Who gets the WR endorsement for Arbcom09, Could be the kiss of death? Options

[A Horse With No Name]

Having only admins run for ArbCom has two benefits: first, it requires that every candidate has already received a community endorsement and thus it helps to filter out the waste-of-time candidates...

You mean every candidate who won a popularity contest? I don't know anything about "community endorsement."

...and second, it requires that every candidate have had some experience working on administrative tasks and the implementation of rules.

There is a difference between doing something and doing something correctly. If the 2009 Arbcom is any indication, their administrative experience did not prepare them for such labors as opening and reading e-mails, enforcing sockpuppet policies with something that has a passing resemblance to consistency, answering very easy Yes or No questions and behaving with some sense of maturity and decorum. Of course, let's not forget Sam Blacketer, whose shenanigans gave WP its biggest PR black eye this year -- admin and arbitrator!

It seems like an arbitrator who didn't have that experience could be at a serious disadvantage.

Can't be worst than what we've seen.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Tue 1st December 2009, 9:13pm

[Random832]

I will probably win.

I think we may be using different definitions of the term "probably" - too many wikipedians hate wikipedia for that to be reasonably likely.

[A Horse With No Name]

I will probably win.

That's what we need on Arbcom -- gung-ho Hoosier farm boys who can toss around the WP issues like bales of hay and squeeze out the hypocrisy like they were squeezing the udders of a milk cow.

[everyking]

I will probably win.

It would help if you had my vote, Kurt. And just think about it--user trends being what they are, in just a few years I may constitute a substantial portion of the electorate, so getting my support is really a long-term investment. Even though I opposed you in the past because I questioned your sanity, this year things are much simpler: to get my support, all you have to do is make a pledge on one of the two key issues I described earlier. (Bauder and Kirill are excluded on grounds of moral turpitude, not that they'd ever make the pledges anyway.)

[Sarcasticidealist]

It would help if you had my vote, Kurt. And just think about it--user trends being what they are, in just a few years I may constitute a substantial portion of the electorate, so getting my support is really a long-term investment. Even though I opposed you in the past because I questioned your sanity, this year things are much simpler: to get my support, all you have to do is make a pledge on one of the two key issues I described earlier. (Bauder and Kirill are excluded on grounds of moral turpitude, not that they'd ever make the pledges anyway.)

The only ArbCom business in which Kurt intends to engage is voting to reject cases, which is necessarily on-wiki. Hasn't he made one of your pledges by implication?

[everyking]

It would help if you had my vote, Kurt. And just think about it--user trends being what they are, in just a few years I may constitute a substantial portion of the electorate, so getting my support is really a long-term investment. Even though I opposed you in the past because I questioned your sanity, this year things are much simpler: to get my support, all you have to do is make a pledge on one of the two key issues I described earlier. (Bauder and Kirill are excluded on grounds of moral turpitude, not that they'd ever make the pledges anyway.)

The only ArbCom business in which Kurt intends to engage is voting to reject cases, which is necessarily on-wiki. Hasn't he made one of your pledges by implication?

Hmm. He might win on a technicality there, but it's not really in the spirit of the pledge. In spirit, that pledge requires something more like actual work and deliberations on-wiki.

[GlassBeadGame]

Cla68 is too good for ArbCom, it'd be the ruin of him.

I don't understand why he's running for ArbCom when he's not an admin. I don't think there's much doubt at all that he'd pass an RfA now, so why doesn't he run for that again? Having only admins run for ArbCom has two benefits: first, it requires that every candidate has already received a community endorsement and thus it helps to filter out the waste-of-time candidates, and second, it requires that every candidate have had some experience working on administrative tasks and the implementation of rules--it seems like an arbitrator who didn't have that experience could be at a serious disadvantage. But having said all that, Cla68 can have my vote if he just makes a pledge on one of the two issues I described earlier in the thread.

I suppose the same filter could be used to screen out stupid (if ironic) comments on how people should vote.

[RMHED]

Cla68 is too good for ArbCom, it'd be the ruin of him.

I don't understand why he's running for ArbCom when he's not an admin. I don't think there's much doubt at all that he'd pass an RfA now, so why doesn't he run for that again? Having only admins run for ArbCom has two benefits: first, it requires that every candidate has already received a community endorsement and thus it helps to filter out the waste-of-time candidates, and second, it requires that every candidate have had some experience working on administrative tasks and the implementation of rules--it seems like an arbitrator who didn't have that experience could be at a serious disadvantage. But having said all that, Cla68 can have my vote if he just makes a pledge on one of the two issues I described earlier in the thread.

The complete opposite would be far superior, ArbCom should consist entirely of non-admins. This takes away any possible temptation to act as judge and jury and would act as a deterrent to the power seekers.

[Trick cyclist]

Why do you hate Shostakovich?

Because he can't sing along to the lyrics?

Shostakovich did a great arrangement of "Tea for two".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agfZ3eD_jnE

(How do you embed a Youtube link?)



This post has been edited by Trick cyclist: Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:49pm

[Jaranda]

Assuming they're telling the truth about electing eight people, vote AGK, Bauder, Hersfold, Secret, Seddon, Shell Kinney, Unomi and Connelly. An Arbcom with a clear majority of undoubted nutjobs will hasten the day in which what laughably passes for a Wikipedia governance process chokes on its own vomit, and the WMF is forced to bite the bullet and replace the ridiculous psuedo-masonic hierarchy with a properly constituted board of governors.

Yay I'm a nutjob! Actually you'll be surprised with my candidacy, read the questions. I'm very serious about this.

[RMHED]

Assuming they're telling the truth about electing eight people, vote AGK, Bauder, Hersfold, Secret, Seddon, Shell Kinney, Unomi and Connelly. An Arbcom with a clear majority of undoubted nutjobs will hasten the day in which what laughably passes for a Wikipedia governance process chokes on its own vomit, and the WMF is forced to bite the bullet and replace the ridiculous psuedo-masonic hierarchy with a properly constituted board of governors.

Yay I'm a nutjob! Actually you'll be surprised with my candidacy, read the questions. I'm very serious about this.

Yes, you're a serious nutjob. Ma & Pa must be so proud.

[Kelly Martin]

The complete opposite would be far superior, ArbCom should consist entirely of non-admins. This takes away any possible temptation to act as judge and jury and would act as a deterrent to the power seekers.

Indeed. And, as I've previously said, I believe Wikipedia should strip all arbcom members of their administrative powers for the duration of their service as arbitrators. Of course, this will never happen.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

(How do you embed a Youtube link?)

[the word "youtube" here]your youtube code here[/the word "youtube" again]

[Kurt M. Weber]

[Seddon]

Assuming they're telling the truth about electing eight people, vote AGK, Bauder, Hersfold, Secret, Seddon, Shell Kinney, Unomi and Connelly. An Arbcom with a clear majority of undoubted nutjobs will hasten the day in which what laughably......

I am flattered but what sane person would honestly want to be on arbcom?

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Cla68 is too good for ArbCom, it'd be the ruin of him.

I don't understand why he's running for ArbCom when he's not an admin. I don't think there's much doubt at all that he'd pass an RfA now, so why doesn't he run for that again? Having only admins run for ArbCom has two benefits: first, it requires that every candidate has already received a community endorsement and thus it helps to filter out the waste-of-time candidates, and second, it requires that every candidate have had some experience working on administrative tasks and the implementation of rules--it seems like an arbitrator who didn't have that experience could be at a serious disadvantage. But having said all that, Cla68 can have my vote if he just makes a pledge on one of the two issues I described earlier in the thread.

I couldn't disagree more. In order to pass Rfa these days one has to run a PC gauntlet. A lot of potentially good candidates get thus excluded. Moreover the admin corps(e) as a whole is corrupt; loaded down with Jimbots, Cabalistas and wanna-be's. There is good reason why the number of active admins has been falling and successful Rfa's have not been keeping pace with this attrition.

We need MORE non-admins on the AC. In fact I think it is an excellent idea to have admin arbs turn in their mops while on the Comm. Sure it won't happen, but it's still a good idea.

Let's not have any delusions here.
Cla68 has stepped on far too many over-sensitive, over-powerful tootsies (he's quite fearless in that regard) to pass Rfa.
But as an Arb candidate he is without peer IMO. Yet I worry how much of a kiss o deth effect our support of him might have.

[A Horse With No Name]

Cla68 has stepped on far too many over-sensitive, over-powerful tootsies (he's quite fearless in that regard) to pass Rfa.
But as an Arb candidate he is without peer IMO. Yet I worry how much of a kiss o deth effect our support of him might have.

I wouldn't be surprised if those mugs rig the vote count and have Coren and Kirill re-elected by unscrupulous means.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Wed 2nd December 2009, 6:05pm

[Doc glasgow]

Cla68 has stepped on far too many over-sensitive, over-powerful tootsies (he's quite fearless in that regard) to pass Rfa.
But as an Arb candidate he is without peer IMO. Yet I worry how much of a kiss o deth effect our support of him might have.

I wouldn't be surprised if those mugs rig the vote count and have Coren and Kirill re-elected by unscrupulous means.

Coren and Krill we be re-elected easily by fair means.

There are, IMO, very few candidates in this let who are the type of shoe-ins who normally get elected. There's no experienced FA writers with lots of mediation experience and no battle-scars. That's indeed what makes it interesting. Last year, I'd have said someone like Cla has no chance - this year I'm not so certain.

It is also possible that very few will score over 50%, and with the latest resignation they need 9 candidates.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Cla68 has stepped on far too many over-sensitive, over-powerful tootsies (he's quite fearless in that regard) to pass Rfa.
But as an Arb candidate he is without peer IMO. Yet I worry how much of a kiss o deth effect our support of him might have.

I wouldn't be surprised if those mugs rig the vote count and have Coren and Kirill re-elected by unscrupulous means.

Coren maybe...but not Kirill. He can win in his own right.

BTW, who the hell are these so-called Scrutineers!?

[Sarcasticidealist]

BTW, who the hell are these so-called Scrutineers!?

Stewards without en-wiki involvement, I believe.

There are, IMO, very few candidates in this let who are the type of shoe-ins who normally get elected. There's no experienced FA writers with lots of mediation experience and no battle-scars. That's indeed what makes it interesting. Last year, I'd have said someone like Cla has no chance - this year I'm not so certain.

I agree. I also think that last year I'd have had no chance, and indeed I was, if not relying on, at least functioning under that assumption when I decided to run.

But yeah, I'd say there are fifteen or sixteen candidates who could reasonably be elected this year, and I don't think I'd have said that about more than three or four of us last year.