ArbCom elections December 2007!, I can't believe nobody else has done this yet... Options

[Ampersand]

Discuss.

[KamrynMatika]

And it's started.

So far we have:

• David Fuchs - Has always seemed like a fairly reasonable guy.
• Deskana - Obvious winner, the current arbcom already loves him
• Dreamafter - Who?
• Durova - Please dear god no. "I ask for a 1 year fill-in position on the Committee to gain perspectives for that long range planning and because an editor with sleuthing skill is an asset to the committee." THAT'S RIGHT DUROVA YOU ARE A SLEUTH.
  

  17: What do you think of Wikipedia Review? Jbeach sup 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  
  About the same as Wikipedia Review thinks of me. DurovaCharge! 05:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  
  I feel so loved
• Endlessdan - Candidate statement:
  

  Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed. EndlessDan 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  
  Nothing more needs to be said.
• Giano - LOL Hell will freeze over before he gets on ArbCom. Don't get me wrong though, I love him, but there are too many people with grudges against him for him to succeed. The image on his talk page is hilarious (complete with caption).
• Hemlock Martinis - well known but not enough involved in wikipolitics
• Messedrocker - Didn't he just register here?
• Monsieurdl - wWho?
• Moreschi - I liked him at first but he reminds me of Guy more and more every day. Seems to mistake rudeness for honesty.
• Newyorkbrad - Another obvious winner
• Raul654 - Linked to WR in his candidate statement. That is all I have to say
• Ryan Postlethwaite - I hope not, he's quite childish and doesn't appear to have a clue what's going on half the time.
  
  And an interesting exchange on his questions page:
  

  This edit of yours here Ryan 1 would publication of the IRC logs bear that out, or were you stretching the truth a little? In fact we both know the answer - so why were you lying? Giano 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  
  That edit was made at 9 in the morning, I'd just got out of bed and clicked my watchlist on a flying visit before going to uni and saw you removing Alisons comment - I tried to ask you in a friendly way if it was really worth the hassle. I certainly don't log into IRC for a quick 2 minutes before going to uni - so the publication of the IRC logs should certify this. I have my own mind Giano, so I think for myself - if I believe something needs acting upon, I act on it, if I don't, I leave it. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  
  So you don't use IRC at all then? Giano 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  
  Yes I do, but more for social reasons. It's good to get to know other editors on the project and actually discuss things that are happening in real life to them (It's better than using wikipedia as a social networking site). Actually, one thing that I really don't like about IRC is that decisions are often made on there - for transparency, everything should be discussed on-wiki where everyone has access. I hate the fact the IRC is limited to a small proportion of the community. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  
  I think you had better go and check the logs Ryan. Giano 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  
  I wonder if Giano will ever get over the fact that people use IRC.
• Jbeach56 - After the drama just a few weeks ago? No.
• Shell Kinney - no idea who he is either
• Swatjester - the MONGO-type people love him
• White Cat - Too much drama around him, too annoying and immature
• Wizardman - too new

My top 3 candidates are:
Deskana
Newyorkbrad
I wishhhh Giano, but probably David Fuchs

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika: Fri 2nd November 2007, 10:23pm

[Derktar]

Let the Games begin!

This is looking to be quite an interesting one, with all the drama in the last few weeks, the aftermath of this one might be able to top them all.

and nice going Raul:

I consider it a badge of honor that many of the trolls on Wikipedia Review detest me (with good reason - I am the reason many of them are banned). I am not here for them - I am here for you, the editors and administrators.

Calling JzG, cleanup needed, possible ban!

This post has been edited by Derktar: Fri 2nd November 2007, 9:10pm

[Jonny Cache]

Discuss.

{{↑YAWN↑}}

Yawny Cache

[guy]

Yes, Messedrocker is here and has seemed reasonable.

NewYorkBrad has been a good ArbCom clerk and I think will be an asset.

That's both of them disqualified in the eyes of the Cabal!

[GlassBeadGame]

ArbCom is an institution created by, and existing to serve Mr. Wales. It is too flawed to consider the possibility of supporting various candidates.

[blissyu2]

Where is Raul654's statement? What did he say about WR? Can we quote it?

Wasn't Raul654 chief in the "lets censor Wikipedia Review" campaign? At least in abusing the spam blacklist to get rid of us.

[Kato]

The only candidate a good faith Wikipedian could take seriously in any way at all is NewYorkBrad.

I think Raul is a nice guy but he is simply silly and incompetent. Durova and Moreschi are both preposterous figures that have harmed wikipedia more than I ever could - though there would be a certain additional comedic value if they ever got on the board. Swatjester is simply appalling. Ryan Postlethwaite and Deskana are naive yes men. I like Jaranda and Giano but it isn't going to happen.

So all is looking good for us. But perhaps someone should canvass JzG to stand. After last year's MONGO merriment, we need a bit of a seasonal pantomime to go with our chestnuts and mince pies.

Actually, looking at last years poll for JzG's candidacy, before he pulled out shrouded in ignominy, is a great way to pass a few minutes!

The second oppose reads:

Strong oppose - Just in the last few weeks, he's engaged in personal attacks ("idiot","idiot"), incivility ("f_ck off", "f_ck off"), biting a new user ("pissing me off"), and revealing the identity of an anonymous user (here, then again here after the user removed it to preserve his identity). I don't care what the other editors did, should an admin and arb com candidate be calling someone an idiot and telling them to f_ck off? See also my mediation experience with JzG on the talk page. ATren 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[KamrynMatika]

Where is Raul654's statement? What did he say about WR? Can we quote it?

Wasn't Raul654 chief in the "lets censor Wikipedia Review" campaign? At least in abusing the spam blacklist to get rid of us.

It's here. In the comment Derktar quoted above, where he says 'Wikipedia Review' he links to it.

[GlassBeadGame]

<h3>Ten Reasons Why ArbCom Doesn't Matter</h3>

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. It is lead by and intimately tainted from it's inception by a legal professional who left practice after receiving discipline for a a serious and unresolved ethical lapse.

[KamrynMatika]

<h3>Ten Reasons Why ArbCom Doesn't Matter</h3>

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. It is lead by and intimately tainted from it's inception by a legal professional who left practice after receiving discipline for a a serious and unresolved ethical lapse.

Well, you just summed it up perfectly

One of the more ironic things is Moreschi's recent statement of something similar; that ArbCom is a joke, pointless, etc. And yet he's standing? So it's not that much of a joke that it's not worth your time then, eh, Moreschi?

[Amarkov]

Most people who've run so far either would be actively harmful, don't have good enough judgement, or are never going to be elected. There are maybe two people who avoid all of those, and more than two people are going to end up on Arbcom. Hopefully people will at least not elect anyone who would make Arbcom worse.

[The Joy]

NewYorkBrad reads WR and he refers to my comment here!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Let the Games begin!

This is looking to be quite an interesting one, with all the drama in the last few weeks, the aftermath of this one might be able to top them all.

and nice going Raul:

I consider it a badge of honor that many of the trolls on Wikipedia Review detest me (with good reason - I am the reason many of them are banned). I am not here for them - I am here for you, the editors and administrators.

I hope everyone appreciates the extent to which this site now dominates the minds of Wikipedia's admins. We have even become a major factor in the ArbCom campaign. We are the Al Qaeda to Raul's George W. Bush.

[everyking]

It's a depressing list. There are really no candidates so far who I could support with any enthusiasm. There's one, maybe two, I could vote for. The award for most amusing candidacy goes to Jbeach56; it's impossible for me to not chuckle at the thought of him quitting WP two days after being elected, then requesting his seat back (under a new user name?) after two more days. I don't know why Raul decided to link to WR in his statement; maybe he's trying to signal he's not a radical about BADSITES. Messedrocker wins points for mentioning the importance of problem solving, since that's something the present ArbCom does not do, or really even attempt to do. Can you imagine an ArbCom that actually thought about constructive solutions and didn't merely consider the degree and length of sanctions to impose on one side or the other? He also has a history of proposing effective compromise solutions, I think. On the downside, he rather alarmingly refers to "deal[ing] with the filth of everyday life".

I really think a person would have to go into the ArbCom not as a moderate but as a radical against current ArbCom practices to keep from tending in the direction of their traditional conviction-sentence model. Anybody who doesn't think the ArbCom needs serious change is probably not going to be a good arbitrator, even if they seem reasonable.

This post has been edited by everyking: Sat 3rd November 2007, 7:00am

[The Joy]

I miss Kelly Martin. She made last year's ArbCom Elections exciting!

I guess Danny's off on Veropedia. If only Cla68 would try for the position...

It looks like many of the arbitrators elected last year have been mostly inactive. I don't know if any in this batch will be any less lazy. Poor Kirill and Fred are the only ones that are dedicated arbitrators, in my opinion. The others just come in for the quorum call and go about their business.

[blissyu2]

Where is Raul654's statement? What did he say about WR? Can we quote it?

Wasn't Raul654 chief in the "lets censor Wikipedia Review" campaign? At least in abusing the spam blacklist to get rid of us.

It's here. In the comment Derktar quoted above, where he says 'Wikipedia Review' he links to it.

I consider it a badge of honor that many of the trolls on Wikipedia Review detest me (with good reason - I am the reason many of them are banned). I am not here for them - I am here for you, the editors and administrators.

When he says "many of the trolls" and "I am the reason many of them are banned" he is of course referring to Lir, and only Lir. We haven't heard from Lir for about a year.

[msharma]

I rather think Moreschi's objection is to ArbCom having been ineffective of late, and not handing out blocks to POV-pushers. Several recent cases have ended with amnesties.
Personally, I think that while he's frequently uncivil and also easy with the bans, his heart is in the right place with regard to NPOV, and he could push the ArbCom out of stasis. I don't care about any of the other candidates, but I'll be voting for him.

Well, you just summed it up perfectly

One of the more ironic things is Moreschi's recent statement of something similar; that ArbCom is a joke, pointless, etc. And yet he's standing? So it's not that much of a joke that it's not worth your time then, eh, Moreschi?

[LessHorrid vanU]

NewYorkBrad reads WR and he refers to my comment here!

Ummm... that would be our comments, would it not?

[GlassBeadGame]

I really think a person would have to go into the ArbCom not as a moderate but as a radical against current ArbCom practices to keep from tending in the direction of their traditional conviction-sentence model. Anybody who doesn't think the ArbCom needs serious change is probably not going to be a good arbitrator, even if they seem reasonable.

Everyking:

I don't think "traditional conviction-sentence model" is what is wrong with ArbCom. I think even going down that road will only result in more amateurish non-sense layered upon the rest of the slapped together slip-shod crap. On the other hand I completely sympathetic to your belief that only candidates who are willing seriously question the underpinnings of ArbCom are worth considering.

I wonder if you could discuss your views on each of the 10 points discussed above? I don't expect your complete agreement. (6) in particular would probably be a problem for you as you tend to be consistently populist. I would like to understand just how far apart our views are on these matters.

I always want to support you because I like you, but hesitate to do so because I believe you are often wrong on the details. I bet a lot others feel the same way about you, both on WR and WP.