ArbCom nominations begin, Two weeks left to draft Wesley Options

[Newyorkbrad]

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate.

That's a good point. Voters could make this a requisite single issue. I'm a little surprised by SirFozzie's answer myself, which amounts to "I don't oppose Jimbo's unilateral acts when I agree with Jimbo." The whole point of the question makes candidates evaluate whether they actually oppose Jimbo's hand in selection, or if they think he's right about being a necessary check against bad candidates.

Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now.

[The Wales Hunter]

Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now.

Then do the honest thing and resign in order to seek reconfirmation

[Alex]

Wow George! You'll probably do worse than I did if I ran!

[Newyorkbrad]

Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now.

Then do the honest thing and resign in order to seek reconfirmation

What, and give Neil a chance to oppose me again?

[The Wales Hunter]

Wow George! You'll probably do worse than I did if I ran!

I am a single issue candidate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...orge_The_Dragon

Who expects a single vote. With a one vote margin of error!

[Random832]

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment.

It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?

[SirFozzie]

At risk of someone putting a LOLCAT up with the phrase "ARBCOM IZ SERIUZ BIZNESS".. I agree with Jimbo in that Privatemusings should not be considered as a serious candidate for ArbCom. The only way that he WOULD be elected to ArbCom would be through an American Idol style "Vote for the Lulz" wave of voters.

I agree with two statements put forth in the current RFC in PM:

For whatever reason, PM is friendly, affable -- and disruptive

....Cases and issues of the kind Privatemusings involves himself in, are often delicate and sensitive, and may result from serious (often emotive) on-wiki events. Demands of this kind with little tact or understanding of the fact, can often do more harm than good. As commented above, the mentor(s?) seem to view it that they are seen by him as an obstacle, not an aid to improvement. That's fairly worrying, more so as these are extremely level headed users who are "on his side"...

I have not observed many of the other 17 or so candidates for the ArbCom who have declared so far, so I can't say if I would feel the same way about any of the others. But while I feel in general that PM has the best of intentions in doing what he does, I do not think that PM would make a good arbitrator, and I would urge him to withdraw, as well a to take his (now former) mentors concerns to heart, and to improve on Wikipedia.

[Random832]

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

There's another way to protest though:

"I will not accept appointment to the arbitration committee if any of the top eight vote-getters are passed over by Jimbo."

This post has been edited by Random832: Tue 11th November 2008, 8:06pm

[everyking]

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment.

It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?

A person should make a principled decision about something like this. Under certain circumstances, the correct course is to refuse to participate in something even if one knows that he or she will be replaced. The principled thing to do is to say: "No, I will not take the place of someone who received a stronger community mandate than I did." Furthermore, as others have mentioned, forcing Jimbo to go further down the list reduces the credibility of his appointments; he is more likely to refrain from picking and choosing arbitrators if many of the candidates disapprove of it, and particularly if the candidates next in line disapprove of it. If he goes ahead with it anyway, it will increase dissatisfaction with his role and increase the likelihood that he will be forced to relinquish it in the future.

[Random832]

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment.

It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?

A person should make a principled decision about something like this. Under certain circumstances, the correct course is to refuse to participate in something even if one knows that he or she will be replaced. The principled thing to do is to say: "No, I will not take the place of someone who received a stronger community mandate than I did." Furthermore, as others have mentioned, forcing Jimbo to go further down the list reduces the credibility of his appointments; he is more likely to refrain from picking and choosing arbitrators if many of the candidates disapprove of it, and particularly if the candidates next in line disapprove of it. If he goes ahead with it anyway, it will increase dissatisfaction with his role and increase the likelihood that he will be forced to relinquish it in the future.

I suppose that's where my other suggestion comes in - you don't have to be ninth to refuse.

[One]

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

There's another way to protest though:

"I will not accept appointment to the arbitration committee if any of the top eight vote-getters are passed over by Jimbo."

Now that would show commitment.

It would also be much more effective than what everyking proposes. Imagine if four of the top picks made this vow. If Jimbo wants to skip over someone, he doesn't just go to #9 (or #10 if the ninth agrees with everyking), he has to go down #9-12, and probably deeper if some of those candidates are similarly principled.

That said, I think LessHeard's comment below hits the mark.

This post has been edited by One: Tue 11th November 2008, 9:20pm

[LessHorrid vanU]

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment.

It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?

It is also a question of whether you are running for the ArbCom under its present constitution in the belief that you are doing it for the best interests of the community, or whether you are challenging Jimbo's "right" to disregard in whole or part the wishes of the community (I don't see a way of squaring that circle of running on the ticket of doing both). If you are running on the basis you wish to serve the community to the best of your ability under the prevailing conditions - and you believe you can do that job - then I suggest you accept on whatever basis a place is offered to you because Jimbo is going to try very hard not to allow people who are running on an anti status quo (including the sodding band!) ticket to join the ArbCom (and by running on such an ideal is a perfect way to disenfranchise them, "The candidate has stated they have no interest in performing ArbCom work, and are protesting only the way the Committee is chosen, and therefore are illegible for consideration.") So, if you are running on the protest platform then accept you will not be given the nod... no matter where you place.

PM is running, it seems, the best campaign of that sort - being honest about wanting to be on the ArbCom for the purpose of influencing its working, believing that what they intend is to the betterment of the community, and having no chance of being selected whatever the vote. I think that there is also someone else running on that platform, which is why I am using my only support for them (I protest voted for Giano last time, this time I intend also to oppose anyone I truly don't think should be on the Committee.)

[everyking]

Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates.

[everyking]

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

[wikiwhistle]

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

I would have voted for Bishonen wholeheartedly but Bishzilla standing is frustratingly random when she could be a good candidate. I suppose the point is that they think Arbcom behaves like a joke or something. I may well still vote for her but it's a shame she isn't standing as herself, I humourlessly say

[Pumpkin Muffins]

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years.

Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Wed 12th November 2008, 1:42am

[everyking]

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years.

Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic

I doubt that, but it doesn't really matter either way; what's important is that she did not answer my questions.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years.

Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic

I doubt that, but it doesn't really matter either way; what's important is that she did not answer my questions.

Oh really? You doubt Bishzilla's satire?

[everyking]

I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy.

That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years.

Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic

I doubt that, but it doesn't really matter either way; what's important is that she did not answer my questions.

Oh really? You doubt Bishzilla's satire?

I'm pretty sure it's not satire, but like I said, it doesn't matter. How do you feel about this joke candidacy, Pumpkin Muffins?

[Kato]

The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.

The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.

If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.