ArbCom elections edit
I was wondering, do you have any opinions about the current candidates? Offliner (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Vote me. Oops, too late. Never mind: I do have opinions, and may well get round to writing some down. In the meantime I found NW's guide thoughtful (User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2010) though I found some to disagree with. User:Polargeo_2/ACE2010 is definitely worth a read. Heimstern User:Heimstern/ACE2010 is another person whose position I agree with strongly - I wish he (and NW) had actually stood as candidates. The field is very thin this time, there are hardly any credible candidates William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are indeed few credible candidates, so perhaps it is best to vote for the Worst :) . Count Iblis (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm voting for Giano (whatever his account is called now). Not the worst by any means but still... different. I'm opposing almost everyone. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- This reminds me They Shoot Horses, Don't They?. Too many horses were shot recently. No, I voted for the best candidates.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC) (formerly known as Biophys)
- I'm voting for Giano (whatever his account is called now). Not the worst by any means but still... different. I'm opposing almost everyone. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
See section below. Incidentally, since I've recommended (and still do recommend) NW's guide, I should say that I completely disagree with his prioritising BLPs. BLP is vastly overhyped at wikipedia William M. Connolley (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
ACE2010 edit
Well, here is it, by popular (ahem) demand. Thanks for NW/Lar for the template, which I've simplified.
I point you to User:Heimstern/ACE2010 (but, to point out the obvious, H is not responsible for me stealing this expression of his views): Content is king; conduct is good, but handling only conduct allows civil POV pushers to run amok. Anyone who equates the "social club" aspect of wiki with the content aspect is a No. In most cases I'll make an attempt to provide an edit sufficient to explain my vote. Please don't assume that edit is the most important.
Important note (as per the above): there aren't 12 credible candidates in this list, or anywhere close. I very much hope that fewer than 11 will be appointed.
People I'd like to run: by no means comprehensive or in any order: Heimstern; NW; Vsmith (I was his first edit war!); Boris; MastCell William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
| User | Statement & Questions | My thoughts | Vote |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balloonman | Dunno. Thinking. He seems to have solved the problem for me [1] | Withdrawn
| |
| Casliber | Sane |  Support
| |
| Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry | Leant against. Statement and Qs weak; pushed [2] at Giano |  Oppose
| |
| David_Fuchs | Fails on individual Q5 | Oppose
| |
| Elen_of_the_Roads | Thinks the Cl Ch case was good piece of investigative work. Good grief! | Oppose
| |
| FT2 | Ridiculous. | Oppose
| |
| Georgewilliamherbert | Waiting for an answer to Q7 |
| |
| GiacomoReturned | Flighty. Risky. But (in his favour) intelligent and not a team player. I read and liked the statement and browsed through the questions but in the end [3] decided me. | Support
| |
| Harej | Lack of contribs (Q6/7 unconvincing) | Oppose
| |
| Iridescent | the Climate Change mess showed the Arbcom system at its most ineffectual and incomprehensible - sane | Support
| |
| Jclemens | Hallucinates | Oppose
| |
| Loosmark | Would be nice to use H's diff, but of course I don't believe that. NW doesn't rate him. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark/Archive suffices I think. | Oppose
| |
| Newyorkbrad | Co-author of the ridiculous initial PD in the Cl Ch case [4]; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Purpose_of_Wikipedia | Oppose
| |
| Off2riorob | Joke | Oppose
| |
| PhilKnight | Sorry; victim of hysteria. | Oppose
| |
| Sandstein | Failure to value content or contributors; carelessness [5] | Oppose
| |
| Shell_Kinney | Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Purpose_of_Wikipedia | Oppose
| |
| SirFozzie | Proponent of the "scorched earth" policy | Oppose
| |
| Stephen_Bain | I'll go with H I think [6] | Oppose
| |
| Xeno | Helpful. Statement lacklustre, enthusiasm lacking. [7] | Oppose
|
I'll fill in the rest later. In the meantime: if I've dissed you and you are enraged by the injustice or ingratitude of me, feel free to say why William M. Connolley (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hiya, just curious about your position on John Vandenberg? I noticed he wasn't in your guide, but I wasn't sure if that was deliberate or not. --Elonka 18:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not familiar with him. I would have gone with reading NW, PG and Boris, so would have voted oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Rats: I was offline all weekend so missed the voting deadline, which I regret. I'll feel very silly if there are any one-vote diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- A total of 854 votes were recorded. That is a scary level of indifference, I'd say. Not that one can blame the voters. I had trouble finding the vote pages, and I knew that voting was on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem is that unless you're really, I mean really involved in Wikipedia, you don't know who most of these people are. I know when I voted last year, I only recognized one name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's true, and few of them seemed really distinguished. There was little actual discussion of the candidates, so one had to hunt out those "voter guides," which were of limited usefulness. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- It was more fun when votes were public. Then there was *lots* of discussion. Mind you I know how to solve the educated-electorate problem: you only get a vote if you've been up before the beak or at the very least have a block log William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree that I preferred public voting, since more information was available. As for the number of voters though, I think that was mainly because of the shorter voting period this year (10 days instead of 2 weeks). I posted a table showing the quantity of voters per day at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Feedback#Election timing, which shows that we were still getting substantial numbers of voters each day. If we would have gone the full 2 weeks like we did last year, we probably would have gotten numbers closer to last year (1000 instead of 850). BTW, the comments here about the election process are great, so I encourage everyone to post them at the Feedback page! --Elonka 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I actually just posted on the feedback page about the lack of a central place to discuss each candidate. I think that would have been more helpful than the profusion of voter guides. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree that I preferred public voting, since more information was available. As for the number of voters though, I think that was mainly because of the shorter voting period this year (10 days instead of 2 weeks). I posted a table showing the quantity of voters per day at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Feedback#Election timing, which shows that we were still getting substantial numbers of voters each day. If we would have gone the full 2 weeks like we did last year, we probably would have gotten numbers closer to last year (1000 instead of 850). BTW, the comments here about the election process are great, so I encourage everyone to post them at the Feedback page! --Elonka 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- It was more fun when votes were public. Then there was *lots* of discussion. Mind you I know how to solve the educated-electorate problem: you only get a vote if you've been up before the beak or at the very least have a block log William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's true, and few of them seemed really distinguished. There was little actual discussion of the candidates, so one had to hunt out those "voter guides," which were of limited usefulness. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW.. edit
You got me interested in looking up the definition of the word rate, and it seems you are correct.. from [8] The verb "to estimate the worth or value of" is from 1599. First-rate, second-rate, etc. are 1649, from British Navy division of ships into six classes based on size and strength.. (whoops, forgot to sign, sorry.) SirFozzie (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- AFAIK David Fuchs is http://www.spymac.com/profile/index.php?memberid=837174 if that rings any bells? I seem to remember him being very helpful about Dinosaurs a few years ago.--BozMo talk 10:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- [9], 22:02, 26 October. You need to distinguish content contribution (good, but not doesn't necessarily make a good arb) with valuing content above social (which Jc doesn't) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you rechck the diff? Doesn't seem to be JC? --BozMo talk 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I know. That's just the diff I saved. You can search for the text (remembering to unclose the sections) or check-by-date, which I gave you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- OIC. He said "It is WMC who has hallucinated the implication that a topic ban does not apply to an editor's own talk page." So you don't like (a) the lack of respect (b) the failure to assume your infallibility (c) that you consider the error about case law on talk pages to be so elementary as to merit instant condemnation, or all three? Or is that the wrong quote? I haven't voted yet so am still interested. --BozMo talk 10:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Right quote; I think the many problems should be clear but I'm not going to try to list them all William M. Connolley (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- OIC. He said "It is WMC who has hallucinated the implication that a topic ban does not apply to an editor's own talk page." So you don't like (a) the lack of respect (b) the failure to assume your infallibility (c) that you consider the error about case law on talk pages to be so elementary as to merit instant condemnation, or all three? Or is that the wrong quote? I haven't voted yet so am still interested. --BozMo talk 10:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I know. That's just the diff I saved. You can search for the text (remembering to unclose the sections) or check-by-date, which I gave you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you rechck the diff? Doesn't seem to be JC? --BozMo talk 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- The list last update was Bobo192
- [9], 22:02, 26 October. You need to distinguish content contribution (good, but not doesn't necessarily make a good arb) with valuing content above social (which Jc doesn't) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Jfdwolff Ukexpat Iridescent Jclemens Juliancolton Str1977 Da monster under your bed Closedmouth Thingg J.delanoy Graham87 RJHall MZMcBride AlexiusHoratius Epbr123 Sardanaphalus Jimfbleak Kaldari David Underdown CalendarWatcher Vsmith So if you want content people perhaps we should elect these --BozMo talk 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Vsmith would be great but unfortunately he's not running. A couple of the others would be horrid and fortunately they're not running. I'm not familiar with most of them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Running"? We should work Anglican PCC rules: people who fail to show up to the meeting get elected in their absence. Email me with which are horrid. --BozMo talk 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Running? ............. me running away fast. Are you suggesting a draft - hey I successfully avoided another draft back in '64 ... but then...
- Looking at the rating above and Boris's, we're in trouble .. so far ignored the fuss, s'pose I ought think on it ... ugh, did - off to fix an article. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- You'd be good. Think about it for next time William M. Connolley (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Running"? We should work Anglican PCC rules: people who fail to show up to the meeting get elected in their absence. Email me with which are horrid. --BozMo talk 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
My Arbcom Guide edit
...now appears in all its glory at User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris/ACE2010. Not yet fully developed. Doctrinally sound comments welcomed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
- It is a shit guide. A much better guide can be found at User:Polargeo 2/ACE2010 Polargeo (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- That guide sucks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is good to see healthy disagreement but your guide sucks ass like a fag vacation. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Tut, tut. Does your mother know you talk like that? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Does yours know you waste so much of your valuable time on wikipedia? Polargeo (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Boris's time is of no value. Meanwhile: I'm intrigued by his support for Giano. I'm thinking of agreeing William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am just going by the first impressions I had of Giano when I strongly thought he was a 4 letter word beginning with the third letter in the alphabet. It is difficult to change such a strong first impression. Polargeo (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. I had the pleasure of blocking him for incivility, back in the old days. But [10] (pushed by Chase Me as bad, so that leans me away from him) has made up my mind William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am just going by the first impressions I had of Giano when I strongly thought he was a 4 letter word beginning with the third letter in the alphabet. It is difficult to change such a strong first impression. Polargeo (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Boris's time is of no value. Meanwhile: I'm intrigued by his support for Giano. I'm thinking of agreeing William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Does yours know you waste so much of your valuable time on wikipedia? Polargeo (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Tut, tut. Does your mother know you talk like that? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is good to see healthy disagreement but your guide sucks ass like a fag vacation. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- That guide sucks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)FWIW, I personally think Giano rushes to judgement on sometimes erroneous information / delusions. He probably would therefore not be a great improvement on the makeup of the committee. However, on an abstract note I'd like to see someone turn themselves inside out from the turmoil of becoming that which they despise. Syrthiss (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that prospect intrigues me too I must say...well I say that of any who haven't seen "the other side". I wonder if interest and familiarity in science has some correlation with succinctness. I think there are some candidates for the most succinct/concise guides out there, mainly among the science crowd - showing mastery and non-use of redundant words.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- To publish in the scientific literature (or to get a grant), you need to be able to express complex ideas clearly in the face of extreme constraints on word and page count. To publish in the humanities, you need to be able to expand your ideas to book length, ideally obfuscating relatively simple concepts so that they don't seem too accessible. :P MastCell Talk 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- The relevance to arbcomm is all too obvious, at least in the cases I've been involved in. Mind you, arbcomms habit of repeating itself whilst pretending not to set caselaw doesn't help either William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- To publish in the scientific literature (or to get a grant), you need to be able to express complex ideas clearly in the face of extreme constraints on word and page count. To publish in the humanities, you need to be able to expand your ideas to book length, ideally obfuscating relatively simple concepts so that they don't seem too accessible. :P MastCell Talk 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)