[X] My Assistant

[Sarcasticidealist]

Nominations have been open for more than forty hours, and not yet a word about it here?

The candidate field so far is looking a little familiar. It will be interesting to see if either of the incumbents seek re-election.

[GlassBeadGame]

As long as WMF is obsessed with the phony democracy of selecting board members from "the community" the selection is a complete waste of time. WMF needs to provide a place at the table for people outside the insular "community," especially from groups impacted by it operation as well as the normal non-profit community if it ever wants to address the mounting stack problem that continue to accumulate. The answers are found on the outside, not on the inside. Wikipedians love to talk about Wikipedians though, so I'm certain we will hear all about Swatjester and company.

[Sarcasticidealist]

As long as WMF is obsessed with the phony democracy of selecting board members from "the community" the selection is a complete waste of time. WMF needs to provide a place at the table for people outside the insular "community," especially from groups impacted by it operation as well as the normal non-profit community if it ever wants to address the mounting stack problem that continue to accumulate. The answers are found on the outside, not on the inside. Wikipedians love to talk about Wikipedians though, so I'm certain we will hear all about Swatjester and company.

There are four seats allocated for "specific expertise" trustees. I strongly feel that those should be used to select people with no accounts on Wikimedia projects (more people with Wikipedia articles, fewer with Wikipedia accounts). Prevailing wisdom seems to be that they should be Wikipedians with specific expertise, unfortunately.

Only two of those four seats are currently filled (or have ever been, as nearly as I am able to ascertain), by these two gents: Stu West and Jan-Bart de Vreede.

If these four seats were filled by genuine outsiders, I think three seats elected by the communities would be eminently reasonable.

Edit: Actually, I may have misspoke about the prevailing wisdom: Stu West has done very little editing to go with his impressive-sounding real life resume, while I can't find evidence that Jan-Bart de Vreede has done any at all. The WMF might actually be on the right track with these two.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[Milton Roe]

Edit: Actually, I may have misspoke about the prevailing wisdom: Stu West has done very little editing to go with his impressive-sounding real life resume, while I can't find evidence that Jan-Bart de Vreede has done any at all. The WMF might actually be on the right track with these two.

Disagree. How can you possibly understand Wikipedia if you haven't been reverted by some putz?

Board seats should be open only to people with 6 months of editing experience, with some certain number of contributory edits (not just vandal-reversions) as NON ADMINS (since admins on wikipedia, who don't live in the fear and serfdom of ordinary editors, see things with a distinctly rose-colored view).

Before you get on the WMF board with Jimbo and his Court, we'd like you experience what it's like to be a WP vassal or serf, out tilling the fields while you watch the fancy knights sometimes ride by.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Disagree. How can you possibly understand Wikipedia if you haven't been reverted by some putz?

Board seats should be open only to people with 6 months of editing experience, with some certain number of contributory edits (not just vandal-reversions) as NON ADMINS (since admins on wikipedia, who don't live in the fear and serfdom of ordinary editors, see things with a distinctly rose-colored view).

Before you get on the WMF board with Jimbo and his Court, we'd like you experience what it's like to be a WP vassal or serf, out tilling the fields while you watch the fancy knights sometimes ride by.

Strongly disagree, obviously. As GBG says above, there are plenty of stakeholders with interests in Wikipedia beyond the editing community. These include BLP subjects, readers, the academic community, and the public at large. Besides that, I can think of no better way to ensure that the Board is constantly making low-level decisions instead of setting out high-level direction than to populate it with edit-warriors.

I actually think the 4:3 ration of editors to non-editors on the WMF Board is a reasonable one, though it's skewed by the two chapter seats and the "Community Founder" seat (Jimbo's term in this seat lasts until December; I presume Sanger gets his turn at that point).

[dtobias]

I'm in favor of a community being able to govern itself without outside meddling, so I'm against proposals that give explicit control of the WMF board (or parts of it) to outsiders. I'm also against mandatory qualifications regarding amount of editing for candidates; if the (in-community) voters want to elect somebody from outside their community to fill one of the seats that's their right. I'm also, of course, for complete freedom of speech for insiders and outsiders alike to comment on whatever they see as the absurdity of the WP community, without any BADSITES-ish policies trying to protect the sensitive eyes of Wikipedians from seeing such criticism.

If you think the community is dysfunctional now, just wait until one of the "outside stakeholders have rights too" proposals is enacted and suddenly everybody from dictatorial governments in China and Iran (who have a stake in preventing WP from publishing embarrassing info about their countries) to the intellectual property lobby (who would want WP to adhere to the most expansionist interpretation of what's copyrightable/patentable/trademarkable and the most minimalist interpretation of what's allowed as fair use) to the net-nanny censors who want everything on the net to be "family-values friendly" (better not have an article on The L Word... there are lesbians there!) has a seat on the board to try to cause their views to become policy.

This post has been edited by dtobias:

[thekohser]

Does the WR community wish to see another Kohs run at a WMF board seat? I'm not promising anything, but I'd like to gauge interest. Sounds very pointless to me, other than to see if I could get up above the bottom two or three.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I'm in favor of a community being able to govern itself without outside meddling, so I'm against proposals that give explicit control of the WMF board (or parts of it) to outsiders.

The WMF does not exist exclusively for the benefit of the communities of editors. It exists

...to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In coordination with a network of chapters and individual volunteers, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.

A board that best serves the above purpose is one that includes representation from the broadest possibly group of people with an interest in the above purpose.

If you think the community is dysfunctional now, just wait until one of the "outside stakeholders have rights too" proposals is enacted and suddenly everybody from dictatorial governments in China and Iran (who have a stake in preventing WP from publishing embarrassing info about their countries) to the intellectual property lobby (who would want WP to adhere to the most expansionist interpretation of what's copyrightable/patentable/trademarkable and the most minimalist interpretation of what's allowed as fair use) to the net-nanny censors who want everything on the net to be "family-values friendly" (better not have an article on The L Word... there are lesbians there!) has a seat on the board to try to cause their views to become policy.

You're being a bit of a twit here, Dan. I don't think anybody's talking about appointing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as one of the specific expertise trustees. Besides that, I suspect that both of the approaches you mention above would be seen as, on some level, incompatible with the WMF's statement of purpose, which is legally binding.

Does the WR community wish to see another Kohs run at a WMF board seat?

Yes, both for the amusement value and to see ideas brought out that are unlikely to be raised by other candidates.

[Kelly Martin]

Oh, goody, another pointless election!

I recommended ages ago that there should be a Board of Delegates elected by the respective projects (and I came up with a way to allocate delegates based on project size that vaguely made sense too), with the Board of Delegates then electing the board. This idea (which is widely used in nonprofits with similar conceptual structures) was, of course, rejected, because it would not have allowed the maintenance of the then-current power structures, and would have created the real risk that Jimmy might lose control.

Since the Rise of Sue, the Board has become even more irrelevant, and at this point board elections are just shuffling the deck chair seating arrangement. All the real power is vested in Sue, Jimmy, and whoever Jimmy is presently tangled up with in his ongoing quest to embezzle a castle.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Sue Gardner only has the power that the Board gives her, actively or passively. Jimbo's in a more powerful position only insofar as he makes up 10% (well, 14.3% at the moment) of the board.

[TungstenCarbide]

Oh, goody, another pointless election!

I recommended ages ago that there should be a Board of Delegates elected by the respective projects (and I came up with a way to allocate delegates based on project size that vaguely made sense too), with the Board of Delegates then electing the board. This idea (which is widely used in nonprofits with similar conceptual structures) was, of course, rejected, because it would not have allowed the maintenance of the then-current power structures, and would have created the real risk that Jimmy might lose control.

Since the Rise of Sue, the Board has become even more irrelevant, and at this point board elections are just shuffling the deck chair seating arrangement. All the real power is vested in Sue, Jimmy, and whoever Jimmy is presently tangled up with in his ongoing quest to embezzle a castle.

Swatjester's comment about not tinkering with the office got my attention. Seems to be some good angles for him there, make the office and Sue happy. And it brings up fond memories of Anthere blowing into town, swaggering into the office and Danny storming out moments later.

[sbrown]

Does the WR community wish to see another Kohs run at a WMF board seat? I'm not promising anything, but I'd like to gauge interest. Sounds very pointless to me, other than to see if I could get up above the bottom two or three.

There cant be many people some of us would sooner see on the WMB though you clearly fail the "Not an editor" test. But its quixotic and Id sooner see you spend the time on something useful.

And I bet more than one vote for you last time was from now-blocked people so your chances are even slimmer.

[Malleus]

Nominations have been open for more than forty hours, and not yet a word about it here?

The candidate field so far is looking a little familiar. It will be interesting to see if either of the incumbents seek re-election.

Looking at that list reminds me of what I've long seen as an unsatisfactory element to the normal election process; it's not possible to vote against someone, you only have the option to support someone else. There's one of those candidates I wouldn't trust with a seat on the toilet. I'm not saying which one, so don't ask.

[The Wales Hunter]

Does the WR community wish to see another Kohs run at a WMF board seat? I'm not promising anything, but I'd like to gauge interest. Sounds very pointless to me, other than to see if I could get up above the bottom two or three.

Yes, it's the standing rather than anything else that sends out a reminder.

[LaraLove]

Does the WR community wish to see another Kohs run at a WMF board seat?

Yes, both for the amusement value and to see ideas brought out that are unlikely to be raised by other candidates.

What he said.

[Nerd]

The candidate field so far is looking a little familiar.

All three have run in the past. I wonder if Swatjester really thinks he'll win?

Oh, goody, another pointless election!

As pointless as when you ran?

Does the WR community wish to see another Kohs run at a WMF board seat?

Of course, only for the "entertainment" factor (not that I'd find it entertaining, but some might). You don't seriously believe you actually have a chance of winning I hope.

[MBisanz]

Nominations have been open for more than forty hours, and not yet a word about it here?

The candidate field so far is looking a little familiar. It will be interesting to see if either of the incumbents seek re-election.

Will you be running again?

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm in favor of a community being able to govern itself without outside meddling, so I'm against proposals that give explicit control of the WMF board (or parts of it) to outsiders. I'm also against mandatory qualifications regarding amount of editing for candidates; if the (in-community) voters want to elect somebody from outside their community to fill one of the seats that's their right. I'm also, of course, for complete freedom of speech for insiders and outsiders alike to comment on whatever they see as the absurdity of the WP community, without any BADSITES-ish policies trying to protect the sensitive eyes of Wikipedians from seeing such criticism.

If you think the community is dysfunctional now, just wait until one of the "outside stakeholders have rights too" proposals is enacted and suddenly everybody from dictatorial governments in China and Iran (who have a stake in preventing WP from publishing embarrassing info about their countries) to the intellectual property lobby (who would want WP to adhere to the most expansionist interpretation of what's copyrightable/patentable/trademarkable and the most minimalist interpretation of what's allowed as fair use) to the net-nanny censors who want everything on the net to be "family-values friendly" (better not have an article on The L Word... there are lesbians there!) has a seat on the board to try to cause their views to become policy.

This is exactly like "Cap and Trade" environmental policies that derived from the smoking ruins of the market fetish era. Only those people who already pollute and impose costs and burden on innocent non-polluter have any rights in reallocating the next round of costs and burdens.

[thekohser]

Does the WR community wish to see another Kohs run at a WMF board seat?

Of course, only for the "entertainment" factor (not that I'd find it entertaining, but some might). You don't seriously believe you actually have a chance of winning I hope.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Nerd? I said:

Sounds very pointless to me, other than to see if I could get up above the bottom two or three.

[Nerd]

Does the WR community wish to see another Kohs run at a WMF board seat?

Of course, only for the "entertainment" factor (not that I'd find it entertaining, but some might). You don't seriously believe you actually have a chance of winning I hope.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Nerd? I said:

Sounds very pointless to me, other than to see if I could get up above the bottom two or three.

Missed that part obviously. My sincerest apologies to you.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Will you be running again?

Depends on how effective the inevitable massive groundswell of grassroots support is in putting together a Draft Sarc movement. You?

[Milton Roe]

This is exactly like "Cap and Trade" environmental policies that derived from the smoking ruins of the market fetish era. Only those people who already pollute and impose costs and burden on innocent non-polluter have any rights in reallocating the next round of costs and burdens.

Um, who says that the "cap" in cap-and-trade is set by the polluters? Classically, historically, and presently, it is set by the voters, which means by everybody in the jurisdiction containing the polluters (differing countries of course still need to make treaties with each other for things that cross international boundaries).

In other words, you the voter who breathes the air decide how much pollution you want put into it. But you leave it up to the producers to sort out with each other how they'll divvy it up.

I fail to see your beef with that-- as the same amount of pollution gets released either way.

As for "innocent non-polluters," who are these people you speak of? They don't use manufactured goods or fuels or electricity?

[MBisanz]

Will you be running again?

Depends on how effective the inevitable massive groundswell of grassroots support is in putting together a Draft Sarc movement. You?

Nah, I'm rather happy with WM-NYC, and unless I all of a sudden became active on other wikis, I would have no shot. Yes, I will endorse the Draft Sarc movement, however his edit count is a bit on the low side

[Sarcasticidealist]

In other words, you the voter who breathes the air decide how much pollution you want put into it. But you leave it up to the producers to sort out with each other how they'll divvy it up.

I fail to see your beef with that-- as the same amount of pollution gets released either way.

My main beef is that cap-and-trade systems are consistently found to be less cost-effective per unit of pollution removed than pollution taxes (like carbon taxes).

The major difference between the two, apart from cost-effectiveness, is the unknown: since it's pretty much impossible to know exactly how much it will cost to remove the next unit of pollution for every possible level of pollution, you have to have an unknown. With a carbon tax, the unknown is just how much pollution will be removed - you know that pollution will be removed until the incremental cost of doing so exceeds the cost to the polluter of the tax, but you don't know exactly where that point is. With cap and trade, the unknown is cost: you know how much pollution you're going to remove (assuming it's a hard cap, anyway), but not what it's going to cost to remove it.

From that perspective, I've always thought that the more environmentally militant should prefer cap and trade, since they're the ones more likely to say "We need to get pollution down to this level, cost be damned". That said, I consider myself fairly environmentally militant and I prefer a carbon tax, so I'm probably a hypocrite.

(Cap and trade also has the advantage of being more complex, which makes it easier for politicians to claim that major carbon reductions are possible without significant cost being incurred by consumers. In Canada during the last election, both the major conservative party (which is somewhat to the left of the Democrats, generally) and the major socialist party endorsed cap and trade over a carbon tax. The centrist party, the Liberals, campaigned on a carbon tax and were decimated once the Conservatives dubbed it as "the permanent tax on everything". Personally, I voted for the Green candidate in my riding, because their carbon tax was more aggressive than the Liberals'.)

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[GlassBeadGame]

This is exactly like "Cap and Trade" environmental policies that derived from the smoking ruins of the market fetish era. Only those people who already pollute and impose costs and burden on innocent non-polluter have any rights in reallocating the next round of costs and burdens.

Um, who says that the "cap" in cap-and-trade is set by the polluters? Classically, historically, and presently, it is set by the voters, which means by everybody in the jurisdiction containing the polluters (differing countries of course still need to make treaties with each other for things that cross international boundaries).

In other words, you the voter who breathes the air decide how much pollution you want put into it. But you leave it up to the producers to sort out with each other how they'll divvy it up.

I fail to see your beef with that-- as the same amount of pollution gets released either way.

As for "innocent non-polluters," who are these people you speak of? They don't use manufactured goods or fuels or electricity?

Nominally by "voters" in the sense that any government give away to the rich is, I suppose. Polluters are allocated shares based on their historic emissions. They can then reduce their use and sell their "right" to pollute. This "right" is based on their prior social theft and burdening of the public. It is a good example of a bad example of first in time, first in right. If I'm wrong about this please direct me where I can sell my share of the pollution.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Ooh, we have our first hard-core Randian, who's also our first new candidate. Also he seems to be claiming that his real name is "Baxter Word", which would be awesome but strikes me as false.

Also, he clearly doesn't meet the candidate requirements, at least not under the account he's identified there. But maybe he has a sock gnoming away to reach them, Kohs-style.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[GlassBeadGame]

Ooh, we have our first hard-core Randian, who's also our first new candidate. Also he seems to be claiming that his real name is "Baxter Word", which would be awesome but strikes me as false.

Also, he clearly doesn't meet the candidate requirements, at least not under the account he's identified there. But maybe he has a sock gnoming away to reach them, Kohs-style.

That is exactly what they need. They can have board meetings in penthouses atop Manhattan skyscrapers with walls of glass looking down on the less worthy. Women in evening gowns, men in tuxedos, a grand piano and all drinking martinis and smoking. They can all make pronouncements in stilted English that sounds like they have sticks up their asses and have them read right into the minutes.

Pull the other one.

[A Horse With No Name]

That photo of Danny Rosenthal makes him look like a zombie from a cheap movie. That's not surprising, considering his brain dead style of editing.

Run, Kohs, run. We need someone with style in the race.

[MZMcBride]

I think Kelly Martin would be a great Board candidate. Seriously. Is there any chance of a win? Probably not. But sometimes I don't think it's about winning.

Is there any way to convince Kelly to run?

[Sarcasticidealist]

I think Kelly Martin would be a great Board candidate. Seriously. Is there any chance of a win? Probably not. But sometimes I don't think it's about winning.

My issue with both Kelly and Kohs is the same: while both clearly could be excellent trustees, I'm not convinced that either is wholly dedicated to the welfare of the WMF. Of course, that didn't stop my from ranking Kohs third last year.

(Part of my thinking in doing that was that Kohs was smart enough to understand that he'd have a fiduciary duty to act in the WMF's best interests if elected. But I don't actually know much about the fiduciary duty of board members of corporations with neither members nor shareholders - can anybody fill me in? To whom is it owed? Who has standing to sue if it's breached?)

[Kato]

I think Kelly Martin would be a great Board candidate. Seriously. Is there any chance of a win? Probably not. But sometimes I don't think it's about winning.

My issue with both Kelly and Kohs is the same: while both clearly could be excellent trustees, I'm not convinced that either is wholly dedicated to the welfare of the WMF. Of course, that didn't stop my from ranking Kohs third last year.

(Part of my thinking in doing that was that Kohs was smart enough to understand that he'd have a fiduciary duty to act in the WMF's best interests if elected. But I don't actually know much about the fiduciary duty of board members of corporations with neither members nor shareholders - can anybody fill me in? To whom is it owed? Who has standing to sue if it's breached?)

Maybe Greg, Kelly or yourself could run on the "Flagged Revisions for BLP ticket"?

[Eva Destruction]

I think Kelly Martin would be a great Board candidate. Seriously. Is there any chance of a win? Probably not. But sometimes I don't think it's about winning.

My issue with both Kelly and Kohs is the same: while both clearly could be excellent trustees, I'm not convinced that either is wholly dedicated to the welfare of the WMF. Of course, that didn't stop my from ranking Kohs third last year.

(Part of my thinking in doing that was that Kohs was smart enough to understand that he'd have a fiduciary duty to act in the WMF's best interests if elected. But I don't actually know much about the fiduciary duty of board members of corporations with neither members nor shareholders - can anybody fill me in? To whom is it owed? Who has standing to sue if it's breached?)

Under charity law, the trustees have a legal duty to act in the charity's best interests. Of course, Greg's idea of "best interests" perhaps differs from Jimbo's.

[Milton Roe]

This is exactly like "Cap and Trade" environmental policies that derived from the smoking ruins of the market fetish era. Only those people who already pollute and impose costs and burden on innocent non-polluter have any rights in reallocating the next round of costs and burdens.

Um, who says that the "cap" in cap-and-trade is set by the polluters? Classically, historically, and presently, it is set by the voters, which means by everybody in the jurisdiction containing the polluters (differing countries of course still need to make treaties with each other for things that cross international boundaries).

In other words, you the voter who breathes the air decide how much pollution you want put into it. But you leave it up to the producers to sort out with each other how they'll divvy it up.

I fail to see your beef with that-- as the same amount of pollution gets released either way.

As for "innocent non-polluters," who are these people you speak of? They don't use manufactured goods or fuels or electricity?

Nominally by "voters" in the sense that any government give away to the rich is, I suppose. Polluters are allocated shares based on their historic emissions. They can then reduce their use and sell their "right" to pollute. This "right" is based on their prior social theft and burdening of the public. It is a good example of a bad example of first in time, first in right. If I'm wrong about this please direct me where I can sell my share of the pollution.

Well, first of all, the cap and trade does not necessarily include a baseline/credit system which looks at historical emissions. The only time you MUST do that is when you're trying to find some balance between a industrial country which has a lot of emissions, vs. a developing one which has fewer, but wants more. So emissions credits should not be grandfathered in, but auctioned off, so that industrialized countries essentially pay non-industrialized countries for polluting less, until they can industrialize and make more money. The average person in India makes 10% of the income of the average person in Canada and has 10% of the carbon footprint also. But this will of course change in the future. The person in India is not going to turn down the extra $18,000 a year just to tread lightly on the Earth. The US in particular makes about 50% more CO2 than Canada per person and twice as much as the UK, even though all three countries are industrialized an have roughly the same income. So an auction and country-to-country credit there would have the US paying Canada and the UK also.

As for you personally, it's a little harder to do cap-and-trade on a personal basis, because it's hard to figure how much energy you use. Already you pay utilities, and your personal use is factored in at your utilities company (which is probably public), in your bill. So you do get credit/money that way, for not polluting, if your utility has to pay some other country for doing so (you'll pay less of a cost that will be passed on to the utilities customers).

For intangibles that don't involve bill-able utilities items, of course it will be unfair if you live a green life in a dirty county. But that's democracy: everybody gets what the majority deserves. How would you do it better? If you live in an industrialized country with a high per-capita income, you already benefit from industrialization and pollution more than you think you do, as it impacts the entire job market and wage rate. Move to India if you disagree. If you (think you) generate CO2 like an Indian already, you might as well live there and see what that lifestyle is like if everybody around you does the same.

Here's a nifty carbon footprint calculator for people who want to see what their own countries make, by sector and per capita.

http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/co.../calculator/82/

As for "social theft" that seems to be a favorite argument of people who feel that societies that industialize and get rich before others, are somehow stealing from them. In a sense that may be true for CO2, but we haven't known about CO2 and global warming for that long. Certainly we didn't know about it through most of that era when the West got up to $20,000/yr incomes and India was only up to $2000 and some poor countries in Africa are still doing $200.

So, it's not as though all those poor countries are poor because they willingly gave up the money so as not to pollute the planet. They would have also, if they could have. In my view, you thus have a bunch of would be robbers, but only a few successful ones. Big deal: I don't see much moral inequivalence, even now, since everybody was trying for the same "crime" of musical chairs, and still is. By and large, undeveloped countries still want to develop and pollute more; that's what all the furor is about.

And there's a reason for this. "Resource robbery" saves lives. If you graph life expectancy against carbon footprint you get a pretty straight line-- in large part pollution for the first century of the industrial revolution 1850-1950 was a matter of "die now or die later." We have the luxury of choose to do neither in this next century, I hope. But until the coming of atomic power after about 1960, we didn't. And it would have been nice to know what we know now about global warming in 1960. But we didn't.

There are some exceptions, but they involve a different kind of robbery: intellectual theft. It cost $300 billion in today's dollars for the US to develop the atom bomb, and even more for commerical nuclear power. Did India pay that for either one of these things? No way. No more than India paid for the antibiotics and other patented pharmaceuticals it stole from 1975-2000. You can be really green if you don't pay your way. And it's very dirty being out front of the pack, doing the hard research work.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Under charity law, the trustees have a legal duty to act in the charity's best interests. Of course, Greg's idea of "best interests" perhaps differs from Jimbo's.

Right, that's standard for all corporate directorships, I think. But what I'm wondering is how that's enforced if there are no shareholders or members, who would normally be the ones with standing to sue for breach of that duty.

[Eva Destruction]

Under charity law, the trustees have a legal duty to act in the charity's best interests. Of course, Greg's idea of "best interests" perhaps differs from Jimbo's.

Right, that's standard for all corporate directorships, I think. But what I'm wondering is how that's enforced if there are no shareholders or members, who would normally be the ones with standing to sue for breach of that duty.

Most countries have some kind of Charity Regulation department in the government to enforce this (in the US it's a function of the IRS – wade through this if you want chapter-and-verse). I'm sure the WMF is large enough for the inspectors to take a periodic close look at the books.

[Shalom]

Malleus (a while back): you can vote against a candidate. Simply vote for all of the other candidates except the one you are voting against. In other words, rate your least favorite candidate in last place. The problem, if one exists, is that most voters don't bother to think in that level of detail, and will vote only for candidates whom they affirmatively support, thus making no distinction between "abstain, never heard of her" and "oppose, what a loser." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I voted "against" Greg Kohs last year on this premise. I rated Dan Rosenthal poorly. My opinions on both individuals have changed. I have "converted" to Greg's camp, not completely, but enough to consider him a legitimate smart guy with valuable opinions and facts to offer. I consider the fracas between Rosenthal and "the_undertow" to be distant and insignificant, and will not count it against him. (Without a repeat incident, a year is enough time to forgive and forget.) I would still vote for Ad Huikeshoven above them both: my positive opinion of him has not changed. I'm not sure how I would vote on Ting Chen. I would need to know whether he has done a good job, or if other candidates can do a better job. From his statement I am satisfied that he is basically competent and committed, but not impressed by any particular achievement.

I will not be voting this year. My comments on last year's election can be found on my meta-wiki userpage, here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Shalom...Board_elections

[Milton Roe]

In other words, you the voter who breathes the air decide how much pollution you want put into it. But you leave it up to the producers to sort out with each other how they'll divvy it up.

I fail to see your beef with that-- as the same amount of pollution gets released either way.

My main beef is that cap-and-trade systems are consistently found to be less cost-effective per unit of pollution removed than pollution taxes (like carbon taxes).

The major difference between the two, apart from cost-effectiveness, is the unknown: since it's pretty much impossible to know exactly how much it will cost to remove the next unit of pollution for every possible level of pollution, you have to have an unknown. With a carbon tax, the unknown is just how much pollution will be removed - you know that pollution will be removed until the incremental cost of doing so exceeds the cost to the polluter of the tax, but you don't know exactly where that point is. With cap and trade, the unknown is cost: you know how much pollution you're going to remove (assuming it's a hard cap, anyway), but not what it's going to cost to remove it.

From that perspective, I've always thought that the more environmentally militant should prefer cap and trade, since they're the ones more likely to say "We need to get pollution down to this level, cost be damned". That said, I consider myself fairly environmentally militant and I prefer a carbon tax, so I'm probably a hypocrite.

(Cap and trade also has the advantage of being more complex, which makes it easier for politicians to claim that major carbon reductions are possible without significant cost being incurred by consumers. In Canada during the last election, both the major conservative party (which is somewhat to the left of the Democrats, generally) and the major socialist party endorsed cap and trade over a carbon tax. The centrist party, the Liberals, campaigned on a carbon tax and were decimated once the Conservatives dubbed it as "the permanent tax on everything". Personally, I voted for the Green candidate in my riding, because their carbon tax was more aggressive than the Liberals'.)

Yes, well, it's basically the same outcome either way if you go through a bunch of cycles (and don't try to do it all in one fell swoop). You carbon tax until you get emissions to where you want, or you slowly adjust your emissions cap down until the extra "cost" of energy (as an effective tax) gets to be too onerous. In cap and trade, the money is automatically paid to the non-polluters. In a tax you have to manually transfer it. This is particularly difficult country to country, as taxers will be tempted to keep some of the tax, saying they need it for "green research" rather than giving to the non-polluters for their own development in a tougher world. A mix of these options is probably the best everyone can live with.

[GlassBeadGame]

In other words, you the voter who breathes the air decide how much pollution you want put into it. But you leave it up to the producers to sort out with each other how they'll divvy it up.

I fail to see your beef with that-- as the same amount of pollution gets released either way.

My main beef is that cap-and-trade systems are consistently found to be less cost-effective per unit of pollution removed than pollution taxes (like carbon taxes).

The major difference between the two, apart from cost-effectiveness, is the unknown: since it's pretty much impossible to know exactly how much it will cost to remove the next unit of pollution for every possible level of pollution, you have to have an unknown. With a carbon tax, the unknown is just how much pollution will be removed - you know that pollution will be removed until the incremental cost of doing so exceeds the cost to the polluter of the tax, but you don't know exactly where that point is. With cap and trade, the unknown is cost: you know how much pollution you're going to remove (assuming it's a hard cap, anyway), but not what it's going to cost to remove it.

From that perspective, I've always thought that the more environmentally militant should prefer cap and trade, since they're the ones more likely to say "We need to get pollution down to this level, cost be damned". That said, I consider myself fairly environmentally militant and I prefer a carbon tax, so I'm probably a hypocrite.

(Cap and trade also has the advantage of being more complex, which makes it easier for politicians to claim that major carbon reductions are possible without significant cost being incurred by consumers. In Canada during the last election, both the major conservative party (which is somewhat to the left of the Democrats, generally) and the major socialist party endorsed cap and trade over a carbon tax. The centrist party, the Liberals, campaigned on a carbon tax and were decimated once the Conservatives dubbed it as "the permanent tax on everything". Personally, I voted for the Green candidate in my riding, because their carbon tax was more aggressive than the Liberals'.)

Yes, well, it's basically the same outcome either way if you go through a bunch of cycles (and don't try to do it all in one fell swoop). You carbon tax until you get emissions to where you want, or you slowly adjust your emissions cap down until the extra "cost" of energy (as an effective tax) gets to be too onerous. In cap and trade, the money is automatically paid to the non-polluters. In a tax you have to manually transfer it. This is particularly difficult country to country, as taxers will be tempted to keep some of the tax, saying they need it for "green research" rather than giving to the non-polluters for their own development in a tougher world. A mix of these options is probably the best everyone can live with.

Returning to my point after a very detailed deconstruction of a mere analogy: WMF's board selection processes entitles persons ("the community") who have created burdens on others (BLP victims, parents, the general public relying on information) to continue to make decisions while providing no voice (or a very faulty "expert" track) to those bearing the burden. This is similar to the manner that many types of adverse uses are handled in market systems in which "goods" and profits are held privately while the harm and burdens generated in their production are either "socialized" or not addressed at all.

[Sarcasticidealist]

WMF's board selection processes entitles persons ("the community") who have created burdens on others (BLP victims, parents, the general public relying on information) to continue to make decisions while providing no voice (or a very faulty "expert" track) to those bearing the burden.

Do you have an alternate suggestion within something approximating the current paradigm? I mean, if your answer is to shut down the WMF entirely, that's cool too, just not useful from my perspective.

[Kelly Martin]

Under charity law, the trustees have a legal duty to act in the charity's best interests. Of course, Greg's idea of "best interests" perhaps differs from Jimbo's.

Right, that's standard for all corporate directorships, I think. But what I'm wondering is how that's enforced if there are no shareholders or members, who would normally be the ones with standing to sue for breach of that duty.

The Florida Attorney General is empowered to sue in the public interest in such cases. However, the Florida Attorney General doesn't give a shit about such things; this is one of the advantages of being incorporated in Florida. There is no provision for a "private attorney general" action in Florida the way there is in some other states.

I think Kelly Martin would be a great Board candidate. Seriously. Is there any chance of a win? Probably not. But sometimes I don't think it's about winning.

Is there any way to convince Kelly to run?

“If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.” I have better things to do than commit to spend a substantial portion of the next n years of my life in the frequent relative proximity of Jimmy Wales, a person who quite frankly I find noxious, especially when no measurable benefit to myself or anyone else would seem to follow from such personal abuse.

If I thought I could make a difference somehow, I might consider it, but honestly I'd rather work on getting ready for Field Day in 2010. If I run for office in a non-profit any time soon, it'll be in a local amateur radio club, or perhaps the Illinois Repeater Association or some ARRL post. And frankly that sort of thing won't be for several more years, if ever.

[GlassBeadGame]

WMF's board selection processes entitles persons ("the community") who have created burdens on others (BLP victims, parents, the general public relying on information) to continue to make decisions while providing no voice (or a very faulty "expert" track) to those bearing the burden.

Do you have an alternate suggestion within something approximating the current paradigm? I mean, if your answer is to shut down the WMF entirely, that's cool too, just not useful from my perspective.

WMF should obtain sustained technical assistance and capacity building assistance from professionals in the non-profit administration sector (Accounting Aid, National Council of Non-Profits,Alliance for Non-profit Management and numerous other organizations) to develop a plan to broaden trustee representation. This might well lead to amending by-laws to facilitate more inclusive practices. Also some kind of process to identify unrepresented stakeholders and recruiting trustee from ther ranks. This would likely take the form of tapping interest groups such as child advocacy groups and civil rights organizations. Finding representation for BLP victims might be tricky. This group is a creation of the abusive practices of Wkipedia itself and lacks its own history or advocacy groups. It might be possible to turn to notable and outspoken victims such as Brandt, Seigenthaler or Professor Taner, if not as trustees themselves then to help in the selection. I am surprised that as WMF has begun to obtain significant grants from foundations that they have not seen pressure to take these types of measures. The funders might have bought into the notion that the usual rules do not apply to a techie project when in fact application of established practices would be the best thing for WMF.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Finding representation for BLP victims might be tricky. This group is a creation of the abusive practices of Wkipedia itself and lacks its own history or advocacy groups. It might be possible to turn to notable and outspoken victims such as Brandt, Seigenthaler or Professor Taner, if not as trustees themselves then to help in the selection.

When I first heard about the specific expertise seats, I swear that Siegenthaler was the first name that came to mind. I doubt he'd be interested, but involving him in any capacity he'd be willing to be involved would be a good step.

[thekohser]

If you graph life expectancy against carbon footprint you get a pretty straight line-- in large part pollution for the first century of the industrial revolution 1850-1950 was a matter of...

Mods, could you split off this tl;dr stuff about carbon market stuff? It is amazing that these people think these long, tangential discourses belong in a "Bureaucracy" folder about the WMF Board election.

[Sarcasticidealist]

It is amazing that these people think these long, tangential discourses belong in a "Bureaucracy" folder about the WMF Board election.

Speaking only for myself, the excellent moderation around here has made me lazy about things like staying on topic.

[Jon Awbrey]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[LaraLove]

Maybe Greg, Kelly or yourself could run on the "Flagged Revisions for BLP ticket"?

I'm told by someone on top of the totem that these should be rolling out in August... somehow, I don't believe it... but I also don't think anyone running for the board with the promise to push for FR for BLPs is going to be able to get it done any faster than it's going now.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I'm told by someone on top of the totem that these should be rolling out in August...

Without Community Consensus ™? If they're prepared to eliminate the requirement for consensus, why don't they do it tomorrow? Why August?

but I also don't think anyone running for the board with the promise to push for FR for BLPs is going to be able to get it done any faster than it's going now.

The obvious advantage is that the WMF Board is not subject to Community Consensus, which is the reason flagged revs haven't yet been implemented on the English Wikipedia.

[One]

I'm in favor of a community being able to govern itself without outside meddling, so I'm against proposals that give explicit control of the WMF board (or parts of it) to outsiders. I'm also against mandatory qualifications regarding amount of editing for candidates; if the (in-community) voters want to elect somebody from outside their community to fill one of the seats that's their right. I'm also, of course, for complete freedom of speech for insiders and outsiders alike to comment on whatever they see as the absurdity of the WP community, without any BADSITES-ish policies trying to protect the sensitive eyes of Wikipedians from seeing such criticism.

If you think the community is dysfunctional now, just wait until one of the "outside stakeholders have rights too" proposals is enacted and suddenly everybody from dictatorial governments in China and Iran (who have a stake in preventing WP from publishing embarrassing info about their countries) to the intellectual property lobby (who would want WP to adhere to the most expansionist interpretation of what's copyrightable/patentable/trademarkable and the most minimalist interpretation of what's allowed as fair use) to the net-nanny censors who want everything on the net to be "family-values friendly" (better not have an article on The L Word... there are lesbians there!) has a seat on the board to try to cause their views to become policy.

This is exactly like "Cap and Trade" environmental policies that derived from the smoking ruins of the market fetish era. Only those people who already pollute and impose costs and burden on innocent non-polluter have any rights in reallocating the next round of costs and burdens.

Y'know, I might be confirming your prejudices about me, but I've gotta defend cap-and-trade in general. As economists invariably say about it, the system would work under any initial allocation. If a polluter can get by with less pollution more profitably, they will. If not, they won't, whether they had it from the get-go or not. It's a pretty elegant solution for things like carbon where harm is dispersed to the whole globe (and thus regulators wouldn't care which region the emissions come from). I realize that it's been given a bad name--for example, by Bush-era proposals that would almost certainly raise levels of pollution, and (as you say) giving entitlements to existing polluters, but it doesn't have to be this way.

One might, for example, auction the first round of entitlements. It would make a lot of sense from the public's perspective. It just so happens that giving the first entitlements to existing polluters is more politically feasible (or whatever they call it in Washington), so that's what's debated. I cannot defend this particular starting allocation, but I wish that environmentalists would not reflexively oppose anything that sounds like a free market.

[sbrown]

Baxter was struck off "rmv Baxter; does not meet requirements. For the committee, Philippe."

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...3&oldid=1545216

[Nerd]

And now Greg.

[Malleus]

And now Greg.

I may now be persuaded to vote after all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[thekohser]

And now Greg.

Wow, looking back, it looks like I just barely met this requirement: have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 01 July 2009, by virtue of my linking many Wikipedia articles to my new article about Job sharing. Looks like ArbCom sprung me from the slammer just in time!

[Somey]

Mods, could you split off this tl;dr stuff about carbon market stuff? It is amazing that these people think these long, tangential discourses belong in a "Bureaucracy" folder about the WMF Board election.

Amazing... perhaps. Tangential...? Perhaps not! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

As I understand it, the idea here is that the WMF board is elected by WP users, and that "outside stakeholders," or more accurately "the victims," aren't given a voice in the process. This is ultimately because most WP'ers won't admit that what they're doing can and does have a negative effect on the external world, since to do so would be tantamount to also admitting that their enterprise is not really charitable, not to mention the fact that they don't represent the interests of society in general.

A while back, I recall they named an "Advisory Board" of some sort, which was ostensibly supposed to address those concerns to some extent. But of course they only named people they liked, and who like(d) them, so whatever "advising" was done was probably along the lines of "let's all work harder without being paid to make Wikipedia marginally better over the long term!" and so on. Critics and opponents were not invited, so there's hardly any point in my mentioning it, other than to point out that I'm already aware of it and am not impressed.

[Kelly Martin]

have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 01 July 2009

Well, that at least should end the suggestion that I should run: I haven't edited any Wikimedia project in the entirety of 2009.

[Daniel]

And now Greg.

Wow, looking back, it looks like I just barely met this requirement: have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 01 July 2009, by virtue of my linking many Wikipedia articles to my new article about Job sharing. Looks like ArbCom sprung me from the slammer just in time!

Because the time period technically ended at 01 July 2009 at 00:00, you only had 42 on the English Wikipedia with your nominated account, 'Thekohser', in the time frame dictated. Your candidacy is acceptable, though, because you made 60+ edits on your Meta-Wiki 'Thekohser' account in that period.

PS: Please do correct me if I'm having a brainfart moment with the above and my calculations are incorrect, it's after midnight here and all the usual I'm-an-idiot-and-also-a-tad-tired-disclaimers apply (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Daniel:

[thekohser]

Because the time period technically ended at 01 July 2009 at 00:00, you only had 42 on the English Wikipedia with your nominated account, 'Thekohser', in the time frame dictated. Your candidacy is acceptable, though, because you made 60+ edits on your Meta-Wiki 'Thekohser' account in that period.

PS: Please do correct me if I'm having a brainfart moment with the above and my calculations are incorrect, it's after midnight here and all the usual I'm-an-idiot-and-also-a-tad-tired-disclaimers apply (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

How do you figure that "July 01" concludes at the crack of midnight? When I have a coupon for Cocoa Puffs, and it says "Expires July 01", the grocery store always honors the coupon on the night of July 1st.

Regardless, it's nice to see that Meta saved the day for me.

This was all by chance -- I had completely forgotten about the editing requirements for Board candidates, and I wasn't even strongly considering running. But, then I saw my camera phone sitting here, and I was reading an article about brand placement, and well... the rest is history.

[Daniel]

Because the time period technically ended at 01 July 2009 at 00:00, you only had 42 on the English Wikipedia with your nominated account, 'Thekohser', in the time frame dictated. Your candidacy is acceptable, though, because you made 60+ edits on your Meta-Wiki 'Thekohser' account in that period.

PS: Please do correct me if I'm having a brainfart moment with the above and my calculations are incorrect, it's after midnight here and all the usual I'm-an-idiot-and-also-a-tad-tired-disclaimers apply (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

How do you figure that "July 01" concludes at the crack of midnight? When I have a coupon for Cocoa Puffs, and it says "Expires July 01", the grocery store always honors the coupon on the night of July 1st.

The final sentence of the lead of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009 is what I based it off.

[thekohser]

The final sentence of the lead of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009 is what I based it off.

Damn, you're good, Daniel. What an eye for detail! You should run for Board of Trustees.

[MBisanz]

Because the time period technically ended at 01 July 2009 at 00:00, you only had 42 on the English Wikipedia with your nominated account, 'Thekohser', in the time frame dictated. Your candidacy is acceptable, though, because you made 60+ edits on your Meta-Wiki 'Thekohser' account in that period.

PS: Please do correct me if I'm having a brainfart moment with the above and my calculations are incorrect, it's after midnight here and all the usual I'm-an-idiot-and-also-a-tad-tired-disclaimers apply (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

How do you figure that "July 01" concludes at the crack of midnight? When I have a coupon for Cocoa Puffs, and it says "Expires July 01", the grocery store always honors the coupon on the night of July 1st.

Regardless, it's nice to see that Meta saved the day for me.

This was all by chance -- I had completely forgotten about the editing requirements for Board candidates, and I wasn't even strongly considering running. But, then I saw my camera phone sitting here, and I was reading an article about brand placement, and well... the rest is history.

I know your camera phone is nice Greg, but wouldn't an image more in the style of the one below inspire confidence in your leadership abilities?
(IMG:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2339/1710245409_9ef6bd7752_m_d.jpg)

[thekohser]

Wow, it looks like a field where I have a really honest shot at not coming in last place! Kevin, Ralph, and Relly might all be contenders for that dubious distinction.

Ad Huikeshoven stole my eyeglasses, though. That's not nice.

I know your camera phone is nice Greg, but wouldn't an image more in the style of the one below inspire confidence in your leadership abilities?
(IMG:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2339/1710245409_9ef6bd7752_m_d.jpg)

I tried that last year, but it earned me last place, even against a guy who thought Jimbo should be getting MORE Moscow massages in order to close lucrative Russian mafia donation deals.

This year, it's new eyeglasses, an "avant garde" pose, and a healthy bit of product placement, so I'm a winner even if I lose! (You wouldn't BELIEVE what Wikipedia Review is paying me for that shot!)

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Sarcasticidealist]

Wow, it looks like a field where I have a really honest shot at not coming in last place! Kevin, Ralph, and Relly might all be contenders for that dubious distinction.

Yeah, this field's looking like way more fun than last year's. I'm especially fond of Kevin's statement (which has since been blanked for exceeding the character count):

...numerous topics which are of interest, and genuine intellectual concern, to those of us on the far right...

Can I presume that you'll be ranking him ahead of me, Greg?

(Edit: I think it's likely that he's this guy. I'm pretty sure that even Greg's harshest detractors would agree that this guy's worse.)

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[GlassBeadGame]

I can't vote for anyone as I haven't touched the wiki in almost a year. In fact the last time Greg ran (for something or other, ArbCom? B/T? ) I had to make several junk edits in anticipation just to qualify to vote for him. I'm well past that point of disaffection now. I do have to acknowledge that currently Mr. Smith's statement seems to address my concerns based on a perspective outside Wikipedia better than Greg's including something close to a restatement of our discussion about incorporating outsiders into the board found earlier in this very thread as the first enumerated point. Not that getting any support from me can be of any help in a election among Wikipedians. Still, encouraging Wikipedians to at least consider that there are views of others that matter deserves some respect.

[thekohser]

I think it's likely that he's this guy. I'm pretty sure that even Greg's harshest detractors would agree that this guy's worse.

Maybe I can make my political party mascot a "Zionist Trojan horse", and that will assure me victory over this guy.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I'm well past that point of disaffection now. I do have to acknowledge that currently Mr. Smith's statement seems to address my concerns based on a perspective outside Wikipedia better than Greg's including something close to a restatement of our discussion about incorporating outsiders into the board found earlier in this very thread as the first enumerated point.

Lest I be accused of developing these opinions when they become fashionable, I was harping on this quite a bit during last year's election as well:

The Foundation does not belong to the community, and should not be primarily accountable to the community. Community members are major stakeholders in the Foundation's activities, but so are our readers, our subjects, our donors, and the broader public.

I think the major ongoing failure of the Board has been to remain fundamentally insular. Most of its members have been drawn, one way or another, from the community (broadly defined).

[A Horse With No Name]

And now Greg.

Hooray!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

But why is Grizzly Adams in the box under you, Greg? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

And is that really Sarcastic's photo? I was sort of expecting someone out of an H.P. Lovecraft story. That guy in the photo looks...well, normal. Wow. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[MBisanz]

And now Greg.

Hooray!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

But why is Grizzly Adams in the box under you, Greg? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

And is that really Sarcastic's photo? I was sort of expecting someone out of an H.P. Lovecraft story. That guy in the photo looks...well, normal. Wow. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I was really hoping Steve would selected a better photo this year, that photo is too relaxed and normal looking, I was hoping for something counter-culture techie style or a younger version of myself style. Ahh well.

[One]

And now Greg.

Hooray!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

But why is Grizzly Adams in the box under you, Greg? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

And is that really Sarcastic's photo? I was sort of expecting someone out of an H.P. Lovecraft story. That guy in the photo looks...well, normal. Wow. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I was really hoping Steve would selected a better photo this year, that photo is too relaxed and normal looking, I was hoping for something counter-culture techie style or a younger version of myself style. Ahh well.

He went with the younger version of Richard Gere when a young MBisanz was available? Risky strategy as it alienates the MBisanz constituency, but it appears that Aussies, Canadians, and Canada fetishists admire that photo.

[A Horse With No Name]

He went with the younger version of Richard Gere

Sans the gerbil, I assume.

[Nerd]

WTF?

This is an interesting page anyway.

[GlassBeadGame]

WTF?

This is an interesting page anyway.

What a prick. Let's eat his liver.

[thekohser]

WTF?

This is an interesting page anyway.

I like "He reticules Jimmy Wales".

That's good stuff!

[Jon Awbrey]

WTF?

This is an interesting page anyway.

I like "He reticules Jimmy Wales".

That's good stuff!

Meaning "to get one in the cross-hairs" — makes sense to me.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif) Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[thekohser]

WTF?

This is an interesting page anyway.

I have made the appropriate edits to the laundry list page. It is now in a more correct and entertaining format.

Have we unmasked the Wiki Defender??

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Cedric]

WTF?

This is an interesting page anyway.

I like "He reticules Jimmy Wales".

That's good stuff!

Meaning "to get one in the cross-hairs" — makes sense to me.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif) Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Obligatory:

(IMG:http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/4563/snipercat.jpg)

"I've got you reticuled now, bitch!"

[Sarcasticidealist]

Great edit summary, Greg.

[GlassBeadGame]

Mr. Prom-dates-flee-from-us demonstrates the kind of meddling smarty pants, look-at-me nerdism that makes being associated with Wikipedia so unattractive.

[Jon Awbrey]

WTF?

This is an interesting page anyway.

I like "He reticules Jimmy Wales".

That's good stuff!

Meaning "to get one in the cross-hairs" — makes sense to me.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif) Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Obligatory:

(IMG:http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/4563/snipercat.jpg)

"I've got you reticuled now, bitch!"

READER ADVISORY

Neither the Membership nor the Staff of The Wikipedia Review Recommend the Use of Firearms as Editing Tools

[thekohser]

READER ADVISORY

Neither the Membership nor the Staff of The Wikipedia Review Recommend the Use of Firearms as Editing Tools

Eh... speak for yourself, Jonny.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Cute, Greg.

[Kurt M. Weber]

I might be eligible to run again this year, for shits and grins...I'll have to check and see...

[Nerd]

I might be eligible to run again this year, for shits and grins...I'll have to check and see...

If you are, you should. Greg's candidacy hasn't tickled me yet.

Cute, Greg.

Hilarious!

[A Horse With No Name]

I might be eligible to run again this year, for shits and grins...I'll have to check and see...

"Shits and grins" is the best description of Wikipedia that I can think of.

[GlassBeadGame]

Another meddling little shit comes to the aid of the other meddling little shit:

I don't edit here that often, so I have just a few comments. First, I am wondering if you want administrative action? None seems warranted here, but if you don't want it perhaps this would be better placed at Wikimedia Forum or Meta:Babel? More substantively, I would suggest that the assertion that he is an "interloper ... who breeze[d] in" is mistaken, as the entire Wikimedia community was invited to participate in the elections. Additionally, it appears (assuming good faith, of course) that he is creating a candidate commentary page, as several users do when this time of year comes around - though he has certainly chosen an adversarial format for the page. I further note that his comment about you being "a banned user", which you are complaining about, is arguably true (and if untrue, easy to make the mistake) - en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Provisional suspension of community ban: Thekohser stated that your en.wikipedia ban was suspended and imposed editing restrictions, but to my knowledge, it didn't actually lift the ban. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedians believe that discourse is somehow advanced by ill informed interlopers blanking the principal statement of a qualified candidate. Their vain ass need for attention should not be interfered with no matter if it impairs a candidate's opportunity to be heard.

[Kato]

Greg is successful as usual in showing up the meanspirited, bullying, closed-shop that Wikipedia really is.

We can already chalk up this year's candidacy as a triumph and we haven't even got to the questions.

[MZMcBride]

Greg is successful as usual in showing up the meanspirited, bullying, closed-shop that Wikipedia really is.

We can already chalk up this year's candidacy as a triumph and we haven't even got to the questions.

Ehh, let's not judge an entire set of projects based on the actions or comments of a particular user. I certainly don't judge Wikipedia Review based on the comments of a particular poster.

For what it's worth, I commented on the "Meta drama" here.

[GlassBeadGame]

Greg is successful as usual in showing up the meanspirited, bullying, closed-shop that Wikipedia really is.

We can already chalk up this year's candidacy as a triumph and we haven't even got to the questions.

Ehh, let's not judge an entire set of projects based on the actions or comments of a particular user. I certainly don't judge Wikipedia Review based on the comments of a particular poster.

For what it's worth, I commented on the "Meta drama" here.

You miss the point. The meddling idiot removed the statement of a candidate and linked in the edit summary to a vanity hate page. This hardly show respect for discussion for open or fair process. Do something about it Mr. Meta Big Shot.

[thekohser]

Greg is successful as usual in showing up the meanspirited, bullying, closed-shop that Wikipedia really is.

We can already chalk up this year's candidacy as a triumph and we haven't even got to the questions.

Ehh, let's not judge an entire set of projects based on the actions or comments of a particular user. I certainly don't judge Wikipedia Review based on the comments of a particular poster.

For what it's worth, I commented on the "Meta drama" here.

That was a really big help, MZ. Wait until you see my "Election Guide" this year, McBride. And I'll make sure to post it on the Meta Wikimedia servers, so that tax-deductible electrons can service my desire to call other people "unhealthy" and "rat moles" in permanent text.

[MZMcBride]

Greg is successful as usual in showing up the meanspirited, bullying, closed-shop that Wikipedia really is.

We can already chalk up this year's candidacy as a triumph and we haven't even got to the questions.

Ehh, let's not judge an entire set of projects based on the actions or comments of a particular user. I certainly don't judge Wikipedia Review based on the comments of a particular poster.

For what it's worth, I commented on the "Meta drama" here.

That was a really big help, MZ. Wait until you see my "Election Guide" this year, McBride. And I'll make sure to post it on the Meta Wikimedia servers, so that tax-deductible electrons can service my desire to call other people "unhealthy" and "rat moles" in permanent text.

I think people might be more inclined to help you if you didn't go blatantly trolling. I'm referring of course to the post on Promethean's English Wikipedia talk page. You get to either "be the bigger person" or not. Your decision is disappointing.

I have added the {{NOINDEX}} template to both pages. I agree that internal politics should stay internal. If those templates get removed, please contact me.

And of course if another Meta admin disagrees with my assessment, they're free to permaban Promethean or delete the page. But Meta is usually pretty dead, for better or worse, so I doubt you'll find much more discussion about this. (I'm surprised by the volume of attention this has received so far, and that's only a half-dozen or so contributors. Meta really is very quiet.)

[thekohser]

I think people might be more inclined to help you if you didn't go blatantly trolling. I'm referring of course to the post on Promethean's English Wikipedia talk page. You get to either "be the bigger person" or not. Your decision is disappointing.

Well, when I found out that Promethean, in real life, merged his web hosting enterprise with that of a "do it yourself" wiki farm similar to Wikia, I immediately saw through this teen-aged twerp's agenda. Anything he can do to bash Wikipedia Review is a feather in the cap for his similar competing website (which ranks about 800,000 on Alexa, so I'm not exactly worried).

I could have pulled down my pants and pooped on this guy's head, and I'd still "be the bigger person". Frankly, he's lucky I haven't pulled out the big guns and put him "on notice" like I did in the past with our helmeted cyclist friend, or our Berlin Wall-crossing super-sleuth. The more I re-read it, the more hilarious I find his attack page about me. He truly is like the Wiki Defender in making rational people laugh and see the true light.

I've already garnered an extra vote in the Board election, thanks to Promethean.

[GlassBeadGame]

Greg is successful as usual in showing up the meanspirited, bullying, closed-shop that Wikipedia really is.

We can already chalk up this year's candidacy as a triumph and we haven't even got to the questions.

Ehh, let's not judge an entire set of projects based on the actions or comments of a particular user. I certainly don't judge Wikipedia Review based on the comments of a particular poster.

For what it's worth, I commented on the "Meta drama" here.

That was a really big help, MZ. Wait until you see my "Election Guide" this year, McBride. And I'll make sure to post it on the Meta Wikimedia servers, so that tax-deductible electrons can service my desire to call other people "unhealthy" and "rat moles" in permanent text.

I think people might be more inclined to help you if you didn't go blatantly trolling. I'm referring of course to the post on Promethean's English Wikipedia talk page. You get to either "be the bigger person" or not. Your decision is disappointing.

I have added the {{NOINDEX}} template to both pages. I agree that internal politics should stay internal. If those templates get removed, please contact me.

And of course if another Meta admin disagrees with my assessment, they're free to permaban Promethean or delete the page. But Meta is usually pretty dead, for better or worse, so I doubt you'll find much more discussion about this. (I'm surprised by the volume of attention this has received so far, and that's only a half-dozen or so contributors. Meta really is very quiet.)

So you come here and chastise Greg while not even warning of expressing displeasure with Prom-dates-flee-from-him anywhere? That's weak.

Meddling is an accepted aspect of Wikipedian culture. It empowers seventeen year old nobodies to defame people they know nothing about. It also allows the work of experts to be ruined by the ignorant. It allows thuggish admins to compound the injuries of BLP victims. It contributes to the destructive "pillory" aspect of ArbCom processes. It provides cover for all manner of mischief by people of ill will.

[A Horse With No Name]

How come there are no broads running for the Wikimedia spots? Horsey wants to vote for a hot chick. (Steve's cute, but Horsey is not one for Shankboning).

[thekohser]

How come there are no broads running for the Wikimedia spots? Horsey wants to vote for a hot chick. (Steve's cute, but Horsey is not one for Shankboning).

I think I demonstrated some time back that while women (and transgendered to women) have represented a very small minority of Board candidates, they have something like a seven times more likely chance than men of winning a seat.

Okay, I'm making up that stat, but the point is borne out by the data.

If LaraLove were to pose for her candidacy photo wearing a cute denim baseball cap, with her hair pulled in a pony tail through the back, maybe donning a red and white gingham blouse; big friendly smile... I assure you she would win a seat on the Board.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[A Horse With No Name]

If LaraLove were to pose for her candidacy photo wearing a cute denim baseball cap, with her hair pulled in a pony tail through the back, maybe donning a red and white gingham blouse; big friendly smile... I assure you she would win a seat on the Board.

She has my vote!!! (Horsey does the happy gallop) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

I think I demonstrated some time back that while women (and transgendered to women) have represented a very small minority of Board candidates, they have something like a seven times more likely chance than men of winning a seat.

As I said last year

Interestingly, though, women who run do very well: of the eight positions that have been filled by election, women - four different women - have filled six of them. In fact, Erik Möller is the only male ever to be elected by the community.

That doesn't address the question of why so few women run, but I did think it was an interesting statistic, given how male dominated the candidate fields are.

[A Horse With No Name]

That doesn't address the question of why so few women run, but I did think it was an interesting statistic, given how male dominated the candidate fields are.

But in a male dominated field, do the pretty boys win over the troglodytes? I mean, do you think Steve will get more votes than that Grizzly Adams clone based solely on looks?

[Sarcasticidealist]

But in a male dominated field, do the pretty boys win over the troglodytes? I mean, do you think Steve will get more votes than that Grizzly Adams clone based solely on looks?

I don't expect to do especially well in the election, but I do expect to beat Kevin O'Keeffe. But I think his views on anti-semitism might be of slightly more concern to voters than his admittedly awesome beard.

[Eva Destruction]

But in a male dominated field, do the pretty boys win over the troglodytes? I mean, do you think Steve will get more votes than that Grizzly Adams clone based solely on looks?

I don't expect to do especially well in the election, but I do expect to beat Kevin O'Keeffe. But I think his views on anti-semitism might be of slightly more concern to voters than his admittedly awesome beard.

"So-called anti-Semitism is an entirely rational response to a society where Capitol Hill is, as Patrick J. Buchanan so aptly put it, "Israeli-occupied territory." Such luminaries as ex-President Jimmy Carter of Georgia […] have said much the same thing."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to think that if Carter had said such a thing someone might have thought it worth mentioning. Where do these people come from?

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't expect to do especially well in the election, but I do expect to beat Kevin O'Keeffe. But I think his views on anti-semitism might be of slightly more concern to voters than his admittedly awesome beard.

And if, as you suggested, this is the same guy he also flies the "racialist" banner.

Anyways someone using the same name has registered on WR. Fun, fun fun.

[Sarcasticidealist]

The thing is that I've done some Googling of him and his extensive internet presence gives the impression that he's substantially more articulate and clear-headed than your typical Wikipedian. I'll be reading a post of his, nodding my head in understanding, until I get to the part about how the Jews did 9/11*, whereupon my head will explode.

*Example only. I have not actually found a statement from him that the Jews did 9/11, but given his combination of support for the 9/11 "Truth" movement and his anti-semitism, it does not seem unlikely that he does believe this.

[Milton Roe]

If LaraLove were to pose for her candidacy photo wearing a cute denim baseball cap, with her hair pulled in a pony tail through the back, maybe donning a red and white gingham blouse; big friendly smile... I assure you she would win a seat on the Board.

Sure, but the bathrobe still rules. Soap and water is all Milton asks.

[LaraLove]

I'm told by someone on top of the totem that these should be rolling out in August...

Without Community Consensus ™? If they're prepared to eliminate the requirement for consensus, why don't they do it tomorrow? Why August?

but I also don't think anyone running for the board with the promise to push for FR for BLPs is going to be able to get it done any faster than it's going now.

The obvious advantage is that the WMF Board is not subject to Community Consensus, which is the reason flagged revs haven't yet been implemented on the English Wikipedia.

Apparently they're still working out kinks.

[MZMcBride]

I'm told by someone on top of the totem that these should be rolling out in August...

Without Community Consensus ™? If they're prepared to eliminate the requirement for consensus, why don't they do it tomorrow? Why August?

but I also don't think anyone running for the board with the promise to push for FR for BLPs is going to be able to get it done any faster than it's going now.

The obvious advantage is that the WMF Board is not subject to Community Consensus, which is the reason flagged revs haven't yet been implemented on the English Wikipedia.

Apparently they're still working out kinks.

I don't believe anyone is actively and seriously working on FlaggedRevisions development at this point. There's an occasional commit to fix a minor bug, but certainly nothing major.

The "deadline" that was posted to wikitech-l was before Wikimania (which takes place in August). We'll see what happens.

[Kelly Martin]

I don't believe anyone is actively and seriously working on FlaggedRevisions development at this point. There's an occasional commit to fix a minor bug, but certainly nothing major.

The software is mature and fully functional. The only "kink" left to work out is the community's unwillingness to use it.

[Kato]

I don't expect to do especially well in the election, but I do expect to beat Kevin O'Keeffe. But I think his views on anti-semitism might be of slightly more concern to voters than his admittedly awesome beard.

And if, as you suggested, this is the same guy he also flies the "racialist" banner.

Anyways someone using the same name has registered on WR. Fun, fun fun.

Is this the guy?

The First Post....
This blog was created by Kevin O'Keeffe on March 13, 2005. Its purpose is furthering the discussion and general intellectual, cultural and political advancement of those ideas associated with White racial identity and nationalism in America and around the world, pan-European national socialism within a gobal context, and the development of a so-called "Third Way" as a force opposed to both capitalism and communism.

It will also be a forum for White racialism generally, including such related doctrines as segregationism and Apartheid, "anti-Semitism" and the general opposition to Jewish racial supremacy and Zionism (including an ongoing, vigorous rebuttal of the Zionist Trojan horse ideology known, laughably, as neo-"conservatism"), as well as a haven for paleo-conservative and fascist critiques of the liberal democratic order, and the moral degeneracy and social corruption that such an order seems naturally to entail.

Where did he spring from? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

I don't believe anyone is actively and seriously working on FlaggedRevisions development at this point. There's an occasional commit to fix a minor bug, but certainly nothing major.

The software is mature and fully functional. The only "kink" left to work out is the community's unwillingness to use it.

Are you sure it's the community that is unwilling to use it and not the leadership? There usually seems to be strong support in the various polls, and then nothing happens, and then a new poll for another idea happens. repeat :|

My impression is that Jimbo pays lip service to the idea and then does nothing about it, over and over.

[MZMcBride]

I don't believe anyone is actively and seriously working on FlaggedRevisions development at this point. There's an occasional commit to fix a minor bug, but certainly nothing major.

The software is mature and fully functional. The only "kink" left to work out is the community's unwillingness to use it.

The community has given the green light for a trial. The relevant bug is 18244.

[TungstenCarbide]

I don't believe anyone is actively and seriously working on FlaggedRevisions development at this point. There's an occasional commit to fix a minor bug, but certainly nothing major.

The software is mature and fully functional. The only "kink" left to work out is the community's unwillingness to use it.

The community has given the green light for a trial. The relevant bug is 18244.

It's been sitting there almost three months since pole number xx closed.

This has been going on for years. The current bug is only a test of a watered down revision system.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Kelly Martin]

The community has given the green light for a trial. The relevant bug is 18244.

That raises the very interesting question as to why it hasn't been implemented yet, then.

My guess is that Brion or some other techie is unwilling to turn it on for performance reasons (reasonable, because the code is full of bugs and will likely crap completely under the full load of enwiki's load), or someone is leaning on him to ignore it. That someone may well be Erik, who has long opposed flagged revisions, and is Brion's direct superior.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Are you sure it's the community that is unwilling to use it and not the leadership? There usually seems to be strong support in the various polls, and then nothing happens, and then a new poll for another idea happens. repeat :|

Note that to get even the level of support obtained in that poll, the proposal had to be watered down to the point that Doc fucking Glasgow opposed it.

Let's see what it says:

For all articles, a passive flag, namely 'patrol', would be enabled in order to coordinate and improve monitoring of articles, especially BLPs. Reviewers can mark a revision patrolled, which has no effect but only to inform that this revision contains no vandalism, no blp violations, and satisfy certain other requirements defined by a guideline. In particular, this does not affect the revision viewed by unregistered users by default, it's still the latest one (unless the article is flag protected). A new revision by a reviewer is automatically patrolled when the previous version is.

Of course, there are also more useful versions of it that administrators would be able to apply to articles, but they would be permitted to do so (presumably) only under conditions similar to the ones in which they are now allowed to apply semi-protection. So we're very clear on this: '''this proposal does not in any way change who can edit BLPs and under what circumstances'''.

Unlike Doc, I supported the poll, but let's not kid ourselves into believing that this is anything but the most minuscule progress.

[TungstenCarbide]

... Unlike Doc, I supported the poll, but let's not kid ourselves into believing that this is anything but the most minuscule progress.

I have a theory on this. Well, maybe it's not a theory but blinding obvious. Some of the very things that make Wikipedia successful are the same things that harm its quality. The instant gratification and thrill that every wacko on the net gets when they make an instant change to the world's most viewed webpage on a subject, highly addictive. The never ending edit wars and associated drama that goes with this, highly addictive. A place where teenagers can rule over college professors (there's more teenagers on this planet than college professors), highly addictive. You start taking that away in favor of stable versions and Wikipedia looses more addicts than it gains. (jeeze, I'm starting to sound like Awbrey in his more lucid posts)

Here's a question; every few months some politician's staff is accused of defacing another politician's bio on Wikipedia and a news story is generated. Do you think this helps Jimbo's speaking career or hurts it? I think it helps it.

It makes sense to go slowly and carefully on revision control, but that doesn't explain the years of foot dragging like my theory.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Here's a question; every few months some politician's staff is accused of defacing another politician's bio on Wikipedia and a news story is generated. Do you think this helps Jimbo's speaking career or hurts it? I think it helps it.

Jimbo appears to think otherwise.

But I agree with most of what you say here, at least as a partial explanation.

[thekohser]

Here's a question; every few months some politician's staff is accused of defacing another politician's bio on Wikipedia and a news story is generated. Do you think this helps Jimbo's speaking career or hurts it? I think it helps it.

Jimbo appears to think otherwise.

But I agree with most of what you say here, at least as a partial explanation.

His speech before the Senate sub-committee wasn't a paid gig.

[TungstenCarbide]

Here's a question; every few months some politician's staff is accused of defacing another politician's bio on Wikipedia and a news story is generated. Do you think this helps Jimbo's speaking career or hurts it? I think it helps it.

Jimbo appears to think otherwise.But I agree with most of what you say here, at least as a partial explanation.

His speech before the Senate sub-committee wasn't a paid gig.

What a patriot.

Jimbo appears to think otherwise
What does that mean? Jimbo last protected a politician's bio in 2007. When did he sign with Harry Walker? Your link seems to suggest the opposite of what you said.

[Jon Awbrey]

I have a theory on this. Well, maybe it's not a theory but blinding obvious. Some of the very things that make Wikipedia successful are the same things that harm its quality. The instant gratification and thrill that every wacko on the net gets when they make an instant change to the world's most viewed webpage on a subject, highly addictive. The never ending edit wars and associated drama that goes with this, highly addictive. A place where teenagers can rule over college professors (there's more teenagers on this planet than college professors), highly addictive. You start taking that away in favor of stable versions and Wikipedia looses more addicts than it gains. (jeeze, I'm starting to sound like Awbrey in his more lucid posts)

By George, I think he's got it!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[MZMcBride]

The community has given the green light for a trial. The relevant bug is 18244.

That raises the very interesting question as to why it hasn't been implemented yet, then.

My guess is that Brion or some other techie is unwilling to turn it on for performance reasons (reasonable, because the code is full of bugs and will likely crap completely under the full load of enwiki's load), or someone is leaning on him to ignore it. That someone may well be Erik, who has long opposed flagged revisions, and is Brion's direct superior.

You undoubtedly realize this, but I'll state it anyway.

For the Wikimedia Foundation's purposes, Wikipedia works. It's very successful: lots of readers, lots of editors, etc. The Wikipedia model is an anomaly, as anyone who tries to start an online community quickly discovers. I think there's a genuine concern that this might disrupt or possibly break the Golden Egg, so to speak. So they tread exceedingly cautiously, for better or worse, especially when dealing with changes as radical to the current model as FlaggedRevisions is.

[KevinOKeeffe]

Wow, it looks like a field where I have a really honest shot at not coming in last place! Kevin, Ralph, and Relly might all be contenders for that dubious distinction.

There is a very distinct possibility I will come in last place (although I do hope to better than Ralph, who seems like a nice guy, so I won't elaborate on precisely why I hope to do better than him), but on the other hand, I KNOW there are a LOT of editors who share my concerns ie., that the Neutral Point of View has been totally discarded by the Admins in favour of active suppression of right-wing perspectives on controversial issues of the day, with particular reference to anything that remotely touches upon the fever swamps of (dare I refer to it?) race & ethnicity (as well as sexuality, and a few other things a clever fellow could probably guess for his self). If there were some way I could get the word out to all those angry editors, I think there's a very solid chance I could come in 3rd place, and thus win a seat on the board. I don't know how to do that, alas. I'm frankly quite open to suggestions, from anyone who would like to see me make a good showing in the election.

It would probably be better if we (by "we," I refer to people who share my concerns) found some upper-middle class, paleoconservative or libertarian guy in a suit to promote the agenda that I am promoting, instead of being stuck with some ultra-rightist, working class guy who looks like he's some sort of violent mountain man (I'm not one, but I do kinda look like it), but what can I say? All the photogenic-types with the snazzy resumes were apparently too busy, so I stepped up to the plate. I would be the last person to dispute my status as part of the B-team, as it were. On the other hand, there are those who regard me as a very bright & capable fellow....

My candidacy is based upon making Wikipedia more neutral, not friendlier to those persons, like me, who hold far-right political views (although by a happy coinkydink, achieving the former will almost, by necessity, lead to the latter). I would very much like to think that persons with a classically liberal approach to the notions of freedom of speech & intellectual inquiry would see the value in having part of the The Hated Ideological Minority on the board of directors, in order to help keep things honest, and who knows? If the Internet had been invented 30-40 years previous to when it actually was, I might have had some hope in that regard. But the sad reality is that the Internet skews young, and young people today aren't really into the classically liberal approach to such things. They so often tend, rather, to regard anyone who challenges their liberal-left orthodoxy on cultural matters as "a bigot," and to believe in the doctrine of "no free speech for bigots."

In any event, its at least good that there is one candidate who's campaign statement doesn't sounds like all the others.* Hopefully, that deviation from conventional orthodoxy won't prevent me from climbing at least a few tiers above last place.


*In fairness, yours is actually somewhat interesting as well. I must have missed it the first time I scanned the candidate's list. Hopefully, we'll both do better than Relly!

Ad Huikeshoven stole my eyeglasses, though. That's not nice.

I'm a little unclear on why that's funny. Yet, somehow, it really is.

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika:

[KevinOKeeffe]

Yeah, this field's looking like way more fun than last year's. I'm especially fond of Kevin's statement (which has since been blanked for exceeding the character count):

...numerous topics which are of interest, and genuine intellectual concern, to those of us on the far right...

My statement has since been whittled down to conform to the 1200 character limit (thus rendering it much less interesting). But the original can be found at my User page(s), links to which can be found at candidate's profile.

(Edit: I think it's likely that he's this guy. I'm pretty sure that even Greg's harshest detractors would agree that this guy's worse.)

I'm about as bad as it gets, yes. Although frankly, I was a little surprised at that page you found. Its dated March of 2005, and yet I would have assumed I was more mellow by then; it sounds like something I'd have written in 1995. Perhaps I was in a pissed off frame of mind, and had too many bottles of Pabst Blue Ribbon that evening? Which might explain why I never did anything with that blog I created. Although I have another blog, from May of last year. I gave it up after four entries. Its hard to find an audience, and frustrating to write without one. Interestingly, of the four entries I did make, two of them were a two-parter entitled "Why Barack Obama is the Lesser of Two Evils," so even within the halls of right-wing nutjobbery, I'm still something of an iconoclast. Oh, and you're sure to love the name I picked out for that blog....

United States of Degeneracy (my blog from May of 2008)

[KevinOKeeffe]

If LaraLove were to pose for her candidacy photo wearing a cute denim baseball cap, with her hair pulled in a pony tail through the back, maybe donning a red and white gingham blouse; big friendly smile... I assure you she would win a seat on the Board.

But of course. One of the people (Promethean? some other guy? I can't recall) whom I read about in this thread, and who was acting like a dick, is a freakin' high school junior! Simply put, if you're eligible to vote in the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Directors election, and you're under 25, you have no idea what vagina tastes like.

But in a male dominated field, do the pretty boys win over the troglodytes? I mean, do you think Steve will get more votes than that Grizzly Adams clone based solely on looks?

I don't look anything like "Grizzly Adams." My beard is MUCH larger than his. I am hoping to pick up the Islamic Fundamentalist vote, however. Or maybe, the vote of chicks-who-dig-Chester-Alan-Arthur....

[KevinOKeeffe]

I don't expect to do especially well in the election, but I do expect to beat Kevin O'Keeffe. But I think his views on anti-semitism might be of slightly more concern to voters than his admittedly awesome beard.

I have only posted to a single article at the Cagle Post (your link doesn't seem to take one to it), but the posts I made there were about the 2010 California gubernatorial election (specifically, why I prefer Tom Campbell to Meg Whitman, for the Republican nomination). There was another guy, Martin Lindstedt (whom I've met before, via the Internet), making posts there that were anti-Semitic (pretty much all his posts are anti-Semitic), but I said nothing about Jewish people at all. I suspect this is an honest error on your part; there were two people posting in that thread from a far-right political perspective (although I was by FAR the more moderate one; Lindstedt was talking about killing people, as is often his wont), and you mistook "Pastor" Lindstedt's remarks for my own. I didn't say anything remotely controversial, except that replacing White aerospace engineers with Mexican busboys & gang members has been a disaster for California's tax base.* And it has. I'm sure some Wikipedia Admin would deem that a "racist" remark, but like I said it my http://www.CaglePost.com message, it ain't a question of race. Its a question of arithmetic.


*This is only controversial to those persons who care more about ideological sensitivities than they do about objective reality. Such as the numerous Wikipedia Admins my candidacy is, in effect, directed at.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I have only posted to a single article at the Cagle Post (your link doesn't seem to take one to it), but the posts I made there were about the 2010 California gubernatorial election (specifically, why I prefer Tom Campbell to Meg Whitman, for the Republican nomination).

Here's the cached version of the comment to which I was trying to link (you have to scroll down a ways, but your name's highlighted).

In case it disappears from the cache again at some point, here it is:

Irrespective of his perhaps overly colorful way of expressing himself, Pastor Lindstedt's essential point is entirely correct. So-called anti-Semitism is an entirely rational response to a society where Capitol Hill is, as Patrick J. Buchanan so aptly put it, "Israeli-occupied territory." Such luminaries as ex-President Jimmy Carter of Georgia, and the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, have said much the same thing, albeit while favoring a milder semantic tone.

The very idea that it was even remotely within the scope of the authentic national interests of the American people, and their nation, to invade Iraq in 2003 (and to still be occupying that rubble-strewn nation a good six years later, and likely years into the future), is preposterous. U.S. foreign policy is, for all practical purposes, Israeli foreign policy administered via Washington, DC., neo-"conservative" operatives, nearly all of whom are of Jewish ancestry. If we went to war with Great Britain over Northern Ireland, due to our foreign policy being in the hands of a cabal of Irish Catholics, it would be eminently clear that our nation had been hijacked by a bunch of treasonous Celtophiles. But when the Jews do the exact same thing to this country, we're all supposed to be good little citizens by closing our eyes, and ignoring the reality of what's going on around them, for fear of being slandered as irrational bigots. America needs to be freed from the yoke of Jewish domination, and thus that means anti-Semitism is part and parcel to informed patriotism.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[A Horse With No Name]

I don't look anything like "Grizzly Adams." My beard is MUCH larger than his. I am hoping to pick up the Islamic Fundamentalist vote, however. Or maybe, the vote of chicks-who-dig-Chester-Alan-Arthur....

You do so look like Grizzly Adams! When I saw your picture, I half expected to see Denver Pyle following you in the background.

Besides, Chester Alan Arthur didn't have a wacky beard like yours. In fact, he was a nice looking man with a substantial gay following. If we were to make a movie about him, I would get SarcasticIdealist to play him. Or Tim Vickers -- he's a nice looking guy, too. In fact, why doesn't Tim run for this race? If we have to look at these characters, at least let's have guys who don't look like axe murderers.

[thekohser]

If we have to look at these characters, at least let's have guys who don't look like axe murderers.

No oats in your feed bag tonight, Horsey.

[KevinOKeeffe]

Irrespective of his perhaps overly colorful way of expressing himself, Pastor Lindstedt's essential point is entirely correct. So-called anti-Semitism is an entirely rational response to a society where Capitol Hill is, as Patrick J. Buchanan so aptly put it, "Israeli-occupied territory." Such luminaries as ex-President Jimmy Carter of Georgia, and the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, have said much the same thing, albeit while favoring a milder semantic tone.

The very idea that it was even remotely within the scope of the authentic national interests of the American people, and their nation, to invade Iraq in 2003 (and to still be occupying that rubble-strewn nation a good six years later, and likely years into the future), is preposterous. U.S. foreign policy is, for all practical purposes, Israeli foreign policy administered via Washington, DC., neo-"conservative" operatives, nearly all of whom are of Jewish ancestry. If we went to war with Great Britain over Northern Ireland, due to our foreign policy being in the hands of a cabal of Irish Catholics, it would be eminently clear that our nation had been hijacked by a bunch of treasonous Celtophiles. But when the Jews do the exact same thing to this country, we're all supposed to be good little citizens by closing our eyes, and ignoring the reality of what's going on around them, for fear of being slandered as irrational bigots. America needs to be freed from the yoke of Jewish domination, and thus that means anti-Semitism is part and parcel to informed patriotism.

If there's anything objectionable in those remarks (which I also apparently posted at the Cagle Post; I didn't realize I'd posted there in a thread other than the one addressing a George Will column about the 2010 California gubernatorial election, but I can now see that I did), its that I didn't use quotation marks with regard to the term "anti-Semitism," in the final sentence. Obviously, I was using that term in a somewhat ironic fashion, rather than literally endorsing anti-Semitism pe se.

Since neo-"conservatives" totally dominated our foreign policy during the previous administration, and since approximately nine out of ten neo-"conservative" intellectuals are Jewish, and since the central focus of neo-"conservatism" seems to be the national security of a foreign state ie., Israel, my remarks to the effect that there is a harmful surplus of Jewish influence on the U.S. government, are entirely reasonable. Many people (the vast majority of whom are a good deal less informed about matters of public policy than yours truly) would disagree very strongly with those remarks, but to suggest they simply constitute an expression of irrational, anti-Semitic bigotry, is absurd. Like the example cited in my original post, if a cabal of militant, Irish Catholic public policy intellectuals effectively hijacked the course of U.S. foreign policy via their influence in one of our two principal political parties, and took us to war with Great Britain, in order to liberate Northern Ireland, everyone would understand that there was a very grave problem with the way the U.S. government's foreign policy was being conducted. I am simply holding Jews (or more precisely, the ultra-Zionist, neo-"conservative"/Likudnik Jews that came to dominate foreign policy during the criminal administration of Bush/Cheney), to the same standard I would hold anyone else, in a similar position. What the Hell could possibly be wrong with that? The answer of course is, Jews are supposed to be above the criticism of us mere Gentiles. Well, I don't agree. What's good for goose is good for the gander.

[A Horse With No Name]

If we have to look at these characters, at least let's have guys who don't look like axe murderers.

No oats in your feed bag tonight, Horsey.

Oh, I wasn't talking about you, Kohs. You don't look that dangerous. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[thekohser]

If we have to look at these characters, at least let's have guys who don't look like axe murderers.

No oats in your feed bag tonight, Horsey.

Oh, I wasn't talking about you, Kohs. You don't look that dangerous. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Ah, but have you seen me with an electric knife?

[A Horse With No Name]

Ah, but have you seen me with an electric knife?

Oh, please -- the chicken is scarier looking than you! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[MBisanz]

If we have to look at these characters, at least let's have guys who don't look like axe murderers.

No oats in your feed bag tonight, Horsey.

Oh, I wasn't talking about you, Kohs. You don't look that dangerous. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Ah, but have you seen me with an electric knife?

The problem is that is it an electric knife, with a turkey, in a pan. It would only be dangerous if it was a cleaver, with a rack of lamb or a side of beef, on a butcher's block.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[thekohser]

Now, questions and answers of the candidates are being posted.

[KevinOKeeffe]

Now, questions and answers of the candidates are being posted.

Indeed they are. I just posted my answers to the four questions which have thus far been put forward.

[A Horse With No Name]

And that wacky kid NuclearWarfare is front and center, too, with his questions for the candidates. He's one of my favorites -- I hope he runs for RfA again.

[Nerd]

And that wacky kid NuclearWarfare is front and center, too, with his questions for the candidates. He's one of my favorites -- I hope he runs for RfA again.

Did he not get adminship?

[thekohser]

A question came up about "Paid editing" on Wikimedia projects.

I just may be at the very pinnacle of my game.

Let me know what you think of my response, especially the tactical use of hyperlinks.

[A Horse With No Name]

And that wacky kid NuclearWarfare is front and center, too, with his questions for the candidates. He's one of my favorites -- I hope he runs for RfA again.

Did he not get adminship?

He had an RfA last year, but it was not successful.

A question came up about "Paid editing" on Wikimedia projects.

I just may be at the very pinnacle of my game.

Let me know what you think of my response, especially the tactical use of hyperlinks.

I am curious – is there any policy that specifically bars paid editing?

Also, Kohs, did you ever get a DYK for one of your paid pieces?

[thekohser]

I am curious – is there any policy that specifically bars paid editing?

Also, Kohs, did you ever get a DYK for one of your paid pieces?

As far as I know, paid editing is not prohibited, but it is very strongly discouraged. It's tough to say... the rule book is awfully thick, and it was written in part by Wikipediots. It "conjures a conundrum", to quote it.

As for DYK's on any of my paid pieces? That was never my ambition, so I can certainly say that I never had anything to do with one showing up there. Whether one ever did or not -- I really don't know... once the works were published in Wikipedia, I didn't spend a terrible amount of time watching them or their traffic stats. I'm more certain that external news events had more to do with driving traffic to my pages, than any DYK link might have.

[NuclearWarfare]

And that wacky kid NuclearWarfare is front and center, too, with his questions for the candidates. He's one of my favorites

Aww, thank you Horse. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Who might you be again? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

A question came up about "Paid editing" on Wikimedia projects.

I could be uninformed about this, but has there been any Foundation-wide statement or policy on the matter? I remember the RfC on enwiki, but I was wondering about a Foundation-resolution or a BLP-style policy.

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[thekohser]

A question came up about "Paid editing" on Wikimedia projects.

I could be uninformed about this, but has there been any Foundation-wide statement or policy on the matter? I remember the RfC on enwiki, but I was wondering about a Foundation-resolution or a BLP-style policy.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

You're funny!

(That was a joke, right? I mean, you do know that the Foundation is one of the most hands-off, irresponsible caretakers of knowledge ever assembled, right?)

[A Horse With No Name]

Aww, thank you Horse. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Who might you be again? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

If I play my cards right, I will be Lar's new son-in-law! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

A question came up about "Paid editing" on Wikimedia projects.

I could be uninformed about this, but has there been any Foundation-wide statement or policy on the matter? I remember the RfC on enwiki, but I was wondering about a Foundation-resolution or a BLP-style policy.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

You're funny!

(That was a joke, right? I mean, you do know that the Foundation is one of the most hands-off, irresponsible caretakers of knowledge ever assembled, right?)

I'm aware that the Foundation is generally quite hands-off in regards to well...pretty much everything. I was just wondering though (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I'll take it then that the answer is "nope, not a chance of that being the case."

[LaraLove]

How come there are no broads running for the Wikimedia spots? Horsey wants to vote for a hot chick. (Steve's cute, but Horsey is not one for Shankboning).

I think I demonstrated some time back that while women (and transgendered to women) have represented a very small minority of Board candidates, they have something like a seven times more likely chance than men of winning a seat.

Okay, I'm making up that stat, but the point is borne out by the data.

If LaraLove were to pose for her candidacy photo wearing a cute denim baseball cap, with her hair pulled in a pony tail through the back, maybe donning a red and white gingham blouse; big friendly smile... I assure you she would win a seat on the Board.

Sure, but the bathrobe still rules. Soap and water is all Milton asks.

Hahaha, I just saw this. I'm not sure how I missed it before. The WikiChix mailing list is burning about there not being any female candidates.

I could run in this: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31FC...mdL._SL400_.jpg

Somehow, though, I still don't think I'd get a seat.

[Kelly Martin]

The WikiChix mailing list is burning about there not being any female candidates.

Is the WikiChix list still used as Florence's personal lobbying platform, or have they gotten over that? (I got kicked off the WikiChix list years ago for opposing Florence's use of its for canvassing for a Board seat.)