musing on this whole civililty thing, trying to figure some sort of algorithm about why (and what) it is the problem — I guess it is something along the lines thus:

*A positive and collaborative atmosphere is highly important (if not essential) to the whole collaborative editing thing.

*Thus, any posting or exchange which gratuitously aims to deteriorate the atmosphere between editors is a no-no. This includes baiting and snide remarks of people already angry as well as 'incivility'. I always try to look at the malignance or intent rather than the language, so an explosive 'fuck off' means less than something really cutting or demeaning said with polite language.

Not sure where to go with this as yet, I suppose trawling through all the archives (oh gawd...)....to see if I am not reinventing the wheel

The concept of civility does appear to be one of those abstractions which Wikipedians perennially struggle with.

On Wikiversity, the official Civility Policy provides some examples of serious breaches of civility:

More serious examples include:

• Taunting
  
• Personal attacks
  o Racial, ethnic, and religious slurs
  o Profanity directed at another contributor
  
• Lies
  
• Defacing user pages
  
• Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove Trolling
  
• Calling for unjustified bans or blocks

This style of interaction between editors drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community.

Note, especially, that two of the above examples include common practices of admins: Defacing user pages and calling for (and even summarily executing) unjustified bans or blocks.

It is a precept as old as the Rule of Law itself that one must justify a ban with a provable cause of action. And yet it is common to block or ban rival editors on arbitrary, capricious, and specious grounds whilst bypassing the checks and balances of community or judicial review.

And so there is both the irony and the disgrace of profoundly incivil conduct by unethical admins who routinely block, ban, deface, and baleet user pages without just cause, without review, without due process, and without remorse.

I agree in principle, Casliber.

The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users — whether their article editing is problematic or benign.

I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.

I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.

The current regime exemplifies incivility by dint of their bullying practices. The primarily tool of the bully is to block or ban someone for capricious and undemonstrated reasons, without the checks and balances of a review by neutral parties.

The old blocking rules identified 'disruption' as a valid reason for blocking. It was subjective and required an administrator's judgment to interpret and use. Then, a couple of years ago the words 'civil' and 'civility' were thrown into the block policy. Then some admins started blocking for 'civility' whenever Giano made a good point. I personally find the stupidity of those admins far more disruptive, not to mention offensive, than anything Giano ever did.

Precisely so. Another instance of irony, in which the block for the specious reason of "disruption" is genuinely disruptive of civil process of resolving issues that divide rival factions. The current practice is for the dominant faction to kibosh editors promoting the minority viewpoint. And of course the ethical viewpoint is traditionally a minority viewpoint when facing down the pitchfork wielding mob.

The big problem is that "civility" is one of the few things you can block someone for, or get someone blocked for, and make it stick. Sockpuppeting as well, and spamming. But that is about all.

But "persistent fringe POV pusher"? Very hard. "Disinterested in working together but polite?" Very hard.

So people grasp at the straws that have traction.

I agree 100%. That's why civil POV pushing really can be a problem. But that's a problem of Wikipedia where we look at the behavior rather than the expertise. Our anti-elitism, and all that.

Eventually those straws are too weak to support and sustain the outlandish bullying practices of unethical admins who at best gain a temporary advantage by abusing their power to haphazardly block and ballet rival editors who seek to introduce more ethical practices into an increasingly unstable and unsustainable WikiCulture.

Now Risker's added themself

so Littleknownadmin can update their formguide (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Casliber:

Now Risker's added themself

so Littleknownadmin can update their formguide (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

In my view, Risker may well be the late starter, and outsider fielder who gets in. Of course though that does depend on Jimbo having heard of her and inviting her to join. I think she will, and he will. However, I'm always wrong in my premonitions for Arbcom, so who knows?

Giano

Actually, Risker is the only female (?) (Pity Catherine de Burgh dropped out then......oh (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) )

I don't see the candidates being stronger, even with Risker joining the elections, here's the weekend update.

Dream Focus - candidate statement has nothing to do with ArbCom, I think White Cat and George the Dragon will likely get more supports than him, should withdraw
Risker- strong candidate in a weak field, made some enemies though, should be a close and exciting one to watch
Shell Kinney - only candidate to run for ArbCom in the past four years, always fails with barely 50%, no different this time, plus expect some negative power hungry votes.
The Fat Man Who Never Get Back - seems tempting to support this candidate, good sense of humor, nice statement. Won't get elected though.
Trojanpony - candidate statement explains it all, looking at his edits, isn't even qualified to vote, I don't see a limit on edits to run though, but it should be a common sense removal

This post has been edited by Littleunknownadmin:

Two more

BillMasen- no experience, original candidacy was malformed,
Lifebaka - Good with AFDs, not for ArbCom

This post has been edited by Littleunknownadmin:

Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.

Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.

Yes, one of the strongest candidates yet. Also I want to see extra opinions on all the candidates, I was the only one that talked about every candidate so far. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.

I don't remember ever hearing of him before. What is arb-able about him and what has he done on wiki, esp. when it comes to policies or conflicts which are what arbs deal with?

Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.

I don't remember ever hearing of him before. What is arb-able about him and what has he done on wiki, esp. when it comes to policies or conflicts which are what arbs deal with?

Exact clone of Kirill Lokshin before he became a ArbCom member

Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.

I don't remember ever hearing of him before. What is arb-able about him and what has he done on wiki, esp. when it comes to policies or conflicts which are what arbs deal with?

Read his statement. He's hardworking, solves disputes, well-trusted in the community, and writes articles. I've not come across him personally, but I've seen his work.

See his RFA for some more info.

I will probably win.

If not, we will have conclusive proof that the system is rigged.

Kurt, seriously?

Kurt, seriously?

You should know he's not serious/just doing it for attention. Just ignore him.

Kurt, seriously?

You should know he's not serious/just doing it for attention. Just ignore him.

Please don't claim to know my own motives better than I myself do.

I will probably win.

If not, we will have conclusive proof that the system is rigged.

Um, are you aware that in these elections, the votes are cast publicly?

Let's not engage the troll in conversation.

Let's not engage the troll in conversation.

Generally a good rule, but a one-sentence definitive refutation such as I posted can't hurt.

I will probably win.

If not, we will have conclusive proof that the system is rigged.

Um, are you aware that in these elections, the votes are cast publicly?

Um, are you aware that oversight has a serious capability for abuse?

I will probably win.

If not, we will have conclusive proof that the system is rigged.

Um, are you aware that in these elections, the votes are cast publicly?

Um, are you aware that oversight has a serious capability for abuse?

Alex was right. Goodbye.

I imagine Kunt will get votes from the idiot bloc which contains people like Bedford, etc.

Can we talk about the arbcom elections please.

Newyorkbrad, I'm afraid you have just inadvertently exposed yourself as complicit in the conspiracy to rig this process.

This post has been edited by Kurt M. Weber:

I'm afraid you have just inadvertently exposed yourself as complicit in the conspiracy to rig this process.

And in true objectivist fashion, you won't support that. Can we just ignore the self-centered corner of the room now and fork the Randian trolling to tarpit?

If you feel like answering, how is it rigged if you lose? If you get 2 supports, and 100 opposes, is that rigged? Do you believe you'll get 1000 supports and 2 opposes?

Kurt stop trolling, this isn't wikipedia, we are trying to have a decent conversation about the elections.

Question posted to Kurt on his election page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253847960

You indicated today on Wikipedia Review here that if you lose the AC election, it is rigged, and even went so far as to say that User:Newyorkbrad was in on some scheme. Can you elaborate here on how the present AC election is rigged against you, when all votes are public? rootology ©(T) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Question posted to Kurt on his election page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253847960

You indicated today on Wikipedia Review here that if you lose the AC election, it is rigged, and even went so far as to say that User:Newyorkbrad was in on some scheme. Can you elaborate here on how the present AC election is rigged against you, when all votes are public? rootology ©(T) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

He'll likely remove that question like all the others. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I imagine Kunt will get votes from the idiot bloc which contains people like Bedford, etc.

Come on, Sceptre. Nameinsults are pretty low. I may not agree with the guy, and think he's being silly, but that's just not on. Don't lower yourself to this.

Question posted to Kurt on his election page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253847960

You indicated today on Wikipedia Review here that if you lose the AC election, it is rigged, and even went so far as to say that User:Newyorkbrad was in on some scheme. Can you elaborate here on how the present AC election is rigged against you, when all votes are public? rootology ©(T) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Like he's going to answer that.

You've probably just exposed yourself as part of the conspiracy. Obviously, you and NYB are going to oversight all the legions of pro-Kurt edits, and if anyone complains about it, they'll be banned and have their edits oversighted. It's really quite simple, and your question only proves your intent to deceive.

Tarpit is due.

This post has been edited by One:

Ok back to elections.... I want to see more opinions of all the candidates running so far.

I imagine Kunt will get votes from the idiot bloc which contains people like Bedford, etc.

Come on, Sceptre. Nameinsults are pretty low. I may not agree with the guy, and think he's being silly, but that's just not on. Don't lower yourself to this.

I'm sure it was just a typo (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

You've probably just exposed yourself as part of the conspiracy.

I'd love for Kurt to name me of all people as part of some intra-WP "conspiracy". I double dog dare him to do it and then provide a rationale beyond "because he said so".

You've probably just exposed yourself as part of the conspiracy.

I'd love for Kurt to name me of all people as part of some intra-WP "conspiracy". I double dog dare him to do it and then provide a rationale beyond "because he said so".

create a new post, stop feeding the trolls (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

My opinion is that that intelligent, reasonable SirFozzie should be an Arbitrator and that everyone should vote for him.

(<grins>)

Seriously, there's some good candidates, and some I won't vote for, and some I will be opposing. Since I'm a candidate, I think I'll keep my own counsel and probably vote toward the end of the voting period.

You people are wasting your time talking about Kurt. Ignore him, except to devote a moment or two to cast a vote against him in December. Anyway...

Ok back to elections.... I want to see more opinions of all the candidates running so far.

Seriously looking at the list for the first time, I see only three candidates that I am certain or quite likely to vote for: Carcharoth (certain), Wjbscribe (certain), and Fish and karate (likely). There are also a few candidates I would not vote for under any circumstances whatsoever: Charles Matthews, James F., Sam Korn, Shell Kinney, and Secret (and of course Kurt). Making a decision about the remainder of the candidates will require some research and will may involve strategic voting based on how the tallies are looking. The top priority must be to keep out Matthews, James F., and Sam Korn.

This post has been edited by everyking:

You people are wasting your time talking about Kurt. Ignore him, except to devote a moment or two to cast a vote against him in December. Anyway...

Ok back to elections.... I want to see more opinions of all the candidates running so far.

Seriously looking at the list for the first time, I see only three candidates that I am certain or quite likely to vote for: Carcharoth (certain), Wjbscribe (certain), and Fish and karate (likely). There are also a few candidates I would not vote for under any circumstances whatsoever: Charles Matthews, James F., Sam Korn, Shell Kinney, and Secret (and of course Kurt). Making a decision about the remainder of the candidates will require some research and will may involve strategic voting based on how the tallies are looking. The top priority must be to keep out Matthews, James F., and Sam Korn.

If Sam Korn deserves to be lumped into that group, it could use a more detailed reasoning.

You people are wasting your time talking about Kurt. Ignore him, except to devote a moment or two to cast a vote against him in December. Anyway...

Ok back to elections.... I want to see more opinions of all the candidates running so far.

Seriously looking at the list for the first time, I see only three candidates that I am certain or quite likely to vote for: Carcharoth (certain), Wjbscribe (certain), and Fish and karate (likely). There are also a few candidates I would not vote for under any circumstances whatsoever: Charles Matthews, James F., Sam Korn, Shell Kinney, and Secret (and of course Kurt). Making a decision about the remainder of the candidates will require some research and will may involve strategic voting based on how the tallies are looking. The top priority must be to keep out Matthews, James F., and Sam Korn.

If Sam Korn deserves to be lumped into that group, it could use a more detailed reasoning.

Sam is a former arbitrator with a record of supporting admin abuse. He did nothing to improve the ArbCom's performance or break the mold.

Sam is a former arbitrator with a record of supporting admin abuse. He did nothing to improve the ArbCom's performance or break the mold.

In other words.

Sam is a former arbitrator with a record of supporting admin abuse. He did nothing to improve the ArbCom's performance or break the mold.

In other words.

Is this really all there is?

Sam is a former arbitrator with a record of supporting admin abuse. He did nothing to improve the ArbCom's performance or break the mold.

In other words.

Indeed, everyking's grudge with smoddy is rather personal. That said, I've not been impressed with the smodster either. He's not on the level of Charles Matthews or James Forrester (each of whom is bad in his own particular way), but I'd have to agree with everyking that smoddy is someone who is not fit to serve on ArbCom.

Of course, I think Wikipedia is best served by electing bombastic, erratic firebrands, rather than clear, calm, rational thinkers, because that path will hasten the death of the project. Unfortunately, smoddy fails in this regard too; he (like James) tends to only get involved occasionally. He's better off running around pissing people off as an ordinary admin, unfettered by the need to behave in an Arbitratorial fashion.

My opinion is that that intelligent, reasonable SirFozzie should be an Arbitrator and that everyone should vote for him.

(<grins>)

Seriously, there's some good candidates, and some I won't vote for, and some I will be opposing. Since I'm a candidate, I think I'll keep my own counsel and probably vote toward the end of the voting period.

I'd vote for you.

On one candidate answer I was reading, there was mention of a table that detailed the edits of each of the candidates.

For those who like that type of thing, here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Franamax...2008_Candidates

It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned.

This post has been edited by Steve Crossin:

It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned.

I'm not a mod, so I'm not supposed to do this, but...

Welcome, Steve Crossin! Another banned user!

It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned.

I'm not a mod, so I'm not supposed to do this, but...

Welcome, Steve Crossin! Another banned user!

OMG revert his edits! Delete his articles! Remove all memory of him! Seriously though, Wikipedia reminds me of Orwell's 1984; a banned user is an unperson, and all traces of them must be removed. Welcome Steve! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned.

I'm not a mod, so I'm not supposed to do this, but...

Welcome, Steve Crossin! Another banned user!

OMG revert his edits! Delete his articles! Remove all memory of him! Seriously though, Wikipedia reminds me of Orwell's 1984; a banned user is an unperson, and all traces of them must be removed. Welcome Steve! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I thought the usual complaint is that Wikipedia retains too much information concerning the doings of the banned user.

It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned.

I'm not a mod, so I'm not supposed to do this, but...

Welcome, Steve Crossin! Another banned user!

Another banned user who has run to Simple English Wikipedia because he wasn't mature enough for the real one.

Alex is the only serious participant in Wikipedia for Dummies who can actually hold his own on the "proper" version.

Is simple still a penal farm for grown-up wikipedia?