Review Board, Proposal to oversee checkuser, oversight, and the ArbCom Options

[Milton Roe]

[...] sometimes I think I'm the loneliest person not just on Wikipedia but on Wikipedia Review as well. I might as well sit here and watch the show while these vines grow over my head.

Jonah chapter 4, verses 6-11, yes? God makes a vine grow over Jonah's head while Jonah waits for the destruction of Nineveh.

But in the end, God spares Nineveh. Just as the vine grew over Jonah's head, without Jonah labouring for it or tending, so Nineveh has grown up, with more than 120,000 people.

And all of this too shall pass.


Far-call'd our navies melt away—
On dune and headland sinks the fire—
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget!

[Moulton]

Are people really seriously looking into the radical notion of introducing such unheard of features as Due Process, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Civil Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Presumption of Innocence, Trial by Jury, and Ethical Governance?

Yes please. Let's have all of these.

(And while we are at it, can we have a flag, airforce uniforms and a national anthem too?)

Dunno about the flag and the air force, but I already wrote the anthem.

[Doc glasgow]

Are people really seriously looking into the radical notion of introducing such unheard of features as Due Process, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Civil Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Presumption of Innocence, Trial by Jury, and Ethical Governance?

Yes please. Let's have all of these.

(And while we are at it, can we have a flag, airforce uniforms and a national anthem too?)

Dunno about the flag and the air force, but I already wrote the anthem.

No. We have better candidate anthems:

There is "Jimbo's Hymn"

Or "Hotel Wikipedia"

Or If I were an admin

Or perhaps my own modest contribution "Tae a sysop" (musical arrangement still pending)

[Moulton]

Can we have a contest to see whose song parodies are more atrocious?

[Doc glasgow]

Can we have a contest to see whose song parodies are more atrocious?

Oh, there's a whole Wikiproject full of this musical nonsense - most of it sycophantic drivel. There's even a song by David Gerard.

[The Joy]

Can we have a contest to see whose song parodies are more atrocious?

Oh, there's a whole Wikiproject full of this musical nonsense - most of it sycophantic drivel. There's even a song by David Gerard.

NOOOO! I thought of a Portal parody song first! Curse that Gerard!

[Kelly Martin]

I think this review board will turn into Just Another Hat To Be Collected by Wikipedia's MMORPG players.

[wikiwhistle]

Can we have a contest to see whose song parodies are more atrocious?

ooooh, I wrote one the other day We might have to make the thread in the lounge board though, unless we have a poetry etc board, as mine's not strictly about wikipedia.

[Lar]

I think this review board will turn into Just Another Hat To Be Collected by Wikipedia's MMORPG players.

Eh?

Naa... too easy to get a userid here, and too hard to get the moderator bit. Good hats are moderately hard to collect.

OOPS. never mind. I interpreted "this review board" as Wikipedia Review!

[Doc glasgow]

I think this review board will turn into Just Another Hat To Be Collected by Wikipedia's MMORPG players.

Eh?

Naa... too easy to get a userid here, and too hard to get the moderator bit. Good hats are moderately hard to collect.

OOPS. never mind. I interpreted "this review board" as Wikipedia Review!

Maybe we could merge the two functions. I mean it is all about scrutiny, isn't it?


At least the community here couldn't be accused of being in the cabal's pocket.


....although, the way things are going, I foresee the day when a regular comment on an RfA will be

*Oppose, user has not really been active enough on wikipedia review.~~~~

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Tue 23rd December 2008, 11:45pm

[Moulton]

Can we have a contest to see whose song parodies are more atrocious?

Oh, there's a whole Wikiproject full of this musical nonsense - most of it sycophantic drivel. There's even a song by David Gerard.

Harrumph.

But wait...

Have any of them been personally site-wide banned by Jimbo for writing atrocious song parodies and posting them on an obscure offsite blog that no one ever clicks on (except for mebbe a coupla disgraced goons from IDCab).

Quite probably.

Oh, foo. There must be some criterion by which I win the contest for writing the most atrocious song parodies lampooning the Wikisphere.

Can I count the votes against me by Gomi and HerschelKrustofsky?

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 24th December 2008, 12:02am

[Doc glasgow]

But wait...

Have any of them been personally site-wide banned by Jimbo for writing atrocious song parodies and posting them on an obscure offsite blog that no one ever clicks on (except for mebbe a coupla disgraced goons from IDCab).

Quite probably.

[Lar]

Can I count the votes against me by Gomi and HerschelKrustofsky?

Once each. Two for HK if you ask nicely.

[EricBarbour]

Oh, there's a whole Wikiproject full of this musical nonsense - most of it sycophantic drivel. There's even a song by David Gerard.

This was a triumph.
I'm making a note here:
HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction
W*k*p*d** R*v**w
We do what we must
because we can
For the good of all of us
Except the ones who are banned
But there's no sense crying
over every quick block
You just keep on saving
till the database's locked
And the editing is stopped
A Squid failure notice up
For the people who are
still unbanned

Ugh. Pathetic.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 24th December 2008, 3:32am

[luke]

.... <snip> ..... we have to find a way to make the review board independent of the people it might have to investigate. The only viable way to do that is to have it elected by the community alone, with no arbcom involvement, and to ensure that no-one who's been on the arbcom, checkuser, or oversight mailing lists is allowed to stand. But both these proposals have been rejected so far.

Yeah ... the problem is that power corrupts. Adding another layer of power isn't the solution.

I am much more in favor of dissolving arbcom and having cases heard by randomly selected juries selected from a pool of any willing admin. That resolves the need for a review board too - if there is an allegation of checkuser abuse, the jury can sort that out.

Why just admins? Some of WP's wisest folk are not admins. I almost would say go pure random not just willing (self selection bias)... I believe Kelly Martin has expounded that here.

I would tweak so that some sort of metric is used where the more recent edits you have, the more likely you are to be selected so you're not randomly selecting folk who are gone, or very sporadic or whatever.

Kelly Martin posted about this on Steve Dunlop's Wikback forum where she was against self-selection. As you'll see, the Wikback forum - unfortunately without its content - is still online...and google doesn't seem of much help in retrieving the discussions I mentioned the 'jury' idea on Wikipedia two or three times since then, but no one appeared interested.

[Kelly Martin]

Kelly Martin posted about this on Steve Dunlop's Wikback forum where she was against self-selection. As you'll see, the Wikback forum - unfortunately without its content - is still online...and google doesn't seem of much help in retrieving the discussions I mentioned the 'jury' idea on Wikipedia two or three times since then, but no one appeared interested.

Of course Wikipedia would resist non-self-selected juries; there's no hat to get out of it, and people might have to actually do something that they don't want to. It's totally anathema to the Wikipedian ideal of privilege without responsibility.

[Cla68]

Kelly Martin posted about this on Steve Dunlop's Wikback forum where she was against self-selection. As you'll see, the Wikback forum - unfortunately without its content - is still online...and google doesn't seem of much help in retrieving the discussions I mentioned the 'jury' idea on Wikipedia two or three times since then, but no one appeared interested.

Of course Wikipedia would resist non-self-selected juries; there's no hat to get out of it, and people might have to actually do something that they don't want to. It's totally anathema to the Wikipedian ideal of privilege without responsibility.

I still think your jury-system idea is a good one which would help prevent "cabals" from torpedoing the elections of editors they don't approve of. Anyway, discussion on the "Review Board's" talk page is ongoing. The consensus appears to be that it needs to operate independently of ArbCom and the current Checkuser and Oversight groups and that it's members should be elected in the same way as ArbCom members are elected. Some are pushing that the name of the board be changed to "Audit Board."