Iridescent voted off the island Options

[A Horse With No Name]

Thanks. Do you have any dates for the off-wiki bits. When was the IRC chat?

Wasn't the text of the Ironholds/Law-Undertown IRC chat reprinted on WR?

title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=317444073]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317444073[/url] 09:37, 2 October 2009 John Vandenberg.

It was brought to my attention this morning, about 9 hours ago, that a functionary had privately informed me on August 21 about the connection between Law and The undertow. The email that I received, which was sent to the audit subcommittee this morning and will be send to arbcom-l shortly, did not spell out the connection explicitly, and I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning.

It was Keegan who contacted JVB - and I seem to remember Keegan specifically stating that the connection was explicitly spelled out. However, I don't know why Keegan only contacted JVB and not the full committee.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Sun 20th November 2011, 12:14am

[jayvdb]

Thanks. Do you have any dates for the off-wiki bits. When was the IRC chat?

Wasn't the text of the Ironholds/Law-Undertown IRC chat reprinted on WR?

title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=317444073]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317444073[/url] 09:37, 2 October 2009 John Vandenberg.

It was brought to my attention this morning, about 9 hours ago, that a functionary had privately informed me on August 21 about the connection between Law and The undertow. The email that I received, which was sent to the audit subcommittee this morning and will be send to arbcom-l shortly, did not spell out the connection explicitly, and I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning.

It was Keegan who contacted JVB - and I seem to remember Keegan specifically stating that the connection was explicitly spelled out. However, I don't know why Keegan only contacted JVB and not the full committee.

Keegan's email was clear enough, but it did not spell it out. It contained a link to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User:Law" and a small amount of commentary. It didnt indicate what the problem was, but it did indicate that the unspecified problem was a significant one. Had I looked at the link, and tried to see what he was seeing, it would have been obvious what he was referring to. I didnt look at the email at the time. Keegan's email was sent to me on 21 August, which was a hard deadline imposed by the government (You can see it on page 18 of 80). We had a meltdown on the final day and the ARC granted us an extension until Monday, and our team worked most of the weekend. Fun times. I didn't go back to read this email (and thousands of other emails) after my work pressure had subsided.

Keegan explained why he emailed me at the time. Directly emailing arbs can increase efficiency, as it avoids multiple email threads about the same thing, and it ensures that at least one arbitrator feels personally responsible for actioning the email. Giano's advice is pretty good:

My advice is, if you want all the Arbs to know something send it to several of your favourites individualy, asking them each to send it to the mailing list. Don't trust emailing it the mailing list yourself, and I have reasons for saying that, trust me on that one. Human error occur, errors of judgement occur and so does downright deceit. Just cut out the middle-man and hedge your bets. Giano (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

more info in the signpost.

[Peter Damian]

Directly emailing arbs can increase efficiency

Hang on. You've just made a long post about how a direct email to an arb (yourself) got lost in your personal backlog. And then you say "Directly emailing arbs can increase efficiency". Am I missing something?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 21st November 2011, 6:55am

[jayvdb]

Directly emailing arbs can increase efficiency

Hang on. You've just made a long post about how a direct email to an arb (yourself) got lost in your personal backlog. And then you say "Directly emailing arbs can increase efficiency". Am I missing something?

Emailing a single arbitrator and emailing arbcom-l start different processes; there are benefits and failure rates of each, and the 'best' approach will depend on the situation. IMO Keegan chose the best process for that situation, esp. as he is functionary and arbs are not likely to casually ignore or discard an email from a functionary. A personal response is usually quicker and more informative than a collective response.

Giano's advice is to email several arbs, which does help reduce the chance of the arbs neglecting to address an issue.

[Peter Damian]

IMO Keegan chose the best process for that situation, esp. as he is functionary and arbs are not likely to casually ignore or discard an email from a functionary.

Sadly, not best enough.

[A Horse With No Name]

Directly emailing arbs can increase efficiency

Hang on. You've just made a long post about how a direct email to an arb (yourself) got lost in your personal backlog. And then you say "Directly emailing arbs can increase efficiency". Am I missing something?

No, Petey. What this carousel ride is telling us is that:

1. Arbitrators condone sockpuppetry among their ranks and their friends. You will notice that none of the arbitrators that troll WR have said anything about Iridiscent's admission of creating sockpuppet accounts for the sole purpose of harassing another editor. And, again, if any of the arbitrators want to see the original unedited email where Iri makes this statement, I will be glad to send it to them.

2. Arbitrators do not want to be publicly questioned about their judgment.

3. Arbitrators who are shown to screw up their work will not resign, despite evidence that they are ill-equipped for this volunteer activity.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Mon 21st November 2011, 2:16pm

[AGK]

Try here http://wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wikiped...int_of_View/Law

The work that the Committee does in private is done so because it is not appropriate for public viewing. Simple. AGK 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...John_Vandenberg

AGK is currently a candidate for this years elections. Obviously he has been in training for this.

I moved in my candidacy for ArbCom to conduct its proceedings in public, either on a non-private mailing list or an on-wiki discussion page - and retain its private list only for matters it needs to discuss in confidence. Heaven forbid I change my views, eh?

PS Sorry if the formatting is messed up in this reply. I think I have a minor seizure whenever I have to use a website that doesn't demand lots of confusing wikicode…

fixed, I think - SBJ

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny: Thu 24th November 2011, 12:30am

[EricBarbour]

I moved in my candidacy for ArbCom to conduct its proceedings in public, either on a non-private mailing list or an on-wiki discussion page - and retain its private list only for matters it needs to discuss in confidence. Heaven forbid I change my views, eh?

PS Sorry if the formatting is messed up in this reply. I think I have a minor seizure whenever I have to use a website that doesn't demand lots of confusing wikicode…

Well well, here's AGK, one of the admins most likely to indef-block someone for being a "sock".
And you're a Catholic school product, too. Why am I not surprised?

I'd like to stuff a sock in your mouth, sir. Preferably a smelly one.

[Ottava]

I moved in my candidacy for ArbCom to conduct its proceedings in public, either on a non-private mailing list or an on-wiki discussion page - and retain its private list only for matters it needs to discuss in confidence. Heaven forbid I change my views, eh?

PS Sorry if the formatting is messed up in this reply. I think I have a minor seizure whenever I have to use a website that doesn't demand lots of confusing wikicode…

Well well, here's AGK, one of the admins most likely to indef-block someone for being a "sock".
And you're a Catholic school product, too. Why am I not surprised?

I'd like to stuff a sock in your mouth, sir. Preferably a smelly one.

Hey, what is wrong for going to Catholic school and wanting to get rid of socks?

[AGK]

I moved in my candidacy for ArbCom to conduct its proceedings in public, either on a non-private mailing list or an on-wiki discussion page - and retain its private list only for matters it needs to discuss in confidence. Heaven forbid I change my views, eh?

PS Sorry if the formatting is messed up in this reply. I think I have a minor seizure whenever I have to use a website that doesn't demand lots of confusing wikicode…

Well well, here's AGK, one of the admins most likely to indef-block someone for being a "sock".
And you're a Catholic school product, too. Why am I not surprised?

I'd like to stuff a sock in your mouth, sir. Preferably a smelly one.

I would respond in kind, but I don't have an irrational hatred for people on the internet who I've never met. I occasionally enjoy logging on here and reading well-founded criticism of the WMF projects, but I am perpetually disappointed when, a few posts in, I encounter somebody who isn't doing much else but sharpening their metal-implement-commonly-used-for-chopping-wood. It's so sad.

[Vigilant]

I moved in my candidacy for ArbCom to conduct its proceedings in public, either on a non-private mailing list or an on-wiki discussion page - and retain its private list only for matters it needs to discuss in confidence. Heaven forbid I change my views, eh?

PS Sorry if the formatting is messed up in this reply. I think I have a minor seizure whenever I have to use a website that doesn't demand lots of confusing wikicode…

Well well, here's AGK, one of the admins most likely to indef-block someone for being a "sock".
And you're a Catholic school product, too. Why am I not surprised?

I'd like to stuff a sock in your mouth, sir. Preferably a smelly one.

Hey, what is wrong for going to Catholic school and wanting to get rid of socks?

Nothing other than that they tend, as a group, to be humorless asshats with a penchant for moral pontificating with their feet of clay.

[SarekOfVulcan]

Eva Destruction Re:Good luck, Sat 27th November 2010, 12:43am
I'm a bit uncomfortable that some people seem to be making me out to be some kind of knight riding to Wikipedia's rescue, since my role will probably boil down to "make the occasional comment so I don't appear totally inactive, and keep the seat occupied to stop Sarek getting ideas".

Well, geez, I didn't have ideas, since I'm not generally that masochistic, but now...