FT2 back in the ArbCom race, with lots to say about the happenings of 2008 Options

[Alison]

Heyyaz,

Looks like FT2 has put his name forward again. And he's got quite a lot of interesting things to say, including more on PoetHorde, certain alternate accounts and more on stuff that happened behind the scenes back in 2008.

Edit: And including about those 'oversighted edits' and the OrangeMarlin affair.

[trenton]

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

[Peter Damian]

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

Unfortunately the ballot seems to be secret this year, so we are missing the usual jockeying and tactical voting and drama. Hopefully that will change when it is announced.

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

[powercorrupts]

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

Unfortunately the ballot seems to be secret this year, so we are missing the usual jockeying and tactical voting and drama. Hopefully that will change when it is announced.

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

Yeah, God help us all.

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best. The shocking status quo of bad administership (for example) ---brickwall----rfc/u----brickwall-----------------------------arbcom may not be able to survive it. Something may actually give somewhere.

I'm not sure it's been expressed in this thread, but Off2RioRob, although a natural-born kiss-ass (between appearing 'tough' via the typical teenage snotty rudeness), is not - and genuinely never would be able to be - an admin. His block log is far too big and he can't keep it empty, and he has made too-many fair-minded editor enemies - ie he has made the mistake of making himself unpopular before becoming an admin, and not afterwards when you can do and say what you like.

How can they have a system where a nominee can bypass adminship via a secret ballot at arbcom level? Nobody seems to care what mediation experience there is in off2riorob's case, which only betrays what most of them really feel about the job.

The whole candidature process is atrocious - it's far worse than the less-than-ideal Request for Adminship, and these people are supposed to be the bottom line on difficult issues - although nothing but stupid hyper-dramas ever actually get up to their marble floor, admittedly.

They are basically hiring the new cast of Wikipedia Dynasty.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Sat 27th November 2010, 11:39pm

[Peter Damian]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

[powercorrupts]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

[powercorrupts]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

Make that 19 now Balloonman's gone, although I'll post on that in the indecision 2010 thread.

I suppose Wikimedia might feel they need a specific team they can really trust this year, which they see as a challenging one. Donators wanting to see stability perhaps, which WM would always envision in terms of control. Perhaps they want to achieve things in-wiki this year and they need an arbcom that will deliver it to them - like a cheeky form of adminship revision which will effectively serve to rubber stamp the status quo. It must be really hard to pull out new stunts when the arbcom is either struggling or unpredictable, and I'm convinced WM have loads up their sleeve, on and off WP.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Wed 1st December 2010, 9:28pm

[NuclearWarfare]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

Make that 19 now Balloonman's gone, although I'll post on that in the indecision 2010 thread.

I suppose Wikimedia might feel they need a specific team they can really trust this year, which they see as a challenging one. Donators wanting to see stability perhaps, which WM would always envision in terms of control. Perhaps they want to achieve things in-wiki this year and they need an arbcom that will deliver it to them - like a cheeky form of adminship revision which will effectively serve to rubber stamp the status quo. It must be really hard to pull out new stunts when the arbcom is either struggling or unpredictable, and I'm convinced WM have loads up their sleeve, on and off WP.

What percentage of donors do you think know or care about adminship, adminship review, or the Arbitration Committee?

[powercorrupts]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

Make that 19 now Balloonman's gone, although I'll post on that in the indecision 2010 thread.

I suppose Wikimedia might feel they need a specific team they can really trust this year, which they see as a challenging one. Donators wanting to see stability perhaps, which WM would always envision in terms of control. Perhaps they want to achieve things in-wiki this year and they need an arbcom that will deliver it to them - like a cheeky form of adminship revision which will effectively serve to rubber stamp the status quo. It must be really hard to pull out new stunts when the arbcom is either struggling or unpredictable, and I'm convinced WM have loads up their sleeve, on and off WP.

What percentage of donors do you think know or care about adminship, adminship review, or the Arbitration Committee?

What do percentages have to do about anything?

I'm not talking about the steady trickle of 'everyday' people who Wikimedia are currently squeezing for even more money via email only just after they've already given (you rude, insensitive and greedy bastards). No - those people largely donate small amounts for the 'convenience factor' of Wikipedia . That is largely down to Google and its current page rank system - a factor which must must weigh extremely heavily on WP's mind: the fear of still being financially dependent, combined the income being for a shared service, with ever-increasing overheads, when the charity well starts to dry out.

No - I was referring to the 'important benefactors' that all charities have - whether they are genuinely charitable, or (as will no-doubt happen in WP's case) if they are getting something back in return. It's a simple fact that very few large benefactors in the corporate/charity world simply give their money with no questions asked.