I agree with Blankfaze and Danny that three year terms are too long. Isn't it one of the points of computers that they speed things up? Three years in the wikiworld is a very, very, long time. Shorter term limits are a matter not only of preventing the establishment of a cabal (or the appearance of one); it will help prevent burn-out and of course encourage greater participation on the part of others.
I understand Angela's concern about experience, but I think that requiring candidates for AC to have been around for a certain amount of time, or having done a certain number of edits, will guarantee a minimum amount of experience at Wikipedia, and staggered terms will help ensure a continuity of experience on the committee.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
I've tried to refrain from commenting here, but I can't help it.
I don't object to the idea of shorter terms in theory, but based on the experience of the last few weeks, I think it's too early to be talking about it. This election turned into, to put it bluntly, a crapfight, with open season on the candidates. I found it to be a painful experience, and I wasn't even one of the ones being targeted most. I would also seriously consider not running again entirely on that basis, despite the fact that I'm looking forward to getting into my work as an arbitrator. That's why I chose one of the three-year terms - and I believe I'm not the only one.
I think it would be wise to make absolutely damned sure that the events of this election don't happen again before we start talking about shortening the terms of the newly-elected arbitrators, or we may well find next time that we once again won't have enough suitable candidates, or that a certain class of users won't run. Being tremendously thick-skinned shouldn't, IMO, be a requirement for running for arbitrator.
I'm not going to get into the additional issues that have been previously raised about people trying to make popular decisions instead of right ones, but I agree wholeheartedly with much of what was said by people like Angela.
-- ambi
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:05:47 -0500, steven l. rubenstein rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
I agree with Blankfaze and Danny that three year terms are too long. Isn't it one of the points of computers that they speed things up? Three years in the wikiworld is a very, very, long time. Shorter term limits are a matter not only of preventing the establishment of a cabal (or the appearance of one); it will help prevent burn-out and of course encourage greater participation on the part of others.
I understand Angela's concern about experience, but I think that requiring candidates for AC to have been around for a certain amount of time, or having done a certain number of edits, will guarantee a minimum amount of experience at Wikipedia, and staggered terms will help ensure a continuity of experience on the committee.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rebecca (misfitgirl@gmail.com) [041222 11:06]:
I don't object to the idea of shorter terms in theory, but based on the experience of the last few weeks, I think it's too early to be talking about it. This election turned into, to put it bluntly, a crapfight, with open season on the candidates. I found it to be a painful experience, and I wasn't even one of the ones being targeted most. I would also seriously consider not running again entirely on that basis, despite the fact that I'm looking forward to getting into my work as an arbitrator. That's why I chose one of the three-year terms - and I believe I'm not the only one.
I missed this crapfight, and that sounds like a good thing. What happened?
I think it would be wise to make absolutely damned sure that the events of this election don't happen again before we start talking about shortening the terms of the newly-elected arbitrators, or we may well find next time that we once again won't have enough suitable candidates, or that a certain class of users won't run. Being tremendously thick-skinned shouldn't, IMO, be a requirement for running for arbitrator.
I chose one year rather than two because seeing how I feel about it in a year sounds about right. Of course, I am remarkably thick-skinned ;-)
A certain thickness of skin would pretty much be a requirement for the job.
- d.
David Gerard wrote
A certain thickness of skin would pretty much be a requirement for the
job.
I hope that all the successful candidates, who have had support across the community of Wiki-en, will also be supported by others now that a very open and democratic election process has proceeded to a conclusion. There seems no reason to doubt that as an institution it is, roughly speaking, what Wiki-en wants, and that the elected members are there because their general take on policy matters has a broad consensus behind it.
I think the corollary to allowing wide freedom to comment in the public life of the community, in the elections, is that the thickness of required skin should not be constantly called upon in the day-to-day work of the ArbCom.
Charles
Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com) [041222 22:44]:
I think the corollary to allowing wide freedom to comment in the public life of the community, in the elections, is that the thickness of required skin should not be constantly called upon in the day-to-day work of the ArbCom.
Oh, certainly. A certain thickness, not necessarily a hide like The [[Thing (comics)]].
- d.
I missed this crapfight, and that sounds like a good thing. What happened?
A number of users used the endorsement page to disendorse candidates. Some of the disendorsements were in fact personal attacks. Several people tried to remove the disendorsements from the endorsement page - this led to accusations of censoring, cabalism, and election fraud. Lots of fun all round ;-)
A certain thickness of skin would pretty much be a requirement for the job.
My thoughts exactly. When you stand for election you do put yourself in the firing line. But as an arbitrator you are going to piss off a certain class of editor. Namely the people up before the AC. These people are somewhat likely to be the sort to be, how shall I put it? - vocal in condemnation of you. You need to be able to take, insults and abuse in order to be an arbiter.
Theresa
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:50:33 +0000, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
I missed this crapfight, and that sounds like a good thing. What happened?
A number of users used the endorsement page to disendorse candidates. Some of the disendorsements were in fact personal attacks. Several people tried to remove the disendorsements from the endorsement page - this led to accusations of censoring, cabalism, and election fraud. Lots of fun all round ;-)
I think that's a reasonable summary...
My thoughts exactly. When you stand for election you do put yourself in the firing line. But as an arbitrator you are going to piss off a certain class of editor. Namely the people up before the AC. These people are somewhat likely to be the sort to be, how shall I put it? - vocal in condemnation of you. You need to be able to take, insults and abuse in order to be an arbiter.
Theresa
Oh, don't get me wrong - I realise that some thickness of hide is needed. I'm a big girl, and I can take that sort of stuff. But I think much of the crap that was thrown during the election process stepped well over the line.
-- ambi
Rebecca (misfitgirl@gmail.com) [041222 23:04]:
Oh, don't get me wrong - I realise that some thickness of hide is needed. I'm a big girl, and I can take that sort of stuff. But I think much of the crap that was thrown during the election process stepped well over the line.
Perhaps it's just me, but looking at some of the disendorsements made me wish I'd gotten better ones than I did. Evidently I do love everyone. Goodness me!
- d.
My thoughts exactly. When you stand for election you do put yourself in the firing line. But as an arbitrator you are going to piss off a certain class of editor. Namely the people up before the AC. These people are somewhat likely to be the sort to be, how shall I put it? - vocal in condemnation of you. You need to be able to take, insults and abuse in order to be an arbiter.
Theresa
Oh, don't get me wrong - I realise that some thickness of hide is needed. I'm a big girl, and I can take that sort of stuff. But I think much of the crap that was thrown during the election process stepped well over the line.
-- ambi
And the witchhunt that's been going on recently with an existing ArbCom member is way, way over the line.
I don't really agree. It isn't wrong to consider people's past or private life, if, in fact, it is relevant. That may be hard to determine in a particular case, especially when slogans such as "interfering with the administration of justice" are being thrown around. Not paying costs for transporting and housing a witness in an ethics proceeding is a serious matter considered from the perspective of a court, but hardly relevant to Wikipedia. Aggressive and systematic point of view editing over a period of years, accompanied by bad faith denial, is a serious matter considered from the point of view of Wikipedia. I think we need to be able to talk about whatever someone considers relevant with respect to both candidates and existing arbitrators.
With respect to CheeseDreams and her discovery of my legal problems, I can understand that upon this discovery she felt she had hit the jackpot and all her troubles would go away once she knocked her tormentor out of the matter. The problem is, she is involved in an Arbitration case due to the complaints of a number of people which resulted from a number of actions she has taken. Trying to change the focus won't work, even dropping the case wouldn't work as the underlying problem would continue to manifest. Most of the arbitration proceedings only happen after many attempts to somehow resolve matters at a lower level and indefinitely continuing with the status quo becomes very difficult.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:49:44 -0500 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration committee term lengths
My thoughts exactly. When you stand for election you do put yourself in the firing line. But as an arbitrator you are going to piss off a certain class of editor. Namely the people up before the AC. These people are somewhat likely to be the sort to be, how shall I put it? - vocal in condemnation of you. You need to be able to take, insults and abuse in order to be an arbiter.
Theresa
Oh, don't get me wrong - I realise that some thickness of hide is needed. I'm a big girl, and I can take that sort of stuff. But I think much of the crap that was thrown during the election process stepped well over the line.
-- ambi
And the witchhunt that's been going on recently with an existing ArbCom member is way, way over the line.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/22/04 7:04 AM, "Rebecca" misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, don't get me wrong - I realise that some thickness of hide is needed. I'm a big girl, and I can take that sort of stuff. But I think much of the crap that was thrown during the election process stepped well over the line.
Which is why i'm interested to see how she's going to be treating he responsibilities on arbcom. I have to admit that I'm a bit skeptical of ambi and raul654, but hey, it's a thankless job, and as long as people remember that the law serves people, not the other way around, we'll all do fine.
i do look forward to some festive spats. Hopefully no destructive banning sprees and hacker-goading though.
I'm faced with something I haven't seen before on Wikipedia. A self-confessed sockpuppet, Wiesenthaler, is making continual abusive comments, and edits that straddle the line of anti-Semitism. He has admitted he created the sockpuppet for the purpose of engaging the Jewish "gang" on Wikipedia. With people who break the 3 revert rule we now have an administrative remedy, but what can be done about a sockpuppet created for the purpose of abuse? A number of editors have already e-mailed about this, indicating how upset they are with this situation, and generally indicating that they are thinking of leaving Wikipedia. Can sockpuppets like this be banned, or must they be dragged through a 6-8 month Request for Comment, Mediation, Arbitration process, continuing to abuse and drive away Wikipedia editors, before finally being banned, only to then pop up as another sockpuppet?
Jay.
This has puzzled me too. The Arbitration Committee seems a poor remedy. Just what is the barrier to immediate banning?
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:38:48 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Admitted sockpuppet making continual abusive comments
I'm faced with something I haven't seen before on Wikipedia. A self-confessed sockpuppet, Wiesenthaler, is making continual abusive comments, and edits that straddle the line of anti-Semitism. He has admitted he created the sockpuppet for the purpose of engaging the Jewish "gang" on Wikipedia. With people who break the 3 revert rule we now have an administrative remedy, but what can be done about a sockpuppet created for the purpose of abuse? A number of editors have already e-mailed about this, indicating how upset they are with this situation, and generally indicating that they are thinking of leaving Wikipedia. Can sockpuppets like this be banned, or must they be dragged through a 6-8 month Request for Comment, Mediation, Arbitration process, continuing to abuse and drive away Wikipedia editors, before finally being banned, only to then pop up as another sockpuppet?
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just block the account. The block policy is clear on this matter
"Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently."
Theresa
It's now done (not by me).
-- ambi
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:10:24 +0000, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
Just block the account. The block policy is clear on this matter
"Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently."
Theresa _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I had done it, but [[user:Ta bu shi da yu]] has undone it.
UtherSRG
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:32:59 +1100, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
It's now done (not by me).
-- ambi
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:10:24 +0000, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
Just block the account. The block policy is clear on this matter
"Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently."
Theresa _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:01:06 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
It's now done (not by me).
-- ambi
And now it has been undone, by Ta bu shi da yu. There seems to be no remedy for this.
Jay.
And it has been redone for what I hope will be the final time, but this time the block has been fully and incontrovertibly explained.
--Charles Podles ([[en:User:Mirv]])
Ya. I'll not unblock. I wish this stuff wasn't done through the mailing list, because I don't often check it. Nor should I have to.
Would now be a good time to tell people about [[WP:AN]]?
Ta bu shi da yu
Charles Podles wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:01:06 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
It's now done (not by me).
-- ambi
And now it has been undone, by Ta bu shi da yu. There seems to be no remedy for this.
Jay.
And it has been redone for what I hope will be the final time, but this time the block has been fully and incontrovertibly explained.
--Charles Podles ([[en:User:Mirv]])
Theresa Knott wrote:
Just block the account. The block policy is clear on this matter
"Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently."
Yes, of course.
There's a pretty clearcut difference between the difficult user who may be bringing in a valid but uncomfortable perspective on an article, and someone who is just deliberately trying to undermine the trust that our system rests upon.
--Jimbo