The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

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:

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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?

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

Fritzpoll runs a bot which updates a master BLPFD list in Lara's user-space.

Not sure but this could be intended to replace the original BLPFD page which was created following my suggestion to David Gerard in April 2008. That page was regularly updated by one Erwin85Bot until somebody shut it down in July 2009.

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

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

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

Hah!

So ummm… why do you hate Wikipedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Criteria:

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

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

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




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

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

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

Since when did Kurt get unbanned?

Since when did Kurt get unbanned?

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

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

Like this.

(You do.)

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

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

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

Like this.

(You do.)

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

Your links are fuxored, see [1].

Your links are fuxored, see [1].

I won't even pretend to be capable of understanding how that happened. Still, they now produce the amusing statement "wikipedia is not a valid wiki", so that's something.

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

No, I'm not.

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

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

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

The criteria say nothing about being banned.

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

Greg

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

Like this.

I clicked that link and it said "wikipedia is not a valid wiki". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (Oh, you already noted as much.)

This post has been edited by Shalom:

The criteria say nothing about being banned.

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

Greg

You've found a loophole. Congratulations.

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

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

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

Hm, yes, I'd vote for him.

The criteria say nothing about being banned.

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

Greg

You've found a loophole. Congratulations.

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

ArbCom is self-nom only...

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

Just wondering.

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

Just wondering.

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

Criteria:

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

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

Criteria:

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

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

Don't know about never, but basically yeah.

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

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

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

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

Yes, but since when has it been proper for members of the ArbCom to do the proper thing?

Is Kurt Weber aware of the fact that 7 out of 9 of the German Wikipedia's "ArbCom" resigned when it became clear to them that they lacked a community mandate?

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

That's why they should move the articles from their userspace rather than just copying and pasting.

Is Kurt Weber aware of the fact that 7 out of 9 of the German Wikipedia's "ArbCom" resigned when it became clear to them that they lacked a community mandate?

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

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

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

Hm, yes, I'd vote for him.

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

Run, Greg, run! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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

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

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

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

He didn't "achieve" a reblock -- Arbcom's stupidest arbitrator took it upon herself to reblock him because of some sassy edit summaries that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive to Wikipedia's well-being. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

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

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

He didn't "achieve" a reblock -- Arbcom's stupidest arbitrator took it upon herself to reblock him because of some sassy edit summaries that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive to Wikipedia's well-being. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

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

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

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

He didn't "achieve" a reblock -- Arbcom's stupidest arbitrator took it upon herself to reblock him because of some sassy edit summaries that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive to Wikipedia's well-being. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

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

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

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

At the rate things are going, every candidate who runs will be getting elected. Risker points out the number of candidates running last year compared to this year. It's kinda low, but understandable.

At the rate things are going, every candidate who runs will be getting elected. Risker points out the number of candidates running last year compared to this year. It's kinda low, but understandable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is Chutznik (T-C-L-K-R-D) ? His or her platform has these attractive features:

When in doubt, desysop an administrator. If doubt exists whether an admin retains the community's trust, the default should be to desysop and refer back to the community. I see no distinction between "desysop" and "require a reconfirmation vote."

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

Edit: Oho, Chutznik has, as they say, a past:

I have alternatively "retired" or had indef-blocked five accounts with 100 or more edits (Placeholder account, Shalom, Buki ben Yogli, Crystal whacker, Kivel).

We also have him saying in reply to Iridescent,

I never posted death threats against you on WR, as you claim.

He didn't "achieve" a reblock -- Arbcom's stupidest arbitrator took it upon herself to reblock him because of some sassy edit summaries that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive to Wikipedia's well-being. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

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

Some earn reblocks, some achieve reblocks, some have reblocks thrust upon them.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

We also have him saying in reply to Iridescent,

I never posted death threats against you on WR, as you claim.

O rly? (I don't think it's a remotely credible threat, given that he doesn't know my name, age, employer or place of residence, but it's certainly there.)


(adding) - Oh, I thought he'd re-raised the matter - I didn't realize you were quoting a months-old post. Let it lie. If you're going to link to that thread, best to link to the whole thing, as that was one of those threads where context was significant (albeit a thread in which sentiments are expressed that would make most WR readers choke on their Coco Pops).

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

We also have him saying in reply to Iridescent,

I never posted death threats against you on WR, as you claim.

O rly? (I don't think it's a remotely credible threat, given that he doesn't know my name, age, employer or place of residence, but it's certainly there.)

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

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

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

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

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

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

I thought it was good to hammer out some consensus on West Bank and Ireland naming issues, if we're talking about how the functioning of arbcom has impacted on the lay of the wiki-land. I was personally hoping for a shifting in thinking of adminship - i.e. the fact that admin conduct was more readily reviewed, and some people were desysopped, and hoping that this would lead folks to be more lenient in voting at RfAs (i.e. increase security that poor admin conduct would be reviewed more easily) to create a more fluid admin-nonadmin interface (how's that for management-speak? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) - but you get the idea.

Cas

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

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

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

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

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Malleus:

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

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

The Mediawiki software includes a "role" that has all the viewing privileges, but none of the change privileges, of an admin. Wikipedia does not avail themselves of this role, but it does exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is my opinion that....

Now why not just say, "I think that...." - although I concede the other carries so much gravitas (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

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

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Malleus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

These idiots do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._Drought_at_RFA

If a new feature accessible to admins is introduced, do you think that all 1000+ administrators should have to pass a new sub-RfA before being given access to that feature? That would be a terrible time-sink, if it could be organized at all.

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

If a new feature accessible to admins is introduced, do you think that all 1000+ administrators should have to pass a new sub-RfA before being given access to that feature?

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

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

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

These idiots do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._Drought_at_RFA

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

This post has been edited by Malleus:

These idiots do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._Drought_at_RFA

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

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

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are.


This is fun.

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

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

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

cough cough cough cough cough

cough cough cough cough cough

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

This post has been edited by Malleus:

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

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

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

Occupational Avocational Hazard

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

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

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

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

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

cough cough cough cough cough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well how about that?

Its Bauder Time!

Well how about that?

I suppose it's appropriate--if there's gonna be a circus, everyone's favorite "clown" ought to be involved. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

However, by definition an admin has passed RfA hence has the trust of the community to use all the tools.

This is demonstrably false, of course. There several tools that are not within the scope of the privileges of an ordinary administrator, and so passing RfA does not gain one "all the tools". On top of that, RfA isn't about trust, it's about politics; passing RfA merely demonstrates that the candidate has sucked enough of the right cocks and not too many of the wrong ones, and very little more.

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

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

Its Bauder Time!

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

I'll be damned.

Its Bauder Time!

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

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

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

To quote Peggy Lee...is that all there is? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I'll be damned.

You will be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Its Bauder Time!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I vote according to eye candy -- if I have to look at these characters, they should at least be easy on the eyeballs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

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

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

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

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

I vote according to eye candy -- if I have to look at these characters, they should at least be easy on the eyeballs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)
Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

In hell, they chop all the penises off.

I defy you to prove to us that any of the current candidates still has one.
They don't seem to act as if they have any dangly bits left.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

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

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

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

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

Wow, that stings. *laughs*

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

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

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

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

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

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

I vote according to eye candy -- if I have to look at these characters, they should at least be easy on the eyeballs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)
Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

In hell, they chop all the penises off.

I defy you to prove to us that any of the current candidates still has one.
They don't seem to act as if they have any dangly bits left.....

Sorry, that is one investigative assignment I will have to pass on. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I'd run, but I have less than 50 mainspace edits. Which is ironic, as that'd be the basis of my candidacy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

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

You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell? You think we should allow them to keep editing, so that we might honour our motto?

It seems that the horse is speaking horse shit.

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

You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell? You think we should allow them to keep editing, so that we might honour our motto?

It seems that the horse is speaking horse shit.

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

You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell? You think we should allow them to keep editing, so that we might honour our motto?

Why not? There are about a dozen of them serving on Arbcom now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

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

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

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

Apparently some find my questions too long.

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

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

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

Apparently some find my questions too long.

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

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

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

Well, it's completely unreasonable to expect people involved in a project to produce an encyclopedia to be able to read and write.

Apparently some find my questions too long.

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

I can sympathize somewhat, but only because tolerance for morbid logorrhoea (even that which borders on self-parody) has become a de facto job requirement for arbcombatants. If one does not have an attention span conducive to your battery of questions, they'll never be able to stomach the longcat-style macroscreeds in which their colleagues often delight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Anyone who doesn't want to hear these can always stick Lego pieces in their ears. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Anyone who doesn't want to hear these can always stick Lego pieces in their ears. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

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

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

Your support is charming, as always.

Why don't you run?

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

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

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

Will Ka of Catherine de Burgh be running?

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

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

Your support is charming, as always.

Why don't you run?

Hey, you show Big Mama some respect, ya hear? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Hey, you show Big Mama

{{citation needed}}

some respect, ya hear? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

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

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

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

But I could be wrong.

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

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

The questions can be a challenge - the thought provoking bit was worthwhile though - as in here where I copped a question from Pixelface with seresin querying a clarification. Given as both editors have fairly opposed views on inclusionism/deletionism, I was rather bemused. Turned out both opposed me anyway though (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

This post has been edited by Casliber:

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

I think you are confusing me with a certain Wiki News reporter/photographer. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

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

I think you are confusing me with a certain Wiki News reporter/photographer. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

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

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

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

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

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

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

By all means, we need him on Arbcom! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

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

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

This post has been edited by Mike R:

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

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

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

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

Oh no he hasn't.

Your support is charming, as always.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would never consider running -- masochism is not among my vices. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Personally, I want to see RHMED, Kurt, Chuznit and Cla68 on the board. Within a few weeks, the Arbcom mantra will be "Toga! Toga! Toga! Toga!" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'm not sure there's eight people on that list who I'd trust to count to twenty without taking off their shoes.

I'll have you know that I wear open-toed sandals in case I'm ever called upon to count that high.

I'm not sure there's eight people on that list who I'd trust to count to twenty without taking off their shoes.

I'll have you know that I wear open-toed sandals in case I'm ever called upon to count that high.

Be glad that you aren't being asked to count to 21. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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

masochism is not among my vices. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Masochism is a vice!?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I just looked through the candidates' statements again.

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

I like the addition of the audio recording "A Conversation with Jehochman"...oh, brother, if this is any evidence, then it seems like anyone with a pulse can get a Yale degree. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

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

Actually, as part of my candidacy I promise to do something like that: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK/Platform

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

I like the addition of the audio recording "A Conversation with Jehochman"...oh, brother, if this is any evidence, then it seems like anyone with a pulse can get a Yale degree. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

There's no need to denigrate him. I actually thought he was well-informed about every aspect of the project that Privatemusings brought up.

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

(I'm aware that I am mostly responding to stuff that most would ignore (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif).)

I like the addition of the audio recording "A Conversation with Jehochman"...oh, brother, if this is any evidence, then it seems like anyone with a pulse can get a Yale degree. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

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

Actually, as part of my candidacy I promise to do something like that: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK/Platform

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

There's no need to denigrate him.

I know, but I'm not getting paid to write this stuff. If you want a happy horse, slip some moolah in my feedbag and I'll compose sonnets of praise. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

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

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

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

Now I don't understand three things:

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

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

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

I don't think there is any physician in the ranks.

Until quite recently, we had one on ArbCom.

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

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

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

Now I don't understand three things:

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think there is any physician in the ranks.

Until quite recently, we had one on ArbCom.

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

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

Your support is charming, as always.

I'm just saying as you've accrued most of the other prestigious titles

{{citation needed}} (that this particular title is prestigious)

already, this one should be a piece of cake.

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

{{citation needed}} (that you're trying to be polite)

, I'd list all of them.

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

Personally, I want to see RHMED, Kurt, Chuznit and Cla68 on the board. Within a few weeks, the Arbcom mantra will be "Toga! Toga! Toga! Toga!" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

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

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

I think you should run for class president.

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

Hello; have we met?

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by One:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe he finds that One is a nerd.

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

Whoops! Wrong cut and paste job. Will fix. Sorry, character. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

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

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

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

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

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

No one is shouting from a gallery.

Have you seen RFAR?

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

This post has been edited by One:

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

Or playing Flash games on Facebook.

Or playing Flash games on Facebook.

That's what they do over at Eisenhower HS anyway. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

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

Or playing Flash games on Facebook.

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

This post has been edited by One:

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

Apparently. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

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

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

(If you folks have no idea what I am talking about, don't worry -- this is an open private message to One. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) )

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

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

Yeah. The director Trent Harris loaned me what he called the one and only print of the film; I managed not to destroy it. One of the lucky few people who saw it in Chicago (what I assume to be the film's Chicago debut) was so inspired that they wrote a blog post about the typography involved.

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

masochism is not among my vices. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Masochism is a vice!?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Only for Mormons and Catholics. Self-abuse, you know. Temple of the soul. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have to imagine it. It's already here, in living color. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decisions are made by those who show up. The problem is that Wikipedia's decision-makers have no ethical standard that requires that they give even lip service to the concerns of those who don't show up. Worse yet, Wikipedia practice tends to encourage making decisions based on discussions in obscure corners of the WikiUniverse, and also tends to punish efforts to publicize such discussions. So it requires a substantial time commitment in order to know where and when one must show up in order to participate in decisions, more than most people are willing to commit to a hobby.

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

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

I don't have to imagine it. It's already here, in living color. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

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

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

While I quite like Wikipedia criticism and wish as fervently as anybody that there was more of it around here (the good kind, not the Eric-Barbour-saying-something-self-evident-and-following-it-with-a-barfy-emoticon kind), Wikipedia critics would do well to stop focussing on semantics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milton "Where's my airquotes?" Roe

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

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

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy, shortly after being banned from the EEML case for a week with no prior warning by trainee clerk Manning Bartlett. Slightly later he also gave Jehochman a mild warning by email. Here is the heated discussion between Shell Kinney and Jehochman.

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

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

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy, shortly after being banned with from the EEML case for a week with no prior warning by trainee clerk Manning Bartlett. Slightly later he also gave Jehochman a mild warning by email. Here is the heated discussion between Shell Kinney and Jehochman.

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever they are.

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy, shortly after being banned with from the EEML case for a week with no prior warning by trainee clerk Manning Bartlett. Slightly later he also gave Jehochman a mild warning by email. Here is the heated discussion between Shell Kinney and Jehochman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

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

...and went back into his cave (or is that Puff the Magic Dragon -- after a while, all of these oversized reptilian creatures look alike). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

I could tell AGK was going to run for the arbcom election when he switched from obsequious arbcom clerk mode to arbcom critic mode here.

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

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

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

Whatever they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some are here:

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

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


MR

P.S. Checkout the snide insertions of "sic" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy, whenever Jimbo does something really clueless, like refer to the user as "EssJay" or "Mr. Ryan". As in "Mr. Ryan was a friend..." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

A really GOOD friend. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

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

Whatever they are.

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

Encouraging trolls is pretty bad form.

However, calling a troll out for trolling is also drama-stoking, which makes Durova a troll, and me a troll for calling her one.

What's new? This is the wikiway.

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

EVERYONE IS A TROLL!

Even Newyorkbrad is still confused by this.

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

EVERYONE IS A TROLL!

Even Newyorkbrad is still confused by this.

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

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


This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

And we are off

Scott Mac's opinion

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

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

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

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy...

Her? Is she the sole babe in the bunch? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

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

I mean, really, who gives a flying fuck what these people think of the candidates? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

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

Kelly, I'm surprised at you.

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

Such activity is, apparently, second only in fascination to Indian tapestry. (Yes, that's somewhat surreal.)

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy...

Her? Is she the sole babe in the bunch? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

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

I mean, really, who gives a flying fuck what these people think of the candidates? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Oh I dunno, a few folks do .... collaborative homework-doing and short-cut creating is very current (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

This post has been edited by Casliber:

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

Kelly, I'm surprised at you.

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

Such activity is, apparently, second only in fascination to Indian tapestry. (Yes, that's somewhat surreal.)

I said useful purpose.

Some are here:

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

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

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

Some are here:

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

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

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

No list for missed Wikipedians?

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

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

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

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

Strangely, my old username appears on the list as well. Why, I have no idea. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

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

And we are off

Scott Mac's opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve beat me to it.

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

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

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

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

I've interviewed candidate Unomi for Wikivoices... and unlike some others in the past, I wasted no time in getting it online, both in the "official" open-source-format Ogg version and an MP3. (Sorry about the noisy audio whenever I speak... I probably need to get a better microphone instead of the old cheap one I've kept through about three different computers over the past decade.)

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

Yes, but she undoubtedly applauds them when she sees them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)


This post has been edited by dtobias:

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

I could tell AGK was going to run for the arbcom election when he switched from obsequious arbcom clerk mode to arbcom critic mode here.

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

I stand by my comments there. Remedies like that are useless. I'm hardly grandstanding by making a comment on a case discussion page: it's not like they receive a lot of attention, is it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

Oh, hush you. I did not use "inflammatory language." Strong criticism of a proposed committee decision is a quite different thing. I also explained myself quite extensively on the same page where Manning offered his endorsement.

This post has been edited by AGK:

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

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

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

I've interviewed candidate Unomi for Wikivoices... and unlike some others in the past, I wasted no time in getting it online, both in the "official" open-source-format Ogg version and an MP3. (Sorry about the noisy audio whenever I speak... I probably need to get a better microphone instead of the old cheap one I've kept through about three different computers over the past decade.)

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

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

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

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

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

Who said I don't care what you think?

I've interviewed candidate Unomi for Wikivoices... and unlike some others in the past, I wasted no time in getting it online, both in the "official" open-source-format Ogg version and an MP3. (Sorry about the noisy audio whenever I speak... I probably need to get a better microphone instead of the old cheap one I've kept through about three different computers over the past decade.)

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

Yes, but she undoubtedly applauds them when she sees them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

So we have two babes running for Arbcom? Horsey says: vote for them! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

I've interviewed candidate Unomi for Wikivoices... and unlike some others in the past, I wasted no time in getting it online, both in the "official" open-source-format Ogg version and an MP3. (Sorry about the noisy audio whenever I speak... I probably need to get a better microphone instead of the old cheap one I've kept through about three different computers over the past decade.)

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

Yes, but she undoubtedly applauds them when she sees them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

So we have two babes running for Arbcom? Horsey says: vote for them! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Unomi is a guy, not a "babe".

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

I could tell AGK was going to run for the arbcom election when he switched from obsequious arbcom clerk mode to arbcom critic mode here.

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

I stand by my comments there. Remedies like that are useless. I'm hardly grandstanding by making a comment on a case discussion page: it's not like they receive a lot of attention, is it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

Oh, hush you. I did not use "inflammatory language." Strong criticism of a proposed committee decision is a quite different thing. I also explained myself quite extensively on the same page where Manning offered his endorsement.

Speaking up for Piotrus??

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

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

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

Unomi is a guy, not a "babe".

Phooey! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

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

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

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

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

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

What are the chances of any of us winning? The general feeling (rightly or wrongly) is that the current nominees are lacking something. With nine hours to go, how would you fancy the job, Nerd? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

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

What are the chances of any of us winning? The general feeling (rightly or wrongly) is that the current nominees are lacking something. With nine hours to go, how would you fancy the job, Nerd? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

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

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

What are the chances of any of us winning? The general feeling (rightly or wrongly) is that the current nominees are lacking something. With nine hours to go, how would you fancy the job, Nerd? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

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

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

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

What are the chances of any of us winning? The general feeling (rightly or wrongly) is that the current nominees are lacking something. With nine hours to go, how would you fancy the job, Nerd? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

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

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

Then it'll be up to Jimbo, I suppose.

Thanks for e-lustrating the meaning of suppository.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

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

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

It is now well-established that clerkship is the standard stepping stone to the ArbCom.

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

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

It is now well-established that clerkship is the standard stepping stone to the ArbCom.

Yep. The Supreme ArbCom. And you can be chosen for clerkship if you've been previously a member of the Law (T-C-L-K-R-D) Undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) Review, or something like that. It's all very legalistic.

Somebody said that one definition of depression is when you spend a long time climbing a corporate ladder, or some kind of other ladder, only to find out that it's leaning against the wrong wall. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif) Boy, does that ever apply to Wikipedia.

In the months after I got appointed to the ArbCom after serving as a member of the Mediation Cabal, we saw a whole bunch of obvious stairclimbers sign up to be MedCab moderators. Ever since Newyorkbrad made the move from ArbCom Clerk to ArbCom (and then subsequently Wizardman, who made the same move), the stairclimbers have identified the clerkship as the Obvious Thing To Do In Order To Reach The Brass Ring. Since the community doesn't yet think of the clerks as being All That Important, this works out well for gnomish types with aspirations of authority.

Eventually the community will figure out that ArbCom clerks are Important, and create some idiotically complicated political structure around their appointment (hey, everyking, why don't you start demanding that ArbCom clerks be popularly elected, that should make for some good fun), but for now that's the short track to fame and fortune, apparently.

Eventually the community will figure out that ArbCom clerks are Important, and create some idiotically complicated political structure around their appointment (hey, Everyking, why don't you start demanding that ArbCom clerks be popularly elected, that should make for some good fun), but for now that's the short track to fame and fortune, apparently.

They really ought to simplify the carear advice down to something like:

Insert Nose Here

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

And the great wiki-philosophers of our time descend to debate the fine merits of consensus, and read the tea leaves in its search.

Consensus is discovered not counted through the application whatever rules people have imagined there are. RfCs provide clues, not clear cut answers.

And the great wiki-philosophers of our time descend to debate the fine merits of consensus, and read the tea leaves in its search.

Consensus is discovered not counted through the application whatever rules people have imagined there are. RfCs provide clues, not clear cut answers.

Yeah. It strikes like revelation, an epiphany, a great bolt of providential enlightment. And if you don't get it, it must because you're either stupid or a troll. Since *I* see it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)



=======================

Magnet notes on James Joyce's refrigerator---

1) call bank
2) dry cleaner
3) forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race
4) call mom

Magnet notes on James Joyce's refrigerator---

1) call bank
2) dry cleaner
3) forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race
4) call mom

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Is that from The Far Side?

And the great wiki-philosophers of our time descend to debate the fine merits of consensus, and read the tea leaves in its search.

Consensus is discovered not counted through the application whatever rules people have imagined there are. RfCs provide clues, not clear cut answers.

This sort of nonsense is a prime example of why the admin culture is so wrongheaded and why RfA is such a nightmare. Empowering admins to "discover" consensus through some means that's impossible to define (if there were a definition, it would be something like "whatever I think it ought to be, except possibly if what I think it ought to be is so entirely unpopular that I would face a serious backlash") elevates admins to the role of wise elders, or even mystics. The community becomes a mere advisory board and the word "consensus" ceases to have any real meaning at all.

Magnet notes on James Joyce's refrigerator---

1) call bank
2) dry cleaner
3) forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race
4) call mom

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Is that from The Far Side?

I don't think so, but it's Larson type humor all right. I got it out of a biography of Joseph Campbell I happened to be reading, and I dunno where he got it. Possibly it says. Iif you're interested. I can look it up.

In the months after I got appointed to the ArbCom after serving as a member of the Mediation Cabal, we saw a whole bunch of obvious stairclimbers sign up to be MedCab moderators. Ever since Newyorkbrad made the move from ArbCom Clerk to ArbCom (and then subsequently Wizardman, who made the same move), the stairclimbers have identified the clerkship as the Obvious Thing To Do In Order To Reach The Brass Ring. Since the community doesn't yet think of the clerks as being All That Important, this works out well for gnomish types with aspirations of authority.

Eventually the community will figure out that ArbCom clerks are Important, and create some idiotically complicated political structure around their appointment (hey, everyking, why don't you start demanding that ArbCom clerks be popularly elected, that should make for some good fun), but for now that's the short track to fame and fortune, apparently.

Clerks shouldn't have any power, and electing them would effectively empower them by giving them a community mandate. I don't think there's a problem with clerks. People can vote for whoever they want, and in any case NYB and Wizardman are two of the most reasonable arbitrators.

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

How long since the last time you quit the project? How long until you quit again? We need candidates who'll stay on the job. Also, if you want to be a successful arbitrator, you need to be able to tolerate a lot of BS. Complex problem-solving among groups of people necessarily involves a healthy tolerance for BS.

Clerks shouldn't have any power, and electing them would effectively empower them by giving them a community mandate. I don't think there's a problem with clerks. People can vote for whoever they want, and in any case NYB and Wizardman are two of the most reasonable arbitrators.

Why is it then that you would unseat all of the current arbitrators? Who are the Thomas Jeffersons you imagine in the community? And how would any body elected by the "community" avoid the fundamental problems you perceive in ArbCom?

ArbCom is widely criticized, but in many ways, your criticisms are the opposite of conventional wisdom. Many users--especially those banned by the "community"--fault ArbCom for not standing up to the community enough, for not making independent assessments where we ought to, and for giving too much weight to influential howls on case talk pages.

I've always found these critiques much more persuasive than your criticisms, Everyking. "Community consensus" is often a process where interested editors self-select to control debates for or against some common purpose. Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts, but much of it seems little more than political and interpersonal power struggles.

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

You often praise the community, Everyking, but I've never heard your proposal for how the "community" could make decisions without the problems we often see on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by One:

I've always found these critiques much more persuasive than your criticisms, Everyking. "Community consensus" is often a process where interested editors self-select to control debates for or against some common purpose. Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts, but much of it seems little more than political and interpersonal power struggles.

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

You often praise the community, Everyking, but I've never heard your proposal for how the "community" could make decisions without the problems we often see on Wikipedia.

I try to remember what it was like to be an editor working on building WW2 articles with no idea where ANI, RfAR, or Jimbo's talk page were even located. I imagine, based on my own memory, that editors like that don't care exactly how ArbCom or any other governance committee in Wikipedia is functioning. I believe what those editors care about is if disputes are ultimately being resolved, if rule-breaking, POV-pushing editor and admin behavior is being corrected, and if the project is being administered in a way that helps ensure that it will be around for awhile. That means that what One is saying above makes a lot of sense.

Who are the Thomas Jeffersons you imagine in the community?

And are those Jeffersons going to finally admit to having a bit of woo-woo with Sally Hemings? (The Monticello folks can't keep denying this anymore, you know!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts...

And if you believe that, you will obviously be bidding on this item now being sold on eBay! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

That's like saying syphilis is a more enjoyable affliction than gonorrhea. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community"...

Sort of like desysopping Lara and GlassCobra despite a total absence of community consensus for such an action? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Who are the Thomas Jeffersons you imagine in the community?

And are those Jeffersons going to finally admit to having a bit of woo-woo with Sally Hemings? (The Monticello folks can't keep denying this anymore, you know!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts...

And if you believe that, you will obviously be bidding on this item now being sold on eBay! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

That's like saying syphilis is a more enjoyable affliction than gonorrhea. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community"...

Sort of like desysopping Lara and GlassCobra despite a total absence of community consensus for such an action? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

I think the constant grinding interaction with "the community" that was One's prize for being elected to ArbCom has had a tonic like effect on him. I expect him to break though to some kind of meaningful critique of Wikipedia at any moment. His tone, at least, is well down that path already.

I think the constant grinding interaction with "the community" that was One's prize for being elected to ArbCom has had a tonic like effect on him.

Some of that "logic" suggests there is plenty of gin in that tonic!

I think the constant grinding interaction with "the community" that was One's prize for being elected to ArbCom has had a tonic like effect on him.

Some of that "logic" suggests there is plenty of gin in that tonic!

Won't be long till there's mostly cat in that tonic.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/oldtimer.gif)

Why is it then that you would unseat all of the current arbitrators? Who are the Thomas Jeffersons you imagine in the community? And how would any body elected by the "community" avoid the fundamental problems you perceive in ArbCom?

ArbCom is widely criticized, but in many ways, your criticisms are the opposite of conventional wisdom. Many users--especially those banned by the "community"--fault ArbCom for not standing up to the community enough, for not making independent assessments where we ought to, and for giving too much weight to influential howls on case talk pages.

I've always found these critiques much more persuasive than your criticisms, Everyking. "Community consensus" is often a process where interested editors self-select to control debates for or against some common purpose. Many participate at ANI out of the goodness of their hearts, but much of it seems little more than political and interpersonal power struggles.

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

You often praise the community, Everyking, but I've never heard your proposal for how the "community" could make decisions without the problems we often see on Wikipedia.

The ArbCom is not an "even-handed decision maker" in any sense. Its rulings have always been fundamentally based on the political strength and influence of case participants and frequently involve harsh and unfair treatment of the volunteers devoting their time to help develop the project. Its decision-making process is completely opaque, done in secret so that it can't be reviewed. Yes, the ArbCom is somewhat better than it was in years past, but that's only because the community made its voice heard and forced some improvement. It's ironic that you were one of the candidates elected by the community as part of that reformist sentiment, isn't it?

In essence, the ArbCom, as an elite and draconian body of decision-makers operating in secret, is antithetical to the whole nature of Wikipedia, and the clash between the basic ideas underpinning the project and the reality of authority as exercised by the ArbCom has significantly undermined the project's health over the long-term. The ArbCom's consistent indulgence of admin abuse and punishment of ordinary content contributors is reflected in the project's general administrative culture. How many good contributors have been banned as a result of all that, and how many more have left in frustration? How much better would Wikipedia's content be today if its arbitrators and administrators had not been driving contributors away for years? My view is that community-based governance would better reflect the collaborative, bottom-up values at the heart of the project, and that would in turn help to refocus the admin culture and promote a more friendly and fair editorial environment. I can't guarantee that would happen, but I can at least guarantee that it wouldn't be any worse than the current arrangement.

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

There's a lot of truth to that. Unfortunately, however, the concept that a politician claims to represent some sort of "silent majority" instead of the vocal minority who actually express opinions within the community is itself something often used (in Wikipedia and elsewhere) as a tactic in the wars of politics and personalities, to push through something that few have actually expressed support for because it's allegedly what the "normal" members really want even though they're too apathetic to actually say it.

You missed my question for you, everyking. I've seen you rant about ArbCom's tyranny several times.

My question is: what extant or imagined "community" dispute resolution process would be better and less capricious than ArbCom? Do you think ANI is a panacea? Do you even imagine it's preferable to ArbCom? If so, why? If not, I hope you could explain what would be better.

At any rate, I should point out that Wizardman was never a clerk, although three former clerks were elected last year.

As has been drawn to my attention, Arbitrator/former clerks include FloNight (2006), Brad (2007), Coren-Rlevse (2008), and John Vandenberg (former clerk, also 2008). Kelly Martin could also be included on this list, but her short-lived arbcom seat is not noted on Wikipedia's list of former clerks.

Will Wonders Never Cease!?

I never thought I'd be awarding one of these highly prised prizes to Mister DT — but what the hey, fair is fair — and here it is:

Per Angusta Ad Augusta In A Nut'sHell
Star Of Arete

``````````````Z.................

With Imprisoned Lightning Rocker

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yumpin Yiminy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

It seems to me that ArbCom can and should counterbalance this faux consensus, and it can only do so by occassionally defying the expressed wishes of the "community" (that is, the !votes of those who bother to show up). We should recognize that these self-selected voices poorly represent the large group of hobbyists who never set foot on drama. By using a more broadly-elected pool of representatives who apply policies broadly approved by many editors, we at least have the potential for fair results. Even with its flaws, I think that ArbCom is a more even-handed decision maker than the crapshoot of ANI, for example.

There's a lot of truth to that. Unfortunately, however, the concept that a politician claims to represent some sort of "silent majority" instead of the vocal minority who actually express opinions within the community is itself something often used (in Wikipedia and elsewhere) as a tactic in the wars of politics and personalities, to push through something that few have actually expressed support for because it's allegedly what the "normal" members really want even though they're too apathetic to actually say it.

In essence, the ArbCom, as an elite and draconian body of decision-makers operating in secret, is antithetical to the whole nature of Wikipedia, and the clash between the basic ideas underpinning the project and the reality of authority as exercised by the ArbCom has significantly undermined the project's health over the long-term. The ArbCom's consistent indulgence of admin abuse and punishment of ordinary content contributors is reflected in the project's general administrative culture. How many good contributors have been banned as a result of all that, and how many more have left in frustration? How much better would Wikipedia's content be today if its arbitrators and administrators had not been driving contributors away for years? My view is that community-based governance would better reflect the collaborative, bottom-up values at the heart of the project, and that would in turn help to refocus the admin culture and promote a more friendly and fair editorial environment. I can't guarantee that would happen, but I can at least guarantee that it wouldn't be any worse than the current arrangement.

For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

Some people see Arbcom as the top tier of the system. Sadly, Arbcom also seems to confirm the old saying about shit floating to the surface. This may explain a group of people who have repeatedly shown themselves to be vindictive, evasive, hypocritical, blatantly dishonest ("Oh, that e-mail from six weeks ago?"), rude, unwilling to enforce clearly defined policies (the Risker-approved socks) but eager to invent new policies if it means silencing people they dislike (Risker, again, in her re-block of Greg for...edit summaries?), and clearly not interested in hearing what many people have to say (dismissing input from concerned editors as "shouting from the gallery").

I blame a lot of the high-publicized defections of Wikipedia's editorial population (see the Wall Street Journal article from this week) on Arbcom's inability to dial down the drama decibels. If anything, Arbcom has been pouring fuel on the fire by encouraging more drama through its increasingly erratic inability to govern in a manner that suggests responsible people are in charge.

P.S. I should add that I don't know any of these people outside of Wikipedia and it is easy to assume that they are probably very pleasant and very intelligent in real life -- Wikipedia has a way of bringing out the worst in people.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

You missed my question for you, everyking. I've seen you rant about ArbCom's tyranny several times.

My question is: what extant or imagined "community" dispute resolution process would be better and less capricious than ArbCom? Do you think ANI is a panacea? Do you even imagine it's preferable to ArbCom? If so, why? If not, I hope you could explain what would be better.

At any rate, I should point out that Wizardman was never a clerk, although three former clerks were elected last year.

As has been drawn to my attention, Arbitrator/former clerks include FloNight (2006), Brad (2007), Coren-Rlevse (2008), and John Vandenberg (former clerk, also 2008). Kelly Martin could also be included on this list, but her short-lived arbcom seat is not noted on Wikipedia's list of former clerks.

I don't think you fully understand my position. I haven't said the ArbCom should be replaced in its dispute resolution functions by anything--I've only said that it should operate openly and engage with the community. I have said that the ArbCom should be restricted to simply resolving disputes between users, and I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.

I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.

Ever read Catch-22? Or at least heard the term?

I don't think you fully understand my position. I haven't said the ArbCom should be replaced in its dispute resolution functions by anything--I've only said that it should operate openly and engage with the community.

Moving the goalposts then, how should ArbCom "engage with the community"? Do you believe that any board on the site represents the community? I do not. One of the main problems with the site is that warring cliques have far too much influence. Do you have a proposal for "engaging the community" which avoids this problem?

I have said that the ArbCom should be restricted to simply resolving disputes between users, and I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.

Tyrannical arbitrators tried to create the shell of such a structure (hoped that they would form a sort of constitutional committee to create a governance structure), but it was effectively vetoed by ANI regulars. Cats aren't known for their skills in governing.

I don't think you fully understand my position. I haven't said the ArbCom should be replaced in its dispute resolution functions by anything--I've only said that it should operate openly and engage with the community.

Moving the goalposts then, how should ArbCom "engage with the community"? Do you believe that any board on the site represents the community? I do not. One of the main problems with the site is that warring cliques have far too much influence. Do you have a proposal for "engaging the community" which avoids this problem?

I have said that the ArbCom should be restricted to simply resolving disputes between users, and I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.

Tyrannical arbitrators tried to create the shell of such a structure (hoped that they would form a sort of constitutional committee to create a governance structure), but it was effectively vetoed by ANI regulars. Cats aren't known for their skills in governing.

One of the ways I quickly screen discussions/threads about how evil the arbcom has become is to look at if the person making the allegations has ever accepted that they can do things wrong. Unless someone frames it as "I did X and Y wrong, but they totally screwed me on Z," I tend to keep screen out that person's complaints.

One of the ways I quickly screen discussions/threads about how evil the arbcom has become is to look at if the person making the allegations has ever accepted that they can do things wrong. Unless someone frames it as "I did X and Y wrong, but they totally screwed me on Z," I tend to keep screen out that person's complaints.

I'm curious to know how you deal with situations in which the individual in question has, in fact, done absolutely nothing wrong.

Kelly Martin could also be included on this list, but her short-lived arbcom seat is not noted on Wikipedia's list of former clerks.

Uh, dear, I was appointed Head Clerk after my term as an Arbitrator had ended. Exactly the reverse of the situation in question.

I apologize for suggesting that Wizardman has been a clerk. I had gotten that impression at some point. He certainly is wonky enough to have been one.

I have said that the ArbCom should be restricted to simply resolving disputes between users, and I think the community should develop an elected structure specifically designed for project governance.

The 'community' has absolutely no interest in developing such a structure. The only way such a structure will ever be erected is if it (or at least its precursor) is put in place by fiat, and the only entities with the power to possibly pull that off are the Foundation, Jimmy Wales, and the ArbCom.

One of the ways I quickly screen discussions/threads about how evil the arbcom has become is to look at if the person making the allegations has ever accepted that they can do things wrong. Unless someone frames it as "I did X and Y wrong, but they totally screwed me on Z," I tend to keep screen out that person's complaints.

I thought open snarkiness was beneath you, Mr. Bisanz?

Remember, it was Sarah Palin. You can hardly blame people for thinking the BLP strictures were largely inapplicable - not only is she a household name at this point, and a divisive political figure, she's a MILF, too. It's like a triple-whammy.

One of the ways I quickly screen discussions/threads about how evil the arbcom has become is to look at if the person making the allegations has ever accepted that they can do things wrong. Unless someone frames it as "I did X and Y wrong, but they totally screwed me on Z," I tend to keep screen out that person's complaints.

I thought open snarkiness was beneath you, Mr. Bisanz?

Remember, it was Sarah Palin. You can hardly blame people for thinking the BLP strictures were largely inapplicable - not only is she a household name at this point, and a divisive political figure, she's a MILF, too. It's like a triple-whammy.

Well seeing as this week I was accused of being overly defensive of Barack Obama's reputation, I suppose I am in equipoise.

The 'community' has absolutely no interest in developing such a structure. The only way such a structure will ever be erected is if it (or at least its precursor) is put in place by fiat, and the only entities with the power to possibly pull that off are the Foundation, Jimmy Wales, and the ArbCom.

...at which point, the current somewhat-debatable trend towards a reduction in the number of active WP editors will probably become a stampede for the exits. That would be a good thing, of course, but the fact that the system is ungovernable (and therefore institutionally irresponsible) is one of its main attractions for most of the current community members.

Still, you have to wonder - if they did that, would the existing community slowly be replaced by people who understand the need for such things as editorial standards (beyond simplistic notions of "notability") and effective governance structures...? IMO probably not, but it would make the whole thing less objectionable.

Also worth adding that if Everyking ever said something like "in the past I was mean to Phil and he didn't deserve what I did to him and I've learned not to treat people like that even if I disagree with them strongly," I suspect he would pass RFA or whatever it is he wants with extreme ease.

The 'community' has absolutely no interest in developing such a structure. The only way such a structure will ever be erected is if it (or at least its precursor) is put in place by fiat, and the only entities with the power to possibly pull that off are the Foundation, Jimmy Wales, and the ArbCom.

...at which point, the current somewhat-debatable trend towards a reduction in the number of active WP editors will probably become a stampede for the exits. That would be a good thing, of course, but the fact that the system is ungovernable (and therefore institutionally irresponsible) is one of its main attractions for most of the current community members.

Still, you have to wonder - if they did that, would the existing community slowly be replaced by people who understand the need for such things as editorial standards (beyond simplistic notions of "notability") and effective governance structures...? IMO probably not, but it would make the whole thing less objectionable.

One of the outcomes I can think of Somey is that of the wounded animal. If editors leave in droves, but because of pagerank, namebrand, etc, people keep using WP, then the BLP and POV situations will only worsen as WP descends into an Myspace-like existence, only with more dangerous credibility than Myspace could ever hope for.

Well seeing as this week I was accused of being overly defensive of Barack Obama's reputation, I suppose I am in equipoise.

Perhaps... Either way, Obama is both male and largely sane, and while he's a fairly good-looking guy by most accounts, he's just not going to get the kind of "unwanted" attention that Palin gets from the internet's dominant male/sexually-frustrated demographic.

I'm not sure what this means in relation to your feelings about Mr. McBride's actions during the incident in question, though. Generally speaking I would have taken your side in the dispute, and would do so roughly 9 times out of ten in similar situations, but it really is difficult for me to morally justify any action that might be seen as positive by the Palinistas, in any way whatsoever.

The 'community' has absolutely no interest in developing such a structure. The only way such a structure will ever be erected is if it (or at least its precursor) is put in place by fiat, and the only entities with the power to possibly pull that off are the Foundation, Jimmy Wales, and the ArbCom.

...at which point, the current somewhat-debatable trend towards a reduction in the number of active WP editors will probably become a stampede for the exits. That would be a good thing, of course, but the fact that the system is ungovernable (and therefore institutionally irresponsible) is one of its main attractions for most of the current community members.

Indeed, and I believe Jimmy and the Foundation both know it, which is why they both act to obstruct and delay changes that might impact "participation". It's very clear that Jimmy and the WMF view participation as one of the most important metrics of performance for Wikipedia, and are very unwilling to do anything that might compromise participation. I don't have a good theory as to why they think participation is such a key metric, though.

Online intentional communities have always had to pay a lot of attention to participation: too little and you don't hold people's attention; too much and you get overwhelmed and lose your focus. It's obvious to me, at least, that Wikipedia's community is way overshot and needs to contract for its own health. Most online intentional communities, however, do not survive their initial post-overshoot contraction; they tend to contract below the point of ongoing viability. The trick to survival (which very few communities manage) is to resist the urge to get caught up in the exuberance of the initial expansion and to start layering in organizational structures and controls as the community expands. If Wikipedia survives, it will be because it finds the sweet spot during its contraction to introduce just the right amount of community structure to enable the remaining community to effectively organize and redirect its efforts to halt the contraction and resume effective, meaningful, targeted recruitment of the people they need.

Still, you have to wonder - if they did that, would the existing community slowly be replaced by people who understand the need for such things as editorial standards (beyond simplistic notions of "notability") and effective governance structures...? IMO probably not, but it would make the whole thing less objectionable.

The odds are against them, but it's not out of the question. It mostly depends on whether a competent leader arises within the community or not.

One of the outcomes I can think of Somey is that of the wounded animal. If editors leave in droves, but because of pagerank, namebrand, etc, people keep using WP, then the BLP and POV situations will only worsen as WP descends into an Myspace-like existence, only with more dangerous credibility than Myspace could ever hope for.

Well, exactly. Trying to guess the likely endgame for WP, both in the medium and long terms, is one of my own chief interests here, and that has always struck me as a highly likely scenario. However, it will probably be accompanied by a move towards a lockdown/stabilization strategy, which is also how the public will probably see it. (And how did we get so off-topic? It's Everyking's fault again, isn't it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) )

Eventually an alternative to WP might come along, prior to which there would be a period of fits-and-starts as competitors start up and mostly fail, due to the financial problems inherent in any business model that involves providing a free online information reference... Meanwhile, the idea of an international government-subsidized reference site (whether or not based on WP content) seems almost inconceivable now, but in ten years, who knows? Weirder things have been suggested. They might even continue to allow open/anonymous editing, in some form or other.

Either way, I do believe the trend towards editor non-retention is real (though maybe not as pronounced as the WSJ says it is), and I don't think there's any way to really stop it, aside from deleting numerous articles on major topics relating to popular culture, and/or dropping "notability" standards drastically in the short term. I hope they don't do either of those things, but once panic sets in, unpredictability is usually not far behind. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Either way, I do believe the trend towards editor non-retention is real (though maybe not as pronounced as the WSJ says it is), and I don't think there's any way to really stop it, aside from deleting numerous articles on major topics relating to popular culture, and/or dropping "notability" standards drastically in the short term. I hope they don't do either of those things, but once panic sets in, unpredictability is usually not far behind. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I've been pushing against that trend at WP:WP-ET by encouraging thoughtful analysis of change, but everyone keeps sticking their heads in the sand or saying we have to eliminate CSD to encourage more article growth </hyperbole>

Eventually an alternative to WP might come along, prior to which there would be a period of fits-and-starts as competitors start up and mostly fail, due to the financial problems inherent in any business model that involves providing a free online information reference... Meanwhile, the idea of an international government-subsidized reference site (whether or not based on WP content) seems almost inconceivable now, but in ten years, who knows? Weirder things have been suggested. They might even continue to allow open/anonymous editing, in some form or other.

Well, the UK is about to do it with possibly the best set of mapping data in the world - Ordnance Survey are going to give away their mapping online as it is seen as a critical resource for providing useful information.

Also worth adding that if Everyking ever said something like "in the past I was mean to Phil and he didn't deserve what I did to him and I've learned not to treat people like that even if I disagree with them strongly," I suspect he would pass RFA or whatever it is he wants with extreme ease.

I believe it's well established that everyking wants vindication much more than adminship. He could have had the latter a long time ago. It's not even worth thinking about.

At any rate, I don't really care how much contrition everyking shows, or whether he accepts that he has ever done anything wrong. I don't have a strong opinion on that subject, and I really don't care if he holds tastefully modest views about himself. I'm interested in ArbCom, not everyking.

I'm curious about everyking's vision for Wikipedia. He doesn't like how ArbCom deliberates in secret--we all know that--and he values the "community" above all else, but I don't understand how he thinks ArbCom should operate. If it's "ArbCom ought to ask ANI what it thinks," I'm not persuaded. I have not heard any concrete alternative explanation of what "ArbCom engaging the community" might look like.

I've been pushing against that trend at WP:WP-ET by encouraging thoughtful analysis of change, but everyone keeps sticking their heads in the sand or saying we have to eliminate CSD to encourage more article growth </hyperbole>

Assuming you mean "allow" more article growth rather than "encourage," I guess I could agree with that. In the thread on the WSJ article, I pointed out that the particular statistic being reported on (change in discrete editors-per-day, or whatever it was) could be seen as partially bogus, i.e., skewed by cheating that's always been endemic to the system, but which is being reduced over time as people either get tired of doing it, or get better at stopping it.

Not that I particularly care one way or the other, but proper management of such as system (if that's even possible) also requires that WP'ers not get too worked up over any one particular negative (or positive) statistic, but rather analyze all their statistics as an overall picture and act accordingly. You (Mr. Bisanz) are probably one of the few people on WP who's even capable of doing that, but even if you manage to get it right, I suspect you're going to be an almost-lone voice in the wilderness for some time to come.

...at which point, the current somewhat-debatable trend towards a reduction in the number of active WP editors will probably become a stampede for the exits. That would be a good thing, of course, but the fact that the system is ungovernable (and therefore institutionally irresponsible) is one of its main attractions for most of the current community members.

Still, you have to wonder - if they did that, would the existing community slowly be replaced by people who understand the need for such things as editorial standards (beyond simplistic notions of "notability") and effective governance structures...? IMO probably not, but it would make the whole thing less objectionable.

If I can cut in…

I doubt there will be a wave of replacements. Web sites that spring a leak never truly regain their cred – think of AOL, Friendster and MySpace. The WSJ article was the worst publicity for WMF – the writing is on the wall for anyone who wants to read it.

If there is a wave of new editors, it will probably come from the high school and college kids who have come of age tapping into Wikipedia’s none-too-reliable articles. For the most part, the kids seem more amused by the antics and the drama generated across the “community,” and they will happily pick up the chaos torch and run wildly in new direction. We can probably expect to see many more of these young people – though the idea of having 10,000 Ironholds clones is enough to inspire homicide. Needless to say, this demographic will make a bad situation worse.

Responsible adults, however, will either stay away from Wikipedia or get out once they realize how things operate. Professional writers don’t need Wikipedia – no byline and no pay? Academics and business professionals don’t have time for the likes of Uncle G. or Ottava or Tanthalas39 – and why write for Wikipedia when you can get yourself noticed in, say, the Harvard Business Review or some sort of professional journal? And responsible adults with families, professions and real life interests won’t care about whether David Shankbone’s biography meets WP:BIO standards.

While Arbcom is not helping matters and is clearly souring many people today, I suspect that any future catastrophe will not be of their doing. Their focus is very narrow and they are only interested in bullying a tiny clique that seems to thrive on negative energy. Any genuine wreckage will probably be a Seigenthaler-type controversy that will continue to confirm WP’s nonexistent editorial standards and irresponsible structure. Arbcom will come in afterwards to flush the toilet, but knowing them they'll probably wind up flooding the lavatory.

We've now moved onto the FT2-Jehochman RfAr.

This must be an example of the law of conservation of dramah on WP.

Just as the Ottava Rima case was quietening down,

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

Responsible adults, however, will either stay away from Wikipedia or get out once they realize how things operate. Professional writers don’t need Wikipedia – no byline and no pay? Academics and business professionals don’t have time for the likes of Uncle G. or Ottava or Tanthalas39 – and why write for Wikipedia when you can get yourself noticed in, say, the Harvard Business Review or some sort of professional journal?

As for the earth-folk who are not professional writers or academics or business moguls or whatever—but are (or at least always try to be) responsible adults… what do you recommend for them?

Oh yeah I forgot: blogging. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

As for the earth-folk who are not professional writers or academics or business moguls or whatever—but are (or at least always try to be) responsible adults… what do you recommend for them?

Sorry, they lose. Wikipedia is yet another tragedy of the commons, in this regards: the lack of meaningful, enforcible rules regarding the use of the unitary commons results in the destruction of the commons. Self-regulation of commons never works, because only responsible people choose to self-regulate, which leaves the irresponsible to take short-term profits at the long-term expense of everyone.

Don't like this? Tough. That's the reality of human nature.

We've now moved onto the FT2-Jehochman RfAr.

Oh wow… I wouldn't take an even-money bet as to who will win this case if it actually opens. Mutually assured bannination would be great, but failing that any other combination of sanctions would be a net positive.

Of course, that alone means arb.com will strategically decline to hear any of it.

This is suitable for a thread of its own, and will probably be split apart soon enough.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

As for the earth-folk who are not professional writers or academics or business moguls or whatever—but are (or at least always try to be) responsible adults… what do you recommend for them?

Oh yeah I forgot: blogging. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

No, not at all. Real blogging takes time and dedication -- most people don't want that. That's why 95% of blogs are unfinished bits of business that consist of two-to-four entries that abruptly stop at one point.

The earth-folk, as you put it, will probably stay on Facebook for their Net goof-off time -- until the next big thing comes along online. There are plenty of game and hobby sites to keep people busy, too. Most people go on the Net to chill and have fun, not write articles (let alone get snapped at by some idiot teenage admin).

# # #

Quote of the day to Jehochman: "User:FT2, User:Alison, and User:Elonka have made serious accusations against me on the election pages. These accusations are based in part on private correspondence. Although this may not have been their intention, the effect is to smear my reputation..."

What reputation? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

If Wikipedia survives, it will be because it finds the sweet spot during its contraction to introduce just the right amount of community structure to enable the remaining community to effectively organize and redirect its efforts to halt the contraction and resume effective, meaningful, targeted recruitment of the people they need.

Yes, that's the key. Wikipedia needs to install just the right amount of governance to reduce some of the chaos, but not so much that it ends up like Citizendium.

There are some wikiprojects which I think will continue to progress at the same rate even if a mass exodus for the door takes place. Military History, for example, will continue to enjoy good participation, because that project is structured well and its contributors are editors, like me, who enjoy having a forum where they can simply explore their hobby, videlicet studying and writing about military history.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

As for the earth-folk who are not professional writers or academics or business moguls or whatever—but are (or at least always try to be) responsible adults… what do you recommend for them?

Aha! It strikes me suddenly that right now, WP really IS a sort of dictatorship of the proletariat! It never happened elsewhere in the real world (well, maybe Cambodia for a while under Pol Pot), but in this bit of walled virtual-reality, no problemo! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

It has to be that way. We know the bourgeoisie are off somewhere else, doing business and actually making money. And one hardly encounters any intelligentsia on WP either. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) So what's left? Yep, proles.

My next Wikivoices interview is up: Steve Smith (Sarcasticidealist).

OGG
MP3

Nobody will ever accuse me of holding back election interview podcasts, whether for nefarious reasons or sheer laziness!

Nobody will ever accuse me of holding back election interview podcasts, whether for nefarious reasons or sheer laziness!

Too boring, sorry. You need to borrow some shtick from Howard Stern, Dan -- locker room humor is what sells with listeners, kiddo. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)



This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

We've now moved onto the FT2-Jehochman RfAr.

Oh wow… I wouldn't take an even-money bet as to who will win this case if it actually opens. Mutually assured bannination would be great, but failing that any other combination of sanctions would be a net positive.

Of course, that alone means arb.com will strategically decline to hear any of it.

This is suitable for a thread of its own, and will probably be split apart soon enough.

Fortunately it looks as if ArbCom are declining the case - it might then become an RfC/U on Jehochman. He has a history of proposing something vigorously one day, getting people behind him and then, on a whim, abandoning it. He never seems to have any sense that he has led other people astray, wasted time or caused unnecessary offense. This certainly was the case when he was acting as the behind-the-scenes ringleader to get Elonka desysopped. Now he claims that he was acting in a "fit of pique". Apart from Alison, none of those mentioned in the case have unblemished reputations: but I think Jehochman will probably be forced to abandon his election candidacy, whether an RfC/U happens or not.

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

I think Jehochman will probably be forced to abandon his election candidacy, whether an RfC/U happens or not.

Without commenting on underlying merits, the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.

Nobody will ever accuse me of holding back election interview podcasts, whether for nefarious reasons or sheer laziness!

Too boring, sorry. You need to borrow some shtick from Howard Stern, Dan -- locker room humor is what sells with listeners, kiddo. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I was trying for a serious, informative interview, not a shock-jock act.

I was trying for a serious, informative interview, not a shock-jock act.

That'd explain why you edited out all my penis jokes.

I was trying for a serious, informative interview, not a shock-jock act.

Phooey -- serious is overrated. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I'm curious to know how you deal with situations in which the individual in question has, in fact, done absolutely nothing wrong.

When one of those comes along, do let us know.

That'd explain why you edited out all my penis jokes.

We need a bootleg of the full interview: Steve Smith, Uncut. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.

Damn, if I had known there was to be a secret ballot, I would have run. So much more fun that way.

the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.

Damn, if I had known there was to be a secret ballot, I would have run. So much more fun that way.

I think you still have a few days to choose to run; isn't the deadline Dec. 1?

Edit: No, I guess nominations closed earlier; it's just voting that starts Dec. 1.


This post has been edited by dtobias:

I'm curious about everyking's vision for Wikipedia. He doesn't like how ArbCom deliberates in secret--we all know that--and he values the "community" above all else, but I don't understand how he thinks ArbCom should operate. If it's "ArbCom ought to ask ANI what it thinks," I'm not persuaded. I have not heard any concrete alternative explanation of what "ArbCom engaging the community" might look like.

It seems fairly obvious to me, but I think an appropriate level of engagement would involve arbitrators asking specific questions to both case participants and the community at large, then discussing their ideas for resolving the problem at hand with case participants, the community at large, and the other arbitrators, all on-wiki. I wonder why you seem so perplexed by what I'm saying--is it because the ArbCom's outlook is so insular that arbitrators cannot imagine another way of doing business? My argument is that the ArbCom should concentrate on actual dispute resolution and should do so in the right spirit--the spirit most in accordance with Wikipedia's values, and the spirit most likely to achieve the desired results.

[quote name='everyking' date='Thu 26th November 2009, 7:25am' post='206603']
[quote name='One' post='206541' date='Wed 25th November 2009, 9:46pm']
. . . should do so in the right spirit--the spirit most in accordance with Wikipedia's values, and the spirit most likely to achieve the desired results.
[/quote]
Umm, is it is proven that those three things intersect in any theoretical framework?

...then discussing their ideas for resolving the problem at hand with case participants, the community at large, and the other arbitrators, all on-wiki. I wonder why you seem so perplexed by what I'm saying--is it because the ArbCom's outlook is so insular that arbitrators cannot imagine another way of doing business?

I'd say it's because what you're describing sounds just like AN/I, isn't it? He just said he wasn't going to be persuaded by that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

You're a smart guy, EK - I thought it had become obvious to most people that effective decisionmaking, which (I would assume) includes dispute resolution, can't really occur in that kind of environment. You have to delegate those functions to a group that can work in some sort of seclusion from the chaos that surrounds them... It might be nice if ArbCom deliberations were all publicly visible, but if they were, nobody would participate in the cases. Meanwhile, people can already comment on proposed decisions, can't they? Nobody listens to those comments now, so why should they when all the secret deliberations are made public?

I'm probably not qualified to say one way or the other, but I'd say "lack of transparency" and "failure to interact with the larger community" are fairly low on the list of things that are wrong with the current system. I'd say "lack of core competence in behavioral psychology" is probably at the top, though I realize that might be taken as an insult by some ArbCom members. (Ehh, sorry about that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) )

Also worth adding that if Everyking ever said something like "in the past I was mean to Phil and he didn't deserve what I did to him and I've learned not to treat people like that even if I disagree with them strongly," I suspect he would pass RFA or whatever it is he wants with extreme ease.

And do you suppose that's a better path--engage in some kind of self-abasement ritual for political gain? Does that demonstrate good character? "Hey everybody, look how humble I am--now give me my sash and tiara!" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

That's all foolishness. I will say what I believe to be true and will not make calculations based on what might win me the most votes. I am not right about everything, and I haven't been right about everything on Wikipedia over the years. In years past there were some admins who I criticized unfairly and there were some sanctioned users who I shouldn't have defended. If I think I'm right, I'll defend my position, and if I think I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge my error. That's all there is to it.

Tyrannical arbitrators tried to create the shell of such a structure (hoped that they would form a sort of constitutional committee to create a governance structure), but it was effectively vetoed by ANI regulars. Cats aren't known for their skills in governing.

Top-down reform directed by the ArbCom? The ArbCom's record was already so appalling that it was absurd to imagine that it could competently and fairly oversee any kind of governance reform. There are other ways the ArbCom could have initiated a process without controlling it, but it wanted the control, and when its preferred process was shot down by the community, it just dropped the matter entirely. I don't remember any of you saying "OK, consensus is against us, so we'll try it your way."

There are other ways the ArbCom could have initiated a process without controlling it, but it wanted the control, and when its preferred process was shot down by the community, it just dropped the matter entirely.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong (or that they were necessarily right), but what sort of improved governance system do you think would have resulted from a "process" without that kind of control? I thought the whole point of that was to avoid the sort of "cat-herding" exercise that has prevented such reforms from ever getting off the ground in the first place.

History suggests that mobs don't create working governmental structures - leaders create working governmental structures. Wikipedia doesn't really have leaders... Of course, if they did we would probably bash them incessantly here on WR regardless, but that's not really the point...

For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) FROM revision WHERE rev_user != 0;
+-------------------------------+
| COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) |
+-------------------------------+
|                       3280645 |
+-------------------------------+
1 row in set (6 hours 34 min 19.09 sec)

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 0;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|  3813048 |
+----------+
1 row in set (11 min 55.70 sec)

That's registered users with (at least) one non-deleted edit and registered users with one edit (pretty much), respectively. 10.5 million is a pretty stupid figure to throw around. And of course your stats don't factor in things like eligibility requirements ('cause, as hard as it is to believe, some people are dishonest on the Internet).

It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The WSJ graph seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.

For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) FROM revision WHERE rev_user != 0;
+-------------------------------+
| COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) |
+-------------------------------+
|                       3280645 |
+-------------------------------+
1 row in set (6 hours 34 min 19.09 sec)

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 0;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|  3813048 |
+----------+
1 row in set (11 min 55.70 sec)

That's registered users with (at least) one non-deleted edit and registered users with one edit (pretty much), respectively. 10.5 million is a pretty stupid figure to throw around. And of course your stats don't factor in things like eligibility requirements ('cause, as hard as it is to believe, some people are dishonest on the Internet).

It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The WSJ graph seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.

I think a useful number would be the number of registered accounts that make at least 30 edits a month.

For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) FROM revision WHERE rev_user != 0;
+-------------------------------+
| COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) |
+-------------------------------+
|                       3280645 |
+-------------------------------+
1 row in set (6 hours 34 min 19.09 sec)

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 0;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|  3813048 |
+----------+
1 row in set (11 min 55.70 sec)

That's registered users with (at least) one non-deleted edit and registered users with one edit (pretty much), respectively. 10.5 million is a pretty stupid figure to throw around. And of course your stats don't factor in things like eligibility requirements ('cause, as hard as it is to believe, some people are dishonest on the Internet).

It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The WSJ graph seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.

I think a useful number would be the number of registered accounts that make at least 30 edits a month.

Quick addendum:

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 149;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|    88720 |
+----------+
1 row in set (29 min 22.24 sec)

Users with a stored edit count higher than 149. The voter eligibility requirement this year is 150 article edits before November 1, 2009. I suppose indefinitely blocked users also can't vote. This figure doesn't factor in these constraints, so the number of eligible voters is lower. You might say it's around 75,000, though you'd also have to consider the users who made 150 edits in 2003 and quit.... Lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say.

It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The WSJ graph seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.

Would a good metric for growth not be the number of editors active over fixed units of time? So, how many editors made at least one edit this month, last month, the month before, etc. That gives a better idea of the trend of the number of contributors to Wikipedia and then a decline can be determined. It's a lot of SQL runs though - I'd do it, but don't have the access needed (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Edit: re-reading, that might be exactly what you just said - need to get my coffee before I type further....

This post has been edited by Fritz:

For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) FROM revision WHERE rev_user != 0;
+-------------------------------+
| COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) |
+-------------------------------+
|                       3280645 |
+-------------------------------+
1 row in set (6 hours 34 min 19.09 sec)

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 0;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|  3813048 |
+----------+
1 row in set (11 min 55.70 sec)

That's registered users with (at least) one non-deleted edit and registered users with one edit (pretty much), respectively. 10.5 million is a pretty stupid figure to throw around. And of course your stats don't factor in things like eligibility requirements ('cause, as hard as it is to believe, some people are dishonest on the Internet).

It would be nice to have some pretty graphs that accurately analyze Wikipedia's growth (or lack) over time. The WSJ graph seems to be complete bullshit. (If anyone can reproduce the findings, I'd be very interested in how.)

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.

I think a useful number would be the number of registered accounts that make at least 30 edits a month.

Quick addendum:

CODE

mysql> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user WHERE user_editcount > 149;
+----------+
| COUNT(*) |
+----------+
|    88720 |
+----------+
1 row in set (29 min 22.24 sec)

Users with a stored edit count higher than 149. The voter eligibility requirement this year is 150 article edits before November 1, 2009. I suppose indefinitely blocked users also can't vote. This figure doesn't factor in these constraints, so the number of eligible voters is lower. You might say it's around 75,000, though you'd also have to consider the users who made 150 edits in 2003 and quit.... Lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say.

Thanks MZ. So, 75,000 en.wikipedia editors with more than 149 edits. Of which, about 300-400 will vote in the upcoming ArbCom election.

Whether it is 1 million, 100,000 or 10,000 regular editors who would consider themselves Wikipedians (and I'd tend to the latter) the actual voters do not seem to be representative. How many people vote in ArbCom?

However, the governance structure should not be representing the interests of the editors, they should be representing the interests of the encyclopedia. WMF has never franchised the consumers of the effort whether it is directly or indirectly through some representative body.

It might well be if the governance structures represented the masses of consumers, then the governance would not be focused on the petty vendettas of aggrieved drama mongers, but would instead simply toss all the people aside as the arguments rarely have anything to do with anything constructive and productive.

For all the rule-making, I wonder if your average Wikipedian article is any better than 4 or 5 years ago? Not better as in more detailed, but does the rule-mongering produce a better quality article than what might have been expected with a general free for all with the occasional injection of sanity from outside?

I think Jehochman will probably be forced to abandon his election candidacy, whether an RfC/U happens or not.

Without commenting on underlying merits, the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.

Yes, but that's not because the ballots are secret (i.e. nobody can see who voted for what reason they provided), but because the tallies are secret (i.e. nobody can see how badly anyone is failing).

Of course these two scenarios need not go hand-in-hand, necessarily.

For now the "secret ballot" will make voters somewhat more likely to select Kurt. On the other hand many people will have also a healthy skepticism as to how secret a "secret ballot" could possibly remain, so this will reduce the degree to which "secret ballots" differ from public ballots (if all other factors are equal).

Stronger assurance of voters' privacy, combined with a functional scoreboard of (anonymized) machine-aggregated data kept up-to-date and visible throughout the voting phase, certainly would help counter the Abilene paradox which arises every year at about this time.

I may make a database report that analyzes the number of users making a certain number of edits each month. (That is, 40 users made 100 edits this month, 16 users made 101 edits this month, etc.) That seems like it could be somewhat useful, I guess.

Well, you obviously need a new hobby. See if Lar will let you play with his LEGO set. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Thanks MZ. So, 75,000 en.wikipedia editors with more than 149 edits. Of which, about 300-400 will vote in the upcoming ArbCom election.

Which still is not representative of anything but a small clique. Arbcom is like that old Abbott and Costello routine:

Abbott: Remember, I'm the boss and you're nothing!
Costello: How do you like that - boss over nothing!

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

Which still is not representative of anything but a small clique. Arbcom is like that old Abbott and Costello routing:

Who's on first?

I think Jehochman will probably be forced to abandon his election candidacy, whether an RfC/U happens or not.

Without commenting on underlying merits, the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.

It's also unwiki, makes corruption inevitable, and is unacceptable and needs to go. Now.

That's a new one for me: the notion that secret ballots make corruption "inevitable".

…the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.

It's also unwiki, makes corruption inevitable, and is unacceptable and needs to go. Now.

Maybe so, but it's also the only way you'd have a chance.

Careful what you wish for so early on.

That's a new one for me: the notion that secret ballots make corruption "inevitable".

It forces us to trust someone else not to lie about the outcome; and since the powers-that-be are already corrupt, this gives them a perfect opportunity to engage in further dishonesty.

…the advent of the secret ballot makes candidate withdrawal less likely, I think.

It's also unwiki, makes corruption inevitable, and is unacceptable and needs to go. Now.

Maybe so, but it's also the only way you'd have a chance.

Principle is more important.

It forces us to trust someone else not to lie about the outcome; and since the powers-that-be are already corrupt, this gives them a perfect opportunity to engage in further dishonesty.

Then I suspect the word you want is "possible," not "inevitable"...

Besides, what would be the goal of vote-counting fraud in this situation? I mean, sure, to prevent you, Kurt Weber, from being made an ArbCom member, that's a given - but other than that...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Principle is more important.

Defeatist. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I don't remember any of you saying "OK, consensus is against us, so we'll try it your way."

Your way is the community spontaneously organizing a government. Be my guest.

I'm probably not qualified to say one way or the other, but I'd say "lack of transparency" and "failure to interact with the larger community" are fairly low on the list of things that are wrong with the current system. I'd say "lack of core competence in behavioral psychology" is probably at the top, though I realize that might be taken as an insult by some ArbCom members. (Ehh, sorry about that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) )

I think that's fair comment. One of ArbCom's problems is that it indulges in game playing maneuvers too often. In part, I think this is caused by paying too much attention to certain influential members of the community.

I think that's fair comment. One of ArbCom's problems is that it indulges in game playing maneuvers too often. In part, I think this is caused by paying too much attention to certain influential members of the community.

Not to mention the several current members of the ArbCom who are clearly committed game players. I'd name names, but really, we know who I'm talking about.

One of the problems with popular election of the ArbCom is that it makes it easier for game players to get elected. This is a large part of why I favor the popular election a governing council, which would then (amongst its duties) appoint the members of the dispute resolution committee. The obvious trajectory by which this could be accomplished would be for the ArbCom to declare itself a 'governing council', appoint a new dispute resolution council, and transfer all dispute resolution functions to that council. However, the ArbCom, as currently constituted, is neither willing to nor interested in doing any such thing.

Whether it is 1 million, 100,000 or 10,000 regular editors who would consider themselves Wikipedians (and I'd tend to the latter) the actual voters do not seem to be representative. How many people vote in ArbCom?

Thanks MZ. So, 75,000 en.wikipedia editors with more than 149 edits. Of which, about 300-400 will vote in the upcoming ArbCom election.

Which still is not representative of anything but a small clique.

The elections are widely advertised. Decisions are made by those who show up.

My next interview is with somebody who's, I think, widely followed here: Fred Bauder.

OGG

MP3

I don't remember any of you saying "OK, consensus is against us, so we'll try it your way."

Your way is the community spontaneously organizing a government. Be my guest.

Actually, I proposed that the ArbCom could initiate a process, for example by setting up a referendum on policy changes and the creation of an elected governing committee. Instead, you prefer to frame it as though the only options are ArbCom-directed reform or reform initiated solely by the community.

For all the rule-making, I wonder if your average Wikipedian article is any better than 4 or 5 years ago?

Average? Very possibly not. But that's a misleading metric when the denominator has grown so rapidly. Is the one thousandth best Wikipedia article better today than the one thousandth best article of 4 or 5 years ago was? I don't think there's any doubt. Quality is certainly growing in the aggregate. Of course, so is total crap.

Yes, but that's not because the ballots are secret (i.e. nobody can see who voted for what reason they provided), but because the tallies are secret (i.e. nobody can see how badly anyone is failing).

Of course these two scenarios need not go hand-in-hand, necessarily.

You're correct. They commonly enough do go hand-in-hand that I felt safe conflating the two.

Actually, I proposed that the ArbCom could initiate a process, for example by setting up a referendum on policy changes and the creation of an elected governing committee.

You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)

You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)

Sure. I think that's the most realistic way for reform to happen. I object to the ArbCom supervising and dictating a reform process, but I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.

I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.

Orange you glad there's a pill for that?


Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)

Sure. I think that's the most realistic way for reform to happen. I object to the ArbCom supervising and dictating a reform process, but I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.

We didn't have control over the planning committee. In fact, Kirill resigned his arb chair to rebut such criticism. Unfortunately, that didn't satisfy you, Slim Virgin, or any of the others opposed to the idea.

What exactly would it look like for ArbCom to initiate such a process? A referendum on whether the community wants a governance structure? Then what? From experience, the community will reflexively oppose a principle referendum until the details are known. In most cases, the community then opposes the proposal due to the details. How would we avoid this problem without even a hint of ArbCom control?

We didn't have control over the planning committee. In fact, Kirill resigned his arb chair to rebut such criticism. Unfortunately, that didn't satisfy you, Slim Virgin, or any of the others opposed to the idea.

I presume that part of Everyking's response will be that the members were appointed by ArbCom, so it was just one degree removed from direct ArbCom control. That's a fair criticism. But do we really need to elect bodies that have no authority or power? On the other hand, how would Everyking et al have reacted if ArbCom had created a community-elected body that did have authority and power? My guess is that it would have been with something other than "Well, this has been imposed on the community without consensus, but that's okay because it's under the control of the community, via a mechanism set by ArbCom without community consensus". If I'm wrong about that, I'm thrilled, since it means that the Advisory Council's critics aren't as resistant as I'd imagined to actual decision-making. But I don't think I am wrong.

What exactly would it look like for ArbCom to initiate such a process? A referendum on whether the community wants a governance structure? Then what? From experience, the community will reflexively oppose a principle referendum until the details are known. In most cases, the community then opposes the proposal due to the details. How would we avoid this problem without even a hint of ArbCom control?

Indeed, Wikipedia is in a box. Since a functional governance structure was not established when the project began, the emerging warring cliques have become increasingly entrenched, hostile, abusive, and incorrigibly corrupt. It takes visionary leadership to craft a functional and ethical governance structure, and Wikipedia lacks that in spades.

You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)

Sure. I think that's the most realistic way for reform to happen. I object to the ArbCom supervising and dictating a reform process, but I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.

We didn't have control over the planning committee. In fact, Kirill resigned his arb chair to rebut such criticism. Unfortunately, that didn't satisfy you, Slim Virgin, or any of the others opposed to the idea.

What exactly would it look like for ArbCom to initiate such a process? A referendum on whether the community wants a governance structure? Then what? From experience, the community will reflexively oppose a principle referendum until the details are known. In most cases, the community then opposes the proposal due to the details. How would we avoid this problem without even a hint of ArbCom control?

The Advisory Council was appointed by the ArbCom and explicitly worked under its direction--it was intended an advisory council to the ArbCom. And the community wasn't buying what you guys were selling, no matter how much you argued that the control could eventually be turned over to the community. Was it just me and SlimVirgin and a few other loudmouths? No, the opposition was overwhelming--something like 75% of those who registered an opinion registered it in opposition. And what did the ArbCom do in the face of a community consensus against its decision? Did it acknowledge the consensus, reverse itself, and listen to arguments for a community-directed approach? No, it simply allowed the whole idea of reform to wither and die without any further statements or actions. But the RfC didn't just demonstrate a consensus against ArbCom-directed reform--it also demonstrated a consensus in favor of some kind of reform. The lesson is obvious: if the ArbCom can't use reform to expand its own authority, it just isn't interested.

I remember making a specific proposal at the time. It went something like this: hold a referendum on the creation of some kind of body like the Advisory Council, and then have an election for it. The council then formulates governance proposals and submits them to the community to be voted upon. The only step in the whole process where the ArbCom would decide anything would be step one, and that would only be a decision as to whether to formally ask the community a question.

This post has been edited by everyking:

The only step in the whole process where the ArbCom would decide anything would be step one, and that would only be a decision as to whether to formally ask the community a question.

And the decision of the new body's initial composition (structure, not specific members), mandate, etc., the threshold needed for the referendum to pass, the rules for the initial elections...can you honestly say you wouldn't rage against ArbCom's usurpation of authority if it tried that?

You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)

Sure. I think that's the most realistic way for reform to happen. I object to the ArbCom supervising and dictating a reform process, but I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.

We didn't have control over the planning committee. In fact, Kirill resigned his arb chair to rebut such criticism. Unfortunately, that didn't satisfy you, Slim Virgin, or any of the others opposed to the idea.

What exactly would it look like for ArbCom to initiate such a process? A referendum on whether the community wants a governance structure? Then what? From experience, the community will reflexively oppose a principle referendum until the details are known. In most cases, the community then opposes the proposal due to the details. How would we avoid this problem without even a hint of ArbCom control?

The Advisory Council was appointed by the ArbCom and explicitly worked under its direction--it was intended an advisory council to the ArbCom. And the community wasn't buying what you guys were selling, no matter how much you argued that the control could eventually be turned over to the community. Was it just me and SlimVirgin and a few other loudmouths? No, the opposition was overwhelming--something like 75% of those who registered an opinion registered it in opposition. And what did the ArbCom do in the face of a community consensus against its decision? Did it acknowledge the consensus, reverse itself, and listen to arguments for a community-directed approach? No, it simply allowed the whole idea of reform to wither and die without any further statements or actions. But the RfC didn't just demonstrate a consensus against ArbCom-directed reform--it also demonstrated a consensus in favor of some kind of reform. The lesson is obvious: if the ArbCom can't use reform to expand its own authority, it just isn't interested.

I remember making a specific proposal at the time. It went something like this: hold a referendum on the creation of some kind of body like the Advisory Council, and then have an election for it. The council then formulates governance proposals and submits them to the community to be voted upon. The only step in the whole process where the ArbCom would decide anything would be step one, and that would only be a decision as to whether to formally ask the community a question.

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

51% seems kind of arbitrary. Is it possible you're confusing it with 50% + .5?

The only step in the whole process where the ArbCom would decide anything would be step one, and that would only be a decision as to whether to formally ask the community a question.

And the decision of the new body's initial composition (structure, not specific members), mandate, etc., the threshold needed for the referendum to pass, the rules for the initial elections...can you honestly say you wouldn't rage against ArbCom's usurpation of authority if it tried that?

You have a point, but the reality is that someone would have to design a proposal before anything could happen. Of course, it's possible to go even further into it and say that the ArbCom could give the community an opportunity to express its views beforehand, and then it would ideally design its referendum to roughly match the organizational details seemingly preferred by the community. If people still objected to such details, then they could vote in opposition, and if the referendum failed, then the ArbCom could look at the opposition viewpoints and consider what would need to be modified in a future proposal to enable it to pass.

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

I've long thought that contentious governance issues should be decided by something less than the generally accepted threshold for "consensus". I think anything from a simple majority to 60% would be reasonable and workable.

You have a point, but the reality is that someone would have to design a proposal before anything could happen. Of course, it's possible to go even further into it and say that the ArbCom could give the community an opportunity to express its views beforehand, and then it would ideally design its referendum to roughly match the organizational details seemingly preferred by the community. If people still objected to such details, then they could vote in opposition, and if the referendum failed, then the ArbCom could look at the opposition viewpoints and consider what would need to be modified in a future proposal to enable it to pass.

Fair points all. But none addresses the referendum threshold issue. We have people complaining that a gulf of 14% in favour of secret balloting was insufficient to make that change. If ArbCom adopts the requirement of a bare majority for this much more significant change, can you imagine the outcry? But if it goes much higher than that, any proposal will be doomed to failure (and there will be people who dispute ArbCom's imposition of referendum terms no matter what the threshold and no matter what the advance consultation).

In fact, what you're advocating seems to contemplate a much greater degree of decree than did the council: that involved ArbCom setting up a powerless body simply to advise it, while this contemplates ArbCom deciding to throw consensus out the window on a fundamental change to Wikipedia governance.

Now, that's cool with me. But do you really not see how so radical a proposal makes a mockery of your objections to the council? And if not, on what basis do you distinguish them?

I've long thought that contentious governance issues should be decided by something less than the generally accepted threshold for "consensus". I think anything from a simple majority to 60% would be reasonable and workable.

(The above wasn't there when I posted the beginning of my reply.)

I have my doubts that any proposal could ever gain 50% support, though in principle I agree that from 50% to 60% is a reasonable threshold for referenda to make fundamental changes. But what's the community reaction when ArbCom picks such a number itself (or even after an RFC)?

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

I've long thought that contentious governance issues should be decided by something less than the generally accepted threshold for "consensus". I think anything from a simple majority to 60% would be reasonable and workable.

Probably worth noting that under a 51% standard

[*]Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG3 - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Friday - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keepscases - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benjiboi - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings - Closer than I recalled, but I suspect it would have met 51% if it had been a straight support/oppose sanction.
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 - I think this may actually be exactly 50/50

In summation, it seems that leaving things up to a community vote produces as random a result as leaving it to arbcom and is probably no more satisfactory to one side or the other.

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

51% seems kind of arbitrary. Is it possible you're confusing it with 50% + .5?

Probably worth noting that under a 51% standard...

Now you're just trying to make me angry.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

51% seems kind of arbitrary. Is it possible you're confusing it with 50% + .5?

Probably worth noting that under a 51% standard...

Now you're just trying to make me angry.

Well that is because 50.5 is still as incorrect as 51, the correct value would be 50+1/∞

Well that is because 50.5 is still as incorrect as 51, the correct value would be 50+1/∞

I said 50% + .5, not 50.5%. And there's no need to go as low as 1/∞; because we're only comparing things to 1/2, that will suffice.

(If you're going to disagree with that second point, please provide a sample vote count in which a count of below 50% + .5 would make a majority.)

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

51% seems kind of arbitrary. Is it possible you're confusing it with 50% + .5?

Good to see someone understands what a "majority" is. 21 of 41 is a majority although it s not "50% + 1." 501 of 1000 is a majority although it is not 51%. "50% + .5" covers it providing no fractional votes are allowed. Still why not just say any number > 50%?

Still why not just say any number > 50%?

When I was a young tyke, we had to say "simple majority" because they wouldn't let us use digits. And that was after we'd all walked 6 miles to school in a foot of snow, wearing nothing but Prada leather pumps and high heels.

No, wait, that wasn't school, that was that Soviet forced-labor camp. Never mind!

Still why not just say any number > 50%?

Less pedantic.

Still why not just say any number > 50%?

When I was a young tyke, we had to say "simple majority" because they wouldn't let us use digits. And that was after we'd all walked 6 miles to school in a foot of snow, wearing nothing but Prada leather pumps and high heels.

No, wait, that wasn't school, that was that Soviet forced-labor camp. Never mind!

Pumps AND high heels? Is that like a turducken ?

Now, that's cool with me. But do you really not see how so radical a proposal makes a mockery of your objections to the council?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

... I mean, you're asking Everyking to be consistent, and to engage in self-introspection... all in one go. You DO know better, don't you?

You have a point, but the reality is that someone would have to design a proposal before anything could happen. Of course, it's possible to go even further into it and say that the ArbCom could give the community an opportunity to express its views beforehand, and then it would ideally design its referendum to roughly match the organizational details seemingly preferred by the community. If people still objected to such details, then they could vote in opposition, and if the referendum failed, then the ArbCom could look at the opposition viewpoints and consider what would need to be modified in a future proposal to enable it to pass.

Fair points all. But none addresses the referendum threshold issue. We have people complaining that a gulf of 14% in favour of secret balloting was insufficient to make that change. If ArbCom adopts the requirement of a bare majority for this much more significant change, can you imagine the outcry? But if it goes much higher than that, any proposal will be doomed to failure (and there will be people who dispute ArbCom's imposition of referendum terms no matter what the threshold and no matter what the advance consultation).

In fact, what you're advocating seems to contemplate a much greater degree of decree than did the council: that involved ArbCom setting up a powerless body simply to advise it, while this contemplates ArbCom deciding to throw consensus out the window on a fundamental change to Wikipedia governance.

Now, that's cool with me. But do you really not see how so radical a proposal makes a mockery of your objections to the council? And if not, on what basis do you distinguish them?

Couldn't the ArbCom consult with the community about the threshold? I'm not sure there's any great answer the question, because in the end the ArbCom might just have to impose a certain threshold. I would have no problem with that, although I'm sure some people would.

My objections to the council are centered on my opposition to ArbCom-directed reform--a body composed of people appointed by the ArbCom and responsible to the ArbCom, making recommendations to the ArbCom about future steps. I don't see the comparison. My alternative proposal is a body composed of people elected by the community and responsible to the community, which presents proposals to the community to be accepted or rejected. It involves the ArbCom exercising a greater degree of authority at the beginning of the process (setting up a community referendum as opposed to appointing a council to advise itself), but beyond that it would have no further power over the process.

Imagine a king decrees a popular election will be held to create a parliament that will take over the business of running the kingdom from the king's appointed ministers and advisers. That decree involves a greater use of power than the alternative (continuing to appoint ministers and advisers who will be responsible to the king), but in fact it means less power for the king, because he won't control the way the country is run anymore.

I tend to agree.

I see many problems with wikipedia - most of which could be solved if it were not for the project's delinquent mechanism for changing policy.

70% consensus threshhold is fine, if the people involved in the discussion pay attention so that a strong argument for a particular change, or against one of the options being considered, can win out. But few will follow the discussion in depth and people will keep objecting to one possibility because "my idea is better" when they've missed the discussion of six days ago that demonstrated that it wasn't. The problem is not the threshhold of 70%, it is that the constituency one is trying to convince keeps changing and the discussion resetting. It is why most societies work with some form of representative democracy.

I'm pretty confident that if the community had some form of representative mechanism for decision making, that things like BLP reform and flagged revisions would be more advance - and that less time would be taken up by many with circular policy discussions.

But you can't introduce an acceptable mechanism for making policy changes without a policy change, and that;s the rub. Someone is going to have to "ignore all the rules" in order to do this. It is a coup d'etat that is needed - and only Jimbo or Arbcom have the position to do this.

But to succeed, and to give the change some legitimacy, what they need to do is to grab the power, make the change, and then lay the power down. Create an independent elected policy board by fiat, and if people hate the idea, they can elect people committed to scrapping it.

Personally, I'd give such a board power to make any high-level policy change (not the colour of infoboxes please) in any area providing that 1) there was a general consensus that change was desirable. 2) the community had tried and failed to agree a change by the old mechanism.

I tend to agree.

I see many problems with wikipedia - most of which could be solved if it were not for the project's delinquent mechanism for changing policy.

70% consensus threshhold is fine, if the people involved in the discussion pay attention so that a strong argument for a particular change, or against one of the options being considered, can win out. But few will follow the discussion in depth and people will keep objecting to one possibility because "my idea is better" when they've missed the discussion of six days ago that demonstrated that it wasn't. The problem is not the threshhold of 70%, it is that the constituency one is trying to convince keeps changing and the discussion resetting. It is why most societies work with some form of representative democracy.

I'm pretty confident that if the community had some form of representative mechanism for decision making, that things like BLP reform and flagged revisions would be more advance - and that less time would be taken up by many with circular policy discussions.

But you can't introduce an acceptable mechanism for making policy changes without a policy change, and that;s the rub. Someone is going to have to "ignore all the rules" in order to do this. It is a coup d'etat that is needed - and only Jimbo or Arbcom have the position to do this.

But to succeed, and to give the change some legitimacy, what they need to do is to grab the power, make the change, and then lay the power down. Create an independent elected policy board by fiat, and if people hate the idea, they can elect people committed to scrapping it.

Personally, I'd give such a board power to make any high-level policy change (not the colour of infoboxes please) in any area providing that 1) there was a general consensus that change was desirable. 2) the community had tried and failed to agree a change by the old mechanism.

This approach is wrong. It is not a question of reshuffling power within "the community." No group, clique, warlords gang or confederation of any or all of these can bring about change for the better for more than a quick moment. Real reform will come by reallocating which types of decisions are appropriate for the community to make and which need to be imposed by WMF board (implemented by staff) after consultation with stake holders in the wider world. This is a deeper form of democracy and open participation. This also is not going to happen any time soon.

I tend to agree.

I see many problems with wikipedia - most of which could be solved if it were not for the project's delinquent mechanism for changing policy.

70% consensus threshhold is fine, if the people involved in the discussion pay attention so that a strong argument for a particular change, or against one of the options being considered, can win out. But few will follow the discussion in depth and people will keep objecting to one possibility because "my idea is better" when they've missed the discussion of six days ago that demonstrated that it wasn't. The problem is not the threshhold of 70%, it is that the constituency one is trying to convince keeps changing and the discussion resetting. It is why most societies work with some form of representative democracy.

I'm pretty confident that if the community had some form of representative mechanism for decision making, that things like BLP reform and flagged revisions would be more advance - and that less time would be taken up by many with circular policy discussions.

But you can't introduce an acceptable mechanism for making policy changes without a policy change, and that;s the rub. Someone is going to have to "ignore all the rules" in order to do this. It is a coup d'etat that is needed - and only Jimbo or Arbcom have the position to do this.

But to succeed, and to give the change some legitimacy, what they need to do is to grab the power, make the change, and then lay the power down. Create an independent elected policy board by fiat, and if people hate the idea, they can elect people committed to scrapping it.

Personally, I'd give such a board power to make any high-level policy change (not the colour of infoboxes please) in any area providing that 1) there was a general consensus that change was desirable. 2) the community had tried and failed to agree a change by the old mechanism.

This approach is wrong. It is not a question of reshuffling power within "the community." No group, clique, warlords gang or confederation of any or all of these can bring about change for the better for more than a quick moment. Real reform will come by reallocating which types of decisions are appropriate for the community to make and which need to be imposed by WMF board (implemented by staff) after consultation with stake holders in the wider world. This is a deeper form of democracy and open participation. This also is not going to happen any time soon.

Strangely, I agree with that also. The ideal would be as you say. But, as you say, that will not happen.

However, I do believe that a proper mechanism for the community to make changes would be better than what we have. The biggest problem with the Wikipedia community is that, even in those limited cases where most wikipedians are able to see what might make things better, the project is structurally incapable of making major change. The constitution has no realistic mechanism to amend itself. Even a Jimbo dictatorship would be better than total inertia - with a veto on movement by any clueless minority.

In fact, what you're advocating seems to contemplate a much greater degree of decree than did the council: that involved ArbCom setting up a powerless body simply to advise it, while this contemplates ArbCom deciding to throw consensus out the window on a fundamental change to Wikipedia governance.

This is the problem we saw with any other attempt (like suggesting a new governance policy for an up-or-down vote). Any proposal would require "consensus," which is impossible for relatively simple changes, let alone fundamental shifts.

My hope, at least, was that the advisory council would ultimately turn into a sort of constitutional convention, which would draft the framework for eventual governance. We deliberately picked a broad cross-section, many who would never win an actual election, but had enough friends to attract a constituency for when the council would finally issue referendums. I hoped that these people (a small group) would actually be able to come to something like consensus, and inspire enough confidence among Wikipedians at large to successfully vote it in. I don't think any arbitrators really wanted to control it--Everyking's claims of a powergrab notwithstanding. Literally any system of governance would be light years ahead of the status quo because it would be able to make actual decisions.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that most Wikipols who were not offered a seat would oppose it.

I believe that any effective governance body would make ArbCom relatively less powerful, not more--even if it were under ArbCom's auspices. A governance structure would free ArbCom to confine itself to dispute resolution.

At this point, I think the site's veneration of "consensus" makes internal reform impossible. Everyking says that he's cool with ArbCom ignoring consensus (really?), but I doubt that's true of other elements of the opposition. Some will oppose "on principle." Some oppose because they think they have a slightly better idea, and they prefer deadlock to losing. Some seem to actually prefer stalemate.

Even a Jimbo dictatorship would be better than total inertia - with a veto on movement by any clueless minority.

I agree. I have said several times (often to criticism), that the site would be better if Jimbo were as dictatorial as some imagine him to be. He doesn't have the political capital to be dictator anymore though, if he ever had the power.

The site would be better if anything were in charge.

Even a Jimbo dictatorship would be better than total inertia - with a veto on movement by any clueless minority.

I agree. I have said several times (often to criticism), that the site would be better if Jimbo were as dictatorial as some imagine him to be. He doesn't have the political capital to be dictator anymore though, if he ever had the power.

The site would be better if anything were in charge.

A benevolent well-informed dictatorship can be a good thing. Jimbeau, however, is neither benevolent nor well-informed. He is dictatorial when his personal interests are threatened (like how he has his own very special "founder" flag). Unfortunately those personal interests don't have anything to do with "writing an encyclopedia". As for being well-informed, Jimbeau doesn't really have the inclination. When he does exercise dictatorial powers, it tends to be because he listens to some crony whispering in his ear to further their own agenda, or to some random idiot posting on his talk page. This creates the impression of a capricious and arbitrary governance system.

The arbcom bit failed because IMO it was badly thought out - and not bold enough. Th problem was not that arbcom overreached but the limiting factors were the problem.

People objected to it because
1) It reported to arbcom - which made it sound like arbcom were grabbing the power not only to set the body up but also to decide what to do with its recommendations. Better to have the body totally independent.
2) It was appointed. That was never going to wash as a) arbcom were grabbing the power to appoint b) "I wasn't asked therefore oppose"

You should just have set it up and held an election. Its legitimacy would then have rested on the election and not arbcom's fiat. If people hated the idea, then they can elect representatives who want to repudiate it.

The notion of a cross-section who would never be elected to arbcom is good - all sectional interests thus get a stake in it. However, an election is capable of generating that too - if you use the right system. The current system favours those unobjectionable to many - but prohibits any section of the community getting their favoured spokesman elected. That's probably not a bad system for a judiciary that handles sensitive information - most people trust every individual elected. However, a representative policy body is better with a system that encourages significant minorities to elect their favourite sons - and thus feel their views are heard. I'd suggest a support only system, with each voter limited to, say, five supports. That makes Giano a shoe in - but would also allow in less-popular old-hands, one BLP extremist, and some other deep thinkers who's support is deep but not wide.

The arbcom bit failed because IMO it was badly thought out - and not bold enough. Th problem was not that arbcom overreached but the limiting factors were the problem.

People objected to it because
1) It reported to arbcom - which made it sound like arbcom were grabbing the power not only to set the body up but also to decide what to do with its recommendations. Better to have the body totally independent.
2) It was appointed. That was never going to wash as a) arbcom were grabbing the power to appoint b) "I wasn't asked therefore oppose"

You should just have set it up and held an election. Its legitimacy would then have rested on the election and not arbcom's fiat. If people hated the idea, then they can elect representatives who want to repudiate it.

The notion of a cross-section who would never be elected to arbcom is good - all sectional interests thus get a stake in it. However, an election is capable of generating that too - if you use the right system. The current system favours those unobjectionable to many - but prohibits any section of the community getting their favoured spokesman elected. That's probably not a bad system for a judiciary that handles sensitive information - most people trust every individual elected. However, a representative policy body is better with a system that encourages significant minorities to elect their favourite sons - and thus feel their views are heard. I'd suggest a support only system, with each voter limited to, say, five supports. That makes Giano a shoe in - but would also allow in less-popular old-hands, one BLP extremist, and some other deep thinkers who's support is deep but not wide.

Yeah, the representation is tricky, but support-only might be a promising way to cope with it.

How would you deal with the problem Sarcasticidealist noted elsewhere--that is, obtaining consensus for the creation of such a body. One of the reasons we placed the advisory council under ArbCom is that it was thought we would not need consensus to create it--ArbCom is free to keep its own house. Besides, none of us intended the council to be the ultimate governing body, just a sort of constitutional convention.

An independent structure, however, would seem to need a mandate from somebody in order to have any sort of authority. Or would it also be formally powerless--charged only with drafting policy for later ratification by the community?

A benevolent well-informed dictatorship can be a good thing.

And Mussolini was a snazzy dresser who did a killer Louis Prima imitation. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I've said it before and I will say it again -- the only way WP could function correctly is by taking the IMDb approach and have paid professional editors serve in handling all administrative aspects of the web site, including settling of the playground fights currently being screwed up by Arbcom. By having neutral people with no personal stake in any conflict, the "community" would then focus solely on content creation.

Of course, 90% of the "community" would abruptly vanish since they don't actually contribute any content to the site. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Really, who are we going to trust to run Wikipedia? Law school students? High school students? People who never held any managerial job? No serious organization is run in such a stupid manner.

The arbcom bit failed because IMO it was badly thought out - and not bold enough. Th problem was not that arbcom overreached but the limiting factors were the problem.

No, it failed because incompetent people are in charge -- the same reason that any well-intended managerial entity collapses. I don't believe any of these people have real-life qualifications to handle the depth and scope of the relatively meager duties that Arbcom covers -- and when they have to act, they create a shambles at every level.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

I've said it before and I will say it again -- the only way WP could function correctly is by taking the IMDb approach and have paid professional editors serve in all administrative aspects of the web site, including settling of the playground fights currently being screwed up by Arbcom. By having neutral people with no personal stake in any conflict, the "community" would then focus solely on content creation.

I think it would be good to elaborate on the IMDb model in some detail. From what you describe it seem like a responsible alternative. It also seems something that could be achieved by WMF with a transition that might not be painless but would be achievable.

I think it would be good to elaborate on the IMDb model in some detail. From what you describe it seem like a responsible alternative. It also seems something that could be achieved by WMF with a transition that might not be painless but would be achievable.

IMDb is like WP in that all of its content is contributed. However, all of the content is reviewed before it is posted. IMDb employs a staff of editors who go over the information being presented and, based on clearly stated criteria, will determine if information is published or not. If it isn't, the contributor receives an explanation why and advice on how to bring the data up to grade.

IMDb has a forum section where people discuss ideas and ask questions. It can be uncivil at times, but that is par for the cyber course. However, it is miles removed from the rudeness on WP.

Do mistakes get into print on IMDb? Yes, as with any media. But when pointed out, they are quickly removed.

By doing a clear separation of volunteer content contributor and a professional editor/manager corps that is trained and qualified to make decisions of an editorial and managerial nature, everything works without a hitch.

I think it would be good to elaborate on the IMDb model in some detail. From what you describe it seem like a responsible alternative. It also seems something that could be achieved by WMF with a transition that might not be painless but would be achievable.

IMDb is like WP in that all of its content is contributed. However, all of the content is reviewed before it is posted. IMDb employs a staff of editors who go over the information being presented and, based on clearly stated criteria, will determine if information is published or not. If it isn't, the contributor receives an explanation why and advice on how to bring the data up to grade.

IMDb has a forum section where people discuss ideas and ask questions. It can be uncivil at times, but that is par for the cyber course. However, it is miles removed from the rudeness on WP.

Do mistakes get into print on IMDb? Yes, as with any media. But when pointed out, they are quickly removed.

By doing a clear separation of volunteer content contributor and a professional editor/manager corps that is trained and qualified to make decisions of an editorial and managerial nature, everything works without a hitch.

How many staff positions does IMDb have? How many do you suppose it would take to carry out similar functions on WP?

I think it would be good to elaborate on the IMDb model in some detail. From what you describe it seem like a responsible alternative. It also seems something that could be achieved by WMF with a transition that might not be painless but would be achievable.

IMDb is like WP in that all of its content is contributed. However, all of the content is reviewed before it is posted. IMDb employs a staff of editors who go over the information being presented and, based on clearly stated criteria, will determine if information is published or not. If it isn't, the contributor receives an explanation why and advice on how to bring the data up to grade.

IMDb has a forum section where people discuss ideas and ask questions. It can be uncivil at times, but that is par for the cyber course. However, it is miles removed from the rudeness on WP.

Do mistakes get into print on IMDb? Yes, as with any media. But when pointed out, they are quickly removed.

By doing a clear separation of volunteer content contributor and a professional editor/manager corps that is trained and qualified to make decisions of an editorial and managerial nature, everything works without a hitch.

Here's the problem, though..... the IMDb model works well for its content because its scope is so limited.... if all the content is about movies and nothing else, it is much more straightforward to draw up, administer and enforce certain standards.

How could a paid staff (unless it had enormous resources) be expected to solve every nationalist squabble, inclusion/exclusion content controversy, article deletion, not to mention sifting through every contribution to determine whether or not it was true/serious/verifiable/vandalism/etc.

This post has been edited by Obesity:

How many staff positions does IMDb have? How many do you suppose it would take to carry out similar functions on WP?

Offhand, I don't know. I believe they are part-time and spread across different locations.

And Mussolini was a snazzy dresser who did a killer Louis Prima imitation. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)


Really, who are we going to trust to run Wikipedia? Law school students? High school students? People who never held any managerial job?

How about Randy From Boise...he may be wrong, but at least he is certain he's right and that's what really matters in the land of Wikiality (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)



The late, great Rod Steiger used to come on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and do a hilarious Mussolini impression. I miss that.

For the record-Jimbozo lacks the competence and character to be dictator of a men's lavatory.
Besides, there's his whole Randroid thing against the use of overt coercion. That's why for the longest time he did not give orders but rather made suggestions. Let me suggest that if he tried to act as a unilateral dictator today, he may well end up sharing Il Duce's fate.

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

Here's the problem, though..... the IMDb model works well for its content because its scope is so limited.... if all the content is about movies and nothing else, it is much more straightforward to draw up, administer and enforce certain standards.

Not exactly a limited scope, given the depth of coverage devoted to the subject.

How could a paid staff (unless it had enormous resources) be expected to solve every nationalist squabble, inclusion/exclusion content controversy, article deletion, not to mention sifting through every contribution to determine whether or not it was true/serious/verifiable/vandalism/etc.

Simple - you deny the nationalists, inclusion/exclusion and other idiots a platform to bloviate from. By having non-involved outsiders as administrators, rather than POV-pushers and hypocrites, you defuse the drama at its source.

As for sifting through contributions -- it can take up to a week, sometimes two, for new information to get on the IMDb. But that means the contributions are properly reviewed -- as opposed to the whack-a-mole game called New Page Patrol.

Voting is now underway.

I will probably win.

Voting is now underway.

I will probably win.

I hope you do. You're a good candidate.

Voting is now underway.

I will probably win.

In this context does winning mean being elected or avoiding all the work stress and enmity by not being elected?

It means ur mom lololololroflcakes

It means ur mom lololololroflcakes

Oh dear, I fear Mr. Weber has slipped into illiteracy.

I propose a 3 minute silence for this tragic loss to the English language.

It means ur mom lololololroflcakes

Oh dear, I fear Mr. Weber has slipped into illiteracy.

I propose a 3 minute silence for this tragic loss to the English language.

I think he's entering text in tongues, probably pandering to the evangelical vote.

It means ur mom lololololroflcakes

Oh dear, I fear Mr. Weber has slipped into illiteracy.

I propose a 3 minute silence for this tragic loss to the English language.

I think he's entering text in tongues, probably pandering to the evangelical vote.

I've heard those evangelicals are partial to a bit of tongue, I blame the parents.

I think he's entering text in tongues, probably pandering to the evangelical vote.

I've heard those evangelicals are partial to a bit of tongue, I blame the parents.

^ Extreme libertarian. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

You should blame Canada.

I think he's entering text in tongues, probably pandering to the evangelical vote.

Sorry, Pastor Theo is not voting in this election. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

So far almost 300 accounts have voted in slightly over 24 hours since voting opened. I hope this is a sign that voter turn-out will be higher than in years past. If so, perhaps secret balloting might have something to do with it?

So far almost 300 accounts have voted in slightly over 24 hours since voting opened. I hope this is a sign that voter turn-out will be higher than in years past. If so, perhaps secret balloting might have something to do with it?

Quite probably. Voting is easier with the voting engine than it was with the voting pages (fill out one voting form instead of making edits on dozens of different pages); lowering the effort required to vote almost always increases turnout. (See, I was paying attention when I took election theory back in college.)

So far almost 300 accounts have voted in slightly over 24 hours since voting opened. I hope this is a sign that voter turn-out will be higher than in years past. If so, perhaps secret balloting might have something to do with it?

Quite probably. Voting is easier with the voting engine than it was with the voting pages (fill out one voting form instead of making edits on dozens of different pages); lowering the effort required to vote almost always increases turnout. (See, I was paying attention when I took election theory back in college.)

I think I described in a thread somewhere here once about my experience as a polling station volunteer during the US 2000 elections. I remember that a lot of people tried to vote early in the morning on their way to work. Many of them, however, gave up because the lines were so long, in part because the polling station workers (including me) were so disorganized because of our inexperience in running a presidential election polling station. I wonder how many of those people came back after work when things were running more smoothly to get their votes in. I remember thinking, "There's got to be a better way to do this."

Secret balloting is an un-wiki travesty.

Secret balloting is an un-wiki travesty.

Well, yes, but so is not allowing people to edit each other's votes.

Secret balloting is an un-wiki travesty.

Well, yes, but so is not allowing people to edit each other's votes.

Indeed, actually, voting is an unwiki-like travesty. In pure wiki, there would be not arbcom and indeed no admins.

Wikiality.com tried that for a while. No one was to get banned, there was no such thing as "vandalism" (since they actually disliked too much "truthiness") - but someone (cough), logged in and moved all their pages to "Elephant" to make some POINT. I notice their mainpage is now carefully locked.

Yeah, the representation is tricky, but support-only might be a promising way to cope with it.

How would you deal with the problem Sarcasticidealist noted elsewhere--that is, obtaining consensus for the creation of such a body. One of the reasons we placed the advisory council under ArbCom is that it was thought we would not need consensus to create it--ArbCom is free to keep its own house. Besides, none of us intended the council to be the ultimate governing body, just a sort of constitutional convention.

An independent structure, however, would seem to need a mandate from somebody in order to have any sort of authority. Or would it also be formally powerless--charged only with drafting policy for later ratification by the community?

I'm not sure I understand why you think it would be a non-starter to develop consensus in the community, with the community on this new body. And as Everyking pointed out, what Arbcom should have done (or should do) is write up what they think the body should *do* not who should be on it. Then the community gets to massage it and massage it and massage it how they will (freely editing and debating) until some kind of consensus develops on what the body should do and why and how and who. And only then, after the documentary basis is complete, would there be elections to actually populate the body.... with bodies.

This post has been edited by wjhonson:

Well, I voted (almost) solely on the issue of BLP responsibility, and my conclusions were:

Support: SirFozzie; Cla68; Shell Kinney; Fred Bauder; Fritzpoll; Steve Smith; Coren; Mailer diablo (surprised by this one); KnightLago; Kirill Lokshin

Abstain: MBK004; Xavexgoem; Secret;

Oppose: Wehwalt; Seddon; RMHED; AGK; William M. Connolley; Hersfold; Kmweber; Jehochman; Unomi; Ruslik0

Well, I voted (almost) solely on the issue of BLP responsibility, and my conclusions were:

Support: SirFozzie; Cla68; Shell Kinney; Fred Bauder; Fritzpoll; Steve Smith; Coren; Mailer diablo (surprised by this one); KnightLago; Kirill Lokshin

Coren? Coren has no responsibility except to maintaining his own ego. I'm very surprised at you for that one.

Well, I voted (almost) solely on the issue of BLP responsibility, and my conclusions were:

Support: SirFozzie; Cla68; Shell Kinney; Fred Bauder; Fritzpoll; Steve Smith; Coren; Mailer diablo (surprised by this one); KnightLago; Kirill Lokshin

Coren? Coren has no responsibility except to maintaining his own ego. I'm very surprised at you for that one.

Probably a good time to revisit Coren discussion in this thread in which he was at a complete loss to understand why anyone might consider his involvement in the porn industry as a consideration relating to the decision about voting for him or not for ArbCom.

he was at a complete loss to understand why anyone might consider his involvement in the porn industry as a consideration relating to the decision about voting for him or not for ArbCom.

Id have said that this in itself might be a reason not to vote for him.

Well, I voted (almost) solely on the issue of BLP responsibility, and my conclusions were:

Support: SirFozzie; Cla68; Shell Kinney; Fred Bauder; Fritzpoll; Steve Smith; Coren; Mailer diablo (surprised by this one); KnightLago; Kirill Lokshin

Coren? Coren has no responsibility except to maintaining his own ego. I'm very surprised at you for that one.

Probably a good time to revisit Coren discussion in this thread in which he was at a complete loss to understand why anyone might consider his involvement in the porn industry as a consideration relating to the decision about voting for him or not for ArbCom.

I don't understand why he doesn't understand why making it clear that he is/was involved in the porn industry would actually garner him more votes.

By the way, if you have an account which does not meet the requirements to vote for ArbCom, you get the message : "Sorry, your account on the English Wikipedia does not meet the voting requirements of 2009 Audit Subcommittee election. "

Of course there's not obvious place where you can point that out to anyone listening. Just as there is no obvious indication that elections are even going on. Typical Wikipedia style I suppose. The more hidden you make things the more the upper layers can control them. We don't actually want ... you know... democracy or even the hint of it, when we can continue to support oligarchy (read "avid game players get credit for persistence click here").

Just as there is no obvious indication that elections are even going on. Typical Wikipedia style I suppose.

That's odd. I get a sitenotice that links to the voting page every time I sign on.

Just as there is no obvious indication that elections are even going on. Typical Wikipedia style I suppose.

That's odd. I get a sitenotice that links to the voting page every time I sign on.

I don't; I get a piece of nonsense that looks like it was designed by an eight year old that reads "Wikipedia is there when you need it — now it needs you" in giant bug-zapper blue letters. The only "official" notice I've seen anywhere is a tiny note buried in a boxfull of options on the watchlist page. And I helped set up a fair amount of this crap; I know where I ought to be looking to see these things.

Just as there is no obvious indication that elections are even going on. Typical Wikipedia style I suppose.

That's odd. I get a sitenotice that links to the voting page every time I sign on.

I don't; I get a piece of nonsense that looks like it was designed by an eight year old that reads "Wikipedia is there when you need it — now it needs you" in giant bug-zapper blue letters. The only "official" notice I've seen anywhere is a tiny note buried in a boxfull of options on the watchlist page. And I helped set up a fair amount of this crap; I know where I ought to be looking to see these things.

You are right; the notice I was thinking of is at the top of one's watchlist, not on signing in. (I usually go to my watchlist first thing after signing on unless I have new messages, but I know others do it differently.)

Just as there is no obvious indication that elections are even going on. Typical Wikipedia style I suppose.

That's odd. I get a sitenotice that links to the voting page every time I sign on.

I don't; I get a piece of nonsense that looks like it was designed by an eight year old that reads "Wikipedia is there when you need it — now it needs you" in giant bug-zapper blue letters. The only "official" notice I've seen anywhere is a tiny note buried in a boxfull of options on the watchlist page. And I helped set up a fair amount of this crap; I know where I ought to be looking to see these things.

You are right; the notice I was thinking of is at the top of one's watchlist, not on signing in. (I usually go to my watchlist first thing after signing on unless I have new messages, but I know others do it differently.)

Please take the person who thought everyone checks their watchlist out back, and shoot them.

After a certain ArbCom fiasco that made me literally sick to my stomach, I stopped checking my watchlist. I make my amazingly perfect edits and never look back. Looking back only adds to my tension by seeing boobs and thugs reverting my changes. I mean "boobs" in the pejorative sense, not the titillating sense. And I use "thug" in the illiterate street-gang sense, not the sexy masculine bad-boy sense.

When ArbCom members make a commitment to throwing lightning bolts at any person, no matter how high up in the structure, who has even the smell (let alone the laid-out evidence) of a lack of moral integrity, then my better-faith in the final outcome will be restored. As it is, the particular persons involved are still in-project, still creating havoc, still not reprimanded, and still collecting titles and still creating waves of drama in her wake (oops did I say her).

And the bizarre protection afforded has spawned ten times the amount of off-wiki drama then simply desysopping the person would have done. That is a broken system. ArbCom should re open the case and do what's right, not what's easy.

But I digress. I am evidently in one of my full-of-bitterness-at-what-could-have-been days.

Anyway, voting for ArbCom should be a notice that is sent into everyone's box, not just a banner slapped up in a place that not everyone even visits.

Looking back only adds to my tension by seeing boobs and thugs reverting my changes. I mean "boobs" in the pejorative sense, not the titillating sense.

And tonight on Wikipedia TV, Kat Walsh stars in "Opportunity Knockers." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I'm beginning to write a few words about the candidates, but does anyone have a good idea why Jehochman should have so many more edits to policy pages than the nearest other candidate? I haven't looked into them to see exactly what they are yet, but I may if I find time.

When does the election window close?

My picks for ArbCom (just starting to write it, not finished)

I'm beginning to write a few words about the candidates, but does anyone have a good idea why Jehochman should have so many more edits to policy pages than the nearest other candidate?

Because he is a jerk. Don't waste your time on him. Take it from the horse's mouth: Cla68, Kurt and RHMED need to be on Arbcom. Trust me, you'll thank me in the morning! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I'm beginning to write a few words about the candidates, but does anyone have a good idea why Jehochman should have so many more edits to policy pages than the nearest other candidate?

Because he is a jerk. Don't waste your time on him. Take it from the horse's mouth: Cla68, Kurt and RHMED need to be on Arbcom. Trust me, you'll thank me in the morning! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I've already given the thumbs up to Cla68.
Something in particular he/she/it/goat did got my vote as soon as I saw it.

As far as Jechochman... I laid into he/she/it/goat... just a bit.

My picks for ArbCom (just starting to write it, not finished)

I notice that you prioritize policy development experience. Why would any sane person participate in policy development on Wikipedia?

My picks for ArbCom (just starting to write it, not finished)

I notice that you prioritize policy development experience. Why would any sane person participate in policy development on Wikipedia?

The reason I was looking at it (at least initially) was just to get a feel for whether or not the candidates had even *been* to the pages. I have a slight feeling that anyone reading those pages, might be tempted or inclined to edit them in some way. I'm not really sure if Pixelface is counting all edits, or just the ones which remained undeleted. And of course that count was from a year ago. I don't know how Pixelface did that, maybe someone can create an updated page like that one.

Also it's easy to look at one page and get a feel, and I'd like to write something up before voting closes. Of course I'd like to hear about any past bad behaviour of any of our candidates (with links). I've starting posting a few links as I find them, but I'm sure others may have some really juicy ones that I can't find right off.

My picks for ArbCom (just starting to write it, not finished)

We-ell, I commend you for writing in an entertaining manner. I started writing a guide but got sidetracked. I never know who reads the things anyway.

It looks like Jimbo wants to continue to exercise a high degree of control over the process, which is provoking some discontent. He is saying, for example, that he won't appoint anyone with less than 50% support and that he will appoint two tranches--directly contradicting the wishes of the community, which overwhelmingly supported two-year terms for all successful candidates (personally, I did not support that, but I think the community's decision should be respected). Jimbo really is a lot like a constitutional monarch--except that there's no constitution, he regularly meddles in the affairs of government, and he even involves himself in election processes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) It's a nice deal, isn't it? You get to have the power, but whenever anyone calls you on it and tries to hold you responsible for your decisions, you explain that your position is purely ceremonial, you know, like the Queen!

Jimbo says he's sure that at least nine of this fairly lackluster assortment of candidates will get 50% support. He refuses to say what he plans to do if that doesn't happen. (It is, of course, widely understood that a good constitutional monarch will keep the people guessing about how they're going to exercise their purely ceremonial powers until the last minute!) Although Jimbo says it's extremely improbable, I remember that in the 2004 election only one candidate, Theresa Knott (whatever happened to her?), received more than 50% support--all of the others were elected based on plurality support.

I remember that in the 2004 election only one candidate, Theresa Knott (whatever happened to her?), received more than 50% support--all of the others were elected based on plurality support.

I can't tell for sure (and, unlike you, I wasn't around, so correct me if I'm wrong), but it looks to me like that 2004 election used straight approval voting, rather than approval/disapproval voting as is used now. My basis for saying this is that this page lists a positive number after every candidate, followed by a percentage. It appears that the positive number is the number of supports received, and the percentage is the result of dividing that number by the total number of votes cast, which appears to be 520. In other words, those percentages were calculated using [(Supporters) / (Supporters + Neutrals)], which would naturally result in lower percentages than the [(Supporters) / (Supporters + Opposers)] method now in use. Given that a large number of voters leave votes for candidates with whom they're unfamiliar as neutral, breaking 50% would be difficult indeed under those circumstances.

I'm far from confident that nine of us will crack 50%, but I'm nearly certain that more than one of us will, and that the leader (who won't be me) will be well above the 51% that Theresa Knott garnered.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

I remember that in the 2004 election only one candidate, Theresa Knott (whatever happened to her?), received more than 50% support--all of the others were elected based on plurality support.

I can't tell for sure (and, unlike you, I wasn't around, so correct me if I'm wrong), but it looks to me like that 2004 election used straight approval voting, rather than approval/disapproval voting as is used now.

Correct. Everyking appears to be confused.

The 2004 elections were secret ballots with straight approval voting where electors could vote for as many as they wanted, which was an odd system. Since Everyking has not bothered to read up on ACE2009, he might erroneously believe this will be like the 2004 secret ballot. However, it's approve/disapprove, as the elections since 2004 have been. Therefore, the percentages are the same as the percentages used in those elections--namely the percentage support votes out of support+oppose votes.

Contra Everyking, the 50% threshold was proposed on the RFC with virtually no opposition. It had literally no detractors from what I can see, and indeed some wanted 60%. Basically, if any candidate fails to attract more than twice as many support as opposition, they will not be seated. Since support/oppose voting was pioneered, no one has been seated with lower than about 60% anyway. See 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Note that all of the elected arbitrators since 2004 have exceeded 60%.

It's a sort of safety valve, and it will potentially leave seats vacant. I suspect that the percentages will be lower on average this year because there's no social stigma for opposing many candidates. Therefore, I suspect that there will be vacancies, which I would welcome because I think 18 is too many.

This post has been edited by One:

My picks for ArbCom (just starting to write it, not finished)

I notice that you prioritize policy development experience. Why would any sane person participate in policy development on Wikipedia?

Given the caligulaic power levels in question, this perversion will arise naturally for most arbcombatants without the aid of a talent scout. Electing ones who already fucking enjoy developing policy has no tangible effect other than pulling a few armchair despots off the street (call it a public service). On the other hand, the best way to keep honest folks honest is to employ only those who are already morbidly corrupt.

I don't see any way to win this.

I remember that in the 2004 election only one candidate, Theresa Knott (whatever happened to her?), received more than 50% support--all of the others were elected based on plurality support.

I can't tell for sure (and, unlike you, I wasn't around, so correct me if I'm wrong), but it looks to me like that 2004 election used straight approval voting, rather than approval/disapproval voting as is used now.

Correct. Everyking appears to be confused.

The 2004 elections were secret ballots with straight approval voting where electors could vote for as many as they wanted, which was an odd system. Since Everyking has not bothered to read up on ACE2009, he might erroneously believe this will be like the 2004 secret ballot. However, it's approve/disapprove, as the elections since 2004 have been. Therefore, the percentages are the same as the percentages used in those elections--namely the percentage support votes out of support+oppose votes.

Contra Everyking, the 50% threshold was proposed on the RFC with virtually no opposition. It had literally no detractors from what I can see, and indeed some wanted 60%. Basically, if any candidate fails to attract more than twice as many support as opposition, they will not be seated. Since support/oppose voting was pioneered, no one has been seated with lower than about 60% anyway. See 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Note that all of the elected arbitrators since 2004 have exceeded 60%.

It's a sort of safety valve, and it will potentially leave seats vacant. I suspect that the percentages will be lower on average this year because there's no social stigma for opposing many candidates. Therefore, I suspect that there will be vacancies, which I would welcome because I think 18 is too many.

You are right about some of the details, but you didn't address the basis of the argument, which concerns Jimbo's continued involvement in the process despite his pretense of having only a ceremonial role.

You are right about some of the details, but you didn't address the basis of the argument, which concerns Jimbo's continued involvement in the process despite his pretense of having only a ceremonial role.

No, you're wrong about almost all of the details (unlike the 50% threshold, there wasn't really consensus for abolishing tranches, and it will barely matter if--as I suspect--less than 9 make the 50% cut).

If Jimbo tries to do something crazy, I am confident that ArbCom will chastise him publicly, and we will find out how ceremonial he is. I doubt he'll do anything crazy though. So... meh. There are problem with the site, and this one is low on the list.

If Jimbo tries to do something crazy, I am confident that ArbCom will chastise him publicly, and we will find out how ceremonial he is. I doubt he'll do anything crazy though. So... meh. There are problem with the site, and this one is low on the list.

Jimbo has, on more than one occasion, mumbled publicly about how he might do something or another, then backed away from those mumblings based on the hue and cry arising therefrom. The simple fact that a suggestion from Jimbo saying that he might do something or another is even more useless than a promise from him to do something, which is itself completely useless. Jimbo can generally be counted on to do whatever is least controversial (unless the situation involves him getting his rocks off, in which case all bets are off), and he almost always floats trial balloons to gauge risk before taking any action at all. This generally means that getting Jimbo to do what you want involves making the alternative you want him to choose to appear to be either the least controversial, or the most likely to get him laid, of all available options. In general, the former angle is the one easier to manipulate (just make all the others look controversial), unless you happen to be a real hottie willing to put out. The one thing to keep in mind is that Jimbo is generally extremely risk-adverse: he is going to want to be sure that he's not going to be putting anything he cares about in jeopardy before acting.

The main takeaway here is that one doesn't win an argument with Jimbo by convincing him that your position is the right one; one wins an argument by convincing him that all the other positions are wrong (and, by elimination, yours is the only one left). This can be tricky because Jimbo might have some idea that you haven't heard of, and arguing directly for your preferred position can backfire because it can make yours appear to be controversial as well. It's better to argue down the positions you don't like before you put yours out there; even better if you can it seem as if Jimbo came up with your idea in the first place.

To be somewhat less unfair to Jimbo, this is pretty much how all corporate executive work; in this regard he's a garden variety scumbag.

You are right about some of the details, but you didn't address the basis of the argument, which concerns Jimbo's continued involvement in the process despite his pretense of having only a ceremonial role.

No, you're wrong about almost all of the details (unlike the 50% threshold, there wasn't really consensus for abolishing tranches, and it will barely matter if--as I suspect--less than 9 make the 50% cut).

If Jimbo tries to do something crazy, I am confident that ArbCom will chastise him publicly, and we will find out how ceremonial he is. I doubt he'll do anything crazy though. So... meh. There are problem with the site, and this one is low on the list.

I didn't even know about the vote on 50% thresholds. I guess it was proposed after I'd stopped paying attention. I had suggested some proposals on the RfC talk page and people had argued that it was too late in the game for new proposals, so I just assumed that no one else would be making any new proposals either. But clearly that's a consensus, even though I don't really agree with having a threshold.

I didn't even know about the vote on 50% thresholds. I guess it was proposed after I'd stopped paying attention. I had suggested some proposals on the RfC talk page and people had argued that it was too late in the game for new proposals, so I just assumed that no one else would be making any new proposals either. But clearly that's a consensus, even though I don't really agree with having a threshold.

I don't think you literally mean that. If you do, I can't imagine why.

Surely, you have a threshold of at least "0%," right? You would not appoint someone who had more oppose votes than support, right?

Requiring at least twice as much support as opposition seems sensible enough to me--it gives the community a way to veto candidates if they want. It's enough of a good idea that I would probably support it even if Jimbo had just made it up (as you imagined he did). As Kelly describes, Jimbo tends to avoid controversy, and his tendency to execute noncontroversial ideas is usually beneficent. Much faster than herding cats.

Much faster than herding cats.

Jimbo doesn't herd cats. However, if you can convince him that the cats have already formed a herd, he'll happily go with the flow.

I didn't even know about the vote on 50% thresholds. I guess it was proposed after I'd stopped paying attention. I had suggested some proposals on the RfC talk page and people had argued that it was too late in the game for new proposals, so I just assumed that no one else would be making any new proposals either. But clearly that's a consensus, even though I don't really agree with having a threshold.

I don't think you literally mean that. If you do, I can't imagine why.

Surely, you have a threshold of at least "0%," right? You would not appoint someone who had more oppose votes than support, right?

Requiring at least twice as much support as opposition seems sensible enough to me--it gives the community a way to veto candidates if they want. It's enough of a good idea that I would probably support it even if Jimbo had just made it up (as you imagined he did). As Kelly describes, Jimbo tends to avoid controversy, and his tendency to execute noncontroversial ideas is usually beneficent. Much faster than herding cats.

Isn't "twice as much support as opposition" 66 2/3 %? I could be confused here but that is what I thought... 50% threshold means "at least one more support vote than oppose" to me.

Isn't "twice as much support as opposition" 66 2/3 %? I could be confused here but that is what I thought... 50% threshold means "at least one more support vote than oppose" to me.

That seems to be true based on how the Audit subcommittee election results were calculated. Neutrals are discarded, so someone with 300 votes in favor and 299 opposed would have a net approval of slightly over 50% and be eligible for appointment.

I didn't even know about the vote on 50% thresholds. I guess it was proposed after I'd stopped paying attention. I had suggested some proposals on the RfC talk page and people had argued that it was too late in the game for new proposals, so I just assumed that no one else would be making any new proposals either. But clearly that's a consensus, even though I don't really agree with having a threshold.

I don't think you literally mean that. If you do, I can't imagine why.

Surely, you have a threshold of at least "0%," right? You would not appoint someone who had more oppose votes than support, right?

Requiring at least twice as much support as opposition seems sensible enough to me--it gives the community a way to veto candidates if they want. It's enough of a good idea that I would probably support it even if Jimbo had just made it up (as you imagined he did). As Kelly describes, Jimbo tends to avoid controversy, and his tendency to execute noncontroversial ideas is usually beneficent. Much faster than herding cats.

Isn't "twice as much support as opposition" 66 2/3 %? I could be confused here but that is what I thought... 50% threshold means "at least one more support vote than oppose" to me.

You are right, sir. I apologize for my mistake. Earlier, I said it correctly that it was support votes over total votes, but I was thinking about it as if it were net votes over total votes. 50% is an ridiculously low bare-bones threshold.

If Everyking supports seating arbitrators with more opposition than support, he's much less worried about the community's sentiments than I imagined!

It's a sort of safety valve, and it will potentially leave seats vacant. I suspect that the percentages will be lower on average this year because there's no social stigma for opposing many candidates. Therefore, I suspect that there will be vacancies, which I would welcome because I think 18 is too many.

You guys have a ridiculous workload (200 emails, 5-10 of which raise new issues for consideration--per day!). You probably need a new workflow model--subcommittees, small groups, hearing cases in panels instead of en banc--and cutting back on the arbcom-L volume by putting stuff that does not absolutely require secrecy back on the community or OTRS. IMHO, of course.

It's a sort of safety valve, and it will potentially leave seats vacant. I suspect that the percentages will be lower on average this year because there's no social stigma for opposing many candidates. Therefore, I suspect that there will be vacancies, which I would welcome because I think 18 is too many.

You guys have a ridiculous workload (200 emails, 5-10 of which raise new issues for consideration--per day!). You probably need a new workflow model--subcommittees, small groups, hearing cases in panels instead of en banc--and cutting back on the arbcom-L volume by putting stuff that does not absolutely require secrecy back on the community or OTRS. IMHO, of course.

I agree. I think one of the positive developments has been BASC, although its business is conducted on the main list. I wonder whether a BASC-specific list would help things. One advantage I see is that inquiries aren't lost in the flood. Also, with three members, there's a shared sense of responsibility for more timely answers. Other subcommittees could be developed in this pattern.

I imagine case subcommittees would be faster, and they would also offer an obvious appeal mechanism. Appeals would be accepted if some number of arbitrators agrees to rework the cases en banc. I imagine that this would happen infrequently, and that there would be significant efficiency gains.

In the mean time, throwing bodies at the problem without a structure will almost certainly make it worse. Who do you think writes most of those emails?

In the mean time, throwing bodies at the problem without a structure will almost certainly make it worse.

Depends on which body is being thrown. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

You are right, sir. I apologize for my mistake. Earlier, I said it correctly that it was support votes over total votes, but I was thinking about it as if it were net votes over total votes. 50% is an ridiculously low bare-bones threshold.

If Everyking supports seating arbitrators with more opposition than support, he's much less worried about the community's sentiments than I imagined!

I support seating the nine candidates who receive the most support from the community. I don't feel see anything particularly wrong with having arbitrators with less than 50% support, as long as they're in the top nine. Do you think proportional representation is undemocratic?

It would be illegitimate to elect anyone who does not have at least plurality support. A candidate with more opposes than supports cannot legitimately be elected.

You are right, sir. I apologize for my mistake. Earlier, I said it correctly that it was support votes over total votes, but I was thinking about it as if it were net votes over total votes. 50% is an ridiculously low bare-bones threshold.

If Everyking supports seating arbitrators with more opposition than support, he's much less worried about the community's sentiments than I imagined!

I support seating the nine candidates who receive the most support from the community. I don't feel see anything particularly wrong with having arbitrators with less than 50% support, as long as they're in the top nine. Do you think proportional representation is undemocratic?

Are you sure you understand the proposition? We're talking about candidates with more oppose votes than support votes (and that therefore, a candidate that only a fraction of the community supports, overwhelmed by a fraction--perhaps a majority--opposing the candidate). I don't see how this could be termed "representation" in any sense of the word; the vote would demonstrate that, in fact, the candidate does not represent the community and should not be seated.

This isn't proportional; it's like seating "representatives" even if most of the electorate supported Mickey Mouse.

This post has been edited by One:

You are right, sir. I apologize for my mistake. Earlier, I said it correctly that it was support votes over total votes, but I was thinking about it as if it were net votes over total votes. 50% is an ridiculously low bare-bones threshold.

If Everyking supports seating arbitrators with more opposition than support, he's much less worried about the community's sentiments than I imagined!

I support seating the nine candidates who receive the most support from the community. I don't feel see anything particularly wrong with having arbitrators with less than 50% support, as long as they're in the top nine. Do you think proportional representation is undemocratic?

Are you sure you understand the proposition? We're talking about candidates with more oppose votes than support votes (and that therefore, a candidate that only a fraction of the community supports, overwhelmed by a fraction--perhaps a majority--opposing the candidate). I don't see how this could be termed "representation" in any sense of the word; the vote would demonstrate that, in fact, the candidate does not represent the community and should not be seated.

This isn't proportional; it's like seating "representatives" even if most of the electorate supported Mickey Mouse.

"Proportional representation" would mean that unpopular editors should be represented by unpopular Arbitrators. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

What Everyking really wants, I think, is to take candidates on the basis of total "support" votes and not count, or even ask for, "oppose" votes. That's how most elections work, as far as I can tell. It would be interesting indeed if we could vote "oppose" for Presidents, Congresspersons, and such. As a matter of political theory I'm not opposed, I doubt it would ever be accepted in practice.

What Everyking really wants, I think, is to take candidates on the basis of total "support" votes and not count, or even ask for, "oppose" votes. That's how most elections work, as far as I can tell. It would be interesting indeed if we could vote "oppose" for Presidents, Congresspersons, and such. As a matter of political theory I'm not opposed, I doubt it would ever be accepted in practice.

…on account of they don't want Nader to win. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

"Proportional representation" would mean that unpopular editors should be represented by unpopular Arbitrators. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

What Everyking really wants, I think, is to take candidates on the basis of total "support" votes and not count, or even ask for, "oppose" votes. That's how most elections work, as far as I can tell. It would be interesting indeed if we could vote "oppose" for Presidents, Congresspersons, and such. As a matter of political theory I'm not opposed, I doubt it would ever be accepted in practice.

I get the impression that he wants that too. The reason Wikipedia moved away from that in 2004 is that big names would be almost guaranteed a shot even if there are widely reviled, at the expense of lesser-known personalities who may not have achieved such fame. That would seated Raul654 and Giano in 2007. In reality, it's hard to say. Voting patterns would also change, as it would become strategic to support more candidates.

These election rules will also have effects, but in this format I think any candidate with more opposition than support should not be seated. I count the possibility of less-than-complete seating as a feature, not a bug.

The current arbcom election system is NOT a representative system at all. It is more akin to a vetting process.

A representative body will be designed to elect people from the various streams of community opinion. Substantial minorities will be able to elect their chosen representatives - indeed all those elected will probably represent a substantial minority. That's what happens in most electoral systems be they Proportionate representation or first past the post. If any political election system used a system like support/oppose voting, no party politician would be elected, since few parties (except in Zimbabwe) ever poll more that 50%.

On the plus side, the current system is probably a good one for arbcom in that we are not so much requiring a representative body, but one where most people can trust most members. That's because each individual handles secret information. Also we need arbcom members to work collaboratively - something few representative councils do. To think of arbcom as an elected representative council is quite wrong - it is more akin to a supreme court or a executive.

On the down side, the system favours people who don't frighten many people. I suspect that tends to be people who triangulate, prevaricate, or who have avoided contentious issues prior to election. If you come down one way or the other on a number of key issues you'll earn yourself a 25% oppose immediately - combine that with those will oppose you for some idiosyncratic reason, and you're toast.

If wikipedia ever manages to get a policy creating body, which does not need each individual to be trusted, and only needs to be representative as a whole and not individually, it would certainly be better off with some form of representative electoral system (support votes only, every voter limited to a small number of supports). Such a body would then have individuals representing every camp of wikipedians.

What Everyking really wants, I think, is to take candidates on the basis of total "support" votes and not count, or even ask for, "oppose" votes. That's how most elections work, as far as I can tell. It would be interesting indeed if we could vote "oppose" for Presidents, Congresspersons, and such. As a matter of political theory I'm not opposed, I doubt it would ever be accepted in practice.

It is acceptable, although unusual, to fill vacancies by voting on a series of questions of the form "Shall the assembly elect Mr. X?" . The main problem with this approach is that the order in which the assembly considers the questions may impact the outcome, because the subsequent questions may be mooted by the adoption of an earlier one. Holding all the votes in parallel mostly avoids this, and accepting that the process is not guaranteed to elect any particular number of candidates and agreeing to seat as many (or as few) candidates as the assembly chooses to elect avoid the other two problems (that of electing too many candidates, and that of electing too few).

From a parliamentary or political science standpoint, this is a perfectly suitable election process (or at least would be, had it been fully specified). However, the notion of ranking candidates by their support/oppose ratio and taking the top so many is unacceptable from a parliamentary standpoint if it would lead to someone with less than majority support being elected, and even without that leads to problems deciding whether 1 support and no opposes is "stronger" than 1000 supports and 999 opposes.

In any case, it was idiotic to go into the voting phase without having established and published the rules by which the election will be determined. Voters have a right to know how their votes will be counted; since they don't, this election is a sham, just like every other ArbCom election before it. This is not an election; rather, it is nomination process: people getting "enough" support and "not too much" opposition will be eligible to be considered for appointment by the One. Nobody will be elected as a result of this process.

this vote is a sham, just like every other ArbCom election before it.

Maybe.

There's a lot on wikipedia that is broken. There's a lot that is hyped for ideological notions, but basically doesn't work. Many of its systems (including the arbcom system itself) are barely, or not at all, fit for purpose.

The election system is waaay down the list here. It basically works - it does what it sets out to do. It picks a bunch of people no-one much distrusts to sit as a jury.

No, from a pure ideological perspective it isn't a good system, but it functions, and I think Wikipedia is at its best when pragmatic and at its shittiest when it pretends to be some mini-state or experiment in perfect political sociology.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

I'm not sure I can agree on the idea that people who don't piss anyone off are the same ones who never seem to make any final decisions.

Everyone knows, I believe, that there are situations in which you are not going to be able to make everyone happy, and yet you have to make a decision. Put into that situation, those who want to try to make everyone happy, are a better fit for ArbCom then the ones who want to kill everyone and let God sort them out.

So I tend to want to investigate contentious issues with which the candidates have been involved to see how they resolved or rather escalated the conflict. I don't want to vote for escalators.

I'm not sure I can agree on the idea that people who don't piss anyone off are the same ones who never seem to make any final decisions.

Everyone knows, I believe, that there are situations in which you are not going to be able to make everyone happy, and yet you have to make a decision. Put into that situation, those who want to try to make everyone happy, are a better fit for ArbCom then the ones who want to kill everyone and let God sort them out.

So I tend to want to investigate contentious issues with which the candidates have been involved to see how they resolved or rather escalated the conflict. I don't want to vote for escalators.

Which is why we often end up with a bunch of mediators on arbcom. There's a basic difference between mediation and final arbitration.

I'm not sure I can agree on the idea that people who don't piss anyone off are the same ones who never seem to make any final decisions.

Everyone knows, I believe, that there are situations in which you are not going to be able to make everyone happy, and yet you have to make a decision. Put into that situation, those who want to try to make everyone happy, are a better fit for ArbCom then the ones who want to kill everyone and let God sort them out.

So I tend to want to investigate contentious issues with which the candidates have been involved to see how they resolved or rather escalated the conflict. I don't want to vote for escalators.

Which is why we often end up with a bunch of mediators on arbcom. There's a basic difference between mediation and final arbitration.

There is also, in the real world. The problem is that what WP calls "arbitration" in the offline world is called "tribunal judgement." In law, arbitrators-- even artibrators in a binding arbitration-- do not hand out penalties and sentences, gag orders, restraining-orders for temporal and spacial (topical) distance, social bannings, handslaps and kisses and letters-of-disciplinary-action-that-go-in-your-permanent-personnel-file. All of which ArbCom does. They're NOT arbitrators in any normal sense of this word. They're mis-named, okay?

And this is not the only case of this, on WP. That which WP calls "consensus" isn't anything like the standard meaning of the term, either. Nor is the unique, shifting, and personal-status-dependent style of forum decorum, which WP terms "civility." And which reminds me of Japanese shifting linguistic protocol depending one whether they are addressing a social superior or inferior. Sometimes I can almost see the little bows going on, and the snarkiness if somebody omits one.

In any case, WP is a technical place which can't avoid neologisms. However, it can certainly use them to avoid malapropisms and needless redefinitions. If some people over there have to bow and scrape all the time, and others can use vulgar language, you should have little symbols of rank that are much more complicated than the ones you have.

Oh, and a salute. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Oh, and a salute. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

How about a secret handshake?

Speaking from experience, I thought for the most part we communicated well with each other. What really helps is a mix of people - some are bigger-picture type people, while others are good at double checking detail. Each can act as a check/balance to arrive at an outcome.
Cas

Speaking from experience, I thought for the most part we communicated well with each other. What really helps is a mix of people - some are bigger-picture type people, while others are good at double checking detail. Each can act as a check/balance to arrive at an outcome.
Cas

Why didn't you run again!

Oh, and a salute. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

How about a secret handshake?

I think they have that-- electronically. Ever hear the aural cat-fight of the old dial-up-modems as they synch (designed to give the system enough time to bill you)? That's a handshake. The IRC stuff is sort of like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) You can't tell who slips who a little tongue off-stage, until they both all come down on you at an RfC. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Wikipedia is at its best when pragmatic and at its shittiest when it pretends to be some mini-state or experiment in perfect political sociology.

This should be a site motto.

I don't want to vote for escalators.

I don't even want to vote for stare-cases.
(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/JWeyes.jpg)

Wikipedia is at its best when pragmatic and at its shittiest when it pretends to be some mini-state or experiment in perfect political sociology.

This should be a site motto.

What do you think of Kelly's suggestion that the ArbCom discard it's faux-legal case decision-making process (evidence, principles, findings, remedies) for a different type of process?

What do you think of Kelly's suggestion that the ArbCom discard it's faux-legal case decision-making process (evidence, principles, findings, remedies) for a different type of process?

As I understood her, the main problem is holding private disciplinary matters in public as if we were an inquest--but without the protections that tribunals would normally grant to the accused (and with little control over the spectator/participants, no standards of evidence, and few standards at all).

I've always thought that this process is too cruel to our volunteer contributors, and for no good purpose that I can conceive. The spectacle of arbitration cases is so painful that I frequently wonder whether the results are worth the effort. Her suggestion seems like a damn good idea.

The first thing I thought is: I should look at the Robert's Rules she's talking about.

I have not to date.

Wikipedia is at its best when pragmatic and at its shittiest when it pretends to be some mini-state or experiment in perfect political sociology.

This should be a site motto.

What do you think of Kelly's suggestion that the ArbCom discard it's faux-legal case decision-making process (evidence, principles, findings, remedies) for a different type of process?

Did you catch that case of the NBA ref who made money betting on the other referee's calls, based simply on who-didn't-like-who-else? Plus the idea that NBA calls favor the underdog in playoffs, in order to prolong the play? Boy, was the NBA angry. And yet, if they were doing their job properly, this guy would not have been able to make a dime, without throwing his own calls (which he, interestingly, did not). I saw the guy on 60 Minutes and he took more guilt on himself for bias, than he deserved (his book is called "PERSONAL FOUL"). There was enough guilt to go around. I thought. He wasn't the only one to make money from ref bias. If he's right, the NBA makes more money off this kind of thing than the mafia ever did, and the NBA will never ever go to jail for it. Only refs who ... erm... blow the whistle on it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) will go to jail. And of course, the mafia. (They always go to jail. What else are they for, these days? What else would the FBI do...?)

I have to say that this "lousy ref, with mafia in tow" metaphor works better for the other things that go on at WP these days, than ArbCom. ArbCom has actually cleaned up its act and improved dramatically over the last year. But now, who's going to do that thankless and exacting job for free? ArbCom is totally case-overloaded due to the lousy policies of WP (which they cannot change much). Yet without changing the policies, nothing you do with ArbCom or how it functions (or is supposed to function) will do much good.

A good metaphor for WMF? Why, they're the NBA.

Speaking from experience, I thought for the most part we communicated well with each other. What really helps is a mix of people - some are bigger-picture type people, while others are good at double checking detail. Each can act as a check/balance to arrive at an outcome.
Cas

I'm sure you communicated very well on the secret mailing list, but of course we'll just have to take your word for it. If the ArbCom is so good at internal dialogue, it should try subjecting it to public scrutiny.

What do you think of Kelly's suggestion that the ArbCom discard it's faux-legal case decision-making process (evidence, principles, findings, remedies) for a different type of process?

I believe "different type of process" in this context is essentially a euphemism for "kill them all; God will sort them out". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I believe "different type of process" in this context is essentially a euphemism for "kill them all; God will sort them out". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Actually, everyone except you gets a fair trial. You, we just shoot through the head. As this seems to be what you want, it all works out in the end after all.

I believe "different type of process" in this context is essentially a euphemism for "kill them all; God will sort them out". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Actually, everyone except you gets a fair trial. You, we just shoot through the head. As this seems to be what you want, it all works out in the end after all.

Aww. I love you too, Kelly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

I believe "different type of process" in this context is essentially a euphemism for "kill them all; God will sort them out". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Actually, everyone except you gets a fair trial. You, we just shoot through the head. As this seems to be what you want, it all works out in the end after all.

Aww. I love you too, Kelly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Perhaps this thread should be put to bed until the voting is over?

What do you think of Kelly's suggestion that the ArbCom discard it's faux-legal case decision-making process (evidence, principles, findings, remedies) for a different type of process?

As I understood her, the main problem is holding private disciplinary matters in public as if we were an inquest--but without the protections that tribunals would normally grant to the accused (and with little control over the spectator/participants, no standards of evidence, and few standards at all).

I've always thought that this process is too cruel to our volunteer contributors, and for no good purpose that I can conceive. The spectacle of arbitration cases is so painful that I frequently wonder whether the results are worth the effort. Her suggestion seems like a damn good idea.

The first thing I thought is: I should look at the Robert's Rules she's talking about.

I have not to date.

One obvious problem is that the presentation of evidence is simply that it is not evidence, it is often hearsay or simply opinion, often judgement. So it can never start to even create the impression of being a fair process.

One model that would be worth looking at is a written inquiry where every party is invited to write privately on the issue without sight of the other parties' submissions. Third parties are allowed to comment but little weight is normally given to their submissions. After a set date, the responses are revealed and each main party gets the chance to rebut or expand their position - 3rd parties are generally not involved in that stage except where there is exceptional new evidence. The judgement is made on the submissions unless exceptionally there is some obviously missing piece of information where the adjudicator can seek clarification. A judgement is published which sets out the decision and consequences, with a justification of the major points.

Such a system would not be acceptable on Wikipedia as the baying crowd would be disenfranchised and of course it is an existing system so Wikipedia assumes it can do better inventing something of its own.

The main reason that Wikipedia's "arbitration" process will not be reformed is that the community is addicted to the political theatre therein, and the current arbitration structure has been extensively optimized to maximize the opportunities for theatrics. Even everyking is in on that; his constant baying for maximum transparency is just him wanting to ensure that nobody takes away his bully pulpit, where he can stand and fling mud at whoever he feels like. No thespian will ever vote to close the theatre.

I'M A LUMBERJACK AND I'M OK!

I'M A LUMBERJACK AND I'M OK!

If you say so, and no your're not.

In that order.

Wikipedia failed to establish a sane conflict resolution process from the gitgo, and now it's too late to redesign the system. In a word, it's hopeless.

I'M A LUMBERJACK AND I'M OK!

If you say so, and no your're not.

In that order.

Are you implying that I don't sleep all night and work all day?

Because if so, then you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

This shtick is much less amusing than "why do you hate Wikipedia?"

This shtick is much less amusing than "why do you hate Wikipedia?"

How about:

(IMG:http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk8/roloscarlett/iraqiinformationminister.jpg)

We're winning!

Ugh this secret ballot thing is so boring.

Why would anyone want to run for ArbCom when you can't log on every six minutes to see if you're still beating Fred Bauder?

When do I get to see the results, anyway?

When do I get to see the results, anyway?

Patience, grasshopper! All will be revealed in due time. In the meanwhile, Horsey TV presents a Beckett-worthy production that challenges the concepts of identity, jealousy, the failure of language in times of crisis, and the problem of dancing zombies in a socialite's living room: Click here!

When do I get to see the results, anyway?

Patience, grasshopper! All will be revealed in due time. In the meanwhile, Horsey TV presents a Beckett-worthy production that challenges the concepts of identity, jealousy, the failure of language in times of crisis, and the problem of dancing zombies in a socialite's living room: Click here!

You must have scraped the bottom of the barrel pretty hard to find that one. I'm in awe. Full marks.

Aww. I love you too, Kelly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Except when David Gerard says that, isn't it meant in a sort of ominous, latex-wearing sense?

Aww. I love you too, Kelly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Except when David Gerard says that, isn't it meant in a sort of ominous, latex-wearing sense?

As in Me love you long time, Yank!

Aww. I love you too, Kelly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Except when David Gerard says that, isn't it meant in a sort of ominous, latex-wearing sense?

What's wrong with a latex-wearing sense? Maybe the resident horse could offer his opinion on this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

http://www.unique-artwork.de/susanwaylands...ky-rubber-r.jpg

What's wrong with a latex-wearing sense? Maybe the resident horse could offer his opinion on this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

http://www.unique-artwork.de/susanwaylands...ky-rubber-r.jpg

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

He'll give you the answer that you endorse. He's always on a steady course.

What's wrong with a latex-wearing sense? Maybe the resident horse could offer his opinion on this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

http://www.unique-artwork.de/susanwaylands...ky-rubber-r.jpg

Wow. I'm not even all that much into blondes, nor latex, nor even people born in Leipzig, but that is hot.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

What's wrong with a latex-wearing sense? Maybe the resident horse could offer his opinion on this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

http://www.unique-artwork.de/susanwaylands...ky-rubber-r.jpg

Wow. I'm not even all that much into blondes, nor latex, nor even people born in Leipzig, but that is hot.

Which the head or the body? I'm not convinced they are related.

Which the head or the body? I'm not convinced they are related.

What, don't you trust Wikipedia that Susan Wayland is a real person? Both the head and body (though likely considerably airbrushed in all photographic renderings) seem to belong to her.

Which the head or the body? I'm not convinced they are related.

What, don't you trust Wikipedia that Susan Wayland is a real person? Both the head and body (though likely considerably airbrushed in all photographic renderings) seem to belong to her.

But not necessarily at the same time. Google has some other shots in the same outfit and they don't seem to have a second head sliced on to the front of her face. (That is one dodgy hair do).

What's wrong with a latex-wearing sense? Maybe the resident horse could offer his opinion on this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

http://www.unique-artwork.de/susanwaylands...ky-rubber-r.jpg

Wow. I'm not even all that much into blondes, nor latex, nor even people born in Leipzig, but that is hot.

Sigh. It would even hotter without all the latex.

I would sugget more inspection of the plain human female body. If it's a healthy cleanly one, au natural is hard to beat. Of course, YMMV.

I will probably win.

Unless, of course, someone chooses to lie about the outcome of the vote (since there's no way to verify it ourselves, what with the ridiculous, unjustified, and anti-Wiki move to secret balloting).

I will probably win.

Unless, of course, someone chooses to lie about the outcome of the vote (since there's no way to verify it ourselves, what with the ridiculous, unjustified, and anti-Wiki move to secret balloting).

Precannned conspiracy theory!

I bet nobody saw that coming.

I will probably win.

Unless, of course, someone chooses to lie about the outcome of the vote (since there's no way to verify it ourselves, what with the ridiculous, unjustified, and anti-Wiki move to secret balloting).

Is this plain-old Kmweber, or have you progressed into the "parody of yourself" stage, yet? I can't quite tell.

I will probably win.

Unless, of course, someone chooses to lie about the outcome of the vote (since there's no way to verify it ourselves, what with the ridiculous, unjustified, and anti-Wiki move to secret balloting).

If I recall correctly, you won last year too, but I oversighted all your support votes.

I will probably win.

Unless, of course, someone chooses to lie about the outcome of the vote (since there's no way to verify it ourselves, what with the ridiculous, unjustified, and anti-Wiki move to secret balloting).

If I recall correctly, you won last year too, but I oversighted all your support votes.

Not to mention that Ron Paul is the real President of the United States.

I will probably win.

Unless, of course, someone chooses to lie about the outcome of the vote (since there's no way to verify it ourselves, what with the ridiculous, unjustified, and anti-Wiki move to secret balloting).

If I recall correctly, you won last year too, but I oversighted all your support votes.

It's fun to make these jokes, but...

We should all remember that we're talking about an organization/community that

• won't release an audio file of a roundtable discussion with board candidates;
• suppressed information that their COO was a multi-count felon;
• claims a "completely separate" status for the for-profit company that once staffed 60% of the board of trustees and received rent checks as recently as four months ago;
• claims that Jimmy Wales is "The Founder" of Wikipedia, who has "never done anything wrong";
• kept a private mailing list on Wikia, Inc. servers in order to surveil suspicious Wikipedia accounts;
• denied that any qualified votes from the 2009 board election had been improperly struck, even though it was plain as day they had;
• did not reprimand an admin who blatantly plagiarized content, hid the original edits, then proclaimed the work was entirely his own, ab initio.

I'm sure there are plenty more cases of fraud and cover-up and deception, but I'll let the list stand as-is.

It would not surprise me one iota if various election processes on Wikimedia projects are rigged in some way. The track record is not honorable -- that's for sure.

I will probably win.

Unless, of course, someone chooses to lie about the outcome of the vote (since there's no way to verify it ourselves, what with the ridiculous, unjustified, and anti-Wiki move to secret balloting).

If I recall correctly, you won last year too, but I oversighted all your support votes.

It's fun to make these jokes, but...

We should all remember that we're talking about an organization/community that

• won't release an audio file of a roundtable discussion with board candidates;
• suppressed information that their COO was a multi-count felon;
• claims a "completely separate" status for the for-profit company that once staffed 60% of the board of trustees and received rent checks as recently as four months ago;
• claims that Jimmy Wales is "The Founder" of Wikipedia, who has "never done anything wrong";
• kept a private mailing list on Wikia, Inc. servers in order to surveil suspicious Wikipedia accounts;
• denied that any qualified votes from the 2009 board election had been improperly struck, even though it was plain as day they had;
• did not reprimand an admin who blatantly plagiarized content, hid the original edits, then proclaimed the work was entirely his own, ab initio.

I'm sure there are plenty more cases of fraud and cover-up and deception, but I'll let the list stand as-is.

It would not surprise me one iota if various election processes on Wikimedia projects are rigged in some way. The track record is not honorable -- that's for sure.

All of that is true. But the results of each election of ArbCom and B/D have yielded result completly understandable, even predictable, given what is known about the insular inward looking nature of the WP community which holds the complete franchise to the exclusion of any other stakeholders. No reason at all to resort to any conspiracy or foul play to explain any of those results.

I'm sure there are plenty more cases of fraud and cover-up and deception, but I'll let the list stand as-is.

Oh, don't stop now...we have a book to fill, you know! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I will probably win.

Unless, of course, someone chooses to lie about the outcome of the vote (since there's no way to verify it ourselves, what with the ridiculous, unjustified, and anti-Wiki move to secret balloting).

There are always only two possibilities: either I win, or you cheat. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I will say, Kurt, that I decided to give you a neutral vote this year. I reserved my oppose votes for the people who have actually done me wrong; the others all got either support or neutral votes.

I will probably win.

Unless, of course, someone chooses to lie about the outcome of the vote (since there's no way to verify it ourselves, what with the ridiculous, unjustified, and anti-Wiki move to secret balloting).

There are always only two possibilities: either I win, or you cheat. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I will say, Kurt, that I decided to give you a neutral vote this year. I reserved my oppose votes for the people who have actually done me wrong; the others all got either support or neutral votes.

Unsurprisingly, all your oppose votes are about you and your ego.

I'm actually looking forward to see the results of this election; the secret ballot and support/oppose voting gives the community its first real opportunity to meaningfully object to candidates. The previous public balloting method was political theatre instead of voting, with all that implies; and the secret support-only ballots used before that amounted to "applause voting" that just results in the least unpopular choice being elected. It'll be very interesting to see who, if anyone, gets majority support.

I actually voted this year, and unlike last year I cast real, considered votes.

I'm actually looking forward to see the results of this election; the secret ballot and support/oppose voting gives the community its first real opportunity to meaningfully object to candidates. The previous public balloting method was political theatre instead of voting, with all that implies; and the secret support-only ballots used before that amounted to "applause voting" that just results in the least unpopular choice being elected. It'll be very interesting to see who, if anyone, gets majority support.

I actually voted this year, and unlike last year I cast real, considered votes.

You must have voted within the last couple of hours, because it hasn't shown up yet on the log. I'm watching to see if the number of voters breaks 1,000.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

I'm actually looking forward to see the results of this election; the secret ballot and support/oppose voting gives the community its first real opportunity to meaningfully object to candidates. The previous public balloting method was political theatre instead of voting, with all that implies; and the secret support-only ballots used before that amounted to "applause voting" that just results in the least unpopular choice being elected. It'll be very interesting to see who, if anyone, gets majority support.

I actually voted this year, and unlike last year I cast real, considered votes.

You must have voted within the last couple of hours, because it hasn't shown up yet on the log. I'm watching to see if the number of voters breaks 1,000.

I used a sock.

I'm actually looking forward to see the results of this election; the secret ballot and support/oppose voting gives the community its first real opportunity to meaningfully object to candidates. The previous public balloting method was political theatre instead of voting, with all that implies; and the secret support-only ballots used before that amounted to "applause voting" that just results in the least unpopular choice being elected. It'll be very interesting to see who, if anyone, gets majority support.

I actually voted this year, and unlike last year I cast real, considered votes.

You must have voted within the last couple of hours, because it hasn't shown up yet on the log. I'm watching to see if the number of voters breaks 1,000.

I used a sock.

New game. Find the sock.

Is this plain-old Kmweber, or have you progressed into the "parody of yourself" stage, yet? I can't quite tell.

That's what I love about Kurt (no, seriously). He's clearly a maniac, and he's clearly willing to make fun of the fact that he's a maniac, and he's good at keeping you guessing which is which.

New game. Find the sock.

There strikes me as being an at least even chance that Kelly invented this sock in the hopes of eliciting exactly that reaction. And who could blame her?

Edit: Also, the Kelly Martin account apparently did vote.
Edit #2: No it didn't; I was looking at last year's voter list.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

There strikes me as being an at least even chance that Kelly invented this sock in the hopes of eliciting exactly that reaction. And who could blame her?

I had no reason to vote with my "main" account; there's not a whole lot of drama to be had from that except possibly a brief uproar when someone noticed my name on the log and tried to get the election conditions changed retroactively so accounts not active in the past year can't vote. I decided that was neither very likely nor really worth it, and so cast honest votes based on how I really feel (or, in many cases, don't feel) about the candidates, using a sock account that meets the eligibility requirements.

If my sock is outed, it'll demonstrate the fundamental corruptibility of Wikipedia's election supervisors; while I rather expect it, there is always some hope that someone in that organization will develop both a sense of ethics and a backbone.

I had no reason to vote with my "main" account; there's not a whole lot of drama to be had from that except possibly a brief uproar when someone noticed my name on the log and tried to get the election conditions changed retroactively so accounts not active in the past year can't vote. I decided that was neither very likely nor really worth it, and so cast honest votes based on how I really feel (or, in many cases, don't feel) about the candidates, using a sock account that meets the eligibility requirements.

Certainly that's a plausible explanation. Another plausible explanation would be that, having concluded that there was no drama to be had from voting, you'd create drama instead by setting off a frenzy of sock speculation.

Certainly that's a plausible explanation. Another plausible explanation would be that, having concluded that there was no drama to be had from voting, you'd create drama instead by setting off a frenzy of sock speculation.

I'm not that bored.

I'm not that bored.

Okay, you've convinced me that you're probably telling the truth. But why vote? As I understand it, you believe that Wikipedia in its present form is a Bad Thing, and that its problems run deeper than can be solved by ArbCom (which plainly they do). So why would you care who's on ArbCom, if it's not a Hasten the Day thing?

I'm not that bored.

Okay, you've convinced me that you're probably telling the truth. But why vote? As I understand it, you believe that Wikipedia in its present form is a Bad Thing, and that its problems run deeper than can be solved by ArbCom (which plainly they do). So why would you care who's on ArbCom, if it's not a Hasten the Day thing?

Incompetence at ArbCom isn't going to significantly hasten the day, and so I voted for people who I think have some chance of developing a backbone, standing up to the idiocy, and doing the right thing, and against those that I thought would not. It's a longshot, but it cost me very little to do and there's no sense in not playing a card if it's been dealt to you and you don't lose anything thereby.

Kurt won't accept the results unless the ballots are de-secrified. Kurt, you believe that the entire institution is illegitimate; are you seriously saying that you'd accept the legitimacy of people elected in a public ballot?

Kurt won't accept the results unless the ballots are de-secrified. Kurt, you believe that the entire institution is illegitimate; are you seriously saying that you'd accept the legitimacy of people elected in a public ballot?

Considering that the system is automated, I don't see why the results weren't released immediately. Not that I really think someone would tamper with them, but a significant delay without any apparent basis could concern some people.

Kurt won't accept the results unless the ballots are de-secrified. Kurt, you believe that the entire institution is illegitimate; are you seriously saying that you'd accept the legitimacy of people elected in a public ballot?

Considering that the system is automated, I don't see why the results weren't released immediately. Not that I really think someone would tamper with them, but a significant delay without any apparent basis could concern some people.

I think they said somewhere that they will be perusing the voting log looking for any apparent socks and blocked or banned users, then discarding those votes, before announcing the results.

Considering that the system is automated, I don't see why the results weren't released immediately. Not that I really think someone would tamper with them, but a significant delay without any apparent basis could concern some people.

Yeah, I'm puzzled about the role of the scrutineers myself. Are they just going to look at the Securepoll output and nod?

Kurt won't accept the results unless the ballots are de-secrified. Kurt, you believe that the entire institution is illegitimate; are you seriously saying that you'd accept the legitimacy of people elected in a public ballot?

Considering that the system is automated, I don't see why the results weren't released immediately. Not that I really think someone would tamper with them, but a significant delay without any apparent basis could concern some people.

I think they said somewhere that they will be perusing the voting log looking for any apparent socks and blocked or banned users, then discarding those votes, before announcing the results.

If votes from blocked users are a concern, couldn't they have technically prevented blocked users from voting at all?

If votes from blocked users are a concern, couldn't they have technically prevented blocked users from voting at all?

Believe me, they did prevent blocked accounts and IPs from voting. Much harder to disallow blocked users from participating, provided they have an eligible account.

If votes from blocked users are a concern, couldn't they have technically prevented blocked users from voting at all?

Believe me, they did prevent blocked accounts and IPs from voting. Much harder to disallow blocked users from participating, provided they have an eligible account.

Well, almost 1,000 accounts voted. If they're going to examine every account that they don't recognize, including looking at the contribution histories and perhaps performing a few checkusers, I imagine it might take them awhile. I don't know if they are going to that extreme, however.

If votes from blocked users are a concern, couldn't they have technically prevented blocked users from voting at all?

Believe me, they did prevent blocked accounts and IPs from voting. Much harder to disallow blocked users from participating, provided they have an eligible account.

Well, almost 1,000 accounts voted. If they're going to examine every account that they don't recognize, including looking at the contribution histories and perhaps performing a few checkusers, I imagine it might take them awhile. I don't know if they are going to that extreme, however.

You are basically checkusered by default when you vote. Here are some screenshots of SecurePoll in action: 1, 2. On the other hand, how much will it be used and how much help will it be?

Maybe they're consulting with Jimbo before releasing the results. As a purely ceremonial, figurehead leader--you know, like the Queen--Jimbo has full authority over these matters and likes to nitpick over the details.

They have to ensure that the results are acceptable before releasing them. If they're not acceptable, they'll go through and strike votes until they are.

They have to ensure that the results are acceptable before releasing them. If they're not acceptable, they'll go through and strike votes until they are.

It's what's known as the Sanjaya escape clause.

You are basically checkusered by default when you vote. Here are some screenshots of SecurePoll in action: 1, 2. On the other hand, how much will it be used and how much help will it be?

Since it appear that securepoll records IPs (really? wow) then it should be a simple matter to look for IP matches with a spreadsheet. At the beginning of the election the monitors asked for CU volunteers in case such were needed for followup investigations, but I haven't heard more about that on the CU or functionaries list. Once the results are announced I can look in the CU log to see how many election-related checks are noted there.

They have to ensure that the results are acceptable before releasing them. If they're not acceptable, they'll go through and strike votes until they are.

Oh, please.

If my sock is outed, it'll demonstrate the fundamental corruptibility of Wikipedia's election supervisors; while I rather expect it, there is always some hope that someone in that organization will develop both a sense of ethics and a backbone.

Under the circumstances, such would be a completely inappropriate use of checkuser.

If my sock is outed, it'll demonstrate the fundamental corruptibility of Wikipedia's election supervisors; while I rather expect it, there is always some hope that someone in that organization will develop both a sense of ethics and a backbone.

Under the circumstances, such would be a completely inappropriate use of checkuser.

Something which never ever happens, of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Maybe they're consulting with Jimbo before releasing the results. As a purely ceremonial, figurehead leader--you know, like the Queen--Jimbo has full authority over these matters and likes to nitpick over the details.

The scrutineers are Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎, Laaknor, Thogo, Millosh and Erwin, I believe only Effeietsanders has been around long enough to have any interaction with Jimbo in the past, so why would people who have no experience on WP feel compelled consort with him in a corrupt manner? Heck they are all stewards and several have significant authority on their own wikis, so it isn't even like he could promise them anything for their collusion. I just don't see the motivation here.

The scrutineers are Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎, Laaknor, Thogo, Millosh and Erwin, I believe only Effeietsanders has been around long enough to have any interaction with Jimbo in the past, so why would people who have no experience on WP feel compelled consort with him in a corrupt manner? Heck they are all stewards and several have significant authority on their own wikis, so it isn't even like he could promise them anything for their collusion. I just don't see the motivation here.

For instance, though, both Thogo and Effeietsanders have had their self-generated run-ins with me. So, if they wished, they could probably cherry-pick my three voting accounts via their IP addresses being congruent, and *poof* go those votes.

Maybe they're consulting with Jimbo before releasing the results. As a purely ceremonial, figurehead leader--you know, like the Queen--Jimbo has full authority over these matters and likes to nitpick over the details.

The scrutineers are Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎, Laaknor, Thogo, Millosh and Erwin, I believe only Effeietsanders has been around long enough to have any interaction with Jimbo in the past, so why would people who have no experience on WP feel compelled consort with him in a corrupt manner? Heck they are all stewards and several have significant authority on their own wikis, so it isn't even like he could promise them anything for their collusion. I just don't see the motivation here.

Maybe not. If they'd just release the results, I wouldn't speculate.

For instance, though, both Thogo and Effeietsanders have had their self-generated run-ins with me. So, if they wished, they could probably cherry-pick my three voting accounts via their IP addresses being congruent, and *poof* go those votes.

If you voted under three accounts, you're going to give people the impression that extended scrutiny of the votes prior to publication is necessary. Of course, for the last few elections I've been saying that they need to raise the bar for participation in the election: that way you'll vastly reduce the problem of sockpuppet voting, you'll effectively restrict voting to only serious and committed contributors (thereby producing more meaningful and informed votes), and you'll give those serious contributors more of a stake in the process (by reducing the number of overall voters). If we required six months of editing and 500 mainspace edits, no one could argue the case for all this scrutiny.

How can the election officials know who's a sock unless they checkuser every account? They aren't planning on doing that, are they?

If my sock is outed, it'll demonstrate the fundamental corruptibility of Wikipedia's election supervisors; while I rather expect it, there is always some hope that someone in that organization will develop both a sense of ethics and a backbone.

Under the circumstances, such would be a completely inappropriate use of checkuser.

Something which never ever happens, of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

But I'm in a position to do something about it.

There was a reason The Outlaw Jimbo Wales worked behind the scenes to force through a move to secret voting even though there was never any consensus for the switch--it's easier to manipulate, since there's no public verifiability.

How can the election officials know who's a sock unless they checkuser every account? They aren't planning on doing that, are they?

The information posted by NuclearWarfare suggests that SecurePoll automatically records the IP address of every voter. I don't know this personally to be true.

For instance, though, both Thogo and Effeietsanders have had their self-generated run-ins with me. So, if they wished, they could probably cherry-pick my three voting accounts via their IP addresses being congruent, and *poof* go those votes.

The phrase "three voting accounts" may or may not bear truth under examination.

I just thought it would be funny to put Thogo and Effeietsanders on edge, donning their green visors and accounting ticker machines, poring over all the votes, only to discover, "Hey, there weren't any cases where the same IP voted through three different accounts."

"True, but we did find the 16 IP addresses that did vote twice. We should strike those votes, right?"

"Yes, but which of the two?"

"Both, of course."

"Should we ban them, too?"

"No, then the public will know that we were using surveillance of this election to exact revenge on people we disagree with."

"I suppose you're right."

For instance, though, both Thogo and Effeietsanders have had their self-generated run-ins with me. So, if they wished, they could probably cherry-pick my three voting accounts via their IP addresses being congruent, and *poof* go those votes.

If you voted under three accounts, you're going to give people the impression that extended scrutiny of the votes prior to publication is necessary.

Indeed. Anyone questioning the scrutiny can just link to your post. Thanks!

For instance, though, both Thogo and Effeietsanders have had their self-generated run-ins with me. So, if they wished, they could probably cherry-pick my three voting accounts via their IP addresses being congruent, and *poof* go those votes.

If you voted under three accounts, you're going to give people the impression that extended scrutiny of the votes prior to publication is necessary.

Indeed. Anyone questioning the scrutiny can just link to your post. Thanks!

Erm, you all do realize how utterly mad the idea of an on-line election, based on little more than good email-return addresses really is? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Don't you? Or has Wikipedia and its wiki-wiked-ways finally burned out all sense of propriety as regards proper procedure in modern civil democracy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Crap, Iran has better "elections." They may have no better counting-accountablity, but at least they require live meat to show up at the polls. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

If my sock is outed, it'll demonstrate the fundamental corruptibility of Wikipedia's election supervisors; while I rather expect it, there is always some hope that someone in that organization will develop both a sense of ethics and a backbone.

Under the circumstances, such would be a completely inappropriate use of checkuser.

Something which never ever happens, of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

But I'm in a position to do something about it.

Just not very much. Sorry, but your powers in these matters are rather limited, as I think you well know.

I believe, though I could be mistaken, that the list of votes being struck and the rationale for doing so can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb..._2009/Voter_log

If my sock is outed, it'll demonstrate the fundamental corruptibility of Wikipedia's election supervisors; while I rather expect it, there is always some hope that someone in that organization will develop both a sense of ethics and a backbone.

Under the circumstances, such would be a completely inappropriate use of checkuser.

Something which never ever happens, of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

But I'm in a position to do something about it.

Just not very much. Sorry, but your powers in these matters are rather limited, as I think you well know.

Some accountability is better than none. YMMV of course.

I believe, though I could be mistaken, that the list of votes being struck and the rationale for doing so can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb..._2009/Voter_log

Wow, just short of 1000 voters

I believe, though I could be mistaken, that the list of votes being struck and the rationale for doing so can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb..._2009/Voter_log

Hold on a minute. Are they striking out votes from those who were banned after voting and those who are not very active but came back to vote? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

The last thing I want is my wiki-gnome account getting disenfranchised for not editing every single day like a "true" Wikipedian. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Hold on a minute. Are they striking out votes from those who were banned after voting and those who are not very active but came back to vote? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

No. Those are just being flagged for further checking by the scrutineers.

Hold on a minute. Are they striking out votes from those who were banned after voting and those who are not very active but came back to vote? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

No. Those are just being flagged for further checking by the scrutineers.

So there's a chance my account's vote will be screwed? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

If Will Beback has his way, wiki-gnomes may as well leave Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

So there's a chance my account's vote will be screwed? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Not unless you voted from the same IP (or a very similar one) as another account whose contributions suggest that it could plausibly be you, I don't think.

So there's a chance my account's vote will be screwed? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Not unless you voted from the same IP (or a very similar one) as another account whose contributions suggest that it could plausibly be you, I don't think.

What if more than one person uses Wikipedia in my household with different accounts? If my sister uses User:X and I use User:Y, then the votes of X and Y will be discounted? Will they be banned as socks? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

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

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

Oddly enough, those were my feelings as well.

I didn't vote. It's either because I'm a procrastinator or because I didn't want to try finding more than two I could legitimately support. Perhaps a little bit of both. I remembered about voting on Tuesday morning, when it was too late. I had seen the deadline on Friday, and I have no time on weekends for such nonsense.

I should have voted, just to support Steve and oppose Kurt, but they had all those damn circles, and I would've felt obligated to try to find the less repugnant options.

What a complete mess. You can't vote in eight new arbitrators. Shrink ArbCom. Anything but this.

The scrutineers are Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎, Laaknor, Thogo, Millosh and Erwin, I believe only Effeietsanders has been around long enough to have any interaction with Jimbo in the past, so why would people who have no experience on WP feel compelled consort with him in a corrupt manner? Heck they are all stewards and several have significant authority on their own wikis, so it isn't even like he could promise them anything for their collusion. I just don't see the motivation here.

For instance, though, both Thogo and Effeietsanders have had their self-generated run-ins with me. So, if they wished, they could probably cherry-pick my three voting accounts via their IP addresses being congruent, and *poof* go those votes.

They could—but to what end?

The scrutineers don't know what is on each ballot.

The scrutineers can see the original aggregated election results, but even if they wanted to affect the outcome, they don't know which ballots to scratch in order to have the desired outcome.
Even if your hypothetical three accounts have publicly stated how they intend to vote, the scrutineers would be silly to believe those comments.

Can the scrutineers unscratch a ballot? If so, there should be a public log of any ballots that are scratched or unscratched. Does anyone know if this feature exists?

As an interim measure, we can save the ballot list regularly. If grey entries go black again, there had better be a good explanation.

The scrutineers are Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎, Laaknor, Thogo, Millosh and Erwin, I believe only Effeietsanders has been around long enough to have any interaction with Jimbo in the past, so why would people who have no experience on WP feel compelled consort with him in a corrupt manner? Heck they are all stewards and several have significant authority on their own wikis, so it isn't even like he could promise them anything for their collusion. I just don't see the motivation here.

For instance, though, both Thogo and Effeietsanders have had their self-generated run-ins with me. So, if they wished, they could probably cherry-pick my three voting accounts via their IP addresses being congruent, and *poof* go those votes.

They could—but to what end?

The scrutineers don't know what is on each ballot.

The scrutineers can see the original aggregated election results, but even if they wanted to affect the outcome, they don't know which ballots to scratch in order to have the desired outcome.
Even if your hypothetical three accounts have publicly stated how they intend to vote, the scrutineers would be silly to believe those comments.

Can the scrutineers unscratch a ballot? If so, there should be a public log of any ballots that are scratched or unscratched. Does anyone know if this feature exists?

As an interim measure, we can save the ballot list regularly. If grey entries go black again, there had better be a good explanation.

What on earth are you up to here, John Vandenberg?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=331982340

You realize that most of Wikipedia is edited by sporadic editors and not "elite" metapedians like yourself? Are these functionaries going to checkuser these 26 accounts? I am sick to death of these "1984"-style tactics by hardcore Wikipedians wanting to maintain their powerbase. Years ago, NYBrad told me to get involved and take part in making Wikipedia a better place. Now my wiki-gnome account may be under scrutiny, treated like an illegitimate sock account, and possibly checkusered without my knowing or consent?

If my account is blocked, my vote suppressed, and/or checkusered without my consent, I am going to be thoroughly pissed off! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Are these functionaries going to checkuser these 26 accounts?

As I understand it, the I.P of each account voting is automatically visible to the scrutineers, without need for checkuser.

Are these functionaries going to checkuser these 26 accounts?

As I understand it, the I.P of each account voting is automatically visible to the scrutineers, without need for checkuser.

WHHAAAAT!?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Well so much for the Foundation's Privacy Policy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

The scrutineers are Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎, Laaknor, Thogo, Millosh and Erwin, I believe only Effeietsanders has been around long enough to have any interaction with Jimbo in the past, so why would people who have no experience on WP feel compelled consort with him in a corrupt manner? Heck they are all stewards and several have significant authority on their own wikis, so it isn't even like he could promise them anything for their collusion. I just don't see the motivation here.

For instance, though, both Thogo and Effeietsanders have had their self-generated run-ins with me. So, if they wished, they could probably cherry-pick my three voting accounts via their IP addresses being congruent, and *poof* go those votes.

They could—but to what end?

The scrutineers don't know what is on each ballot.

The scrutineers can see the original aggregated election results, but even if they wanted to affect the outcome, they don't know which ballots to scratch in order to have the desired outcome.
Even if your hypothetical three accounts have publicly stated how they intend to vote, the scrutineers would be silly to believe those comments.

Can the scrutineers unscratch a ballot? If so, there should be a public log of any ballots that are scratched or unscratched. Does anyone know if this feature exists?

As an interim measure, we can save the ballot list regularly. If grey entries go black again, there had better be a good explanation.

What on earth are you up to here, John Vandenberg?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=331982340

You realize that most of Wikipedia is edited by sporadic editors and not "elite" metapedians like yourself? Are these functionaries going to checkuser these 26 accounts? I am sick to death of these "1984"-style tactics by hardcore Wikipedians wanting to maintain their powerbase. Years ago, NYBrad told me to get involved and take part in making Wikipedia a better place. Now my wiki-gnome account may be under scrutiny, treated like an illegitimate sock account, and possibly checkusered without my knowing or consent?

If my account is blocked, my vote suppressed, and/or checkusered without my consent, I am going to be thoroughly pissed off! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

I have a sense that John doesn't just do things for the sake of doing them as I might do, I suspect he has some purpose in drawing the scrutineers' attention to one or more of these 26 accounts, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to send the list to them.

Erm, you all do realize how utterly mad the idea of an on-line election, based on little more than good email-return addresses really is? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Don't you? Or has Wikipedia and its wiki-wiked-ways finally burned out all sense of propriety as regards proper procedure in modern civil democracy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Crap, Iran has better "elections." They may have no better counting-accountablity, but at least they require live meat to show up at the polls. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

This year's election is no worse than previous ones in that regard.

I'm guessing it will be a long time before Wikipedia tries to tackle the identity problem. One way to start improving the identity situation would be to link wp accounts with the federated identity systems that are popping up.

The alternative would be to document a web of trust. i.e. who has met who in the flesh. While many folk won't want to meet anyone, and we could not discriminate against them (AGF and all that), it still would be helpful to be able to say that we are reasonably confident that x% of the voters are distinct people. Hopefully "x" is over 50. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

What on earth are you up to here, John Vandenberg?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=331982340

You realize that most of Wikipedia is edited by sporadic editors and not "elite" metapedians like yourself? Are these functionaries going to checkuser these 26 accounts? I am sick to death of these "1984"-style tactics by hardcore Wikipedians wanting to maintain their powerbase. Years ago, NYBrad told me to get involved and take part in making Wikipedia a better place. Now my wiki-gnome account may be under scrutiny, treated like an illegitimate sock account, and possibly checkusered without my knowing or consent?

If my account is blocked, my vote suppressed, and/or checkusered without my consent, I am going to be thoroughly pissed off! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Sure I understand that. My vote page from last year is full of "sporadic" voters. Some will be like yourself, but many were not so well intended. Their votes are still there, and I don't think any account was blocked.

I am happy that there are only 26 voters which fall into range I looked into. That is a little over 2.5% While one or two of them might be worth looking into (i.e. people who haven't edited for two years), there are so few that it doesn't warrant much attention in my opinion.

Also, before you get into a twist, checkuser data will have expired for the majority of the 26 voters that I highlighted.

Are these functionaries going to checkuser these 26 accounts?

As I understand it, the I.P of each account voting is automatically visible to the scrutineers, without need for checkuser.

WHHAAAAT!?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Well so much for the Foundation's Privacy Policy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

No shit? Who are the "scrutineers", exactly?

No shit? Who are the "scrutineers", exactly?

Six stewards with minimal en-wiki involvement: Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎, Laaknor, Thogo, Millosh and Erwin.

No shit? Who are the "scrutineers", exactly?

Six stewards with minimal en-wiki involvement: Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎, Laaknor, Thogo, Millosh and Erwin.

Huh. Well, not a bad set, but still more icky than just not doing it the secure poll way.

Are these functionaries going to checkuser these 26 accounts?

As I understand it, the I.P of each account voting is automatically visible to the scrutineers, without need for checkuser.

WHHAAAAT!?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Well so much for the Foundation's Privacy Policy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Eh? How exactly is this a violation of the policy as written? Stewards are cleared to run CUs as and when needed. This data isn't visible to just anyone.

Are these functionaries going to checkuser these 26 accounts?

As I understand it, the I.P of each account voting is automatically visible to the scrutineers, without need for checkuser.

WHHAAAAT!?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Well so much for the Foundation's Privacy Policy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Eh? How exactly is this a violation of the policy as written? Stewards are cleared to run CUs as and when needed. This data isn't visible to just anyone.

It probably should have been noted prominently on the ballot page though.

Wouldn't you know it, my name is on this list. John, could you please post the other 25?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=331982340

I demand to know about any action taken related to my account regarding this claim.

I demand to know about any action taken related to my account regarding this claim.

You seem to be in the clear.

I demand to know about any action taken related to my account regarding this claim.

You seem to be in the clear.

Uh... forgot about that one.

Uh... forgot about that one.

It's okay - you're still in clear compliance with the spirit of your WR signature.

The alternative would be to document a web of trust. i.e. who has met who in the flesh. While many folk won't want to meet anyone, and we could not discriminate against them (AGF and all that), it still would be helpful to be able to say that we are reasonably confident that x% of the voters are distinct people. Hopefully "x" is over 50. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

"Who wants to meet meat?" Hopefully you know that wonderful short story.

Actually, we SHOULD discriminate against people who are so mentally screwed up that they cannot stand even once to meet meat. They can help build the 'pedia by correcting grammar, but I'll be damned if I want them to be voting for administration of delicate social interaction problems. And certainly not to be participating in them as admins themselves!

Hmm interesting:

0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Mpdelbuono (renamed to "Shirik" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Pablomismo (renamed to "Pablo X" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 ShamWow (renamed to "Plot Spoiler" after voting)
2007-08-10 14:40:24 Alsandair
2008-03-02 04:37:31 Derktar
2008-08-26 14:43:31 Polotet
2008-11-02 11:01:57 Juntung
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2009-03-16 18:14:47 Nwwaew
2009-08-02 10:04:55 Tombomp
2009-08-07 22:37:40 Jd2718
2009-08-09 00:01:05 Chromaticity
2009-09-02 18:13:17 DanTheMan474
2009-09-16 21:53:56 Malcolmxl5
2009-10-05 23:49:10 Tra
2009-10-08 00:09:15 MookieZ
2009-10-14 16:33:38 CharlotteWebb
2009-10-17 21:16:11 Arakunem
2009-10-19 17:38:39 AeonicOmega
2009-10-23 20:49:18 SheepNotGoats
2009-10-25 12:59:23 Hemmingsen
2009-10-26 19:45:56 Martinp23
2009-10-27 16:09:42 Throwawayhack
2009-10-28 21:31:47 MPerel

I count 27 votes by 25 users (21 of which are not false positives due to attribution error). Where did the "26" come from?

Hmm interesting:

0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Mpdelbuono (renamed to "Shirik" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Pablomismo (renamed to "Pablo X" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 ShamWow (renamed to "Plot Spoiler" after voting)
2007-08-10 14:40:24 Alsandair
2008-03-02 04:37:31 Derktar
2008-08-26 14:43:31 Polotet
2008-11-02 11:01:57 Juntung
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2009-03-16 18:14:47 Nwwaew
2009-08-02 10:04:55 Tombomp
2009-08-07 22:37:40 Jd2718
2009-08-09 00:01:05 Chromaticity
2009-09-02 18:13:17 DanTheMan474
2009-09-16 21:53:56 Malcolmxl5
2009-10-05 23:49:10 Tra
2009-10-08 00:09:15 MookieZ
2009-10-14 16:33:38 CharlotteWebb
2009-10-17 21:16:11 Arakunem
2009-10-19 17:38:39 AeonicOmega
2009-10-23 20:49:18 SheepNotGoats
2009-10-25 12:59:23 Hemmingsen
2009-10-26 19:45:56 Martinp23
2009-10-27 16:09:42 Throwawayhack
2009-10-28 21:31:47 MPerel

I count 27 votes by 25 users (21 of which are not false positives due to attribution error). Where did the "26" come from?

Where's that list from? There are several names on that list that are not on John's list and some names on John's list that are not on that list.

I guess the concern is that someone who has not edited in X months and then voted, might also have a sockpuppet who voted. That's not even worth the effort to investigate unless 25 votes (more or less) would change the outcome. Since the IP addresses are recorded by SecurePoll, nearly all the investigation can be done by the monitors themselves just by examining the list.

Hmm interesting:

0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Mpdelbuono (renamed to "Shirik" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Pablomismo (renamed to "Pablo X" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 ShamWow (renamed to "Plot Spoiler" after voting)
2007-08-10 14:40:24 Alsandair
2008-03-02 04:37:31 Derktar
2008-08-26 14:43:31 Polotet
2008-11-02 11:01:57 Juntung
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2009-03-16 18:14:47 Nwwaew
2009-08-02 10:04:55 Tombomp
2009-08-07 22:37:40 Jd2718
2009-08-09 00:01:05 Chromaticity
2009-09-02 18:13:17 DanTheMan474
2009-09-16 21:53:56 Malcolmxl5
2009-10-05 23:49:10 Tra
2009-10-08 00:09:15 MookieZ
2009-10-14 16:33:38 CharlotteWebb
2009-10-17 21:16:11 Arakunem
2009-10-19 17:38:39 AeonicOmega
2009-10-23 20:49:18 SheepNotGoats
2009-10-25 12:59:23 Hemmingsen
2009-10-26 19:45:56 Martinp23
2009-10-27 16:09:42 Throwawayhack
2009-10-28 21:31:47 MPerel

I count 27 votes by 25 users (21 of which are not false positives due to attribution error). Where did the "26" come from?

The fate of the ArbCom--indeed, the fate of Wikipedia itself--may depend on those 27 votes, so it's no wonder that the scrutiny is taking so long. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

But really, I say throw them all out. Only serious and committed contributors should be voting, and people that haven't edited a single time for more than a month don't qualify.

There was a reason The Outlaw Jimbo Wales worked behind the scenes to force through a move to secret voting even though there was never any consensus for the switch--it's easier to manipulate, since there's no public verifiability.

No. Actually, ArbCom pushed for the secret ballot, and we launched a pretty big RFA affirming the decision. Jimbo never seemed to care much one way or another. Unless you inexplicably get 97% of the vote, it looks like it may be the lowest drama election in Wikipedia history.

Where's that list from?

I've got friends in weird places, just not enough of them. These are votes sorted by timestamp of voter's last edit, where same is earlier than midnight Oct. 31. Those appearing to have no timestamp are names for which no user currently exists, due to name-changes during the election.

There are several names on that list that are not on John's list and some names on John's list that are not on that list.

Okay, so let's post it and figure out which list is more accurate. Pool them together even.

I guess the concern is that someone who has not edited in X months and then voted, might also have a sockpuppet who voted.

That concern will still exist regardless of recent editing habits.

That's not even worth the effort to investigate unless 25 votes (more or less) would change the outcome.

B-b-but… I thought even the scrutineers would not know who you voted for. Even assuming the most pathological case where each of us listed above voted for all the under-dogs and against all the favorites, I thought the results (or provisional results, point-spreads, etc.) were to remain boxed until eligibility disputes are resolved/final (unless there was some other principled reason not to give voters an up-to-the minute status chart during the voting period).

Either this is a catch-22 or someone (here probably) has misled me regarding these points.

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

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

Whatever they are.

Excellent post.

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

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

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

Errr, yes, they would. A few of the people listed on that page have done just that.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

B-b-but… I thought even the scrutineers would not know who you voted for. Even assuming the most pathological case where each of us listed above voted for all the under-dogs and against all the favorites, I thought the results (or provisional results, point-spreads, etc.) were to remain boxed until eligibility disputes are resolved/final (unless there was some other principled reason not to give voters an up-to-the minute status chart during the voting period).

Either this is a catch-22 or someone (here probably) has misled me regarding these points.

I don't know how the results are handled. I assume that the scrutineers know the raw totals, but don't know who voted for whom. So they would know whether or not a 25 vote margin could potentially change the results, although they wouldn't know how striking 25 votes would affect the outcome until they'd done it.

But maybe they don't even see the raw vote total until they are done striking voters and "lock" the results. Honestly, I don't know.

And, even if 25 votes could make no possible difference to the outcome, the stewards might feel that they needed to do due diligence and examine the votes anyway.

And of course, there are many ways to have sockpuppets vote, checking voters who have not edited recently may not even be a particularly good way to identify candidates.

Hmm interesting:

0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Mpdelbuono (renamed to "Shirik" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Pablomismo (renamed to "Pablo X" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 ShamWow (renamed to "Plot Spoiler" after voting)
2007-08-10 14:40:24 Alsandair
2008-03-02 04:37:31 Derktar
2008-08-26 14:43:31 Polotet
2008-11-02 11:01:57 Juntung
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2009-03-16 18:14:47 Nwwaew
2009-08-02 10:04:55 Tombomp
2009-08-07 22:37:40 Jd2718
2009-08-09 00:01:05 Chromaticity
2009-09-02 18:13:17 DanTheMan474
2009-09-16 21:53:56 Malcolmxl5
2009-10-05 23:49:10 Tra
2009-10-08 00:09:15 MookieZ
2009-10-14 16:33:38 CharlotteWebb
2009-10-17 21:16:11 Arakunem
2009-10-19 17:38:39 AeonicOmega
2009-10-23 20:49:18 SheepNotGoats
2009-10-25 12:59:23 Hemmingsen
2009-10-26 19:45:56 Martinp23
2009-10-27 16:09:42 Throwawayhack
2009-10-28 21:31:47 MPerel

I count 27 votes by 25 users (21 of which are not false positives due to attribution error). Where did the "26" come from?

Poor Derktar. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Where's that list from?

I've got friends in weird places, just not enough of them. These are votes sorted by timestamp of voter's last edit, where same is earlier than midnight Oct. 31. Those appearing to have no timestamp are names for which no user currently exists, due to name-changes during the election.

There are several names on that list that are not on John's list and some names on John's list that are not on that list.

Okay, so let's post it and figure out which list is more accurate. Pool them together even.
...

My list is more accurate of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

There are no extra names on your list. My list omitted the people who were renamed, because they have edited after Oct. 31.

However your list excludes quite a few, such as Aitias who has not edited since September 19, 2009.

There are several names on that list that are not on John's list and some names on John's list that are not on that list.

Okay, so let's post it and figure out which list is more accurate. Pool them together even.
...

My list is more accurate of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

There are no extra names on your list. My list omitted the people who were renamed, because they have edited after Oct. 31.

However your list excludes quite a few, such as Aitias who has not edited since September 19, 2009.

Btw, my list was posted here.

There are several names on that list that are not on John's list and some names on John's list that are not on that list.

Okay, so let's post it and figure out which list is more accurate. Pool them together even.
...

My list is more accurate of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

There are no extra names on your list. My list omitted the people who were renamed, because they have edited after Oct. 31.

However your list excludes quite a few, such as Aitias who has not edited since September 19, 2009.

Btw, my list was posted here.

And what are you going to do to those accounts on your list? Why haven't you contacted those on your list about your investigation?

My account met the criteria for voting. Why is it under scrutiny and what are you people doing to it?

Edit: I'll understand if you cannot respond immediately. Coren appears to be preparing an arb case against you, for unblocking Giano. For that (I like Giano), I'll try to lower the temperature on this issue. I recognize that you are more likely to address my concerns than others and my anger is more at this change in the election rules after the fact and lists popping up with my account on it without explaining what is being done to it.

Next election, the WP Community needs clear rules ahead of time regarding "low-editing" or "recently re-emerged" voting editors. That way, people like me don't get upset when the Spammish Inquisition starts with lists coming up with my account on it.

Edit again: I am satisfied with the below, though I would like to know exactly what is going on with this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=332185975

The list is available at User:John Vandenberg/ACE2009 voting analysis.
Note that these accounts are not automatically suspects of wiki-crimes, and nobody needs to be concerned just because there username is listed there. There are some old-timers listed there, and they shouldnt be hassled about their vote. Last year we had a few people return to vote after being away for a year. Unless we change suffrage, they have just as much right to vote as anyone else.
John Vandenberg (chat) 03:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I'll understand if you cannot respond immediately. Coren appears to be preparing an arb case against you, for unblocking Giano. For that (I like Giano), I'll try to lower the temperature on this issue.

Eh, phooey -- Giano is tops and Coren is a shmuck. The outrage! All in favor of thinking of new ways to annoy Coren, raise your hoofs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I am satisfied with the below, though I would like to know exactly what is going on with this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=332185975

The list is available at User:John Vandenberg/ACE2009 voting analysis.
Note that these accounts are not automatically suspects of wiki-crimes, and nobody needs to be concerned just because there username is listed there. There are some old-timers listed there, and they shouldnt be hassled about their vote. Last year we had a few people return to vote after being away for a year. Unless we change suffrage, they have just as much right to vote as anyone else.
John Vandenberg (chat) 03:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I only created the list. A few people were showing concern about votes from people who haven't edited in a while, and I figured it was better to compile a list rather than watching everyone wave their hands about. I sent it to functionaries-en, and have left it with the election admins/scrutineers to decide what, if anything, to do with the data.

I should have posted that caution note immediately, but I didn't think that people whose names were listed would panic. I expect that the accounts on the list will come under extra scrutiny, but I expect that a lot of accounts are being reviewed for a variety of reasons. Some of the names on the list are "above suspicion", which should clue in the scrutineers that there are lots of reasons why people haven't edited recently. It is silly to assume that a sockmaster is more likely to have "not edited in two months" or have "less than 500 edits". 1000 vandal whacking edits are easy to obtain.

I only created the list. A few people were showing concern about votes from people who haven't edited in a while, and I figured it was better to compile a list rather than watching everyone wave their hands about. I sent it to functionaries-en, and have left it with the election admins/scrutineers to decide what, if anything, to do with the data.

I should have posted that caution note immediately, but I didn't think that people whose names were listed would panic. I expect that the accounts on the list will come under extra scrutiny, but I expect that a lot of accounts are being reviewed for a variety of reasons. Some of the names on the list are "above suspicion", which should clue in the scrutineers that there are lots of reasons why people haven't edited recently. It is silly to assume that a sockmaster is more likely to have "not edited in two months" or have "less than 500 edits". 1000 vandal whacking edits are easy to obtain.

John, can you explain to us why the results have still not been released?

John, can you explain to us why the results have still not been released?

Because the wrong people won, and they need to figure out how to amend the rules to make the Holy Elect come ahead of the Toxic Personalities. Do you really need to ask?

Hmm interesting:

0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Mpdelbuono (renamed to "Shirik" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Pablomismo (renamed to "Pablo X" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 ShamWow (renamed to "Plot Spoiler" after voting)
2007-08-10 14:40:24 Alsandair
2008-03-02 04:37:31 Derktar
2008-08-26 14:43:31 Polotet
2008-11-02 11:01:57 Juntung
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2009-03-16 18:14:47 Nwwaew
2009-08-02 10:04:55 Tombomp
2009-08-07 22:37:40 Jd2718
2009-08-09 00:01:05 Chromaticity
2009-09-02 18:13:17 DanTheMan474
2009-09-16 21:53:56 Malcolmxl5
2009-10-05 23:49:10 Tra
2009-10-08 00:09:15 MookieZ
2009-10-14 16:33:38 CharlotteWebb
2009-10-17 21:16:11 Arakunem
2009-10-19 17:38:39 AeonicOmega
2009-10-23 20:49:18 SheepNotGoats
2009-10-25 12:59:23 Hemmingsen
2009-10-26 19:45:56 Martinp23
2009-10-27 16:09:42 Throwawayhack
2009-10-28 21:31:47 MPerel

I count 27 votes by 25 users (21 of which are not false positives due to attribution error). Where did the "26" come from?

Poor Derktar. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sigh...I feel so disenfranchised, I think I might just have to cry myself to sleep tonight.

John, can you explain to us why the results have still not been released?

Because the wrong people won, and they need to figure out how to amend the rules to make the Holy Elect come ahead of the Toxic Personalities. Do you really need to ask?

Well, whatever the case may be, it's shameful to not release the results for this long when surely a computer calculation would determine them in a matter of seconds. I said all along this secret ballot business was a bad idea. They need to bring back public voting and drastically raise the voter eligibility requirements (raising the candidate eligibility requirements would be nice too).

I am satisfied with the below, though I would like to know exactly what is going on with this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=332185975

The list is available at User:John Vandenberg/ACE2009 voting analysis.
Note that these accounts are not automatically suspects of wiki-crimes, and nobody needs to be concerned just because there username is listed there. There are some old-timers listed there, and they shouldnt be hassled about their vote. Last year we had a few people return to vote after being away for a year. Unless we change suffrage, they have just as much right to vote as anyone else.
John Vandenberg (chat) 03:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I only created the list. A few people were showing concern about votes from people who haven't edited in a while, and I figured it was better to compile a list rather than watching everyone wave their hands about. I sent it to functionaries-en, and have left it with the election admins/scrutineers to decide what, if anything, to do with the data.

I should have posted that caution note immediately, but I didn't think that people whose names were listed would panic. I expect that the accounts on the list will come under extra scrutiny, but I expect that a lot of accounts are being reviewed for a variety of reasons. Some of the names on the list are "above suspicion", which should clue in the scrutineers that there are lots of reasons why people haven't edited recently. It is silly to assume that a sockmaster is more likely to have "not edited in two months" or have "less than 500 edits". 1000 vandal whacking edits are easy to obtain.

Will the scrutineers and/or functionaries release a report about this? I don't really understand how they can scrutinize except using checkuser. I just want to know what the scrutineers/functionaries are specifically doing to those accounts.

I realize there really isn't anything I can do about it. I mean, I could go a Giano-style attack, demand answers, and require you to give me Rlevse's eagle badge, but I can't go on a dramatic tirade for a long time and such a tirade is usually pointless (as you are aware). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

I have this feeling there will be demands to increase voter restrictions next year. Wiki-gnomes like me who edit only every once in awhile won't have any say-so in Wikipedia's affairs. Will Beback probably thinks everyone is HK. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Hmm interesting:

0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Deserted Cities (renamed to "DC" after voting, duplicate)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Mpdelbuono (renamed to "Shirik" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 Pablomismo (renamed to "Pablo X" after voting)
0000-00-00 00:00:00 ShamWow (renamed to "Plot Spoiler" after voting)
2007-08-10 14:40:24 Alsandair
2008-03-02 04:37:31 Derktar
2008-08-26 14:43:31 Polotet
2008-11-02 11:01:57 Juntung
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2008-12-23 18:30:18 MaxSem (duplicate)
2009-03-16 18:14:47 Nwwaew
2009-08-02 10:04:55 Tombomp
2009-08-07 22:37:40 Jd2718
2009-08-09 00:01:05 Chromaticity
2009-09-02 18:13:17 DanTheMan474
2009-09-16 21:53:56 Malcolmxl5
2009-10-05 23:49:10 Tra
2009-10-08 00:09:15 MookieZ
2009-10-14 16:33:38 CharlotteWebb
2009-10-17 21:16:11 Arakunem
2009-10-19 17:38:39 AeonicOmega
2009-10-23 20:49:18 SheepNotGoats
2009-10-25 12:59:23 Hemmingsen
2009-10-26 19:45:56 Martinp23
2009-10-27 16:09:42 Throwawayhack
2009-10-28 21:31:47 MPerel

I count 27 votes by 25 users (21 of which are not false positives due to attribution error). Where did the "26" come from?

Poor Derktar. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sigh...I feel so disenfranchised, I think I might just have to cry myself to sleep tonight.

You're not the only one feeling this way. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Btw, my list was posted here.

It all makes sense now, just looks like somebody failed to account for red-link usernames. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Anyway, I just got sucked into making a couple of unrelated December edits, so one could kindly ask the functionary pervs to direct their x-ray vision elsewhere, at least for now.

This is taking forever.

Btw, my list was posted here.

It all makes sense now, just looks like somebody failed to account for red-link usernames. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Anyway, I just got sucked into making a couple of unrelated December edits, so one could kindly ask the functionary pervs to direct their x-ray vision elsewhere, at least for now.

I thought that might be the reason for the differences. Some of my stats may be out by one or two due to unicode usernames being silently discarded by my scripts.

I have shuffled you down into the section for people who have edited since Dec. 1.

John, can you explain to us why the results have still not been released?

Because the wrong people won, and they need to figure out how to amend the rules to make the Holy Elect come ahead of the Toxic Personalities. Do you really need to ask?

No surprise here -- I suspected there would be some monkey business with the results. I would wager that at least one (and, possibly, two or three) non-admins won the vote and there is now a discussion going on about how to proceed.

This is taking forever.

I'm puzzled myself. I would have thought that they would scrutinize voters on a rolling basis. Because voting is front-heavy, I would have expected them to be done now.

This is taking forever.

I'm puzzled myself. I would have thought that they would scrutinize voters on a rolling basis. Because voting is front-heavy, I would have expected them to be done now.

Yep. Could have been mostly done by the time the election closed.

I'm not particularly willing to assume some Grand Conspiracy here, but it is starting to look a bit shady.

Yep. Could have been mostly done by the time the election closed.

I'm not particularly willing to assume some Grand Conspiracy here, but it is starting to look a bit shady.

That's Wikipedia - even if they get it right, they are bound to create the impression of having done it wrong.

Well they have given me exposure to the word "scrutineers," which I find hilarious. More than worth any wait they might bring. I wonder if they wear special head gear? They should finish up quickly because in "s - c - r - u - t - i - n - e - e - r" the "c" always stand s for "see ya real soon."

This is taking forever.

I'm puzzled myself. I would have thought that they would scrutinize voters on a rolling basis. Because voting is front-heavy, I would have expected them to be done now.

Controversial, unpopular, and fiddled results are often announced on days when few people are paying attention. My money is on the results being posted Christmas Eve or Boxing Day, as they will likely contain some new and fresh outrage.

They may also be waiting for Jimbonic input on some issue, which Jimbo has since forgotten about because Jimbo is incapable of keeping more than one thought in his head for more than fifteen seconds at a time. Jimbo has a habit of saying "Please don't do anything on this until I have a chance to get back to you about it" and then never getting back to you about it; while sometimes I think this is intentional most of the time it's just because Jimbo's mental capacity is smaller than his ego, and so maintaining his ego excludes all other thought.

They may also be waiting for Jimbonic input on some issue, which Jimbo has since forgotten about because Jimbo is incapable of keeping more than one thought in his head for more than fifteen seconds at a time. Jimbo has a habit of saying "Please don't do anything on this until I have a chance to get back to you about it" and then never getting back to you about it; while sometimes I think this is intentional most of the time it's just because Jimbo's mental capacity is smaller than his ego, and so maintaining his ego excludes all other thought.

You're being uncharacteristically restrained, Kelly. Norway is slightly smaller than Jimbo's ego. As for his mental capacity, I can't say, but the evidence would point to it being sized somewhere between a golf ball and a grapefruit.

This is taking forever.

Was it last year or the year before that we all knew the results, but Jimbo went on vacation to the Virgin Islands and refused to appoint the arbs until he "looked over it" or something like that?

You're being uncharacteristically restrained, Kelly. Norway is slightly smaller than Jimbo's ego. As for his mental capacity, I can't say, but the evidence would point to it being sized somewhere between a golf ball and a grapefruit.

Or bread-box < x < Jupiter as Vonnegut might put it.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

Am I right in hearing that 300something admins voted? Out of 1000 or so allegedly-active admins?

Does this sound suspicious to anyone? Are there piles of sockpuppets who did not vote, for fear of being discovered?

My guess is nobody received more than 50% support. Which would be a trifle chortle-worthy.

Am I right in hearing that 300something admins voted? Out of 1000 or so allegedly-active admins?

Does this sound suspicious to anyone? Are there piles of sockpuppets who did not vote, for fear of being discovered?

Maybe people just don't care anymore? Maybe they think that this ArbCom election won't change anything? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)

If true, then Wikipedia really is going down the drain if over 2/3s of all administrators won't even bother to vote.

They may also be waiting for Jimbonic input on some issue, which Jimbo has since forgotten about because Jimbo is incapable of keeping more than one thought in his head for more than fifteen seconds at a time. Jimbo has a habit of saying "Please don't do anything on this until I have a chance to get back to you about it" and then never getting back to you about it; while sometimes I think this is intentional most of the time it's just because Jimbo's mental capacity is smaller than his ego, and so maintaining his ego excludes all other thought.

By procrastinating Jimbo gets more attention and the appearance of still being important. Arbcom appointments are one of the last things the community still lets him do. So dragging it out is a win/win for Jimbo - he gets to procrastinate and be the center of attention, while everyone waits on him.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

They may also be waiting for Jimbonic input on some issue, which Jimbo has since forgotten about because Jimbo is incapable of keeping more than one thought in his head for more than fifteen seconds at a time. Jimbo has a habit of saying "Please don't do anything on this until I have a chance to get back to you about it" and then never getting back to you about it; while sometimes I think this is intentional most of the time it's just because Jimbo's mental capacity is smaller than his ego, and so maintaining his ego excludes all other thought.

By procrastinating Jimbo gets more attention and the appearance of still being important. Arbcom appointments are one of the last things the community still lets him do. So dragging it out is a win/win for Jimbo - he gets to procrastinate and be the center of attention, while everyone waits on him.

That is probably exactly right.

By procrastinating Jimbo gets more attention and the appearance of still being important. Arbcom appointments are one of the last things the community still lets him do. So dragging it out is a win/win for Jimbo - he gets to procrastinate and be the center of attention, while everyone waits on him.

Cf. FlaggedRevs.

(IMG:http://i48.tinypic.com/w9dylx.png)

They may also be waiting for Jimbonic input on some issue, which Jimbo has since forgotten about because Jimbo is incapable of keeping more than one thought in his head for more than fifteen seconds at a time. Jimbo has a habit of saying "Please don't do anything on this until I have a chance to get back to you about it" and then never getting back to you about it; while sometimes I think this is intentional most of the time it's just because Jimbo's mental capacity is smaller than his ego, and so maintaining his ego excludes all other thought.

By procrastinating Jimbo gets more attention and the appearance of still being important. Arbcom appointments are one of the last things the community still lets him do. So dragging it out is a win/win for Jimbo - he gets to procrastinate and be the center of attention, while everyone waits on him.

I'm not sure I buy this.

Disclaimer: I don't know Jimbo, I've never met him, and I've made no effort to learn anything about him. But I'd hazard a guess that he shares certain traits with other entrepreneur types I've known.

I don't have a hard time believing that he likes attention. From women, from journalists, from investors, etc. But from a bunch of random folks on Wikipedia? Does he honestly have so much free time that he cares about that kind of attention? Seems unlikely to me.

Results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...s_December_2009

Of the top nine "nets" are elected, then in descending order:

Kirill Lokshin
Fritzpoll
Coren
Mailer diablo
Steve Smith
SirFozzie
Hersfold
Shell Kinney
KnightLago

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter:

Results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...s_December_2009

Of the top nine "nets" are elected, then in descending order:

Kirill Lokshin
Fritzpoll
Coren
Mailer diablo
Steve Smith
SirFozzie
Hersfold
Shell Kinney
KnightLago

How on earth did Cla68 lose? I thought he was a shoe-in! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

I'd like to know how in the fuck Coren was re-elected.

I'd like to know how in the fuck Coren was re-elected.

Pro-porn vote. Its huge on en.wp.

Congrats to Steve (Sarcasticidealist). Let the serious disillusionment now commence.

Congrats to Steve (Sarcasticidealist). Let the serious disillusionment now commence.

I think you overestimate my illusionment. Must be the presence of "idealist" in my name.

Congrats to Steve (Sarcasticidealist). Let the serious disillusionment now commence.

I think you overestimate my illusionment. Must be the presence of "idealist" in my name.

Congratulations, Red Green! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Or should I say "commiserations?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

(IMG:http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn39/The_Doc_of_Destruction/RedGreen.jpg)

If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy!

So it finally hit me just now: no arrangement or re-arrangement of these names could yield a favorable result. I have another reason to wish I hadn't bothered voting in this shit.

And yeah, I told him to keep his stick on the ice but I don't think he got the reference.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

Congratulations to all the electees. The predictions that hardly anyone would get over 50% were, fortunately, incorrect.

A very sad bunch, I must say. I agree with the sentiments of CharlotteWebb - wtf is Coren doing in 3rd place?

Looking forward very much to yet another year of backstabbing, poor judgement, ill-advised blocks, sleaze and abuse.

Disclaimer: I don't know Jimbo, I've never met him, and I've made no effort to learn anything about him. But I'd hazard a guess that he shares certain traits with other entrepreneur types I've known.

I don't have a hard time believing that he likes attention. From women, from journalists, from investors, etc. But from a bunch of random folks on Wikipedia? Does he honestly have so much free time that he cares about that kind of attention? Seems unlikely to me.

Jimbo is not your entrepeneurial type at all. For one, he's far too risk-adverse. Then again, he's failed at every entrepenurial venture he's ever tried.

Results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...s_December_2009

Of the top nine "nets" are elected, then in descending order:

Kirill Lokshin
Fritzpoll
Coren
Mailer diablo
Steve Smith
SirFozzie
Hersfold
Shell Kinney
KnightLago

Congratulations to those who won honestly, and those who benefited from a fixed vote.

And yeah, I told him to keep his stick on the ice but I don't think he got the reference.

In my defense, I got it after you explained it to me.

(I'm not sure that "defense" means what I think it means.)

Results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...s_December_2009

Of the top nine "nets" are elected, then in descending order:

Kirill Lokshin
Fritzpoll
Coren
Mailer diablo
Steve Smith
SirFozzie
Hersfold
Shell Kinney
KnightLago

Congratulations to those who won honestly, and those who benefited from a fixed vote.

I don't fix anything was fixed, inasmuch I don't think the 9/11 conspiracies are true. They won fair and square.

Looks like only Kirill was able to obtain a mandate (he was the only candidate with more than 50% support including neutrals). Kmweber was the only able to obtain an antimandate (more than 50% opposing), although RMHED came close.

Looks like only Kirill was able to obtain a mandate (he was the only candidate with more than 50% support including neutrals). Kmweber was the only able to obtain an antimandate (more than 50% opposing), although RMHED came close.

While I'm self-interested here, any definition of "mandate" that treats neutrals and opposes equivalently seems intuitively unreasonable. Surely, as an RROR ninja, you can appreciate what an abstention is?

I don't fix anything was fixed, inasmuch I don't think the 9/11 conspiracies are true.

Ah, cognitive dissonance (I get it now).

While I'm self-interested here, any definition of "mandate" that treats neutrals and opposes equivalently seems intuitively unreasonable. Surely, as an RROR ninja, you can appreciate what an abstention is?

Yeah that seems to treat the neutral votes more like a margin of error.

'course after seeing the results, I can totally understand that approach. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Congratulating the electees is easier to do all at once here in this forum. Nevertheless, I'll go around today and congratulate each of them individually. If there's a delay, it's mainly because my office had a holiday party last night (it's Saturday morning here in the land of the rising sun) and I'm recovering from one of the top 10 worst hangovers of my life.

Congratulating the electees is easier to do all at once here in this forum. Nevertheless, I'll go around today and congratulate each of them individually. If there's a delay, it's mainly because my office had a holiday party last night (it's Saturday morning here in the land of the rising sun) and I'm recovering from one of the top 10 worst hangovers of my life.

You're such a good sport, Cla. I cannot understand for the life of me how you were not elected - you had my vote.

Congratulating the electees is easier to do all at once here in this forum. Nevertheless, I'll go around today and congratulate each of them individually. If there's a delay, it's mainly because my office had a holiday party last night (it's Saturday morning here in the land of the rising sun) and I'm recovering from one of the top 10 worst hangovers of my life.

You're such a good sport, Cla. I cannot understand for the life of me how you were not elected - you had my vote.

Then Coren stole it, went "neener! neener! neener!", chased down a horse, and then went to libel Giano at ArbCom?

You're such a good sport, Cla. I cannot understand for the life of me how you were not elected - you had my vote.

Mine too, obviously.

"I have further concerns regarding this candidate's unwillingness/inability to communicate clearly and frankly, based on his evasive and unresponsive answers"

--JohnnyB256

Hope that helps... Gary Weiss someone else (who isn't Gary, everyone knows that!) characterized him as evasive.

Congratulating the electees is easier to do all at once here in this forum. Nevertheless, I'll go around today and congratulate each of them individually. If there's a delay, it's mainly because my office had a holiday party last night (it's Saturday morning here in the land of the rising sun) and I'm recovering from one of the top 10 worst hangovers of my life.

Take your B-vitamins and remember to drink a fair amount of water (at least equal amounts) with your sake (no, it's not necessary to actually mix them (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ), you may well find you get no hangovers at all.

Of course, if you happen to have a Japanese liver, nothing will help you. You just have to barf and try to stay still with the lights out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Take your B-vitamins and remember to drink a fair amount of water (at least equal amounts) with your sake (no, it's not necessary to actually mix them (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ), you may well find you get no hangovers at all.

If only because the evil-natured pink robots eat you first. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Congratulating the electees is easier to do all at once here in this forum. Nevertheless, I'll go around today and congratulate each of them individually. If there's a delay, it's mainly because my office had a holiday party last night (it's Saturday morning here in the land of the rising sun) and I'm recovering from one of the top 10 worst hangovers of my life.

Take your B-vitamins and remember to drink a fair amount of water (at least equal amounts) with your sake (no, it's not necessary to actually mix them (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ), you may well find you get no hangovers at all.

Of course, if you happen to have a Japanese liver, nothing will help you. You just have to barf and try to stay still with the lights out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I appreciate the kind words and advice. My wife told me that I rang the doorbell last night, complaining that there was something wrong with the front door because I couldn't get it open. I checked it this morning and there's nothing wrong with it. Fortunately for the Internet and the people who use it I didn't even glance in the general direction of the computer before hitting the sack last night.

Anyway, enough about me, this is about the election. I think it's interesting that there were so many neutral votes. It shows that voters in general don't seem to have opposed everyone that they weren't voting to support. I would say that this is a good sign for the use of secret balloting.

While I'm self-interested here, any definition of "mandate" that treats neutrals and opposes equivalently seems intuitively unreasonable. Surely, as an RROR ninja, you can appreciate what an abstention is?

A true "abstension" would be a vote of neutral on all questions. Kirill enjoys the status of being the only candidate who received the support of a majority of those who voted in the election, assuming that the number of straight-ticket neutrals is relatively small. It similar to the difference between "a majority of those voting" and "a majority of the membership", which, if you read Roberts Rules, are not interchangable, and in fact there are some situations in which a majority of those voting is not able to accomplish a certain thing which can be accomplished by a majority of the membership.

Of course, this discussion underscores the importance of having the rules for the interpretation of the voting well-defined in advance of conducting the election. We have numbers now, but we still don't know who, if anyone, won, and who, if anyone, will be appointed.

Interestingly, if we went by support votes alone the only difference appears to be that AGK would have made it instead of Knight Lago.

Of course if it was a support-vote only people might have voted differently for strategic reasons.

It's a somewhat disappointing result. I certainly don't know why so many people vote for Kirill, who's one of the worst of the whole lot--of all the other candidates, I think only Fred could have been worse. I suppose we should at least be grateful that Fred didn't make it through. Our pal Steve seems like a fairly reasonable guy, so maybe he'll do all right--if not, he'll have to listen to continual embittered criticisms from me here on WR. I'm really not familiar with most of these candidates, though. Fritzpoll, Hersfold, KnightLago, Mailer diablo? I don't know anything about them. Can someone give us a summary of what they're about?

It's a somewhat disappointing result. I certainly don't know why so many people vote for Kirill, who's one of the worst of the whole lot--of all the other candidates, I think only Fred could have been worse. I suppose we should at least be grateful that Fred didn't make it through. Our pal Steve seems like a fairly reasonable guy, so maybe he'll do all right--if not, he'll have to listen to continual embittered criticisms from me here on WR. I'm really not familiar with most of these candidates, though. Fritzpoll, Hersfold, KnightLago, Mailer diablo? I don't know anything about them. Can someone give us a summary of what they're about?

Well, for me, two of my opposes appear to have made it in, 3 of my neutrals and 4 of my supports. I'm a little disappointed more of the content creators didn't make it in (Ruslik, Wehwalt etc.). But overall it seems like a reasonable thing.

Out of the ones you mention as not being familiar, I only sort of know KnightLago (ok, this might be revealing some of my voting) from other than candidate statements. He clerked the EEML case after Manning left, where I got arbitrated, and did a very fair, professional and impartial job.

Fritzpoll, Hersfold, KnightLago, Mailer diablo? I don't know anything about them. Can someone give us a summary of what they're about?

Hersfold? Let me tell you about Hersfold. I'd be happy to tell you more. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Mailer Diablo? Remember the Betty Patrick flap?

Ask Abd about Fritzpoll. He was mentored by none other than Jehochman.

This is an old story. Nothing will change, so stop mulling it over.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

Congratulating the electees is easier to do all at once here in this forum. Nevertheless, I'll go around today and congratulate each of them individually. If there's a delay, it's mainly because my office had a holiday party last night (it's Saturday morning here in the land of the rising sun) and I'm recovering from one of the top 10 worst hangovers of my life.

You're such a good sport, Cla. I cannot understand for the life of me how you were not elected - you had my vote.

Although I ultimately cast my vote(s?) for Charles, I was almost ready to vote against him, to help assure that he would be spared the embarrassing nightmare of an obligation to serve on that ArbCom.

Of course if it was a support-vote only people might have voted differently for strategic reasons.

Or not at all, perhaps.

Then again, he's failed at every entrepenurial venture he's ever tried.

Then hows he got so much money? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

While I'm self-interested here, any definition of "mandate" that treats neutrals and opposes equivalently seems intuitively unreasonable. Surely, as an RROR ninja, you can appreciate what an abstention is?

And of course there are thousnds and thousands of people eligible to vote who didnt - are they abstentions?

Going by the precedent of Luke/One last year, anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for our own Sarcasticidealist to turn up here explaining why Jimbo Wales is a genius and the biggest menace to world security is Greg Kohs?

Ask Abd about Fritzpoll. He was mentored by none other than Jehochman.

As the third party in that particular incident, I think that's unfair on Fritzpoll. As Abd says in the post you link to, Fritzpoll and Abd worked out between themselves what had gone wrong, and agreed to sort out amongst themselves ways to sort out future issues so it wouldn't flare up again. If Arbcom had more people who are willing to admit they've made mistakes, and less people who use it as a personal mountaintop to throw thunderbolts at anyone they happen to have taken a grudge against, its credibility might be slightly higher than its current zero.

I asked Kirill a question during the election regarding his past abuse of admin tools. He simply ignored me, but he should not imagine that the issue will go away. Indeed, as the first-place candidate in this election, I think he has a greater responsibility to address the matter than ever before, and as long as he's on Wikipedia he's going to be hearing about it.

.... as the first-place candidate in this election, I think he has a greater responsibility ....

And as we know, on Wikipedia, with great responsibility comes .... greater abuse? Hmmm.

Going by the precedent of Luke/One last year, anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for our own Sarcasticidealist to turn up here explaining why Jimbo Wales is a genius and the biggest menace to world security is Greg Kohs?

I don't doubt that I'll be accused of becoming a Kool-Aid drinker (hell, Awbrey's already started, though his doing so on the basis of a post I made primarily to agree with Glassbeadgame doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in his ability to inhabit the same universe as the rest of us). But here's the thing: most of what's said at WR is anti-Wikipedia, which is fine, since that's kind of why this place was founded. That anti-Wikipedia stuff can be broadly sorted into two categories: reasoned, intelligent, fair criticism, and unreasoned, unintelligent, and/or unfair criticism. I rarely respond to the first, since I generally don't have much to say to it ("Good point, Glassbeadgame!" is the sort of thing that would reduce my average post usefulness below even its current levels). I often do respond to the second, because people saying stupid shit annoys me (yeah, I'm going to do great on ArbCom). That means that a high percentage of what I say around here comes off as pro-Wikipedia, but that's mostly because most of the idiocy spouted around here is anti-Wikipedia (not because the anti-Wikipedians here are more inclined towards idiocy, just because there are more of them). I also respond to some pro-Wikipedia idiocy but, given the nature of this site, somebody else usually beats me to it.

The other thing is that I try to avoid participating in the politics of personalities. That I don't join in when there's a thread about how Administrator Y would be unable to find his own ass given a flashlight and a copy of Gray's Anatomy doesn't mean I don't agree, it just means that I don't see a lot of point in my joining in. When I do participate in that kind of discussion, it's usually because I think somebody's being unfairly maligned. Again, that means that most of my posts about Wikipedia personalities are defending them, which is likely to make me look pro-Wikipedia.

So it may well be that 90% of what I say around here turns out to be in defense of Wikipedia or Wikipedians, but it's not accurate to infer from that that I'm 90% pro-Wikipedia (however one would measure that). It's just selection bias. That's also how I read One's participation here, incidentally, but I obviously can't speak for him, and I could be projecting.

I don't doubt that I'll be accused of becoming a Kool-Aid drinker (hell, Awbrey's already started, though his doing so on the basis of a post I made primarily to agree with Glassbeadgame doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in his ability to inhabit the same universe as the rest of us). But here's the thing: most of what's said at WR is anti-Wikipedia, which is fine, since that's kind of why this place was founded. That anti-Wikipedia stuff can be broadly sorted into two categories: reasoned, intelligent, fair criticism, and unreasoned, unintelligent, and/or unfair criticism. I rarely respond to the first, since I generally don't have much to say to it ("Good point, Glassbeadgame!" is the sort of thing that would reduce my average post usefulness below even its current levels). I often do respond to the second, because people saying stupid shit annoys me (yeah, I'm going to do great on ArbCom). That means that a high percentage of what I say around here comes off as pro-Wikipedia, but that's mostly because most of the idiocy spouted around here is anti-Wikipedia (not because the anti-Wikipedians here are more inclined towards idiocy, just because there are more of them). I also respond to some pro-Wikipedia idiocy but, given the nature of this site, somebody else usually beats me to it.

The other thing is that I try to avoid participating in the politics of personalities. That I don't join in when there's a thread about how Administrator Y would be unable to find his own ass given a flashlight and a copy of Gray's Anatomy doesn't mean I don't agree, it just means that I don't see a lot of point in my joining in. When I do participate in that kind of discussion, it's usually because I think somebody's being unfairly maligned. Again, that means that most of my posts about Wikipedia personalities are defending them, which is likely to make me look pro-Wikipedia.

So it may well be that 90% of what I say around here turns out to be in defense of Wikipedia or Wikipedians, but it's not accurate to infer from that that I'm 90% pro-Wikipedia (however one would measure that). It's just selection bias. That's also how I read One's participation here, incidentally, but I obviously can't speak for him, and I could be projecting.

Please don't ban me, Mr. Arbitrator sir. I promise to be good.

I don't doubt that I'll be accused of becoming a Kool-Aid drinker (hell, Awbrey's already started, though his doing so on the basis of a post I made primarily to agree with Glassbeadgame doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in his ability to inhabit the same universe as the rest of us). But here's the thing: most of what's said at WR is anti-Wikipedia, which is fine, since that's kind of why this place was founded. That anti-Wikipedia stuff can be broadly sorted into two categories: reasoned, intelligent, fair criticism, and unreasoned, unintelligent, and/or unfair criticism. I rarely respond to the first, since I generally don't have much to say to it ("Good point, Glassbeadgame!" is the sort of thing that would reduce my average post usefulness below even its current levels). I often do respond to the second, because people saying stupid shit annoys me (yeah, I'm going to do great on ArbCom). That means that a high percentage of what I say around here comes off as pro-Wikipedia, but that's mostly because most of the idiocy spouted around here is anti-Wikipedia (not because the anti-Wikipedians here are more inclined towards idiocy, just because there are more of them). I also respond to some pro-Wikipedia idiocy but, given the nature of this site, somebody else usually beats me to it.

The other thing is that I try to avoid participating in the politics of personalities. That I don't join in when there's a thread about how Administrator Y would be unable to find his own ass given a flashlight and a copy of Gray's Anatomy doesn't mean I don't agree, it just means that I don't see a lot of point in my joining in. When I do participate in that kind of discussion, it's usually because I think somebody's being unfairly maligned. Again, that means that most of my posts about Wikipedia personalities are defending them, which is likely to make me look pro-Wikipedia.

So it may well be that 90% of what I say around here turns out to be in defense of Wikipedia or Wikipedians, but it's not accurate to infer from that that I'm 90% pro-Wikipedia (however one would measure that). It's just selection bias. That's also how I read One's participation here, incidentally, but I obviously can't speak for him, and I could be projecting.

Please don't ban me, Mr. Arbitrator sir. I promise to be good.

He can't ban you without "community consensus" or ArbCom approval. However, as an administrator, he can block you indefinitely and hope no one objects ergo making it a de facto ban. Arbitrators alone can't ban people (like Coren tried to do with Giano), but administrators can if no one is willing to unblock.

Maybe I should apply to be an ArbCom clerk? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I asked Kirill a question during the election regarding his past abuse of admin tools. He simply ignored me, but he should not imagine that the issue will go away. Indeed, as the first-place candidate in this election, I think he has a greater responsibility to address the matter than ever before, and as long as he's on Wikipedia he's going to be hearing about it.

If that was the incident I am thinking of then you were well and truly in the wrong. You may not have intended to help that particular person, kirill was correct to enforce that one harshly (remember this comes from the person who has fought hard for good content from otherwise banned users to be retained on its merits not the merits of its author). Now Kirill may have characterised you harshly, unaware that you apparently didn't know whose content you were restoring, but I can't tell because I haven't seen the diffs and it was two years ago.

PS You hold onto grudges like a motherfucker. It undermines your credibility.

I asked Kirill a question during the election regarding his past abuse of admin tools. He simply ignored me, but he should not imagine that the issue will go away. Indeed, as the first-place candidate in this election, I think he has a greater responsibility to address the matter than ever before, and as long as he's on Wikipedia he's going to be hearing about it.

If that was the incident I am thinking of then you were well and truly in the wrong. You may not have intended to help that particular person, kirill was correct to enforce that one harshly (remember this comes from the person who has fought hard for good content from otherwise banned users to be retained on its merits not the merits of its author). Now Kirill may have characterised you harshly, unaware that you apparently didn't know whose content you were restoring, but I can't tell because I haven't seen the diffs and it was two years ago.

PS You hold onto grudges like a motherfucker. It undermines your credibility.

I was "well and truly in the wrong", even though I "may not have intended to help that particular person", Kirill "may have characterised [me] harshly" and you "haven't seen the diffs and it was two years ago". Does that constitute a sufficient rebuttal? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

What actually happened is that someone posted a message on my talk page and then someone else came along and removed it without my permission. According to policy, I have discretion over the contents of my talk page and I choose to allow any comments to stand so long as they are friendly and/or respectful. So I restored the comment, and then Kirill blocked me for allegedly assisting the infamous Amorrow. After he did that, I offered to allow the comment to remain deleted, but Kirill was unmoved. Eventually, after a few hours, someone else stepped in and lifted the block. Of course, to this day my block log still states that I "assisted a banned user in evading his ban".

I asked Kirill a question during the election regarding his past abuse of admin tools. He simply ignored me, but he should not imagine that the issue will go away. Indeed, as the first-place candidate in this election, I think he has a greater responsibility to address the matter than ever before, and as long as he's on Wikipedia he's going to be hearing about it.

If that was the incident I am thinking of then you were well and truly in the wrong. You may not have intended to help that particular person, kirill was correct to enforce that one harshly (remember this comes from the person who has fought hard for good content from otherwise banned users to be retained on its merits not the merits of its author). Now Kirill may have characterised you harshly, unaware that you apparently didn't know whose content you were restoring, but I can't tell because I haven't seen the diffs and it was two years ago.

PS You hold onto grudges like a motherfucker. It undermines your credibility.

I was "well and truly in the wrong", even though I "may not have intended to help that particular person", Kirill "may have characterised [me] harshly" and you "haven't seen the diffs and it was two years ago". Does that constitute a sufficient rebuttal? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

What actually happened is that someone posted a message on my talk page and then someone else came along and removed it without my permission. According to policy, I have discretion over the contents of my talk page and I choose to allow any comments to stand so long as they are friendly and/or respectful. So I restored the comment, and then Kirill blocked me for allegedly assisting the infamous Amorrow. After he did that, I offered to allow the comment to remain deleted, but Kirill was unmoved. Eventually, after a few hours, someone else stepped in and lifted the block. Of course, to this day my block log still states that I "assisted a banned user in evading his ban".

God, you are worse than Ottava. You were in the wrong, you restored a post by a banned user with a particularly nasty habit of stalking women, thereby facilitating his stalking habit. That was wrong regardless of whether you knew so at the time or not.

Kirill may have characterised you harshly because you may have been unaware of who it was that posted. That doesn't make your block log less accurate. It does mean that you *may* have been worthy of an apology at the time, if you were telling the truth and didn't know what you were doing. However I can't say either way because, despite watching the incident unfold at the time, I haven't seen the diffs recently (that much should have been obvious given my familiarity with the subject in general).

I asked Kirill a question during the election regarding his past abuse of admin tools. He simply ignored me, but he should not imagine that the issue will go away. Indeed, as the first-place candidate in this election, I think he has a greater responsibility to address the matter than ever before, and as long as he's on Wikipedia he's going to be hearing about it.

If that was the incident I am thinking of then you were well and truly in the wrong. You may not have intended to help that particular person, kirill was correct to enforce that one harshly (remember this comes from the person who has fought hard for good content from otherwise banned users to be retained on its merits not the merits of its author). Now Kirill may have characterised you harshly, unaware that you apparently didn't know whose content you were restoring, but I can't tell because I haven't seen the diffs and it was two years ago.

PS You hold onto grudges like a motherfucker. It undermines your credibility.

I was "well and truly in the wrong", even though I "may not have intended to help that particular person", Kirill "may have characterised [me] harshly" and you "haven't seen the diffs and it was two years ago". Does that constitute a sufficient rebuttal? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

What actually happened is that someone posted a message on my talk page and then someone else came along and removed it without my permission. According to policy, I have discretion over the contents of my talk page and I choose to allow any comments to stand so long as they are friendly and/or respectful. So I restored the comment, and then Kirill blocked me for allegedly assisting the infamous Amorrow. After he did that, I offered to allow the comment to remain deleted, but Kirill was unmoved. Eventually, after a few hours, someone else stepped in and lifted the block. Of course, to this day my block log still states that I "assisted a banned user in evading his ban".

God, you are worse than Ottava. You were in the wrong, you restored a post by a banned user with a particularly nasty habit of stalking women, thereby facilitating his stalking habit. That was wrong regardless of whether you knew so at the time or not.

Kirill may have characterised you harshly because you may have been unaware of who it was that posted. That doesn't make your block log less accurate. It does mean that you *may* have been worthy of an apology at the time, if you were telling the truth and didn't know what you were doing. However I can't say either way because, despite watching the incident unfold at the time, I haven't seen the diffs recently (that much should have been obvious given my familiarity with the subject in general).

You're saying I was definitively in the wrong, but also that I may have deserved an apology. Well, if that was Amorrow, I was indeed mistaken to restore the comment, but Kirill accused me of acting maliciously to help Amorrow, when in fact I was just observing a personal policy regarding the contents of my talk page and had no interest in who wrote the comment. Moreover, he refused to unblock me even after I conceded the argument entirely. If someone makes a mistake, and you falsely accuse that person of malice and punish them as if they had acted out of malice, don't you think that's wrong--indeed, worse than the original mistake?

Congratulations to all the electees. The predictions that hardly anyone would get over 50% were, fortunately, incorrect.

The predictions I saw were regarding a percentage of the total number of voters. 50% of that is 497.

Going by the precedent of Luke/One last year, anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for our own Sarcasticidealist to turn up here explaining why Jimbo Wales is a genius and the biggest menace to world security is Greg Kohs?

I call 'em as I see them. I think that Greg Kohs knows I think he's good people (although I find some of his threads lame).

As for Jimbo, the first time I ever praised him on this forum was, um, 12 months before I was elected arbitrator. Jimbo's is inattentive to a fault, but on most important issues he's more sensible than the non-governance of "community consensus." It is likely that almost anyone would be better, but Jimbo is.

This post has been edited by One:

I asked Kirill a question during the election regarding his past abuse of admin tools. He simply ignored me, but he should not imagine that the issue will go away. Indeed, as the first-place candidate in this election, I think he has a greater responsibility to address the matter than ever before, and as long as he's on Wikipedia he's going to be hearing about it.

If that was the incident I am thinking of then you were well and truly in the wrong. You may not have intended to help that particular person, kirill was correct to enforce that one harshly (remember this comes from the person who has fought hard for good content from otherwise banned users to be retained on its merits not the merits of its author). Now Kirill may have characterised you harshly, unaware that you apparently didn't know whose content you were restoring, but I can't tell because I haven't seen the diffs and it was two years ago.

PS You hold onto grudges like a motherfucker. It undermines your credibility.

I was "well and truly in the wrong", even though I "may not have intended to help that particular person", Kirill "may have characterised [me] harshly" and you "haven't seen the diffs and it was two years ago". Does that constitute a sufficient rebuttal? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

What actually happened is that someone posted a message on my talk page and then someone else came along and removed it without my permission. According to policy, I have discretion over the contents of my talk page and I choose to allow any comments to stand so long as they are friendly and/or respectful. So I restored the comment, and then Kirill blocked me for allegedly assisting the infamous Amorrow. After he did that, I offered to allow the comment to remain deleted, but Kirill was unmoved. Eventually, after a few hours, someone else stepped in and lifted the block. Of course, to this day my block log still states that I "assisted a banned user in evading his ban".

God, you are worse than Ottava. You were in the wrong, you restored a post by a banned user with a particularly nasty habit of stalking women, thereby facilitating his stalking habit. That was wrong regardless of whether you knew so at the time or not.

Kirill may have characterised you harshly because you may have been unaware of who it was that posted. That doesn't make your block log less accurate. It does mean that you *may* have been worthy of an apology at the time, if you were telling the truth and didn't know what you were doing. However I can't say either way because, despite watching the incident unfold at the time, I haven't seen the diffs recently (that much should have been obvious given my familiarity with the subject in general).

You're saying I was definitively in the wrong, but also that I may have deserved an apology. Well, if that was Amorrow, I was indeed mistaken to restore the comment, but Kirill accused me of acting maliciously to help Amorrow, when in fact I was just observing a personal policy regarding the contents of my talk page and had no interest in who wrote the comment. Moreover, he refused to unblock me even after I conceded the argument entirely. If someone makes a mistake, and you falsely accuse that person of malice and punish them as if they had acted out of malice, don't you think that's wrong--indeed, worse than the original mistake?

The apology would be an indication that you didn't act maliciously, in the knowledge that you restored that particular banned user's edits with realising who it was, but you were still ultimately wrong to do so. And still, I would like to see evidence that Kirill flat out refused to unblock you.

The election isn't technically done until Jimbo gives his royal assent to the results, correct?

He's mentioned before that he has an unofficial group of advisers (former arbs) he talks with before making his decision. Is there any person that was elected that may fall foul of Jimbo or his advisers and not get an Arb seat?

He's mentioned before that he has an unofficial group of advisers (former arbs) he talks with before making his decision. Is there any person that was elected that may fall foul of Jimbo or his advisers and not get an Arb seat?

Last year he said that he was going to take time to think about it, and wouldn't appoint anybody with whose appointment the current Arbs were uncomfortable. This year, he's said something to the effect of that he's going to put together a few former Arbs and checkusers, and will deny appointments only in the event that they discover some abuse (I may be mistaken in some of the details, but this is the gist of it). Of course, this concerned me slightly, but I think I've done a pretty good job of hiding the fact that I'm a Jon Awbrey sock.


Sarc (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

Ok, I've congratulated Steve and feel all warm and fuzzy. Time to revisit the basic problem in light of the election and that now Godwin even seem to agree with me on 8 of 10 points.

It is time to change reason ten now that Fred couldn't even get himself elected. I will go with something relating to ArbComs recent failure in filling the gap of WMF refusing to hold DG to account for his off site misuse of tools.

Restated for convenience:

Ten Reasons Why ArbCom Doesn't Matter

1. ArbCom is creature of Mr. Wales, the last vestige of the Cult of the Godking;
2. The processes and procedures of ArbCom are amateurish and slipshod;
3. It encourages meddling and humiliation by allowing anyone to comment in disputes in which they have no standing and nothing relevant to contribute;
4. It is utterly lost in discerning the difference between evidence, opinion and rumor;
5. By confusing it's role as the trier of fact with that of investigator they take on a star-chamber character;
6. Community over-involvement in the process brings in all the evils of the dysfunctional social networking community;
7. It is openly a respecter of persons and influence and not a provider of equal application;
8. It's collaborative authoring methods leads to atomized, disjointed, incomprehensible and inconsistent decisions;
9. It declines application of it's own decisions as precedent, denying guidance to those depending on it's decisions, and;
10. ArbCom's mission is ill defined and functions in a absence of other entities, including WMF B/D, accepting responsibility for their own bailiwicks. The result is that even when they try to do the right thng they are the wrong people to do it.

Maybe I should apply to be an ArbCom clerk? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Go ahead Id vote for you.

Let me guess though. They're not elected, right?

Jimbo has announced that he will announce the new arbitrators on the night of Wednesday, December 23 East Coast time. No specific time when he will do this. He claims there should be "no surprises," so it looks like all those who thought they won actually did win. He won't announce the winners immediately as he is doing "paper work," whatever that means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=333133059

as he is doing "paper work," whatever that means.

Is toilet paper involved?

as he is doing "paper work," whatever that means.

Is toilet paper involved?

You're on a roll, I see. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I'd hate to think of Jimbo on the toilet with his Blackberry announcing the new arbs... and yet it sounds fitting in a strange sense, doesn't it?

Too bad Wehwalt didn't make it. His Wikipedia BLP (actually it is autobiographical because he wrote it himself) was quietly deleted four weeks ago, but it's been scraped by other websites, like all the other BLPs, deleted or not. Wehwalt might have done something about BLPs if he got elected. He knows by now that they can become a problem for the subject, even if the subject gets to write his own (which is generally forbidden, if I remember correctly).

Well, that's that.

5. Kirill Lokshin, Fritzpoll, Coren, Mailer diablo and Steve Smith are hereby appointed to two year terms expiring 31 December 2011.
6. SirFozzie, Hersfold, KnightLago and Shell Kinney are hereby appointed to one year terms expiring 31 December 2010.

Golly, Jimbo! If you're the final arbiter of the high-and-mighty Arbcom, then may I please sue you, seeing as you're apparently the Fearless Leader of Wikipedia?........ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Next up: start the countdown to the appearance of a WR thread criticizing Hersfold or Mailer diablo for their Arbcom activities. I suspect they will be the most "controversial" new members.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

Well, that's that.

5. Kirill Lokshin, Fritzpoll, Coren, Mailer diablo and Steve Smith are hereby appointed to two year terms expiring 31 December 2011.
6. SirFozzie, Hersfold, KnightLago and Shell Kinney are hereby appointed to one year terms expiring 31 December 2010.

Golly, Jimbo! If you're the final arbiter of the high-and-mighty Arbcom, then may I please sue you, seeing as you're apparently the Fearless Leader of Wikipedia?........ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Next up: start the countdown to the appearance of a WR thread criticizing Hersfold or Mailer diablo for their Arbcom activities. I suspect they will be the most "controversial" new members.

Thus Spracht Jimmy Thudpuker:

3. I am not appointing anyone who gets less than 50% support.

I'm betting that for a change, he won't go back on his word. If he does he knows there will be hell to pay and besides that he is, basically. a poltroon.

So at least we won't be seeing the like of Old Friend Fred Bauder (43.9%), Je®hochman (38.6%) or William Climate Doctah Connolley (32.9%) anywhere near the powdered wigs or high chairs anytime soon. Except for Cla68 not getting in, I'm pleased with the results overall. It mainly continues last year's trend. The old, red guard is slowly losing its grip. Our job is to help ensure that the new guard don't turn into a bunch of corrupt, conniving dicks as well.

Well, that's that.

5. Kirill Lokshin, Fritzpoll, Coren, Mailer diablo and Steve Smith are hereby appointed to two year terms expiring 31 December 2011.
6. SirFozzie, Hersfold, KnightLago and Shell Kinney are hereby appointed to one year terms expiring 31 December 2010.

Golly, Jimbo! If you're the final arbiter of the high-and-mighty Arbcom, then may I please sue you, seeing as you're apparently the Fearless Leader of Wikipedia?........ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Next up: start the countdown to the appearance of a WR thread criticizing Hersfold or Mailer diablo for their Arbcom activities. I suspect they will be the most "controversial" new members.

Thus Spracht Jimmy Thudpuker:

3. I am not appointing anyone who gets less than 50% support.

I'm betting that for a change, he won't go back on his word. If he does he knows there will be hell to pay and besides that he is, basically. a poltroon.

So at least we won't be seeing the like of Old Friend Fred Bauder (43.9%), Je®hochman (38.6%) or William Climate Doctah Connolley (32.9%) anywhere near the powdered wigs or high chairs anytime soon. Except for Cla68 not getting in, I'm pleased with the results overall. It mainly continues last year's trend. The old, red guard is slowly losing its grip. Our job is to help ensure that the new guard don't turn into a bunch of corrupt, conniving dicks as well.

They already are a bunch of corrupt, conniving dicks.

Well, that's that.

5. Kirill Lokshin, Fritzpoll, Coren, Mailer diablo and Steve Smith are hereby appointed to two year terms expiring 31 December 2011.
6. SirFozzie, Hersfold, KnightLago and Shell Kinney are hereby appointed to one year terms expiring 31 December 2010.

Golly, Jimbo! If you're the final arbiter of the high-and-mighty Arbcom, then may I please sue you, seeing as you're apparently the Fearless Leader of Wikipedia?........ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Next up: start the countdown to the appearance of a WR thread criticizing Hersfold or Mailer diablo for their Arbcom activities. I suspect they will be the most "controversial" new members.

I'm kind of puzzled by Jimbo's point 1) in that post - that all ArbCom members must identify themselves to the Foundation or himself personally. The Foundation, sure - but identifying only to Jimbo just sounds like a slippery way of effectively not identifying oneself at all.

Ideally, all ArbCom members should voluntarily identify themselves to the entire community. The next time elections come around, the community should demand it of anyone who seeks the position.

This post has been edited by Krimpet:

I'm relieved that Cla68 didn't make it. I like him too much to wish that on him.

Same with Steve Smith, except he made it. I say there's no way he lasts 2 years in ArbCom Crazy Town.

I'm kind of puzzled by Jimbo's point 1) in that post - that all ArbCom members must identify themselves to the Foundation or himself personally. The Foundation, sure - but identifying only to Jimbo just sounds like a slippery way of effectively not identifying oneself at all.

You have to trust the leader, just the way it is. Resistance is futile.

I'm relieved that Cla68 didn't make it. I like him too much to wish that on him.

Same with Steve Smith, except he made it. I say there's no way he lasts 2 years in ArbCom Crazy Town.

I don't think it is the same. SS has some edge to his thinking. The bad experience ahead will hopefully make him an insightful critic. Cla68 is more like one of a wide eyed believer. The experience he avoided would have been nothing but disillusioning and destructive for him. For once maybe things did turn out for the best.

I'm kind of puzzled by Jimbo's point 1) in that post - that all ArbCom members must identify themselves to the Foundation or himself personally. The Foundation, sure - but identifying only to Jimbo just sounds like a slippery way of effectively not identifying oneself at all.

Essjay could make it in under that criteria.

Essjay could make it in under that criteria.

Excellent point.

Thankfully, the Foundation keeps a public list of users identified with them on Meta, so any arbs that opt to identify only with Jimbo will stick out like a sore thumb - hopefully reason enough for all responsible arbs to identify with the Foundation.

I'm kind of puzzled by Jimbo's point 1) in that post - that all ArbCom members must identify themselves to the Foundation or himself personally. The Foundation, sure - but identifying only to Jimbo just sounds like a slippery way of effectively not identifying oneself at all.

Not to mention a bit creepy:

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/InnermostSelf.jpg)

I reveal my innermost self, to God King Jimbo...

BTW, for all of you who like social satire, highly recommend is the Zaius Nation Blog http://zaiusnation.blogspot.com/. Named, of course for highly full-of-himself Orangutan in the Planet of the Apes series. He seems to provide a standin for an amazing number of our political leaders.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Enjoy

Ideally, all ArbCom members should voluntarily identify themselves to the entire community. The next time elections come around, the community should demand it of anyone who seeks the position.

That means we'll see Kurt battling Jehochman and Dr. Connolley for the nine available seats. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

That means we'll see Kurt battling Jehochman and Dr. Connolley for the nine available seats. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

Not necessarily. Out of the 22 candidates this election, nine are open about their identity. And five of those nine won the election, out of nine winners overall. Once the new ArbCom is fully assembled, that'll be nine out of seventeen arbs open about their identities, a little more than half. I think it's a sign that the folks willing to take real-world responsibility for their decisions are considered more suitable on average for positions of trust.

Not necessarily. Out of the 22 candidates this election, nine are open about their identity.

More, by my count. Ten of us have been entirely open about our identities since before the election (Cla68, Fred Bauder, Jehochman, Kirill Lokshin, Kmweber, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Steve Smith, William M. Connolley, Xavexgoem), another one was outed after taking no particular pains to hide his identity and has since confirmed it without appearing to mind much (Coren), and another has outed himself since the election (Mailer diablo). That's twelve, and there are somewhere between two and four more who have made it extremely easy to track down their real life identities, without (I don't think) linking themselves to them on-wiki.

The bad experience ahead will hopefully make him an insightful critic.

I'm afraid that if the experience makes me decide that I want nothing to do with Wikipedia, I'm likely to abandon it and WR all together.

Cla68 is more like one of a wide eyed believer. The experience he avoided would have been nothing but disillusioning and destructive for him.

I don't agree with that characterization of Cla68. I believe he has elsewhere acknowedged that he participates on Wikipedia largely because he's addicted to it, which is not the explanation you'd expect from a "wide eyed believer".

Cla68 is more like one of a wide eyed believer. The experience he avoided would have been nothing but disillusioning and destructive for him.

I think the viewpoint of someone who believes in the stated goals of the project, but disillusioned with the state of bureaucracy and drama that it's devolved into, is actually an invaluable one to have.

there are somewhere between two and four more who have made it extremely easy to track down their real life identities, without (I don't think) linking themselves to them on-wiki.

I added a couple to hivemind today.