The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

[privatemusings]

So the nominations for the 2009 arbcom elections are open. In other news, the voting method, the no. of candidates being elected, and their terms are not yet established, so if you'd like to nominate yourself for an indeterminate amount of time, to be decided in an indeterminate way, to a committee of indeterminate no. roll up, roll up, roll up :-)

ps. I was feeling a bit amused by the above, and decided to withdraw (partly as an intensely thought through socio-political and philosophical comment on the elections and the process) - unfortunately it didn't stick. I'm not sure if that means I'm running or not.

This post has been edited by privatemusings:

[dtobias]

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

[Wizardman]

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

[everyking]

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

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

[Cla68]

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

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

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

[Wizardman]

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

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

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

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

[Cla68]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

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

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

You're an ArbCom-convicted stalker like me? In that case, I must say that it was highly irresponsible of the ArbCom to appoint you to its short-lived "Advisory Council"--after all, we stalkers are extremely dangerous people. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Did they put you under Tony Sidaway's mentorship too? That's when you know they really like you!

[Viridae]

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

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

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

Likewise. Big improvement.

[gomi]

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

Likewise. Big improvement.

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

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

[Somey]

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

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

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

[Lar]

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

Likewise. Big improvement.

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

[thekohser]

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

[Guido den Broeder]

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

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

[Kurt M. Weber]

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

Likewise. Big improvement.

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

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

[thekohser]

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

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

[Jaranda]

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

[Nerd]

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

[thekohser]

Criteria:

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

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

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




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