ArbCom nominations begin, Two weeks left to draft Wesley Options

[Neil]

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

[Peter Damian]

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought your replies to the questions about civility were poor.

(a) Depends on the definition of 'civility'. The current arbitrary and narrow-minded conception is the issue for most of us who would like the freedom to tell trolls to get lost (and also to speak our mind to those dim-witted vandal fighters who regard any kind of work on the project as vandalism - see for instance the edit trail of Americanlinguist whose new article had all sorts of stupid templates slapped on it). Some of us don't suffer fools gladly.

( Who actually cares about civility and equality among editors. Some of us care about building an encyclopedia not creating some utopian society. Join a political party if that's what you want.

So, sorry, you won't be getting my vote. And I don't vote for people with silly names either.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 20th November 2008, 3:25pm

[Newyorkbrad]

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

Maybe your votes in last year's election?

[Neil]

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought your replies to the questions about civility were poor.

(a) Depends on the definition of 'civility'. The current arbitrary and narrow-minded conception is the issue for most of us who would like the freedom to tell trolls to get lost (and also to speak our mind to those dim-witted vandal fighters who regard any kind of work on the project as vandalism - see for instance the edit trail of Americanlinguist whose new article had all sorts of stupid templates slapped on it). Some of us don't suffer fools gladly.

( Who actually cares about civility and equality among editors. Some of us care about building an encyclopedia not creating some utopian society. Join a political party if that's what you want.

So, sorry, you won't be getting my vote. And I don't vote for people with silly names either.

As far as I am concerned, Peter, you or anyone else may tell trolls to get lost on Wikipedia; just do so politely. Too many people think civility means you can't say what you think, or express your views forcefully. My concept of civility, and the spirit WP:CIVIL was written in (if not adhered to by many) requires you to respect the other person's viewpoint, and comment on their contributions, not them.

"Not suffering fools gladly" is a commonly used, and exceptionally lame, excuse used by or on behalf of people who are unable to interact with others online in the same way they would interact with someone they met on the street.

This means, for example, that "fuck off" is not acceptable, whether said to a troll, a vandal, a newbie, an admin, whoever. If you don't understand that, I wouldn't want you to vote for me anyway. Especially as you think my awesome name is stupid.

7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

Maybe your votes in last year's election?

I still think the clerks lost out when you made the step up to Arbcom

[Peter Damian]

As far as I am concerned, Peter, you or anyone else may tell trolls to get lost on Wikipedia; just do so politely. Too many people think civility means you can't say what you think, or express your views forcefully. My concept of civility, and the spirit WP:CIVIL was written in (if not adhered to by many) requires you to respect the other person's viewpoint, and comment on their contributions, not them.

"Not suffering fools gladly" is a commonly used, and exceptionally lame, excuse used by or on behalf of people who are unable to interact with others online in the same way they would interact with someone they met on the street.

This means, for example, that "fuck off" is not acceptable, whether said to a troll, a vandal, a newbie, an admin, whoever.

But it's not telling someone to f-- off is it, it's anything close to the truth that can be used as an excuse to block or ban. Topically, see Giano's latest tirade below. He expresses his views forcefully and rightly so, but people confuse forcefulness with 'incivility'. If someone is a fool, tell them they are a fool, if they are a liar ... and so on. Wikipedia Review would not exist except for the impossibility of telling the truth over there anymore.

So Brad, what has the Arbcom done about this situation so far? In emails yesterday to you and others I said I was prepared to ignore Thatcher and the other one, if gerard was dealt with. So far I see nothing has been done. It is left to me to sort it out, and prevent similar abuse. According to you, I should not be cross with Thatcher, I should not be cross with the other one - presumably I should not be cross with Gerard because he is the pet of Jimbo and the Arbcom, and let's face it no-one is allowed to tell Jimbo that his tame checkuser is a lying cheat. Who invades and violates privacy at a whim. Why is this? What services does he perform for you all, that give him such protection? Giano (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[Casliber]

I went to bed musing on this whole civiilty thing, trying to figure some sort of algorithm about why (and what) it is the problem - I guess it is something along the lines thus:

*A posotive and collaborative atmosphere is highly important (if not essential) to the whole collaborative editing thing.

*Thus, any posting or exchange which gratuitously aims to deteriorate the atmosphere between editors is a no-no. This includes baiting and snide remarks of people already angry as well as 'incivility'. I always try to look at the malignance or intent rather than the language, so an explosive 'fuck off' means less than something really cutting or demeaning said with polite language.

Not sure where to go with this as yet, I suppose trawling through all the archives (oh gawd...)....to see if I am not reinventing the wheel

[One]

I agree in principle, Casliber.

The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users--whether their article editing is problematic or benign.

I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.

I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

I agree in principle, Casliber.

The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users--whether their article editing is problematic or benign.

I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.

I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.

The old blocking rules identified 'disruption' as a valid reason for blocking. It was subjective and required an administrators judgment to interpret and use. Then, a couple of years ago the words 'civil' and 'civility' were thrown into the block policy. Then some admins started blocking for 'civility' whenever Giano made a good point. I personally find the stupidity of those admins far more disruptive, not to mention offensive, than anything Giano ever did.

[Casliber]

Well, I guess waht I also mean is situations of 'upping the ante' and recognising that as a problem, and also inciting others. Anyway...still need to check archives

[Proabivouac]

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views?

Weeklong IRC blocks without warning or discussion should be controversial…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160459355

[JoseClutch]

I agree in principle, Casliber.

The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users--whether their article editing is problematic or benign.

I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.

I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.

The big problem is that "civility" is one of the few things you can block someone for, or get someone blocked for, and make it stick. Sockpuppeting as well, and spamming. But that is about all.

But "persistant fringe POV pusher"? Very hard. "Disinterested in working together but polite?" Very hard.

So people grasp at the straws that have traction.

[One]

The big problem is that "civility" is one of the few things you can block someone for, or get someone blocked for, and make it stick. Sockpuppeting as well, and spamming. But that is about all.

But "persistant fringe POV pusher"? Very hard. "Disinterested in working together but polite?" Very hard.

So people grasp at the straws that have traction.

I agree 100%. That's why civil POV pushing really can be a problem. But that's a problem of Wikipedia where we look at the behavior rather than the expertise. Our anti-elitism, and all that.

[Moulton]

I went to bed musing on this whole civililty thing, trying to figure some sort of algorithm about why (and what) it is the problem — I guess it is something along the lines thus:

*A positive and collaborative atmosphere is highly important (if not essential) to the whole collaborative editing thing.

*Thus, any posting or exchange which gratuitously aims to deteriorate the atmosphere between editors is a no-no. This includes baiting and snide remarks of people already angry as well as 'incivility'. I always try to look at the malignance or intent rather than the language, so an explosive 'fuck off' means less than something really cutting or demeaning said with polite language.

Not sure where to go with this as yet, I suppose trawling through all the archives (oh gawd...)....to see if I am not reinventing the wheel

The concept of civility does appear to be one of those abstractions which Wikipedians perennially struggle with.

On Wikiversity, the official Civility Policy provides some examples of serious breaches of civility:

More serious examples include:

• Taunting
  
• Personal attacks
  o Racial, ethnic, and religious slurs
  o Profanity directed at another contributor
  
• Lies
  
• Defacing user pages
  
• Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove Trolling
  
• Calling for unjustified bans or blocks

This style of interaction between editors drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community.

Note, especially, that two of the above examples include common practices of admins: Defacing user pages and calling for (and even summarily executing) unjustified bans or blocks.

It is a precept as old as the Rule of Law itself that one must justify a ban with a provable cause of action. And yet it is common to block or ban rival editors on arbitrary, capricious, and specious grounds whilst bypassing the checks and balances of community or judicial review.

And so there is both the irony and the disgrace of profoundly incivil conduct by unethical admins who routinely block, ban, deface, and baleet user pages without just cause, without review, without due process, and without remorse.

I agree in principle, Casliber.

The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users — whether their article editing is problematic or benign.

I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.

I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.

The current regime exemplifies incivility by dint of their bullying practices. The primarily tool of the bully is to block or ban someone for capricious and undemonstrated reasons, without the checks and balances of a review by neutral parties.

The old blocking rules identified 'disruption' as a valid reason for blocking. It was subjective and required an administrator's judgment to interpret and use. Then, a couple of years ago the words 'civil' and 'civility' were thrown into the block policy. Then some admins started blocking for 'civility' whenever Giano made a good point. I personally find the stupidity of those admins far more disruptive, not to mention offensive, than anything Giano ever did.

Precisely so. Another instance of irony, in which the block for the specious reason of "disruption" is genuinely disruptive of civil process of resolving issues that divide rival factions. The current practice is for the dominant faction to kibosh editors promoting the minority viewpoint. And of course the ethical viewpoint is traditionally a minority viewpoint when facing down the pitchfork wielding mob.

The big problem is that "civility" is one of the few things you can block someone for, or get someone blocked for, and make it stick. Sockpuppeting as well, and spamming. But that is about all.

But "persistent fringe POV pusher"? Very hard. "Disinterested in working together but polite?" Very hard.

So people grasp at the straws that have traction.

I agree 100%. That's why civil POV pushing really can be a problem. But that's a problem of Wikipedia where we look at the behavior rather than the expertise. Our anti-elitism, and all that.

Eventually those straws are too weak to support and sustain the outlandish bullying practices of unethical admins who at best gain a temporary advantage by abusing their power to haphazardly block and ballet rival editors who seek to introduce more ethical practices into an increasingly unstable and unsustainable WikiCulture.

[Casliber]

Now Risker's added themself

so Littleknownadmin can update their formguide

This post has been edited by Casliber: Sat 22nd November 2008, 5:22am

[Giano]

Now Risker's added themself

so Littleknownadmin can update their formguide

In my view, Risker may well be the late starter, and outsider fielder who gets in. Of course though that does depend on Jimbo having heard of her and inviting her to join. I think she will, and he will. However, I'm always wrong in my premonitions for Arbcom, so who knows?

Giano

[Casliber]

Actually, Risker is the only female (?) (Pity Catherine de Burgh dropped out then......oh )

[Littleunknownadmin]

I don't see the candidates being stronger, even with Risker joining the elections, here's the weekend update.

Dream Focus - candidate statement has nothing to do with ArbCom, I think White Cat and George the Dragon will likely get more supports than him, should withdraw
Risker- strong candidate in a weak field, made some enemies though, should be a close and exciting one to watch
Shell Kinney - only candidate to run for ArbCom in the past four years, always fails with barely 50%, no different this time, plus expect some negative power hungry votes.
The Fat Man Who Never Get Back - seems tempting to support this candidate, good sense of humor, nice statement. Won't get elected though.
Trojanpony - candidate statement explains it all, looking at his edits, isn't even qualified to vote, I don't see a limit on edits to run though, but it should be a common sense removal

This post has been edited by Littleunknownadmin: Mon 24th November 2008, 4:33pm

[Littleunknownadmin]

Two more

BillMasen- no experience, original candidacy was malformed,
Lifebaka - Good with AFDs, not for ArbCom

This post has been edited by Littleunknownadmin: Mon 24th November 2008, 6:02pm

[Alex]

Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.

[Littleunknownadmin]

Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.

Yes, one of the strongest candidates yet. Also I want to see extra opinions on all the candidates, I was the only one that talked about every candidate so far.