Wizardman exits Arb-Warts Options

[Cla68]

No great loss, either.

Who do you think is the next to go?

SirFozzie.

If someone gives you good odds on that, let me know. I could make a fortune.

No, seriously, have no reason to, not burned out, still find things a challenge.. and still learning things (Alastair 2 was my first draft decision), for example

I think you guys may start getting snowed-under without Wizardman, Hersfold, and the others who have left to help share the load. Why not have an out-of-cycle election in a couple of months? You can say that you're doing it because it was suggested on Wikipedia Review.

My personal thoughts... The committee has ducked below 11 before, in the past few years.. this is why they bumped the committee up to 18.. to have this bit of a cushion. We'll be back up to 13 shortly (MD is back, and Cool Hand Luke has stated that he will be returning shortly), so I don't really see a need.

Also, other reasons:

1) Elections are a pain in the ass to set up and to administer. Trust me, we're learning that right now with the CU/OS elections.

2) We already have a CU/OS election running till the end of May, I think even trying to have a quick election would be time consuming (quick meaning, what, 2 weeks to nominate, 2 weeks for questions, 2 weeks for voting? That'd take us to Mid July, and then 2 more weeks to get everyone identified to the foundation and up to speed with the various mailing lists and the like.. August.. and then there's another election starting three months from then?

Also, here's something to consider.. the Committee's workload is, quite frankly, not that big right now. We may or may not be opening the A Nobody case that was held in abeyance, but right now, we have no case requests (the first time in a very long time I can remember there isn't at least one request), We have one case already in voting (Transcendental Meditation) and one about to hit voting (Russavia-Biophys).. but.. that's really it.

So as things stand right now, we'd be electing someone for a short term where there's not much to do.

Okay, it just seems that the cases you all have right now are taking awhile to get resolved. The Transcendential Meditation case, for example, is finally starting to get some action on the proposed decision, and it opened 12 weeks ago.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 17th May 2010, 12:54pm

[SirFozzie]

While I'd really not like to broadcast my thoughts publicly, a lot of that is due to discussion delays.. there are allegations all over the place of plagarism, coordinated editing in a meat/sockpuppet manner, non-NPOV, etcetera etcetera etcetera. Trying to write an arbitration finding that solves each of these things is not easy..

What we're trying to do is write a decision that gets people back to editing harmoniously within Wiki's principles. The reaction that the PD got (on the talk page, for example), made at least some of us realize that what we have probably will not do that. We're trying to rectify that.

[gomi]

Also, here's something to consider.. the Committee's workload is, quite frankly, not that big right now. ... we have no case requests (the first time in a very long time I can remember there isn't at least one request), ... there's not much to do.

Is there any chance that this is because ArbCom is held in universally low esteem?

[SirFozzie]

*shrugs* I do not know, doubt it, but you can think so if you want.

Probably a more accurate reason (at least to me), is that we're wrapping up the school year in a lot of areas, and with warmer weather as we get closer to summer, people find better things to do then to argue on Wikipedia?

[Subtle Bee]

[...]as we get closer to summer, people find better things to do then to argue on Wikipedia?

I wonder if it would be possible to get that mentioned in this article?

Face it though, for a significant demographic, the only meaning summer has is a glare on the monitor.

This post has been edited by Subtle Bee: Mon 17th May 2010, 9:41am

[everyking]

1) Elections are a pain in the ass to set up and to administer. Trust me, we're learning that right now with the CU/OS elections.

2) We already have a CU/OS election running till the end of May, I think even trying to have a quick election would be time consuming (quick meaning, what, 2 weeks to nominate, 2 weeks for questions, 2 weeks for voting? That'd take us to Mid July, and then 2 more weeks to get everyone identified to the foundation and up to speed with the various mailing lists and the like.. August.. and then there's another election starting three months from then?

Also, here's something to consider.. the Committee's workload is, quite frankly, not that big right now. We may or may not be opening the A Nobody case that was held in abeyance, but right now, we have no case requests (the first time in a very long time I can remember there isn't at least one request), We have one case already in voting (Transcendental Meditation) and one about to hit voting (Russavia-Biophys).. but.. that's really it.

So as things stand right now, we'd be electing someone for a short term where there's not much to do.

So go down the list. Or at least explain why you think that would be a bad idea.

[SirFozzie]

Ok, I can do that...

Right now, we would need four replacement arbs (we started at 18, we have 12, and two inactives). If we went down the list, we would have two people who fell just short (AGK and RUslik0), with around 56-57% support.. but if we went any further, we'd be getting people who got 51-52%. Do you think the community would really be supportive if there were new members of the committee who BARELY got a majority of support?

[everyking]

Ok, I can do that...

Right now, we would need four replacement arbs (we started at 18, we have 12, and two inactives). If we went down the list, we would have two people who fell just short (AGK and RUslik0), with around 56-57% support.. but if we went any further, we'd be getting people who got 51-52%. Do you think the community would really be supportive if there were new members of the committee who BARELY got a majority of support?

I can't imagine why they wouldn't be. In order to be properly representative and reasonably productive (by ArbCom standards, at least), the ArbCom should be A) composed of the people who got the highest number of votes in the last election and B) fully staffed. If some arbitrators decide they don't want to do the job anymore, then the results of the last election need to be reconfigured to reassign the seats that have been vacated.

[Emperor]

Also, here's something to consider.. the Committee's workload is, quite frankly, not that big right now. We may or may not be opening the A Nobody case that was held in abeyance, but right now, we have no case requests (the first time in a very long time I can remember there isn't at least one request), We have one case already in voting (Transcendental Meditation) and one about to hit voting (Russavia-Biophys).. but.. that's really it.

This whole paragraph sounds really silly.

[A Horse With No Name]

Interestingly, Hersfold just resigned too. That leaves 11 active arbitrators. Aren't there supposed to be 18? Maybe someday people will listen to the two simple reforms I've been proposing: full annual elections, and filling vacancies by promoting the next ranking candidate from the last election.

Of course, there is always the option of actually paying for professional editorial management of the site, as opposed to expecting telephone help desk operators, law school students or hospital risk managers to be able to handle tasks for which they have no educational or occupational training.

Yes, it involves spending money -- but in the long run, it makes more sense to have three or four trained professionals versus 18 clueless amateurs.

[Moulton]

I suppose if ArbCom is really bored, they could take up cases they shied away from before (like Moulton vs. IDCab). Not because I have any great desire to be vindicated or readmitted, but because there were so many unresolved fundamental issues in that case that are not particular to me (or to IDCab), but recur in many similar cases.

[MZMcBride]

While I'd really not like to broadcast my thoughts publicly, a lot of that is due to discussion delays.. there are allegations all over the place of plagarism, coordinated editing in a meat/sockpuppet manner, non-NPOV, etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Sounds like ArbCom, not the cases it hears.

[Milton Roe]

Interestingly, Hersfold just resigned too. That leaves 11 active arbitrators. Aren't there supposed to be 18? Maybe someday people will listen to the two simple reforms I've been proposing: full annual elections, and filling vacancies by promoting the next ranking candidate from the last election.

Of course, there is always the option of actually paying for professional editorial management of the site, as opposed to expecting telephone help desk operators, law school students or hospital risk managers to be able to handle tasks for which they have no educational or occupational training.

Yes, it involves spending money -- but in the long run, it makes more sense to have three or four trained professionals versus 18 clueless amateurs.

You're going to buy cows when milk is free?

[EricBarbour]

We may or may not be opening the A Nobody case that was held in abeyance, but right now, we have no case requests

Dealing with AN would be a good way to help improve Arbcom's public reputation.
Well, maybe. No guarantees. But doing anything is better than being "on hiatus".

If nothing will be done, then please explain to us all why AN gets away with shit like this.

You're going to buy cows when milk is free?

If the "free" milk is lumpy and smells bad, yes.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 18th May 2010, 4:27am

[A Horse With No Name]

We may or may not be opening the A Nobody case that was held in abeyance, but right now, we have no case requests

Dealing with AN would be a good way to help improve Arbcom's public reputation.
Well, maybe. No guarantees. But doing anything is better than being "on hiatus".

Yes. For starters, Arbcom can explain how they awarded themselves subpoena power when there is no such authority spelled out for them in WP policy. They can also explain why they disabled the account of an editor who, in no way whatsoever, violated the clearly-defined policies of WP:BLOCK. And since it appears that AN is under observation for alleged "socking" via IP edits, perhaps old lady arbitrator Risker would care to identify the "socks" that she allows to participate on WP, as per her astonishing acknowledgment during last September's Law/The_Undertow debacle, with a compare-and-contrast regarding why those "socks" can play on WP but AN cannot?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Tue 18th May 2010, 12:36pm

[SirFozzie]

We may or may not be opening the A Nobody case that was held in abeyance, but right now, we have no case requests

Dealing with AN would be a good way to help improve Arbcom's public reputation.
Well, maybe. No guarantees. But doing anything is better than being "on hiatus".

If nothing will be done, then please explain to us all why AN gets away with shit like this.

Well, one could conceivably claim that we have no authority over list.wikia.com. But I do agree that it.. does not show A Nobody in a good light.. let's say. He's made a comment over on the Arbs meta pages.. but I think we'll be handling this in an expedited manner, either by a motion or a case.

[Ottava]

Well, one could conceivably claim that we have no authority over list.wikia.com. But I do agree that it.. does not show A Nobody in a good light.. let's say. He's made a comment over on the Arbs meta pages.. but I think we'll be handling this in an expedited manner, either by a motion or a case.

The comment: "I have logged out of Wikipedia permanently and disabled my email after throwing out my password which can be confirmed per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/A_Nobody this]. I have not only disabled it from Wikipedia, Wikia, and here, I also deactivated it from Yahoo to be sure that I can never re-log into Wikipedia under my old username."

So, whatever you do will be moot. That seems to be par for ArbCom, though.

[SirFozzie]

Considering he's still editing as an IP, I hardly think it's moot, Ottava.

[Milton Roe]

We may or may not be opening the A Nobody case that was held in abeyance, but right now, we have no case requests

Dealing with AN would be a good way to help improve Arbcom's public reputation.
Well, maybe. No guarantees. But doing anything is better than being "on hiatus".

If nothing will be done, then please explain to us all why AN gets away with shit like this.

You're going to buy cows when milk is free?

If the "free" milk is lumpy and smells bad, yes.

You still don't get it. You're not the one drinking the milk. Who the hell cares what kind of a court and police system you have, if you yourself never have to worry about being judged by it? The Lords of the Shire are never arrested by the Reeve in a feudal system. They're above all that. So who the *&%$ cares if the Reeve (sheriff) is crappy and occasionally hangs the wrong person? It will be a peasant, whoever it is.

[A Horse With No Name]

The comment: "I have logged out of Wikipedia permanently and disabled my email after throwing out my password which can be confirmed per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/A_Nobody this]. I have not only disabled it from Wikipedia, Wikia, and here, I also deactivated it from Yahoo to be sure that I can never re-log into Wikipedia under my old username."

Actually, this quote is the money shot: "I have nothing to really feel bad about anymore." Good for him -- getting all of that bad blood out his system is the best news. More power to ya, AN -- a lot of the Wikipediots could learn from that.

So, whatever you do will be moot. That seems to be par for ArbCom, though.

Don't be too harsh -- for some of the arbitrators, this is the most important thing that they'll ever accomplish in their lives.