OK, there's going to be lots of useless exit polls, so let's get in first with our pre-poll.

The winner gets a lovely "endorsed by Wikipedia Review" banner (yet to be designed) to put on their nomination. Should be worth a few votes to them.

I have to say, Doc, when I saw the topic "Who gets the WR endorsement for Arbcom09" pop up with your name as the most recent contributor, I assumed that some Wikipedia fanboy had started the thread and you'd retorted by dourly asking them to focus on something more consequential.

Still, what fun! But are radio button polls the only format supported by this site?

The whole wikipedia/anti-wikipedia thing is about fun. I no longer take any of it seriously - except where it has negative consequences on real live people.

I'm voting for Cla68, with several accounts.

I hope he'll desysop SlimVirgin for good.

People who live in Glaswikian houses shouldn't throw scones …

Ja Ja

Yes, 'tis a pity we can't have a multi-option mimic of the arbcom poll

I guess you could re-do with buttons for each candidate in a separate section e.g.

Or maybe just "not support" if the actual ballot has no "oppose" option, shrug.

We tried TV buttons for a while, but people kept demanding that we give them a "remote."

One of these days we'll have to properly upgrade this site... I think the latest version allows for things like that, though I could be mistaken.

Kurt Weber, obviously.
He is the only one who openly promises to try and bring down the attrocity monstrosity from the inside if elected.
All hail the "Anti-Bauder"

I'd prefer to see RMHED in there.

He's the only one who is honest. He'll just party.
And let the whole ugly mess fall into ruin. Hah.

Hey, I'm in second place!

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.

Any chance you'd explain your "endorsements" of AGK, Hersfold, and Seddon? I don't know much about any of them, and am still considering whether to support them.

Also, by your criteria why not Kurt or RMHED (the second of whom seem pretty intelligent, but also doesn't seem likely to facilitate effective conflict resolution)?

I'd vote for Steve Smith (WR's Sarcasticidealist.) He's pro-Wikipedian but he thinks better than rest of this rabble. Someday he'll flip sides and become a critic. I've noticed that being on ArbCom has had an effect One too. Mostly in tone and mostly taking form of impatience. He could eventually get things right too. I'll bet half of PETA once worked in meat packing.

But I can't vote. I haven't touched Wikipedia in well over a year.

Trying to devise a workable poll with this software is a headache. Kirill wasn't my first choice, but I wish I could have voted for him as a secondary option, as he seems semi-reasonable. There ought to be an option as well to have Fred Bauder exiled to ED.

AGK is a reincarnation of Anthony cfc (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and I can't do better at summing up the problem than the oppose section of his RFA did. Sure, it was two years ago, but I see no evidence that this isn't the latest manifestation of the same "I want every job going because I'm so important" shtick.

Hersfold may be great for all I know; what I do know is that when I was on Wikipedia I got around a lot, and never once saw him in any context other than throwing himself into an argument regardless of whether it related to him in any way.

Regarding Seddon, I direct you to toolserver, and once you've looked at that, give me your opinion whether this is someone likely to defuse drama. Besides, this is someone taking the process so seriously that at the time of writing, he hasn't bothered to answer a single question.

No point voting for Kurt and RHMED other than the lulz value of seeing them top the poll (don't worry, I'm doing my damndest to get them there; Horsey, Undertow, Peter, you might want to join me in this one). Even if they win, Jimbo will just veto them.

Having been repeatedly burned by voting for bad candidates in the past, my support votes this year will be based strictly on clear pledges made by the candidates. Candidates can receive my support by making pledges on one of two issues: they can pledge to conduct all or nearly all of their arbitration-related deliberations on-wiki and to promote ArbCom transparency in general, or they can pledge to help me get my own case reviewed and my restrictions lifted. AGK made a transparently-related pledge, so I'm planning to vote for him. As far as I know, no other candidate has made a pledge on either of the issues, so I will vote for none of them unless they do.



One/CHL is one of the saddest cases I've seen. He was a promising candidate, but as an arbitrator, he's ceased to represent any sort of critical or reformist perspective. Do you suppose being on the secret mailing list has done that to him? Special privileges can have that effect on people...when you get special privileges, it's easy to start thinking that things really aren't so bad after all, and people need to stop whining.

(emphasis mine)

Excuse me?

Apologies - I did not intend to imply that you were stupid, though your interpretation otherwise was a reasonable one. What I meant was that it is patently obvious why somebody aiming to have ArbCom "choke on its own vomit" would want to vote for you, but that my listing of RMHED in the same category might require elaboration. A better wording would have been "Also, by your criteria why not Kurt (who's clearly a maniac) or RMHED (who seems pretty intelligent, but also doesn't seem likely to facilitate effective conflict resolution)?"

Yes. See my thread from last year.

Why do you hate Wikipedia?

Thanks a bundle, GBG.

You blew it with the Rand-pushing. To steal a simile from Einstein: Objectivism is like measles; it's an infantile disease.

In due time as you age, you'll realize that no man is an island. And you'll weep for whatever altruism you can get, since as you get older, you'll find in your bones that the natural human condition is pretty shitty, and not at all heroic. With the possible exception of people who actually pause to help others through the shit, and with the shit, when they could just as easily ignore them and move on.

Difficult to tell, as the software has been heavily customised, but I'd say you're three versions behind.

On the subject of the poll, do we want someone whom we know to be an expert at the job but frequently give wrong decisions (you know who I mean), or someone of whose expertise we have no idea? Tough!

Or redirected to Clown, at least.

Seriously, he's running?

Vote for the guys who will give Arbcom the level of seriousness that it deserves: RHMED, Cla68, Kurt.

And anyone who votes for Jehochman is gonna get a horseshoe in the chops!

I'm sorry, putting Cla68 in with RHMED and Kurt is an insult. Even if you were just joking around.

Cla68 is a serious candidate who has shown dedication to the project and a devotion to doing the right thing, and a high tolerance for getting dealt shitty hands. ArbCom could really use his expertise.

Oh yes.

I got indef blocked by Tznkai for asking OFF (Old Friend Fred) about some deep, dark sekrets of his legal past. And my Q's not only were removed but deleted (wanna see em?). WP moves very quickly when it comes to protecting the perceived privacy of its own.

Less than 3 hours later, after some urging by Casliber and Giano, Tznkai unblocks me, I re ask my questions to the venerable jurist in a more PC manner and we end up having a pleasant discussion Oh and I end up joining Wikipedia Review...so unlike many stories here, this one ended well.

Aside from the Hasten The Day™ crew, I see no reason why any sane, rational Reviewer would vote to put OFF back on the Itty Bitty Titty Committee.

I agree with Lar here, Cla68 is one of our most dedicated article writers, and a smart contributer who would be a bonus for the committee. He doesn't belong in the same category as those two. He should have gotten adminship a long time ago.

Eh, phooey. I like all three of these guys -- Cla68 is a class act, RHMED brings some much needed irreverence to the show and Kurt is the best thing to come out of Indiana since James Dean. I hope these guys win.

K!

I keep forgetting you have a strange horsey way of showing your love

Why do you hate Indiana?

Why do you hate Shostakovich?

Because he can't sing along to the lyrics?

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

Well, it's beeeeen the ruin of many a young man;
Cool Hand, oh God, was One....

That was so good it almost made me use a smilie.

(Which is what she said. I have no idea what she meant, given the context.)

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 will probably win.

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



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!



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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

(How do you embed a Youtube link?)

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