The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

[everyking]

Risker also notes that “the manner in which arbitrators, supposedly selected for their good judgment and wise counsel, are treated with suspicion, condescension and distrust from the moment of their appointment, has been pointed out to me by several highly respected editors as the reason that they are not interested in participating.” This, of course, is a phony argument.

Horsey, is there a good reason that anyone should spend dozens of hours a week on a hobby as a nominal figurehead whose best efforts can be swept away by predictable "community" discord? Consider that an arbitrator's only compensation is insults from anyone and everyone--perhaps people like you, who rail against arbitrators because they don't each read every Bible-long ArbCom workshop page, and who think that users of an internet site should be given due process rights rivaling those given to criminal defendants--without the paid lawyers or judges, of course.

Who would ever imagine that the playground bully would be held in contempt by the other children? If the ArbCom wants to be respected by the community, it should treat the community with respect.

[Cla68]

Risker also notes that “the manner in which arbitrators, supposedly selected for their good judgment and wise counsel, are treated with suspicion, condescension and distrust from the moment of their appointment, has been pointed out to me by several highly respected editors as the reason that they are not interested in participating.” This, of course, is a phony argument.

Horsey, is there a good reason that anyone should spend dozens of hours a week on a hobby as a nominal figurehead whose best efforts can be swept away by predictable "community" discord? Consider that an arbitrator's only compensation is insults from anyone and everyone--perhaps people like you, who rail against arbitrators because they don't each read every Bible-long ArbCom workshop page, and who think that users of an internet site should be given due process rights rivaling those given to criminal defendants--without the paid lawyers or judges, of course.

Who would ever imagine that the playground bully would be held in contempt by the other children? If the ArbCom wants to be respected by the community, it should treat the community with respect.

What is your definition of "the community" Everyking? Mine includes all the editors who work on topics that interest them but have never heard of the Arbcom, or if they have, know nothing about it more than that it exists.

[Kelly Martin]

What is your definition of "the community" Everyking? Mine includes all the editors who work on topics that interest them but have never heard of the Arbcom, or if they have, know nothing about it more than that it exists.

Decisions are made by those who show up. The problem is that Wikipedia's decision-makers have no ethical standard that requires that they give even lip service to the concerns of those who don't show up. Worse yet, Wikipedia practice tends to encourage making decisions based on discussions in obscure corners of the WikiUniverse, and also tends to punish efforts to publicize such discussions. So it requires a substantial time commitment in order to know where and when one must show up in order to participate in decisions, more than most people are willing to commit to a hobby.

Fundamentally, everyking isn't any more interested in 'the community' than anyone else on Wikipedia is. What everyking wants is personal vindication, and he is siding with 'the community' for the sole reason that he thinks that 'the community' (as he has conceptualized it) is more likely to give it to him than the power brokers currently entrenched in Wikipedia. In his construction, 'the community' is the enemy of 'the ArbCom', and since the ArbCom is his enemy, the community must needs be his friend. The reality is that the ArbCom that Wikipedia has is the ArbCom that the community (or at least that part of it which chooses to show up for elections) has chosen; they are but faces of the same coin.

[gomi]

In that sense, then, can you imagine an encyclopedia having an "Arbitration Committee"?

I don't have to imagine it. It's already here, in living color.

I think Greg's point, a very good one, is that Wikipedia can hardly be called an encyclopedia, and ArbCom can hardly be called Arbitrators. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader whether it qualifies as a committee under the normal definition of that word.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I think Greg's point, a very good one, is that Wikipedia can hardly be called an encyclopedia, and ArbCom can hardly be called Arbitrators. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader whether it qualifies as a committee under the normal definition of that word.

While I quite like Wikipedia criticism and wish as fervently as anybody that there was more of it around here (the good kind, not the Eric-Barbour-saying-something-self-evident-and-following-it-with-a-barfy-emoticon kind), Wikipedia critics would do well to stop focussing on semantics.

To illustrate what I mean, let's consider this (hypothetical) quote from circa 1455:

"Books are made by monks with quills, and don't require ungainly machines, therefore the Gutenberg Bible can hardly be called a book."

Wikipedia shares some characteristics with encyclopaedias (it contains articles on subjects and does not define its scope by discipline) and differs in other ways from them (encyclopaedias are written by named experts, encyclopaedias are reasonably reliable). Whether the similarities are great enough to justify calling Wikipedia an encyclopaedia is a question that's as uninteresting as it is irrelevant.

(Things are somewhat more clearcut, although probably neither more interesting nor more relevant, with regards to the Arbitration Committee, which is certainly a committee and just as certainly not engaged in arbitration.)

[Kurt M. Weber]

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.

[Milton Roe]

(Things are somewhat more clearcut, although probably neither more interesting nor more relevant, with regards to the Arbitration Committee, which is certainly a committee and just as certainly not engaged in arbitration.)

"Judgement Tribunal" would certainly be better. Not too many people would say a military judgement tribunal "arbitrates" anything; but what it DOES do, is something much like what happens at.. "ArbCom."

Milton "Where's my airquotes?" Roe

[Lar]

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.

Of course you don't understand. But don't worry, most of the voters understand (why not to vote for you) just fine.

[Mathsci]

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy, shortly after being banned from the EEML case for a week with no prior warning by trainee clerk Manning Bartlett. Slightly later he also gave Jehochman a mild warning by email. Here is the heated discussion between Shell Kinney and Jehochman.

He also gave a warning to Thatcher a month ago, but the warning had to be toned down considerably and he admitted he had over-reacted.

On the other hand Manning did not warn his other fellow clerk AGK for inflammatory language on the case pages. Instead he wrote a glowing endorsement of AGK for the elections.

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Sun 22nd November 2009, 7:57am

[MBisanz]

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy, shortly after being banned with from the EEML case for a week with no prior warning by trainee clerk Manning Bartlett. Slightly later he also gave Jehochman a mild warning by email. Here is the heated discussion between Shell Kinney and Jehochman.

He also gave a warning to Thatcher a month ago, but the warning had to be toned down considerably and he admitted he had over-reacted.

On the other hand Manning did not warn his other fellow clerk AGK for inflammatory language on the case pages. Instead he wrote a glowing endorsement of AGK for the elections.

Probably worth noting that Manning is user #100, meaning he has been here for nearly all of the shit ever to occur on the wiki. Also worth noting that while I was involved in the EEML case and thus unable to help out with clerking, Manning has a rather commendable job cutting through the usual amounts of crap in these complex cases and has not done so simply by cutting out the small names, but also taking on the big names with almost no backup from the arbs, et. al., so I'm having a hard time criticizing him for bringing order to the wastelands.

[LessHorrid vanU]

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.

Well, I am voting for you - in the oppose section. Primarily this is because you have not answered my question. Should you answer my question, of course, I shall oppose you for the responses given.

Whatever they are.

[Mathsci]

Shell Kinney has now declared her candidacy, shortly after being banned with from the EEML case for a week with no prior warning by trainee clerk Manning Bartlett. Slightly later he also gave Jehochman a mild warning by email. Here is the heated discussion between Shell Kinney and Jehochman.

He also gave a warning to Thatcher a month ago, but the warning had to be toned down considerably and he admitted he had over-reacted.

On the other hand Manning did not warn his other fellow clerk AGK for inflammatory language on the case pages. Instead he wrote a glowing endorsement of AGK for the elections.

Probably worth noting that Manning is user #100, meaning he has been here for nearly all of the shit ever to occur on the wiki. Also worth noting that while I was involved in the EEML case and thus unable to help out with clerking, Manning has a rather commendable job cutting through the usual amounts of crap in these complex cases and has not done so simply by cutting out the small names, but also taking on the big names with almost no backup from the arbs, et. al., so I'm having a hard time criticizing him for bringing order to the wastelands.

Well, ArbCom was not happy about Manning's actions and have removed the ban. See this discussion on Shell's talk page. I understand that EEML is a particularly troublesome case, but bans like this to respected admins send out the wrong messages about participating in ArbCom cases. Besides, usually Shell and Thatcher make very good and sensible points.

That cannot be said about Jehochman: I would use the word "inconsistent" to describe him. I listened to his interview with Private Musings. His voice is not quite as squeaky as Adam Cuerdon's audio demo on wikivoices. Private Musings on the other hand has the reassuring laid back voice of an English pirate radio DJ ....

Manning Bartlett has also deleted his user page, blanked his talk page, resigned as clerk and sysop ...

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Sun 22nd November 2009, 8:15pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Manning Bartlett has also deleted his user page, blanked his talk page, resigned as clerk and sysop ...

...and went back into his cave (or is that Puff the Magic Dragon -- after a while, all of these oversized reptilian creatures look alike).

[trenton]

Shelly, Jehochman (to a lesser extant), and particularly AGK are just grandstanding before the arbcom election.

I could tell AGK was going to run for the arbcom election when he switched from obsequious arbcom clerk mode to arbcom critic mode here.

Here's hoping for another !! type block if any of the current candidates really wants to stand out.

[Casliber]

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.

Well, I am voting for you - in the oppose section. Primarily this is because you have not answered my question. Should you answer my question, of course, I shall oppose you for the responses given.

Whatever they are.

LHVU - you need to give Kurt some encouragement. Try to find a positive out of all this

[Milton Roe]

Probably worth noting that Manning is user #100, meaning he has been here for nearly all of the shit ever to occur on the wiki. Also worth noting that while I was involved in the EEML case and thus unable to help out with clerking, Manning has a rather commendable job cutting through the usual amounts of crap in these complex cases and has not done so simply by cutting out the small names, but also taking on the big names with almost no backup from the arbs, et. al., so I'm having a hard time criticizing him for bringing order to the wastelands.

Manning Bartlett has also deleted his user page, blanked his talk page, resigned as clerk and sysop ...

Now where is that metal Wall of Remembrance for the people that Wikipedia has chewed up and spat out in various ways, over the years?

I know we put that Wall of Remembrance somewhere. Was it in Washington, D.C., or some place in Cyberspace DC? DC Comics? Bizarro World?

It's got Ryan Jordan and Larry Sanger and so on, on it. And this Maning Whatisface should go there if we get around to it.

Some are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians

But those are only the ones that haven't been obviously corrupted, hammered, or burned out.


MR

P.S. Checkout the snide insertions of "sic" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy, whenever Jimbo does something really clueless, like refer to the user as "EssJay" or "Mr. Ryan". As in "Mr. Ryan was a friend..."

A really GOOD friend.

[Doc glasgow]

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for me, other than because they're just too scared to show their support.

Well, I am voting for you - in the oppose section. Primarily this is because you have not answered my question. Should you answer my question, of course, I shall oppose you for the responses given.

Whatever they are.

LHVU - you need to give Kurt some encouragement. Try to find a positive out of all this

Encouraging trolls is pretty bad form.

However, calling a troll out for trolling is also drama-stoking, which makes Durova a troll, and me a troll for calling her one.

What's new? This is the wikiway.

[Kelly Martin]

YOU'RE A TROLL!
AND YOU'RE A TROLL!
AND YOU'RE A TROLL!

EVERYONE IS A TROLL!

Even Newyorkbrad is still confused by this.

[Doc glasgow]

YOU'RE A TROLL!
AND YOU'RE A TROLL!
AND YOU'RE A TROLL!

EVERYONE IS A TROLL!

Even Newyorkbrad is still confused by this.

There's still some people want to invoke AFG at this point.

However, invoking AGF is, naturally, just moralistic trolling.


This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Mon 23rd November 2009, 12:18am

[Doc glasgow]

And we are off

Scott Mac's opinion

It would be more Wikipedian to attempt to communicate before posting an opinion which is certainly discourteous and arguably a personal attack. Scott Mac's syllogism suffers from the false dichotomy fallacy. Suppose one grants his premise that Kmweber is a troll (noting the incivility in passing). It does not necessarily follow that the solution to every type of trolling is to ignore it completely. Carry that premise to extremes and nobody would ever get blocked, because warnings and block notices constitute feedback. A lot less formal dispute resolution would occur at this site. This was initiated with the idea that if he were reasonable he would communicate reasonably, and if not then at least it would divert the disruption from his chosen high profile venue to a different venue where he didn't want to be. The premise of this RfC was set out pretty clearly, and I would hope that experienced Wikipedians could disagree respectfully. Durova369 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The premiss of this RFC is bollocks. You state that you hope "Kmweber evaluates the reactions here at this RfC ... edits productively in mainspace for one year to regain the community’s confidence...". Is that really why you filled this? A good faith attempt to help Kurt see the light? You are not remotely stupid enough to believe that an RfC will do anything of the sort. You know that this RfC will either encourage his trolling, or encourage others to stoke the drama by trying to ban/bar him. This is an attempt to provoke drama, why is fairly consistent with your M.O. Having said that, my intervention is only likely to stoke it further, which makes me either a fool or an accomplice in crime. Maybe I should have said nothing. But then, "it does not neccessarily follow that the solution to every type of trolling is to ignore it completely".--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)