The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

[everyking]

Greg's candidacy could be used to raise the issue of so-called "banned" and "indef blocked" editors -- a contradiction in an environment that bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- and question how a "community" united on the concept of creating a reference text has become subdivided with inconsistent enforcement of policies.

You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell? You think we should allow them to keep editing, so that we might honour our motto?

It seems that the horse is speaking horse shit.

What about people banned or otherwise sanctioned merely for falling on the wrong side of some personal dispute, for holding the wrong viewpoints or making the wrong enemies?

[A Horse With No Name]

You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell? You think we should allow them to keep editing, so that we might honour our motto?

Why not? There are about a dozen of them serving on Arbcom now.

[Jaranda]

Candidates are still weak at best. [[User:Unomi]] contribs are interesting, should be discussed in a seperate post.

[thekohser]

You think the community should not ban those who post non-NPOV claptrap, use Wikipedia to push an agenda, or make the life of one or more contributors hell?

Wow, did I do all that? I think I'd need to see some diffs.

[Lar]

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Non-individual_individual_questions, which lead to User_talk:Lar#Request_to_reduce_volume.2Fnumber_of_questions and to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Gigantic_.22individual.22_questions_directed_at_every_candidate

I may be biased but I find the last topic title choice somewhat pejorative. Could be me of course... I do like to hear myself talk!

With Kato not around I don't know if we'll see the same level of analysis of answers this year. But I hope these questions are useful.

[Kelly Martin]

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Non-individual_individual_questions, which lead to User_talk:Lar#Request_to_reduce_volume.2Fnumber_of_questions and to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Gigantic_.22individual.22_questions_directed_at_every_candidate

I may be biased but I find the last topic title choice somewhat pejorative. Could be me of course... I do like to hear myself talk!

With Kato not around I don't know if we'll see the same level of analysis of answers this year. But I hope these questions are useful.

Well, it's completely unreasonable to expect people involved in a project to produce an encyclopedia to be able to read and write.

[CharlotteWebb]

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Non-individual_individual_questions, which lead to User_talk:Lar#Request_to_reduce_volume.2Fnumber_of_questions and to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Gigantic_.22individual.22_questions_directed_at_every_candidate

I can sympathize somewhat, but only because tolerance for morbid logorrhoea (even that which borders on self-parody) has become a de facto job requirement for arbcombatants. If one does not have an attention span conducive to your battery of questions, they'll never be able to stomach the longcat-style macroscreeds in which their colleagues often delight.

Could be me of course... I do like to hear myself talk!

Then why don't you run for arbcom, you pompous…

[Jaranda]

AGK just tossed his hat to run, strongest candidate I see so far. Xavexgoem also entered last night, now the strong candiates are starting to join, still mostly weak though.

[Kelly Martin]

I thought about running, just for the fun of it, but Newyorkbrad talked me out of it.

It really amuses me that people are bitching about being asked lots of questions, and that there are people who are being "put off" from running because of all the questions being asked. It's as if they have no concept of what arbitrators are supposed to be doing, and merely see this as another quest that has to be completed in order to get yet another shiny badge. The MMORPG mentality continues to dominate Wikipedian thought.

[Kurt M. Weber]

I'm put off by lots of questions, but that's just because probably 65% of the questions I'm being asked (I haven't counted) are totally irrelevant to my candidacy since they assume I'll actually be bothering to wield power I do not legitimately possess like everyone else running intends to do.

[A Horse With No Name]

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Anyone who doesn't want to hear these can always stick Lego pieces in their ears.

[GlassBeadGame]

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Anyone who doesn't want to hear these can always stick Lego pieces in their ears.

That would not be hygienic. There is no telling where those things have been.

[Lar]

Then why don't you run for arbcom, you pompous…

Your support is charming, as always.

Why don't you run?

[Mathsci]

The list is quite depressing. I would have supported Shell Kinney this time, if she'd run. And certainly Thatcher, Allison or MastCell.

There are a few people on the list whom I could vote for, but certainly nowhere near eight.

But all these clerks, as far as the eye can see ... and then our old friend Jehochman, yet again.

Will Ka of Catherine de Burgh be running?

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Wed 18th November 2009, 8:57pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Then why don't you run for arbcom, you pompous…

Your support is charming, as always.

Why don't you run?

Hey, you show Big Mama some respect, ya hear?

[Lar]

Hey, you show Big Mama

{{citation needed}}

some respect, ya hear?

Gotta give it to get it... and I'm holding up my end.

I'm put off by lots of questions, but that's just because probably 65% of the questions I'm being asked (I haven't counted) are totally irrelevant to my candidacy since they assume I'll actually be bothering to wield power I do not legitimately possess like everyone else running intends to do.

I think some might say that it's your candidacy that's "totally irrelevant" and that it's clue rather than power that you "do not legitimately possess"

But I could be wrong.

[Casliber]

I thought about running, just for the fun of it, but Newyorkbrad talked me out of it.

It really amuses me that people are bitching about being asked lots of questions, and that there are people who are being "put off" from running because of all the questions being asked. It's as if they have no concept of what arbitrators are supposed to be doing, and merely see this as another quest that has to be completed in order to get yet another shiny badge. The MMORPG mentality continues to dominate Wikipedian thought.

The questions can be a challenge - the thought provoking bit was worthwhile though - as in here where I copped a question from Pixelface with seresin querying a clarification. Given as both editors have fairly opposed views on inclusionism/deletionism, I was rather bemused. Turned out both opposed me anyway though

PS: Link has a letter limit so paste 'http://Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Casliber/Questions_for_the_candidate#Additional_questions_from_Pixelface'

This post has been edited by Casliber: Thu 19th November 2009, 12:34am

[A Horse With No Name]

Gotta give it to get it... and I'm holding up my end.

I think you are confusing me with a certain Wiki News reporter/photographer.

[Lar]

Gotta give it to get it... and I'm holding up my end.

I think you are confusing me with a certain Wiki News reporter/photographer.

Um, no... you're a horse.

[everyking]

Since arbitrators ignore the community after they're elected, it's only fair that the community should bombard them with questions now; they won't get an answer at any other time.

I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates so far. Any candidate who wants to secure my vote should state that they will conduct all of their ArbCom-related discussions on-wiki, not on the mailing list, unless private information is involved. (That doesn't apply to a few current and former arbitrators such as Bauder and Kirill--my opinion of them is already so low that they could do nothing to redeem themselves.)