I think that's a good assessment. Most likely he's reading this thread and will take it to heart.


What you mean, "now"?


I think she prefers to act through surrogates. Will Beback would have been ideal for her purposes, but he has failed twice. Despite his best efforts, his inherent creepiness is hard to mask.

Is that another cryptic LaRouche reference?

You're right. Arbitrators are the most powerful users on the project. They are indeed unanswerable to anyone, and by default are right.

In theory you think it would be the opposite. With absolute power and a real long term, arbcom users could become radically individualist and vote however they feel. (After all, Ted Kennedy's never gonna vote pro-life even if Americans lean more that way)

In practice though, it's obvious that it's starts to shape as you say. The Warren court of the 60s, Souter and Kennedy's shifts toward more liberal tendencies, it's the dynamic of a group. ArbCom is certainly not the only group body that has an issue like that, far from it.

I guess that's why James' edit summary intrigued me. If you feel otherwise, then make a proposal stating such. Maybe there's something going on that called for unanimity, which is why he didn't. That's just me though, thinking out loud. All I can say is these elections will be very intriguing. There's no one obvious top contender like last year.

Indeed. I quote directly from Jimbo's talk page today: "I would personally desysop any admin or group of admins seeking to defy the ArbCom, because the ArbCom is a valid part of our longstanding traditions."

He can't get everyone. if there is enough momentum enwp could oust arbcom easily enough - either by completely ignoring it or simply deleting it.

All those admins and editors in good standing who have had enough of Jimbo and have had enough of the do-nothing ArbCom, I strongly encourage that NOW IS THE TIME to put it to the test. Go ahead, get yourself banned by Jimbo. At some point it will become a publicity nightmare, he will lose (big time), and you can all get your bits back, or just start over with a new account and probably have them back in a few months' time.

JUST DO IT !

Well, there goes my hope of ever regaining my sysop bit.

On the plus side, if Jimmy starts thinking he still owns Wikipedia and bans any admins that challenge the authority he's basically abdicated to go run Wikia, it will nicely lower RFA standards and desysopping standards to be reasonable.

And he'll be admitting he's in charge and have to take responsibility for content.

It will only be a publicity nightmare for those actively following developments on WP. Those passive consumers who simply come along to use WP as their source of knowledge will not notice a thing.

Most Soviet plebs were unaware of the officers' purges - why would this be any different?

Yeah, just like the Essjay thing never rose to the level of "publicity nightmare". I mean, it never got legs outside of the usual "WP following" media sources, did it?

But how many of casual readers (and to some extent, contributors) of WP even know about it? I didn't until about a year after the fact, and that was only when I was actively looking for any skeletons in WP's cupboard.

I've been hoping for a while that Jehochman would have a go at it. I'd also be likely to support Alanyst, Lar, and Cool Hand Luke, none of whom I believe have yet been mentioned in this thread (these are just people I'm hoping will run, though, not people who I believe will). It's also possible that I'm overlooking some unsavoury aspect to their histories, but hopefully an Arb Comm candidacy would bring such an aspect to the surface and allow me to revise my opinion.

Of all people who could probably win, I think Lar would be one of my top choices. I reckon he'd take a beating for posting here, but he's already a highly trusted user, and I suspect the ArbCom will vindicate him.

Isn't there a view that a steward shouldn't be on ArbCom?

Not that I know of, but Stewards are prohibited by Steward policies (which trump local policies, even Jimmy policies--Jimmy is a slave to the Foundation as he has no legal business ownership claim to it) from using Steward powers on their "home" wiki. Lar can never perform Steward functions to my knowledge on en.wikipedia.org, but can anywhere else.

Which does bring up an interesting question of Jimmy is tolerated to use his Steward powers on en.wikipedia, which is clearly his home wiki.

Jimmy is exempt from all rules. How hard is that to understand?

The policy says, "Stewards should not change rights on the projects which they are primarily active with their steward tools, unless the subject requested it themselves. It is better to leave such cases to neutral stewards. This also applies to members of local arbitration committees."

This rule doesn't not appear to be taken very seriously; Lar himself has been known to ignore it a few times.

A recent survey demonstrated that 56.4% of casual readers of Wikipedia were able to identify as True that "A college dropout once portrayed himself on Wikipedia as a college professor, while rising to the rank of Administrator on the site". A full 7.9% were able to identify him by name as either "Essjay" or as "Ryan Jordan". Among regular contributors to the encyclopedia, 94.1% identified the statement as "True", and 61.4% were able to name the perpetrator.

This was a proprietary study, though, so I'm not at liberty to release the raw data, or the study sponsor to you.

Additional note: this information, while a complete and utter fabrication, is no less credible than your survey that included one data point.



Greg

I was a quite "casual" reader/contributer of WP (certainly by SV standards) when the Essjay scandal occurred. I found out about it first "on-wiki", which led me to seek further information "off-wiki", including this site (Shock! Horror!). I wasn't "actively looking for any skeletons in WP's cupboard", either. Once I realized the implications of the scandal (almost instantly), I also realized I had no further business on WP.

I've presented my idea for all open seats on the election talk page. This is a really crucial reform; if the ArbCom's lethargy and distance from the community can be traced at least in part to long terms and special appointments, there is every reason to expect that the ArbCom following a full election would be substantially more receptive and responsive to the community and substantially more energetic.

Wow. Sorry but without more information, your study is worthless.

Methodology? Sample size? Definition of casual? Credibility of statisticians? What were the control questions?

And leaving all that aside. If I ask a sample is statement x true or false, and they have no idea, then statistically 50% will guess true and 50% false. So that 56% said true is totally unremarkable. Your 7.9% I'd suspect are the wikipedia regulars who were caught up in the sampling.

Truly unremarkable if the survey is competent at all.

You did read what he wrote didn't you?

Well said, at that.

I'm told by a statistician (NO) that you need a stratified random sample so you get a fair mix of different types of article.

MBisanz says my proposal to have all open seats wouldn't be fair to the arbitrators with long terms. But doesn't the ArbCom itself reject the notion of fairness? Haven't they said that they consider not what is fair, but what is best for the encyclopedia?

Heh. Clearly not. I suppose this is mmu;dr -- mind made up; didn't read.

Fairness is a privilege which must be earned.

As is respect.

Maybe the arbitrators have earned the right to fair treatment, but the community and its individual editors have not.

New York Brad has objected on the grounds that shorting terms would be: "perceived infringements on judicial independence". ... well, of course, that is the reason for the proposed change. Rather than Arbcom being unanswerable, their actions should be supported by the community.

Another wannabee judge slumming as an Arbitrator?

I anticipated and addressed this objection in my colloquy on-wiki with Everyking, q.v.

Making you....what? Robert Bork?

I'm not sure whom the word "another" in that comment refers to (nor am I sure that it would productive for me to ask).

In real life I've never even considered seeking a judgeship, but my work as a WP arbitrator has given me some valuable insights into how real-world judges -- particularly judges of multi-judge courts -- go about deciding cases.

Wikipedia arbitration is not a truly "judicial" function -- even making the loose analogy invites allegations of aggrandizement, though I'm hardly the first to do so -- but there are certainly parallels between the models (compare the last principle in RfAr/Mantanmoreland).

Brad, with all due respect, I think you should be wary of seeing things from your standpoint as an arbitrator rather than from the standpoint of the community. You are supporting long terms and "judicial independence", things that lead to a distant relationship between the ArbCom and the community and a tendency on the part of the ArbCom to act without consideration for the community's wishes. The ArbCom functions as an elite center of power that does its decision-making in secret and often produces rulings that are deeply unsatisfying to the community. From my perspective as a member of the community, that is all crystal clear and severely problematic.

There would seem to be a conflict of interest for a sitting Arbcom member to be arguing against the reduction in his own term of service.

They can argue all they like - indeed its useful to know what they think in the matter. Its only a conflict of interest if they make the decision.

TheKohser, my business stays successful because I have a team of project managers and developers who handle most routine client tasks. I sit here waiting for the phone to ring, to take care of new clients, or help existing clients. High availability differentiates me from competitors who are hard to reach. While waiting for those calls, I answer email, do the work I need to do, and edit Wikipedia during the spare cycles. Many of my peers do a lot of blogging. I do Wikipedia instead.

As for the legal mind, I did attend a year at Columbia Law School, but quit because I didn't like it. I occasionally serve as an expert witness, so I have had a bit of courtroom and deposition experience.

Took you long enough to answer.

Doh! I wasn't paying attention.

If we're still tracking candidates, SirFozzie's announced (and has earned an immediate rebuke from Giano, who in turn was reprimanded by Tznkai...but I guess that's the way the whole durned Wikipedia comedy keeps perpetuatin' itself...)

Update: Boy am I behind the times: here's the comprehensive who's who of confirmed and potential candidates.

How did he make this list? Anything is "possible," right? Does that mean these are people MBisanz would not be surprised about. Kmweber? And "likely" according to what source? And what the hell is this one editorial comment doing here?

Let me put up some early support for the Fat Man.

How incredibly depressing. There are a few candidates that might be worth supporting, but most are people who've harmed the project.

If either WJBscribe or Shell Kinney are elected, we can look forward to three years of Elonka as untouchable. WJBscribe has also shilled and lied for FT2.

From what I can tell, the confirmeds are actually confirmed (same with the "definitely nots"). The rest does seem to be somewhat speculative.
Unless I'm mistaken (which I may well be), Ms. De Burgh is actually Giano, and the candidacy there is a joke of some kind.
The fat man has denied on numerous occasions that he will run, and I see no reason to doubt him (indeed, on anything!).

MBisanz's list of candidates (actual and likely) looks quite good (excluding Forrester, who has only a snowball's chance at re-election). This election is looking more promising than any past election. Just imagine if my proposal for all open seats had gone through--we'd be looking at something like a revolution! But seven seats (that's right, isn't it?), if they all go to good candidates, will be sufficient for major change.

I note that "Bishzilla", a joke alternate account of Bishonen, is included in the list. This should not be considered a serious candidacy and should not be allowed. I also note that "Bishzilla" is somehow an administrator, which means that Bishonen is operating multiple admin accounts, and my understanding is that multiple admin accounts aren't allowed.

Nope - Bishonen isn't an admin. From what I can tell, Bishzilla's the main account.

No. We throw rotting fruit at Lar on WR for his singleminded defence of Wikipedia! (Is it too late for that?)

Anyway, into the tank with Lar. Swim with the Virgin.