The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

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.

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?

I'll be damned.

You will be.

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.

Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes?

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.
Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes?

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: Fri 13th November 2009, 9:54pm

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.
Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes?

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.

I'd run, but I have less than 50 mainspace edits. Which is ironic, as that'd be the basis of my candidacy.

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.