The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

[privatemusings]

So the nominations for the 2009 arbcom elections are open. In other news, the voting method, the no. of candidates being elected, and their terms are not yet established, so if you'd like to nominate yourself for an indeterminate amount of time, to be decided in an indeterminate way, to a committee of indeterminate no. roll up, roll up, roll up :-)

ps. I was feeling a bit amused by the above, and decided to withdraw (partly as an intensely thought through socio-political and philosophical comment on the elections and the process) - unfortunately it didn't stick. I'm not sure if that means I'm running or not.

This post has been edited by privatemusings: Tue 10th November 2009, 1:59am

[A Horse With No Name]

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring?

[Malleus]

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring?

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

[Newyorkbrad]

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring?

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

A couple in the very early days. See [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries#Arbitration Committee members (former)]] for the particulars, if you're curious.

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

[Kelly Martin]

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

The Mediawiki software includes a "role" that has all the viewing privileges, but none of the change privileges, of an admin. Wikipedia does not avail themselves of this role, but it does exist.

It is my opinion that all arbitrators should have their rights reduced (or, as appropriate, increased) to this role for the duration of their tenure, to reduce the risk of being judge, jury, and executioner.

It seems to me that a similar objection might be raised in the case of non-administrators commenting at AN/I though, where they may equally well not have all of the relevant information available to them. Isn't it about time this ever-increasing mish-mash of admin tools was debundled, so that you could grant only the right to view deleted revisions, for instance?

Yeah, i know it'll never happen, but just as a reference point, when you, Newyorkbrad, passed RfA, rights like abuse filters and flagged revisions didn't exist. Don't you think that it's slightly dishonest for administrators to claim a mandate for the use of tools that didn't even exist when they were "promoted", yet to deny access to them to others?

It is past time that Wikipedia deubndled admin tools. There are many admins who I would trust to use some, but not all, of the tools responsibly; debundling them would make it much easier to grant these people only the rights that they can be trusted to use responsibily.

[Happy drinker]

There are many admins who I would trust to use some, but not all, of the tools responsibly; debundling them would make it much easier to grant these people only the rights that they can be trusted to use responsibily.

I value Kelly's opinion and I suspect we have many of the same people in mind. However, by definition an admin has passed RfA hence has the trust of the community to use all the tools. If he/she abuses any of the tools there should be consideration of a desysop, removing all the tools.

If they ever do debundle, then of course you'd have RfAs for each set of tools.

[Kelly Martin]

However, by definition an admin has passed RfA hence has the trust of the community to use all the tools.

This is demonstrably false, of course. There several tools that are not within the scope of the privileges of an ordinary administrator, and so passing RfA does not gain one "all the tools". On top of that, RfA isn't about trust, it's about politics; passing RfA merely demonstrates that the candidate has sucked enough of the right cocks and not too many of the wrong ones, and very little more.

I've only heard two arguments so far against debundling; they are (a) "It would be too much bother" and (b) "I worked hard to get those tools; you can take them away from me over my dead body and not a moment sooner". The first argument at least has some merit; Wikipedia wold be wise to ban anyone who makes the latter.

I leave it to the observer to decide which of these arguments is being offered by Happy Drunkard.

[Happy drinker]

I leave it to the observer to decide which of these arguments is being offered by Happy Drunkard.

My argument is that when I !vote on an RfA, I am considering whether to trust that person with the full spectrum of tools. Were it possible to !vote for someone to have only a few of them, say only the right to grant rollback, I might well support someone whom I would oppose for the full spectrum. Would others agree?

[A Horse With No Name]

My argument is that when I !vote on an RfA, I am considering whether to trust that person with the full spectrum of tools. Were it possible to !vote for someone to have only a few of them, say only the right to grant rollback, I might well support someone whom I would oppose for the full spectrum. Would others agree?

I vote according to eye candy -- if I have to look at these characters, they should at least be easy on the eyeballs.

Which leads to the next question - why is this election a sausage fest? Where are the babes?