The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

[thekohser]

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?

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

[everyking]

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?

[A Horse With No Name]

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!

[Happy drinker]

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.

[A Horse With No Name]

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.

[thekohser]

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.

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.

[Happy drinker]

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.

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.

[Nerd]

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.

[A Horse With No Name]

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.

[Nerd]

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.

[Random832]

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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

[Milton Roe]

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.

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....

[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.)


(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: Thu 12th November 2009, 12:49am

[Nerd]

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.

[Cla68]

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.

[A Horse With No Name]

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring?

[Malleus]

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring?

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

[Casliber]

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? ) - but you get the idea.

Cas