Secret/Jaranda arbcom election Options

[Littleunknownadmin]

This one intrigues me the most. Here's a editor who's as hit and miss as it could get. Had a unstable past with quitting constantly and coming back, but that was about a few years ago. He also was involved with the Mzoli's Meats incident when Jimbo told him to leave the project because of his heavy deletionist view. He deleted Mzoli's on a rage, and came back as Secret.

He managed to rebuilt himself in the next few months before becoming the target of a massive ED harassment campaign, (I believe he was the one who either deleted the article if I'm not mistaking, correct me if I'm wrong) which let him to leave the project until recently.

If it wasn't for his prior past, he's probably one of the most qualified candidates out there. I spoke to a couple of respected administrators privately about his candidacy (and several others), and it's the one candidacy they want to see the most. I know he was involved in particular with BLP and AFD, and many people consider him to be one of the best readers of consensus, and his views are the most consistent with the direction of the project.

He won't win, but I know he is/was a favorite among many admins, but his prior past will make this candidacy the second hell hole after Jdforrester, and that's if the answers to the questions are good.

[Kato]

He also was involved with the Mzoli's Meats incident when Jimbo told him to leave the project because of his heavy deletionist view. He deleted Mzoli's on a rage, and came back as Secret.

Nonsense. He deleted it because it was a load of mispelt crap that failed any conventions Wikipedia has drawn up surrounding article subjects - it read

Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restuarant[sic] located in [[Guguletu]] township near Cape Town, South Africa.

It only became an issue due to Jimbo Wales's cult leader status, and the fact that Jaranda had blasphemed, by opposing The God-King.

Anyway. I may as well "spam" my reply to your threads.

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 generally 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 provides 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. This circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.

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

[everyking]

This one intrigues me the most. Here's a editor who's as hit and miss as it could get. Had a unstable past with quitting constantly and coming back, but that was about a few years ago. He also was involved with the Mzoli's Meats incident when Jimbo told him to leave the project because of his heavy deletionist view. He deleted Mzoli's on a rage, and came back as Secret.

He managed to rebuilt himself in the next few months before becoming the target of a massive ED harassment campaign, (I believe he was the one who either deleted the article if I'm not mistaking, correct me if I'm wrong) which let him to leave the project until recently.

If it wasn't for his prior past, he's probably one of the most qualified candidates out there. I spoke to a couple of respected administrators privately about his candidacy (and several others), and it's the one candidacy they want to see the most. I know he was involved in particular with BLP and AFD, and many people consider him to be one of the best readers of consensus, and his views are the most consistent with the direction of the project.

He won't win, but I know he is/was a favorite among many admins, but his prior past will make this candidacy the second hell hole after Jdforrester, and that's if the answers to the questions are good.

He's totally unstable and insecure, and everybody knows it. His candidacy will quite deservedly go down in flames.

[Littleunknownadmin]

It was ^demon who deleted the article in the first place, Jaranda deleted it after the second time, as for unstable and insecure, seems to me those issues were way over a year ago, back in 2006, so I'm not concerned about that.

[everyking]

It was ^demon who deleted the article in the first place, Jaranda deleted it after the second time, as for unstable and insecure, seems to me those issues were way over a year ago, back in 2006, so I'm not concerned about that.

The Mzoli's incident, in which he abused his admin tools in a rage over the decision to keep the Mzoli's article and then left the project for about the 100th time, was in September 2007. I wouldn't even vote for him as an admin, let alone an arbitrator. Even if he won, the stress would be too much for him and he'd resign after about three days.

[Jaranda]

I have my reasons for running, I'm surpriced that it got it's own post :/, and I if I get elected, I wouldn't resign, for me I don't think it's that's stressful. As for Mzoli's I apologized and avoided probelms for a while since that insident, and the quitting thing was immatturity and stupid attension seeking of personal problems that I shouldn't have made a fuzz of, and that's one thing i need to get out of the way if i stand a chance. I'm going to answer my questions mainly when elections end on monday. Want to see whoelse is going to run.

[Casliber]

I have my reasons for running, I'm surpriced that it got it's own post :/, and I if I get elected, I wouldn't resign, for me I don't think it's that's stressful. As for Mzoli's I apologized and avoided probelms for a while since that insident, and the quitting thing was immatturity and stupid attension seeking of personal problems that I shouldn't have made a fuzz of, and that's one thing i need to get out of the way if i stand a chance. I'm going to answer my questions mainly when elections end on monday. Want to see whoelse is going to run.

Erm....was the creative spelling tongue in cheek? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Mike H]

Jaranda has always had bad spelling, Casliber. I remember when he was going up for RFA the first time. I believe that one failed because the spelling mistakes were so numerous. He went in for it again and got it because his spelling had improved.

It may be because of language issues (Jaranda, isn't your first language Spanish?).

This post has been edited by Mike H:

[Jaranda]

I have a mild case of dyslexia and I use a spell checker. Also I managed to withdrew, have slim chance, candidates are top this year and I can't dedicate many hours to arbcom even if i get elected. I rather clean my record for another year and try again. I want to focus getting OTRS instead, something which I believe will be good for me.

[Alex]

I have a mild case of dyslexia and I use a spell checker. Also I managed to withdrew, have slim chance, candidates are top this year and I can't dedicate many hours to arbcom even if i get elected. I rather clean my record for another year and try again. I want to focus getting OTRS instead, something which I believe will be good for me.

Disagree, but that's my opinion.

[Lar]

I have a mild case of dyslexia and I use a spell checker. Also I managed to withdrew, have slim chance, candidates are top this year and I can't dedicate many hours to arbcom even if i get elected. I rather clean my record for another year and try again. I want to focus getting OTRS instead, something which I believe will be good for me.

One should not get OTRS because it will be good for one.

Rather, one should get OTRS because one will be good for OTRS. (and by extension, good for the WMF mission and projects)

One should get OTRS because one is willing to do the tough work that is required, with a high degree of finesse. It's essentially a customer service sort of function, and it's not something everyone can do easily. If one does not have a very good command of the language, and a very patient nature, and ability to speak calmly and rationally to a writer who is understandably quite upset, one may have difficulty with anything other than the most routine (and therefore already templated) cases.

Hope that helps.

(No "One", I wasn't talking to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ... )

Edit: add "(and by extension, good for the WMF mission and projects)"

[Alex]

Rather, one should get OTRS because one will be good for OTRS.

Wrong.

One should get OTRS because one will be good for Wikimedia. OTRS is just a self-contained, self-selected group that's part of the foundation. We shouldn't be doing anything for it.

[Doc glasgow]

I want to focus getting OTRS instead, something which I believe will be good for me.

I'm afraid that's quite troubling. OTRS is not something one works to "get". If you want to volunteer then Cary Bass etc. will assess whether you are suitable. If you're deemed not suitable, then I'm afraid that's that. Unless, perchance, the reason is lack of experience, but you have plenty of that.

By all means apply, but since you've been on wikipedia long enough to have acquired as much useful experience as you are ever likely to, there's very little to "focus on", just type the application and be assessed.

As Lar says, OTRS is not about what's good for you. Like many things in wikipedia it is not therapy and you either can do it, or you can't.

(Actually, from experience, OTRS is not good for you. Seeing the pain wikipedia causes to real people made me sad.)

[One]

(No "One", I wasn't talking to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ... )

Ask not what One can do for your country...

Also note I'm most likely to do a detailed subpage describing all the candidates and why I'm voting for them or not.

Lot of that going around. Someone (perhaps littleunknownadmin since he's so eager to hear opinions) should start a metaguide; there's already seven, and they seem to be fast multiplying. That way, potential voters could scan the guides like film critics, and find those best aligned to their sensibilities.

[Lar]

Rather, one should get OTRS because one will be good for OTRS.

Wrong.

One should get OTRS because one will be good for Wikimedia. OTRS is just a self-contained, self-selected group that's part of the foundation. We shouldn't be doing anything for it.

That's what I meant, sorry if I was insufficiently precise. Because, being "good" (i.e. effective at doing OTRS tasks) for OTRS is good for Wikimedia. It is an important, even critical, function to be able to effectively and satisfactorily resolve issues.

OTRS is not for everyone, as I said. There are certain temperaments that are not suited. Anyone who ever has any tendency whatever to lose their temper, or to say intemperate things, or to hold grudges or to act rashly... is not suited to OTRS.

Don't you agree?

[Kelly Martin]

I want to focus getting OTRS instead, something which I believe will be good for me.

Speaking as someone who "had" OTRS for quite a long time, trust me, it will not do anything good for you. And given what I know about you, you will do nothing good for it, either; you have neither the patience nor the communication skills required.

[Alex]

Rather, one should get OTRS because one will be good for OTRS.

Wrong.

One should get OTRS because one will be good for Wikimedia. OTRS is just a self-contained, self-selected group that's part of the foundation. We shouldn't be doing anything for it.

That's what I meant, sorry if I was insufficiently precise. Because, being "good" (i.e. effective at doing OTRS tasks) for OTRS is good for Wikimedia. It is an important, even critical, function to be able to effectively and satisfactorily resolve issues.

OTRS is not for everyone, as I said. There are certain temperaments that are not suited. Anyone who ever has any tendency whatever to lose their temper, or to say intemperate things, or to hold grudges or to act rashly... is not suited to OTRS.

Don't you agree?

All those things above are normal emotions expressed by most average human beings.

[Lar]

OTRS is not for everyone, as I said. There are certain temperaments that are not suited. Anyone who ever has any tendency whatever to lose their temper, or to say intemperate things, or to hold grudges or to act rashly... is not suited to OTRS.

Don't you agree?

All those things above are normal emotions expressed by most average human beings.

And any CSR (customer service rep) who let any of those leak through on a customer call would not stay a CSR for long. Customers rant and the CSR needs to just take it, and then respond calmly and patiently, and if at all possible (and reasonable) fix the customer's problem.

OTRS is in many ways a CSR function. Expressing normal emotions isn't allowed while carrying out OTRS duties. And if someone has a history of expressing normal emotions in their onwiki interactions, that tends to suggest they aren't suitable for OTRS, don't you agree?

[Alex]

OTRS is not for everyone, as I said. There are certain temperaments that are not suited. Anyone who ever has any tendency whatever to lose their temper, or to say intemperate things, or to hold grudges or to act rashly... is not suited to OTRS.

Don't you agree?

All those things above are normal emotions expressed by most average human beings.

And any CSR (customer service rep) who let any of those leak through on a customer call would not stay a CSR for long. Customers rant and the CSR needs to just take it, and then respond calmly and patiently, and if at all possible (and reasonable) fix the customer's problem.

OTRS is in many ways a CSR function. Expressing normal emotions isn't allowed while carrying out OTRS duties. And if someone has a history of expressing normal emotions in their onwiki interactions, that tends to suggest they aren't suitable for OTRS, don't you agree?

Only if they got onto OTRS first, then showed they weren't suitable. For example, I never had any issues my OTRS responses when I did them. There's no way I'd be accepted back on to the team now is there? (not that I'd dream of helping out such a corrupt self-centred cabal again).

[Casliber]

Lot of that going around. Someone (perhaps littleunknownadmin since he's so eager to hear opinions) should start a metaguide; there's already seven, and they seem to be fast multiplying. That way, potential voters could scan the guides like film critics, and find those best aligned to their sensibilities.

A metaguide, what a cool idea, with all sorts of nifty percentages and colours to look at, like an election or something...