Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Doc glasgow

OK, there's going to be lots of useless exit polls, so let's get in first with our pre-poll.

The winner gets a lovely "endorsed by Wikipedia Review" banner (yet to be designed) to put on their nomination. Should be worth a few votes to them.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

I have to say, Doc, when I saw the topic "Who gets the WR endorsement for Arbcom09" pop up with your name as the most recent contributor, I assumed that some Wikipedia fanboy had started the thread and you'd retorted by dourly asking them to focus on something more consequential.

Still, what fun! But are radio button polls the only format supported by this site?

Posted by: Doc glasgow

The whole wikipedia/anti-wikipedia thing is about fun. I no longer take any of it seriously - except where it has negative consequences on real live people.

Posted by: cyofee

I'm voting for Cla68, with several accounts.

I hope he'll desysop SlimVirgin for good.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

People who live in Glaswikian houses shouldn't throw scones …

Ja Ja

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Yes, 'tis a pity we can't have a multi-option mimic of the arbcom poll

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

I guess you could re-do with buttons for each candidate in a separate section e.g.

Or maybe just "not support" if the actual ballot has no "oppose" option, shrug.

Posted by: Somey

We tried TV buttons for a while, but people kept demanding that we give them a "remote."

One of these days we'll have to properly upgrade this site... I think the latest version allows for things like that, though I could be mistaken.

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

Kurt Weber, obviously.
He is the only one who openly promises to try and bring down the attrocity monstrosity from the inside if elected.
All hail the "Anti-Bauder"

Posted by: EricBarbour

I'd prefer to see RMHED in there.

He's the only one who is honest. He'll just party.
And let the whole ugly mess fall into ruin. Hah.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

Hey, I'm in second place!

Posted by: Eva Destruction

Assuming they're telling the truth about electing eight people, vote AGK, Bauder, Hersfold, Secret, Seddon, Shell Kinney, Unomi and Connelly. An Arbcom with a clear majority of undoubted nutjobs will hasten the day in which what laughably passes for a Wikipedia governance process chokes on its own vomit, and the WMF is forced to bite the bullet and replace the ridiculous psuedo-masonic hierarchy with a properly constituted board of governors.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Any chance you'd explain your "endorsements" of AGK, Hersfold, and Seddon? I don't know much about any of them, and am still considering whether to support them.

Also, by your criteria why not Kurt or RMHED (the second of whom seem pretty intelligent, but also doesn't seem likely to facilitate effective conflict resolution)?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I'd vote for Steve Smith (WR's Sarcasticidealist.) He's pro-Wikipedian but he thinks better than rest of this rabble. Someday he'll flip sides and become a critic. I've noticed that being on ArbCom has had an effect One too. Mostly in tone and mostly taking form of impatience. He could eventually get things right too. I'll bet half of PETA once worked in meat packing.

But I can't vote. I haven't touched Wikipedia in well over a year.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Trying to devise a workable poll with this software is a headache. Kirill wasn't my first choice, but I wish I could have voted for him as a secondary option, as he seems semi-reasonable. There ought to be an option as well to have Fred Bauder exiled to ED.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

AGK is a reincarnation of Anthony cfc (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and I can't do better at summing up the problem than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anthony_cfc did. Sure, it was two years ago, but I see no evidence that this isn't the latest manifestation of the same "I want every job going because I'm so important" shtick.

Hersfold may be great for all I know; what I do know is that when I was on Wikipedia I got around a lot, and never once saw him in any context other than throwing himself into an argument regardless of whether it related to him in any way.

Regarding Seddon, I http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Seddon〈=en&wiki=wikipedia, and once you've looked at that, give me your opinion whether this is someone likely to defuse drama. Besides, this is someone taking the process so seriously that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Seddon/Questions_for_the_candidate&oldid=328491134.

No point voting for Kurt and RHMED other than the lulz value of seeing them top the poll (don't worry, I'm doing my damndest to get them there; Horsey, Undertow, Peter, you might want to join me in this one). Even if they win, Jimbo will just veto them.

Posted by: everyking

Having been repeatedly burned by voting for bad candidates in the past, my support votes this year will be based strictly on clear pledges made by the candidates. Candidates can receive my support by making pledges on one of two issues: they can pledge to conduct all or nearly all of their arbitration-related deliberations on-wiki and to promote ArbCom transparency in general, or they can pledge to help me get my own case reviewed and my restrictions lifted. AGK made a transparently-related pledge, so I'm planning to vote for him. As far as I know, no other candidate has made a pledge on either of the issues, so I will vote for none of them unless they do.

One/CHL is one of the saddest cases I've seen. He was a promising candidate, but as an arbitrator, he's ceased to represent any sort of critical or reformist perspective. Do you suppose being on the secret mailing list has done that to him? Special privileges can have that effect on people...when you get special privileges, it's easy to start thinking that things really aren't so bad after all, and people need to stop whining.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

(emphasis mine)

Excuse me?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Apologies - I did not intend to imply that you were stupid, though your interpretation otherwise was a reasonable one. What I meant was that it is patently obvious why somebody aiming to have ArbCom "choke on its own vomit" would want to vote for you, but that my listing of RMHED in the same category might require elaboration. A better wording would have been "Also, by your criteria why not Kurt (who's clearly a maniac) or RMHED (who seems pretty intelligent, but also doesn't seem likely to facilitate effective conflict resolution)?"

Posted by: Obesity

Yes. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20934.

Posted by: MZMcBride

Why do you hate Wikipedia?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20934&view=findpost&p=139797, GBG.

Posted by: Milton Roe

You blew it with the Rand-pushing. To steal a simile from Einstein: Objectivism is like measles; it's an infantile disease.

In due time as you age, you'll realize that no man is an island. And you'll weep for whatever altruism you can get, since as you get older, you'll find in your bones that the natural human condition is pretty shitty, and not at all heroic. With the possible exception of people who actually pause to help others through the shit, and with the shit, when they could just as easily ignore them and move on.

Posted by: Premier player

Difficult to tell, as the software has been heavily customised, but I'd say you're three versions behind.

On the subject of the poll, do we want someone whom we know to be an expert at the job but frequently give wrong decisions (you know who I mean), or someone of whose expertise we have no idea? Tough!

Posted by: Random832

Or redirected to Clown, at least.

Seriously, he's running?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Vote for the guys who will give Arbcom the level of seriousness that it deserves: RHMED, Cla68, Kurt.

And anyone who votes for Jehochman is gonna get a horseshoe in the chops!

Posted by: Lar

I'm sorry, putting Cla68 in with RHMED and Kurt is an insult. Even if you were just joking around.

Cla68 is a serious candidate who has shown dedication to the project and a devotion to doing the right thing, and a high tolerance for getting dealt shitty hands. ArbCom could really use his expertise.

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

Oh yes.

I got http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R.D.H._(Ghost_In_The_Machine)&diff=32750236 for asking OFF (Old Friend Fred) about some http://community.livejournal.com/wp_fnord/17879.html#cutid1. And my Q's not only were removed but deleted (wanna see em?). WP moves very quickly when it comes to protecting the perceived privacy of its own.

Less than 3 hours later, after some urging by Casliber and Giano, Tznkai unblocks me, I re ask my questions to the venerable jurist in a more PC manner and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Fred_Bauder/Questions_for_the_candidate#Questions_From_RDH_.28Ghost_In_The_Machine.29 Oh and I end up joining Wikipedia Review...so unlike many stories here, this one ended well.

Aside from the Hasten The Day™ crew, I see no reason why any sane, rational Reviewer would vote to put OFF back on the Itty Bitty Titty Committee.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Posted by: Jaranda

I agree with Lar here, Cla68 is one of our most dedicated article writers, and a smart contributer who would be a bonus for the committee. He doesn't belong in the same category as those two. He should have gotten adminship a long time ago.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Eh, phooey. I like all three of these guys -- Cla68 is a class act, RHMED brings some much needed irreverence to the show and Kurt is the best thing to come out of Indiana since James Dean. I hope these guys win.

Posted by: Lar

K!

I keep forgetting you have a strange horsey way of showing your love

Posted by: Milton Roe

Why do you hate Indiana?

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

Why do you hate Shostakovich?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Because he can't sing along to the lyrics?

Posted by: RMHED

Cla68 is too good for ArbCom, it'd be the ruin of him.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Well, it's beeeeen the ruin of many a young man;
Cool Hand, oh God, was One....

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

That was so good it almost made me use a smilie.

(Which is what she said. I have no idea what she meant, given the context.)

Posted by: everyking

I don't understand why he's running for ArbCom when he's not an admin. I don't think there's much doubt at all that he'd pass an RfA now, so why doesn't he run for that again? Having only admins run for ArbCom has two benefits: first, it requires that every candidate has already received a community endorsement and thus it helps to filter out the waste-of-time candidates, and second, it requires that every candidate have had some experience working on administrative tasks and the implementation of rules--it seems like an arbitrator who didn't have that experience could be at a serious disadvantage. But having said all that, Cla68 can have my vote if he just makes a pledge on one of the two issues I described earlier in the thread.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

I will probably win.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

You mean every candidate who won a popularity contest? I don't know anything about "community endorsement."



There is a difference between doing something and doing something correctly. If the 2009 Arbcom is any indication, their administrative experience did not prepare them for such labors as opening and reading e-mails, enforcing sockpuppet policies with something that has a passing resemblance to consistency, answering very easy Yes or No questions and behaving with some sense of maturity and decorum. Of course, let's not forget Sam Blacketer, whose shenanigans gave WP its biggest PR black eye this year -- admin and arbitrator!



Can't be worst than what we've seen.

Posted by: Random832

I think we may be using different definitions of the term "probably" - too many wikipedians hate wikipedia for that to be reasonably likely.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

That's what we need on Arbcom -- gung-ho Hoosier farm boys who can toss around the WP issues like bales of hay and squeeze out the hypocrisy like they were squeezing the udders of a milk cow.

Posted by: everyking

It would help if you had my vote, Kurt. And just think about it--user trends being what they are, in just a few years I may constitute a substantial portion of the electorate, so getting my support is really a long-term investment. Even though I opposed you in the past because I questioned your sanity, this year things are much simpler: to get my support, all you have to do is make a pledge on one of the two key issues I described earlier. (Bauder and Kirill are excluded on grounds of moral turpitude, not that they'd ever make the pledges anyway.)

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

The only ArbCom business in which Kurt intends to engage is voting to reject cases, which is necessarily on-wiki. Hasn't he made one of your pledges by implication?

Posted by: everyking

Hmm. He might win on a technicality there, but it's not really in the spirit of the pledge. In spirit, that pledge requires something more like actual work and deliberations on-wiki.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I suppose the same filter could be used to screen out stupid (if ironic) comments on how people should vote.

Posted by: RMHED

The complete opposite would be far superior, ArbCom should consist entirely of non-admins. This takes away any possible temptation to act as judge and jury and would act as a deterrent to the power seekers.

Posted by: Trick cyclist

Shostakovich did a great arrangement of "Tea for two".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agfZ3eD_jnE

(How do you embed a Youtube link?)

Posted by: Jaranda

Yay I'm a nutjob! Actually you'll be surprised with my candidacy, read the questions. I'm very serious about this.

Posted by: RMHED

Yes, you're a serious nutjob. Ma & Pa must be so proud.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Indeed. And, as I've previously said, I believe Wikipedia should strip all arbcom members of their administrative powers for the duration of their service as arbitrators. Of course, this will never happen.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

[the word "youtube" here]your youtube code here[/the word "youtube" again]

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

Posted by: Seddon

I am flattered but what sane person would honestly want to be on arbcom?

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

I couldn't disagree more. In order to pass Rfa these days one has to run a PC gauntlet. A lot of potentially good candidates get thus excluded. Moreover the admin corps(e) as a whole is corrupt; loaded down with Jimbots, Cabalistas and wanna-be's. There is good reason why the number of active admins has been falling and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#The_Drought_at_RFA.

We need MORE non-admins on the AC. In fact I think it is an excellent idea to have admin arbs turn in their mops while on the Comm. Sure it won't happen, but it's still a good idea.

Let's not have any delusions here.
Cla68 has stepped on far too many over-sensitive, over-powerful tootsies (he's quite fearless in that regard) to pass Rfa.
But as an Arb candidate he is without peer IMO. Yet I worry how much of a kiss o deth effect our support of him might have.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

I wouldn't be surprised if those mugs rig the vote count and have Coren and Kirill re-elected by unscrupulous means.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Coren and Krill we be re-elected easily by fair means.

There are, IMO, very few candidates in this let who are the type of shoe-ins who normally get elected. There's no experienced FA writers with lots of mediation experience and no battle-scars. That's indeed what makes it interesting. Last year, I'd have said someone like Cla has no chance - this year I'm not so certain.

It is also possible that very few will score over 50%, and with the latest resignation they need 9 candidates.

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

Coren maybe...but not Kirill. He can win in his own right.

BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mardetanha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Effeietsanders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laaknor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thogo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Millosh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erwin Scrutineers!?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Stewards without en-wiki involvement, I believe.

I agree. I also think that last year I'd have had no chance, and indeed I was, if not relying on, at least functioning under that assumption when I decided to run.

But yeah, I'd say there are fifteen or sixteen candidates who could reasonably be elected this year, and I don't think I'd have said that about more than three or four of us last year.

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

Ah culturally clueless and with limited English...I understand now!
Kinda like unto bringing in the UN or EU to monitor US elections...

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

What pseudo are you using now, so I can vote against you?

Posted by: Rhindle

I miss the public votes and their snarky comments they came attached with.

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

Aye...so do I...sigh


And it looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=329318504&oldid=329318442.

Posted by: radek

Given only one choice in this particular poll I threw the politics and self-interest out the window and went with Wehwalt since he seems like the guy that actually writes content unlike the rest of the "Professional Wiki Politicians" (PWPs - I realize most of the readership even here belongs to that category in some sense) on the list (don't know much else beside that about him). That criteria also made Cla the runner up. Basically I'm extremely annoyed by the divide between those who actually write an encyclopedia and those who don't but go around arbitratin' and administratin' those that do.

In the real poll I took some politics and self interest into consideration. Of course. And general sensibility wrt to making policy.

(Still voted for Wehwalt and Cla and I'll keep the rest of my votes to myself)

Posted by: EricBarbour

Silly lad, you don't quite get it, do you?

PWPs or not, most people here aren't interested in electing "content makers" to Arbcom.
They want someone who will tear down the busted walls, and build something else.......

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

I don't like to be petulant, but I'm feeling a little left out, here.

Posted by: radek

Yeah, I don't particularly care what most people, here or elsewhere, are interested in. I do see some (well, two) candidates who appear to be interested in busting down some walls and none that want to build something else. In some form or another they're part of the status quo (except the guy who showed up in May of this year I guess) and their interest in maintaining it will only get stronger if they get elected.

And how do you expect the "something else" to be any better if the people building it have no clue about what it's like to actually write an encyclopedia? The "something else" will still suck as much, just in a different way.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Although probably not so nearly left out as Ruslik0 and his sixteen featured articles are.

This year's candidates by number of featured articles (yes, I know there's more to content than featured articles):

Cla68 - 30
Ruslik0 - 16
Wehwalt - 14
Steve Smith - 7
Kirill Lokshin - 5
Secret - 3
Jehochman - 2
Mailer diablo - 2
Fritzpoll - 1
KnightLago - 1
Seddon - 1

There are a lot more than two candidates interested in content generation.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I'm almost the only one who endorses you on top of the list. But quoting yourself in a post which you were feeling sorry for yourself...not cool.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

I'm well aware.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Oh, come on, it is only a f**king game. You don't want to wind up like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#I_will_not_be_resigning_from_ArbCom who is taking it toooooo seriously -- to the point of talking out loud to himself (because no one really cares).

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Yes, yes, it was one of my rare moments of self-pitying thin-skinnedness. The good news is that I'm not due for another until 2013.

Posted by: radek

Well, I'm new here so I'm not sure which one you are. But yes Ruslik's up there too, as is Steve and Kirill. And yes, I picked Wehwalt over the other two due to the 'there's more to content than featured articles' aspect of content creation. It's quite possible that Wehwalt just did a better job of advertising himself as a content creator then others (which for the purposes of the election may have been a bad thing).

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Very good - in the future you might just want to shy away from such phrases as "the guy that actually writes content". In return, I'll try to shy away from behaving like a twit.

(And I'd tell you which one I am, but I think I've acquitted myself rather badly here. If you look really hard, you can probably figure it out, though.)

Posted by: Rhindle

I get a kick out of how FA's and GA's an author writes make someone a more qualified arbitrator. I have always thought that Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Thoreau, and other well-known writers would have made great Supreme Court Justices.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Steve is the good looking Canadian guy. Whenever Maclean's needs a hard-bodied stud on its cover, they call Steve. Serious!

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

You read much case law? Hemingway'd be a godsend.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Oh, definitely Fitzgerald on the Supreme Court!

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Remand.
Concur.
Judicial economy.

Posted by: radek

Ah, so you made me go back and read the middle pages of this thread more carefully.

Usually I'm pretty good at avoiding these gender-specific terms when they're not appropriate though here it was meant to refer to Wehwalt who I assumed was a guy named walt. But sure, good advice.

Mostly I just wanted to pipe up and say something in support of Wehwalt who was getting no love on this thread, despite being, IMO, a very good candidate.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

He is a good guy, but he isn't silly enough to warrant attention. The ideal candidate is smart and silly at the same time. Wehwalt has the smart part down -- he needs to work on the silly stuff.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Wehwalt actually is a guy, though I don't believe he's named Walt (he explains his username http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Wehwalt/Questions_for_the_candidate#Question_from_Newyorkbrad). I was objecting to the definite article combined with the singular, rather than to the gender.

Posted by: radek

Not a good analogy. If the only purpose of the United States of America were to write as many Great American Novels as possible, then yes, they would have made great Supreme Court Justices.

Point being, the reason why they wouldn't in reality, is that because in reality the Supreme Court adjudicates a very diverse society whose only "purpose" is something like "pursuit of happiness" or whatever. Wikipedia on the other hand has a much more narrow, specific purpose - write an encyclopedia.

A better analogy would be something like a regulator of a particular industry - got to pick somebody who at least has some clue how the widgets are made. Or here's another, crazier, one; chaplain on a ship out at sea - definitely need somebody who understands the travails of ordinary sailors, not some stinkin' land rat.

Posted by: everyking

Actively participating in this thread without making one of the pledges suggests that you are unwilling to make them. If that's the case, you (and a few others!) will have one more oppose vote in your tally.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

You are correct. And I don't mind opposes; I do, apparently, mind opposes that stem from a belief that I'm not interested in writing content.

Posted by: radek

Ok, "one of the folks" then. Blame it on the fact that the WR poll lets you choose only one folk.




I didn't mean to suggest that (nor that I 'opposed' everyone but him in the actual voting) - I only meant to suggest that Wehwalt seemed MORE content oriented than others. Again, here we only get to choose one and apparently I'm the only one who chose him. Which seemed weird to me.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

No, I understand, we're good. I apologize for the shitheadery; it's unlike me (or so I like to think).

Posted by: everyking

So you're actually taking some positions here as a candidate: you're opposed to ArbCom transparency, and you're in favor of me getting run over by a dump truck (again). I guess I have to at least give you a point for honesty.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

1. I'm opposed to the degree of transparency that I understand you to be asking for, yes. I think this David Gerard case is one in which, with the benefit of hindsight, ArbCom probably should have been somewhat less open about its deliberations.

2. I'm fairly up on the situation that led to your desysop. I'm much less up on the Phil Sandifer situation. If I'm elected and the situation comes up, I'll evaluate it at that time (or recuse, if you feel that I couldn't be impartial given our interactions here). I'm certainly not going to go promising specific votes on cases that may or may not come up.

3. I have not stopped beating my wife.

Posted by: Cla68

I already stated in my answers to the questions on my candidate page that I was committed to openness. I've made it clear that I don't think you have been treated fairly in the past, but the most recent ArbCom ruling on your situation seemed reasonable to me. So, I guess I can't make the pledge that you're looking for.

Posted by: everyking

You never addressed my question about RfA. Why is it that you've never run again?

Posted by: MBisanz

It is probably worth noting the bar for election to arbcom is around 50% and the bar for election to adminship is still at the 70-75% range, so for him it is probably about the same odds if not easier for arbcom.

Posted by: Cla68

No one who has offered to nominate me has followed through and actually posted the nomination. I'm not upset about it. If I really wanted to try to be an admin I'm sure I could have just asked enough people until I found someone willing and able to follow through.

In my answers to the questions on my candidate page, I stated that I felt that having admin privileges was necessary for the position. Thinking about it more, however, I realize that whenever I've wanted or needed to read an admin deleted page or needed admin assistance in some other way, I've never had any trouble finding a helpful admin to provide assistance. So, if I'm elected and the Committee decides not to grant me admin privileges, I don't think that will be a big deal.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Some People are apparently not getting the Joke …

Hey! All You People not getting the Joke —

Posted by: dtobias

My interview with Cla68: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/2009-arbcom-cla68.ogg, http://ntww.dan.info/archives/2009-arbcom-cla68.mp3

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Phooey! No talk about the real issues: Tiger Woods' girlfriends, breast implants, blondes versus brunettes versus redheads, etc. What kind of interview is this?

Posted by: Cla68

Looks like a couple of editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Cla68&curid=25096357&diff=329529475&oldid=329448767 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADtobias&action=historysubmit&diff=329520964&oldid=329276587 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dtobias&diff=next&oldid=329520964.

Posted by: everyking

That seems reasonable. I think someone should be an admin before becoming an arbitrator, although it wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me if someone was otherwise a good candidate. Another question, though: why do you think it's reasonable for the ArbCom to classify me as some kind of stalker? Do you seriously believe I've done anything to warrant that? If any kind of "restraining order" were necessary, don't you think a mutual restriction would be more reasonable in light of the history?

Posted by: wjhonson

Dan, ban "Ah" from your vocabulary.
Since a few poo poo heads didn't want the link exposed anywhere useful, I've linked you up here

http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/wikipedia-arbcom-elections-2009-my-picks/4hmquk6fx4gu/385#view


Your public demands a transcript.

Posted by: Cla68

Remember, ArbCom has placed a similar restriction on me also. They should have given the same restriction to the the other guy that they placed on you. It's too late for that now.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Won't help if it's being used as a verbal placeholder, to gain time to think.

What about...erm...?

If it's between sentences, or used as a preface, sometimes I've heard an attorney usefully replace "Uhh" with "Now..."

This sounds much more professional, for some reason.

"Now... moving on with the questioning, Mr. Smith... do you have any idea what I'm billing for this turkey of a depo?"

Posted by: taiwopanfob

Actually, admin and all other Power Bits should be summarily stripped from everyone who serves as an arbitrator. If they want them, just give 'em back when they leave.

Posted by: Milton Roe

http://www.popeater.com/2009/12/02/tiger-woods-women/

Where is that Tiger thread? Here comes his 15 minutes of public prostate exam. Or perhaps longer.

Needed: SNL General Motors commercial where "Tiger" is trying to escape from half a dozen blonde zombies, all armed with 3-irons.

"Quick, to the Pontiac, Batman! No, not the Escalade-- the faster one! No, not the fire hydrant...! "

<crash> <smash>

Time for meditation....

Posted by: everyking

Too late? They can change it at any time. If the 2009 (or 2010) ArbCom wants to reaffirm what the 2005 ArbCom did, then I will hold the 2009 (or 2010) ArbCom responsible for it just as if they'd made the original ruling. The 2005 ArbCom is gone (well, maybe not entirely gone, since the ghost of Kelly Martin still haunts this forum )--any restrictions currently in place are entirely the responsibility of the currently sitting arbitrators. As an aspiring arbitrator, you should understand that. Are you saying it's "reasonable" to continue to impose a punishment even while acknowledging that the original decision to impose the punishment was in error?

Posted by: Malleus

I voted that I wasn't going to "vote" in the ArbCom elections, but you may just have changed my mind. It's about time that ArbCom wasn't the sole preserve of administrators.

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

Further evidence that Wikivoices has been hijacked and turned into another propaganda tool.
(don't think that Harvester Boris, groks the irony of his stance either).

We need an alternative, comrades...since we cannot, yet, take back our "pedia", let's at least take back our "radio".

Posted by: wjhonson

Mr Roe did you uh, did you uh, did you uh... know that the focus of this here uh, this uh, this investigation would be on your uh, your uh sexual problems?

On another note, to DTobias, I loved the ending of the interview with Fred. And now it's linked up on my page. Why isn't the link to a WikiVoices page? Did they shut you down for being too aggressive in your line of questioning?

By the way, I've now given Fred a neutral (don't hit me, stop hitting me!) and given Fritz a thumbs up.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Well, the voting is done and its all over. I'm now able to announce the results right here:

Elected to a two-year term:

Cla69
Steve Smith
Kmwebber
RMHED
Fred Bauder

Elected to a one-year term:

Fritzpoll
Sir Fozzie
William M. Connelley


Congratulations to our virtual winners.

The organising cabal

Posted by: Lar

Awesome, that user wasn't even one of the choices. I knew the thing was rigged.

Either that or you're just off by one.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I hate to think what Freud would say...

Posted by: Milton Roe

Who the devil is Kmwebber (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Dr. Connolley really hates it when folks misspell his name, though Kurt could probably give a shit less.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Damn these scrutineers....

OK, what would it take to bribe Jimbo to announce the real results here first.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I heard it on the Gropevine that he does a lot of Mandating, but No True Scotsman wants to know the answer to that question.

Jon

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I don't know about the mandating, but we've had some poet.. pretty girls on this site who could ask him nicely.

Posted by: Lar

29 User(s) are reading this topic (18 Guests and 7 Anonymous Users)
4 Members: A Horse With No Name, Nerd, Seddon, privatemusings


Nuff said.

Posted by: SirFozzie

Hate you, Doc. *laughs*

(and no, I haven't heard anything yet either)

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

We (the arbitrators) need access to administrator tools such as the ability to review deleted contributions in order to decide some of the cases. Some arbs also do a lot of the checkuser and oversight work, partly because it becomes relevant to cases and partly because we've already been elected and therefore have the community trust necessary to these assignments.

One could make an argument that arbitrators shouldn't use their tools for routine administrator work during their tenure as arbitrators. As a practical matter, there are only so many hours in the wiki-day and I don't think many arbs spend lots of time doing usual admin tasks such as closing XfDs, patrolling AIV, resolving issues on ANI, and the like. (This is partly because of time limitations and partly because of the desire to reduce the potential number of recusal situations.) On the other hand, if I see a blatant vandal doing damage or a ridiculously inappropriate page posted, I don't think it would add any value if I had to report it to another administrator rather than deal with it myself, just because I happen to also be an arbitrator.

Posted by: The Joy

What would Freud say about Wikipedia election officials being called "scrutineers?"

Seriously, you guys need to change the name to like "election monitors" or "election supervisors."

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Oh, wow...I, um...

RTV.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Lies! My member was not reading this -- it was safely tucked away in my underwear, dreaming of Hot Chili Mamas.