| Revision as of 23:29, 20 December 2008 view sourceMajorly (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers38,677 edits →Appointments, please← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:30, 20 December 2008 view source Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits Arbcom Appointments - cleared all old discussion to make room for thisNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| {{archives|small=yes}} | {{archives|small=yes}} | ||
| == Arbcom Elections == | |||
| With this edit, I am making the following appointments to the Arbitration Committee: | |||
| I'm really hoping you'll appoint ], once the totals have been poured over by enough people, particularly having had plenty of time to see how the elections were going, and to chat about anything you wanted to with anyone you wanted to. It seems quite a few very smart folk are checking the results right now, which means ideally you could pop the kettle on, and take tea with the new arbs before Thursday. Ah go on! :-) cheers, ] (]) 00:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *And '''I'm''' hoping you'll appoint the people who show the broadest bases of support, using metrics like support votes and net support. This, more than support%, shows the community's sentiment, in my view. SD] 00:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd personally like to see the top ten candidates get seats. {{small|I wouldn't want to have to stand on line for another year after being so close through the door,}} ;) ''']]'''</span> <span style="color:blue">]</span> 00:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd support such a measure. 7-10 were soo close, and all of them would be a definite plus as Arbs IMHO. ]]] 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Object to attempts to ]. ] (]) 00:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are goalposts?--] 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(ec with Doc) In such a close election, no one is ever certain where the hell the goalposts were ''supposed'' to be to begin with... '''SD'''] 00:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I'm hoping he picks the '''bottom''' seven candidates just to see the hilarity that would ensue. But...that's just me :) ] (]) 00:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 3 year terms: | |||
| :I don't imagine there'd be too much fuss, and likely broad support, if all candidates who fell into one of the top seven slots on any of the scales (%, support, net) were appointed. Besides the top seven by %, it would only involve appointing two extra people who were very close (Carcharoth and Wizardman). Every candidate in any of the top seven categories had at least 2/3 support. Many of the opposes for these close candidates were only due to the necessity of having to choose between them. --] 00:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Tranche Beta | |||
| ::I don't understand ]'s conclusion. No one had to choose between any candidates. It was possible to vote "support" for all of them, or even "support" for some, and nothing for the others. There is no requirement to vote "oppose" on anyone. ] (]) 00:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| - Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse | |||
| :::Heh, obviously, as you say, "no one has to choose between any candidates", but um, choosing between candidates is the point of an election, since there are more candidates than available positions, yes? Voting for everyone or no one would be a meaningless exercise. My point is that there seems to be broad support for the top 9 candidates, so why not expand the available positions and consider appointing all 9? They all had at least 2/3 support and much of the remaining opposition was only an artifact of the close competition for slot #7, not that there was great opposition to their serving on arbcom. Many people explicitly stated they were voting "tactically", particularly with regard to the candidates all huddled around spot #7, which means they might have chosen to support rather than oppose if it didn't compromise the likelihood of their more favored candidate landing one of the limited spots. --] 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Tranche Beta (expansion seat) | |||
| I hope it goes by the top 7 by %. :) ] ] 01:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| - Jayvdb | |||
| : If the top seven candidates by percentage are ''not'' placed on the Arbitration Committee, I will be expecting a full explanation from Jimbo Wales to the community. – ] 02:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You '''''do''''' realize that the 7th place (by %support) is only 0.9% ahead of #8, while he TRAILS that candidate in both other measurable metrics by a LOT. Why are you so invested in seeing %support followed religiously? '''SD'''] 04:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are (or should be) rules. 0.9% more is still more. It strikes me as very curious that the very people who previously insisted that Jimbo make the appointments according to some rules and not his personal preferences are now trying to impose their own metrics. ] (]) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Correct metrics=== | |||
| As could be expected, one of the candidates (Vassyana) has a higher ''percentage of supporters'', but another candidate (Carcharoth) has a higher ''net number of supporters'': | |||
| :Carcharoth 237 119 '''118''' 66.6% | |||
| :Vassyana 197 95 '''102''' 67.5% | |||
| 2 year terms: | |||
| This is happening because candidate C. has 45,000 edits, whereas candidate V. has only 11,000 edits. Fewer people know anything about candidate V., and therefore they do not to vote for him, one way or another. Obviously, ''net number of supporters is the more appropriate metrics''. The percentage works against candidates that are more dedicated to the project. In a more extreme case, candidate A might receive 100 net votes (150 support and 50 oppose), but candidate B might receive only 10 net votes (10 support and zero oppose; nobody cares about candidate B). Why should candidate B be elected?! (a support of100%). Obviously, candidate A has a 10 times higher number of votes.] (]) 03:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Tranche Gamma | |||
| :: Could be counter-argued that the first one was opposed by more people, and therefore a greater percentage of the active Misplaced Pages community. ] 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| - Vassyana, Carcharoth | |||
| :::That counter-argument is already dealt with by Biophys. Basically, the reason A has more opposes is because they have put themselves out there. The significant amount of supports counterbalances and outweighs the number of opposes, as indicated by the "net support" number, which is the only TRULY fair way to judge a candidate, in my view. '''SD'''] 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Tranche Gamma (expansion seat) | |||
| ::::Wikipedians are free to decide for themselves who they vote for, there is no firm reason as to why A has more opposes and no need to try to read Wikipedians' minds. Anyway, after the election this discussion has a very personal dimension, I am not sure this is the way to go. I supported Vassyana and opposed Carcharoth, Biophys and SDJ supported Carcharoth and opposed Vassyana, so what? Is that a reason to disregard oppose votes against Carcharoth? Stop this please. The election is over. ] (]) 15:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| - Wizardman | |||
| 1 year term: | |||
| ::::(ec - Agreed with Colchicum re the specific points - incidentally I voted as per Colchicum - but mine is a much more general point.) Mind you, I think all these arguments show how generally useless the metrics are in a situation like this where voting is voluntary to the extent that almost an elite are picking the next ArbCom. 200-400 votes per candidate in a project with tens of thousands of active users and likely millions of readers presents something of a challenge, and also means that organised groups can, if they wish, disrupt the elections by exerting a disproportionate influence. (An actual demonstration of this situation, with far less selectivity, can be found in US elections where around 50% of the electorate actually votes and elections can be manipulated by either disenfranchisement of electors or "mobilising the vote" of a particularly strong minority.) The numbers are but one part of the story - the qualities the candidates bring to the table, the commendations from other users and also any issues that have been raised would naturally be part of the considerations. If someone is merely popular and can win an election on the numbers, but has red flags or performance issues, then the community is not better served by seeing them elected. Note I'm not suggesting this applies to any candidate (everyone will have their own ideas on that aspect and will often disagree), I'm more interested in the system and its reliability than the people it selects. ] 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Tranche Alpha (expansion seat) | |||
| :::::The election may be over but the discussion of how the candidates will be ''selected'' is not at an end. No need for mind reading though, as simple logic tells us that if less editors vote for a candidate, less editors support the election of said candidate. How is stating that "mind reading"? The only metric that accurately gauges ''real'' support levels for an ACE candidate is net support. If 9 editors support a certain candidate and 1 opposes (90%, but only 8 net supports), is that editor a better pick than one who garners 255 supports and 45 opposes (85%, but 215 net votes)? I hardly think so. '''SD'''] 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| - Coren | |||
| ::::::Election only makes sense if there are pre-defined rules. Do you think that it is not important that more people opposed Carcharoth and that their votes are waste of time? ] (]) 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"Pre-defined rules"? If you wanted those, you voted in the wrong election. The results have been tallied, but the final call is Jimbo's. We all have the right to weigh in on how we think he can most fairly make his appointments. As for your question, it's a fallacy. It's the classic '']'', but I'll answer anyway. No one is saying what you say they're saying. Sure, it's important that people opposed Carch. It's just vastly outweighed by how many people supported him. I also note with interest that you completely ignore my hypothetical, which is probably good, since there's no answer that could be made that would retain any sort of logical consistency or coherence. '''SD'''] 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"what matters is not how people vote, but who controls the count". ] (]) 16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As I said on the talk page for the elections, for the past several years the "order" has been determined by percentage of support vs. oppose, not on net support. Therefore, people who watch the elections (including the candidates) have come to expect that the "winners" will be determined by percentage. If there were to be a change in this, it should have been announced before the election. (And by the way, I don't think I voted for or against either of the candidates who would be affected by this, so it doesn't matter to me personally which one is appointed.) I do think MPerel's suggestion in the preceding sub-section is a good one, if Jimbo wants to appoint more than seven people, but if there are to be seven appointments, they should be in percentage order. ] (]) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There's no logical reason that they ''should'' be in percentage order. JW has not always stuck by that "rule." My hypothetical remains unanswered, and for good reason: percentage is not the best metric of measuring community support. Especially given that the difference between seventh and eighth is less than 1%, and the one in 7th by % lags FAR behind in the other two metrics. '''SD'''] 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've copied the start of this discussion to ] and posted a reply there. --] (]) 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please realize, I do not support anyone personally here. What I said was an ''obvious'' thing for someone who used to interpret data. My message was intended to Jimbo if he wants to select the seven people who have the highest community support (the highest ''number'' of net votes). I do not seen any changes of rules because the candidates are selected by Jimbo if I understand this correctly.] (]) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Some notes: | |||
| ===A comment=== | |||
| (Cross-posted from the elections talkpage) | |||
| 1. Some in the community suggested that I should look at both percentage of support and at net "pro" votes. Or that I should look at net "pro" votes instead of percentage of support. As it turns out, when making 3 expansion appointments, there is a lucky coincidence: | |||
| I would like to congratulate the top five candidates (for your strong community support), the next five candidates (for making the elections exciting and running down to the wire), and the lower-ranking candidates (for not having to do this job!). | |||
| - Top six on both metrics are all appointed to 3 year terms | |||
| - Next three on both metrics are all appointed to 2 year terms | |||
| - Number ten on both metrics is appointed to a 1 year term | |||
| So, in this case, it would not matter which metric I favored. | |||
| I would also like to thank Jdforrester and Charles Matthews for their years of service. To be sure, during their tenure they made some mistakes (and they will each certainly remember times I disagreed with them, both before and during my tenure on the committee). I respect the community's determination that it is time for them to move on. Still, it was sad to see this sort of a pile-on. | |||
| 2. As a "sanity check" on the appointments process, and in response to public and private concerns raised about inappropriate block voting, I also considered the votes of *just* admins. In the end this had no impact. There were two interesting small variations: | |||
| As of January 1, about half of the arbitrators will be new to the committee, and only two arbitrators will have more than one year of service. To the extent the community wanted turnover in personnel, between the election results and the attrition rate, that has certainly been achieved. | |||
| - Jayvdb got much higher admin support, reflecting I think the results of an offsite campaign (I checked into the concerns of the campaigners and found them to be without merit) | |||
| - CoolHandLuke got much lower admin support, reflecting I think the nature of his campaign - "In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us." | |||
| These variations are interesting, nothing more, and certainly not sufficient for me to posit a major rift between the broader community and the admins. Most of the vote counts were very similar for admins versus non-admins. | |||
| I have asked Jimbo Wales to move ahead with the appointment process as quickly as he can given his other commitments, and I hope and expect that the final appointments will be satisfactory to everyone. ] (]) 03:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 3. All 10 appointees have agreed to identify to the Foundation. This is not a requirement of the Foundation, and I chose not to make it a requirement for my appointments, either. It was merely a request. Nonetheless, all 10 eagerly agreed to it. There is no need for them to do so *before* taking office, and I'm sure it'll happen quickly enough. | |||
| I am currently planning to spend essentially the entire day tomorrow (Tuesday, India Standard Time) studying the election results and making my preliminary assessments. In the evening, I will be flying back to the San Francisco, arriving (due to the time shift it seems like a short flight but of course it is actually long) Wednesday morning. | |||
| 4. Deskana is resigning his seat. I am not filling that seat right now, but I intend to do so in an interim election at some point in 2009, yet to be determined. There have been some mentions of other possible retirements, and so I will wait to see if anyone else is looking to retire early next year, and then we'll see about an election in March or June or so. With the 3 expansion seats, it is not as if we will be short-staffed. | |||
| I have a Wikia board meeting Wednesday afternoon. | |||
| ----------- | |||
| Thursday will be another day of reflection, and then on Friday I am traveling to New York. | |||
| My exploration of the voting results tells me that this was an election for change. The only 2 current Arbs who were running were soundly defeated. This was a key factor in my decision to expand the committee - appointing 7 of 15 seats would not even be a majority, and 8 of 15 (by filling Deskana's seat) would barely be. | |||
| Saturday I intend to make my appointments. --] (]) 13:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As it stands, we have 10 of 18 seats filled with new members, and with 1 retirement, in fact we have 10 of 17 arbs new. The community has asked for change, and I support this fully. | |||
| :Why do you need two days to think about it? Either you have confidential information about one of the top 7 so need to veto them, or you don't. You should know that now. Make the announcement. --] (]) 17:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. This is not a matter for reflection: the community has spoken, and Jimbo has a responsibility to appoint the top seven candidates, regardless of whatever his personal opinions may be. ] (]) 17:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ------------ | |||
| :::Agree. While there may be some decision making in deciding if there are seven to be picked, or more (considering some results were fairly close), this does not need nearly a whole week before it's decided. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 17:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Jeez, guys. Back off a little, won't you? Reflection is ''always'' a good thing. If more people spent a couple of days reflecting on making decisions that have important and long lasting consequences, then there would be a lot less drama around here. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If there were a decision to make, then yes, reflection would be good, but there is no decision here. Either there is a major issue which requires Jimbo to veto the election results, or there isn't. --] (]) 18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually I hope he does tamper with the results. And perhaps Jayjg, Essjay and Kelly Martin should be appointed along with whoever he picks. This whole election is a complete farce. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That would guarantee proper elections in future, at least. --] (]) 18:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Reflection is always good.If Jimbo plans to take only 2 days to study all aspects of the election and give his decision whether or not he uses his veto.I do not see any undue delay particurly as he has other commitments including International Travel and meetings.I cannot understand the hurry if he does wish take a few days to analyse the results.Please if he wishes to analyse the results nothing wrong in that. ] (]) 18:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::What is there to analyse? If there was any vote rigging, somebody else would have noticed it by now, people aren't expected to give reasons for their votes in ArbCom elections, so there is no need to go through and assign different weights to people's votes based on the quality of their reasoning, so all he needs to do is look at the final tally. Either he knows something we don't and will thus partially ignore the vote, or he will respect the decision of the community, neither of those take 2 days. --] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Have you donated any sum of money to the Wikimedia Foundation? I haven't, and I think it is not up to me to dictate how they spend their funds. ] (]) 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What has this got to do with foundation funding? This is nothing to do with the foundation. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::(ec) Tango (as with most long term editors) has contributed thousands of dollars in free services to the Foundation. It's perfectly reasonable for him to express his opinion in this matter. I (mostly) share it - barring some sort of fraud (eg sockpuppets voting) or candidates unqualified due to age or unwillingness to identify themselves to the board, the appointments should exactly follow the voting results. --] (]) 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The mandate for the new arbs, as I see it, and a small change. | |||
| :The guy's on the road traveling, he's got things to do when he gets back, and he wants to look things over before making an announcement.Why are people jumping up and down over his asking to do that? Yes, we have a top seven, and they look good to me. I'm not Jimbo. I don't know what he thinks. He might have something specific he wants to consider. Give the guy a freakin' break. *headshakes* ] <small>]</small> 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 1. Many people are of the opinion that the 2008 ArbCom moved much too slowly, and got too little done. I intend that with more members, the committee will explore ways to get more things done and more quickly. Various proposals have been put forward in the past, and all have merits. I encourage the new committee to act quickly and decisively to reorganize and reexamine working methods to get faster resolution to conflicts - justice delayed is justice denied. | |||
| :Exactly. Maybe he wants some time to digest the considered opinions you guys are offering him here. Maybe he wants some time to do some Xmas shopping, maybe he wants some time to catch up on his sleep from due to jet-lag, or see his family, or maybe he has some information that is of concern and he wants to double check some things before making what would surely be a controversial decision. Either way, none of ''you'' know what his situation is, so leave the guy alone for a few days to do what has has to do. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::He's given his timetable and the delay isn't due to him having other things to do (which would be fair enough), it's due to him wanting to spend 2 days considering something that should take 5 minutes. --] (]) 18:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well thank goodness he is taking reasonable time to consider and not doing a hurried 5 minute job, which would lead to accusations of sloppiness, hurriedness and mistakes. Any serious decision making needs time18:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC). Thanks, ] | |||
| ::::The community already spent two weeks deciding, remember? ] (]) 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The community is only part of the process. Regardless of whether you or I or anybody thinks it should be different, it isn't. Since Jimbo is also part of the process, five or six days for him to do his part, during which he is traveling most of the way around the world, attending meetings, etc. doesn't seem excessive. ] (]) 19:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 2. Many people are of the opinion that the 2008 ArbCom was too opaque, hearing too many matters in private. I encourage the creation of new rules clearly limiting the scope of private decisionmaking. | |||
| :], but isn't it possible that Jimbo just wants the opportunity to speak to the selected candidates ''before'' he makes the formal announcement? Or perhaps he would like to have a (relatively) clear schedule after he makes the announcement, so that he can respond to any concerns. God knows that if he ''isn't'' available then some people (see above) will rush to assign twisted and ulterior motives to his every action. ](]) 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no need to talk to the candidates, they obviously want the job, otherwise they wouldn't have stood. And there is no point guessing about Jimmy's reasons for delaying since he's already stated them. Are you suggesting that he's lying? --] (]) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no Jimbo mail in my inbox. We are supposed to be an ] ] ] ], and here we are waiting 5 days for a bog simple decision from a board member after a 14 day election has been held by the community. This delay is unreasonable, and is an example of the "Jimbo problem" that a large segment of the community is growing dissatisfied with. Other projects manage just fine without a constitutional monarch. If you wanted to put an inordinate amount of time into evaluating and reflecting, you should have kept these days clear in your calendar; the dates have been well advertised for a long time, and this sudden revelation puts other peoples calendars into a state of limbo. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 01:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Rather than completely outlawing it, because I do think there can be situations where a privately-handled matter is important for the dignity of all participants, I will simply strongly discourage private votes of any kind. There should be no "secret trials" or anything resembling them, and there can be no valid ArbCom action unless the person being sanctioned has had the opportunity for a public defense. | |||
| :::You're up in arms for having to wait a few days for a guy to travel halfway around the bloody planet, get resettled after being on the road and give the results some consideration before making what is a rather major appointment... and you're one of the seven likely appointees? Wow. Just... wow. ] <small>]</small> 06:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, it's something of a question of priorities, isn't it? Which is more important: Jimmy being a world traveller, or Jimmy helping perform an essential function of the site in a timely manner? -]<sup>]</sup> 15:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| There are problems with this: drama on the wiki will increase in some ways. But the bigger drama of conspiracy theories and decisions made in error due to insufficient eyeballs on the case will be avoided. | |||
| I think the essential nugget of criticism people have is that, if we imagine jimmy wales personally sitting down, devoting 72 hours of personal research and deep inner reflection to decide who he wants to be on the arbcom, then the proper response is, to quote the meme, '''you're doing it wrong!!!'''. | |||
| 3. We want arbs to be both responsive to community concerns, and also immune from populist campaigns that push rash decisionmaking. These are competing concerns which must be kept in balance. I request the new ArbCom to reflect on and discuss the creation of a method for the community recall of unpopular ArbCom members. This discussion should take place in June of 2009, once the new Arbs have some experience of the job and thus a deeper understanding of the pressures involved. I would like to see a procedure in place by the time of the next election. | |||
| Which is to say, the Jimbo Veto Power is to be used in emergency situations only, not as a thumb placed on the scales. If it turns out one of the candidates has a past felony conviction of identity theft, and only jimmy wales knows that somehow, okay. Barring something of that magnitude, there's probably no reason to let one person's voice outweigh the 6,801 votes that were cast. | |||
| ----- | |||
| But then on the other side of the coin, ''of course'' saturday is a reasonable amount of time to take to make whatever decisions are to be made-- doubly so in light of Jimbo's extremely well-explained hectic schedule. People who chafe at the "get it done already!" style comments are quite correct to point out that this is a very reasonable amount of time to take. | |||
| The small change: while not completely outlawing all private decision making, I will simply state that I will be strongly inclined to overturn on appeal any decision of the ArbCom that did not include a public discussion and vote. | |||
| What initially sounds like a debate on chronology is actually a debate on methodology. If we imagine Jimmy Wales going through, reading arb statements for his personal reactions to the candidates, looking through the voter rolls to see if people he respects are voting one way or the other-- then it's going to result in criticism. On the other hand, if we imagine a very busy jimbo flying around the globe like a mad man, wanting to take a few days to make sure he crosses the "t"s and dots the "i" and wanting to have five minutes of time alone with his brain, and take a few days to make sure the job he has been asked to do is done right-- then of course saturday's a very very very reasonable deadline. --] (]) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There presumably needs to be some amount of time for the Foundation to vet the people selected (eg confirm real identities, make sure, as you said, that they aren't convicted felons). If that's what this week is for, as with most things, nobody has a problem with that and it, in fact, is a very good thing. Heck, given the magnitude of it vs the potential for someone to gaslight their fellow Wikipedians long enough to get into a position of power (think ]) one week would be a precious little amount of time if no vetting has already happened behind the scenes. But if that's what the week is for, just say that. --] (]) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::NO criminal records? I doubt very much the Foundation could discover that for the non American candidates, and certainly not by Saturday. | |||
| :::Even the American ones would take longer than that, surely? That's if it's even possible - in the UK there are specific reasons for running a Criminal Records Bureau check, and serving on a website ArbCom isn't on the list! --] (]) 20:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't see why a criminal background check would be necessary or helpful. I don't see why (hypothetically) a convicted felon couldn't do a perfectly good job on ArbCom. It might not be a great idea publicity wise but that's a completely separate issue. And there are definitely some crimes which while felonies are probably really irrelevant (drug possession or soliciting a prostitute for example). ] (]) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I actually ''prefer'' that Jimbo take his time. We definitely don't want anyone ], though the linked situation was a blindside to everyone. '''SD'''] 20:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **If I remember correctly Essjay was a direct apointment by Jimbo. ]] 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***You remember correctly. I'm not entirely sure of the exact timings of Jimbo finding out the various facts about that case, so I'll assume it was an innocent mistake. --] (]) 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***:I completely forgot about that. I couldn't vote back then (only an IP), and I created my first account right around the time he was ousted, so I'd forgotten the genesis of it all. I guess that wasn't the most aprapos comparison then. Apologies, '''SD'''] 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Let's please all wait until Jimbo ''appoints'' Arbs before slamming him for who he's appointed, eh? Either Jimbo will make good appointments or he won't, and then we can praise or bury him as necessary. But there's no need to kick up a fuss before anything's actually happened. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 21:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, while mostly true, we have a distinct advantage of making any objections to election-tinkering if we state those objections PRIOR to Jimbo issuing a specific proposal for how he would like to make appointments. Once this window of time closes-- once Jimbo has a specific proposal, it will be impossible to easily determine whether someone simply objects to jimbo's proposed arbcom choices, or whether someone is, in general, just strongly opposed to any deviation the election results. | |||
| ::Trying to propose who should be on Arbcom is a tough call, and any time someone has to make a tough call, there's going to be people who are unhappy with how the call is made. By having this discussion BEFORE the call is made, we can have the conversation in the abstract, without conflating the abstract discussion-- "what is a good role for jimmy wales", with the more emotional and more controversial question of "Who should get to sit on arbcom". | |||
| ::Agreed though with the basic point whatever someone's views on either question are, there's no evidence jimbo's doing anything bad at all, and we shouldn't ever stray into being anti-jimbo just because of a theoretical stance on what his role should be. The guy does a good job, and deserves major props. --] (]) 14:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, there's a big difference between "Jimbo, unless you have secret info that one of our electee-presumptives is a scandalmaker of Misplaced Pages past, you really ought to appoint the top seven by %support, as has been expected by the community" versus what's gone on here, which has more or less supposed Jimbo will be excessively bold, and gone from there. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Not to be snarky, but does any of you guys consider the possibility that Jimbo might want to expand the ArbCom to 9 members or something similar (which ''has'' happened before) to avoid controversy, and wants to think it over for a bit? There's more to "reflection" than finding ways of trying to rig elections; if not, look at the thread above about which metric should be used to determine the winners of the vote. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:I very much hope Jimbo ''doesn't'' extend the appointments to nine (no disrespect intended to some of the candidates who would then be included), because people voted on the understanding that seven would be appointed. This meant that people placed tactical votes they might not have placed had they know the number would be changed, or didn't bother to oppose people who looked as though they had no chance of being in the top seven anyway. Changing the parameters after the election would make something of a farce of it. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::strikes me that there are often delays in ceremonial procedures - no doubt curtains need cleaning, and silverware polishing - the gap between the US presidential elections, and inauguration being one of the longer ones that I'm aware of. Regardless of how Jimbo (who I believe isn't acting in any sort of 'Foundation' role here?) goes about chatting things through with the new arbs, it occurred to me that as an autonomous community, we don't really need 'permission' to communicate our position - so ! cheers, ] (]) 01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::::And, as I have asked you on the talk page of the policy, please remove it until the official announcements have been made. Thanks. ] (]) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::have replied there :-) ] (]) 01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::I also hope Jimbo doesnt get inventive. The tactical nature of the voting meant that the community was focused on top seven. If there is a need for change, and I am partial to having a bigger committee, it should be discussed within the community before hand, and the community should know what they are voting on. If we do want more people on the committee this year, the appropriate way to handle that is to decide the seven who will be appointed to the committee now, and consider anyone with 50% or higher as eligible for appointment if/when the community has discussed that thoroughly. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I also hope that the size of the committee will not be extended in such a manner. If there is consensus for a large committee someday, that would be great-- but unilaterally creating more, when everyone THOUGHT we were electing a set of 7, isn't a good way to do it. The result would be "stacking the court" with people who were rejected by the community, thereby diluting the relative influence of the people who were accepted by the community. --] (]) 05:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It's kind of disingenuous to claim that any of those in spots 7-9 were "rejected by the community", don't you think? Perhaps if there was a clear delineation between the candidates in the top 7 and the others, but there's not. (Well, in the "net support" category there's a VERY clear delineation, but that's another argument.) But seriously, there's no possible way to say--with a straight face, that is--that any of the top 9 were "rejected by the community." '''SD'''] 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I dunno-- it's a rejection in my eyes, (albeit an admittedly slim one). 58 million US citizens still turned out for John McCain, so, from a certain point of view, he wasn't rejected as much as he just wasn't AS accepted as Obama was. But, from an electoral point of view, there's so many slots to win the election, and people who weren't in the top 7 didn't win. Whether that's a "rejection" or merely just a "lack of acceptance", I guess, can be debated. --] (]) 17:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Not an apt analogy, as you have no "net support" metric to look at in presidential elections. Also, if this were done as a straight "vote for your candidate", and not as a "support/oppose" vote, the results would look very different. As it is, there are several metrics to look at when Jimbo makes his appointment. Saying any one of the 7, 8, and 9 candidates have been "rejected" is more wishful thinking than anything else. Last year, there was a rather large difference in the %support for the last appointed arb and the last non-appointed candidate. This year, that's not the case, and the decision is much more complicated. '''SD'''] 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::''"Also, if this were done as a straight "vote for your candidate", and not as a "support/oppose" vote, the results would look very different."'' of course it would. IF we had used the ] voting method and asked the voters to each supply us with a ranking of all the candidates in order of preference, the results would probably look very different too. If we did ], the results would have looked very different. But the only metric with any claim to legitmacy in this particular election is percentile support, perhaps augmented with a very well-explained Jimbo veto. --] (]) 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::"Rejected" is over the top. If one of the top seven candidates doesn't meet identification requirements, or finds their circumstances have changed and they can no longer take the position, or if say one of the existing arbitrators were to resign in the next few days then it would be perfectly proper to appoint the next person down the list to the resulting vacancy. They haven't been rejected, they just haven't been approved over those higher on the list. Obviously that doesn't apply to those past a certain point on the list. ] (]) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::]. That's certainly more than 0.9%, but it is not (in my view) a "rather large difference in the %support for the last appointed arb and the last non-appointed candidate." Especially considering that the net support of the unappointed candidates was much, much higher than the net support of one of the candidtes appointed (Thebainer had net support of 81 compared with 146 net votes for Raul654, only about 2% less—the current 102 vs. 118 net support pales compared to that). ] '']'' 19:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As luck would have it, I'm at #4 by either of the two metrics, so I have no dog in the ring. For what it's worth, I agree with those who say that percentage should be used for this year's appointments. I think that SDJ might be right that net support is a better metric, but that's not the election we ran. Strategic support and opposition came about because voters assumed appointments would be made based on percentage (which was reaffirmed by the constantly-updated rankings). Alternate methods should be discussed for next year (but let's wait until at least Feb. 1, like Franamax suggests). The bottom line is that this election was run under the assumption that percentage mattered. If it was net votes instead, its impossible to predict how people would have differently cast their tactical votes. Vassyana could have attracted more strategic support, or maybe Wizardman would have been the consensus choice (the margin between Wizardman and Carcharoth was quite thin under either metric). We don't know what would have happened under different appointment rules, so for this election we should stick to what voters assumed. ] '']'' 19:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. Personally, I didn't vote because I didn't have the time to do it properly so decided not to do it at all. However, I did monitor the rankings and had someone I felt particularly strongly about been near the cutoff point I would have found the time to vote. When I did that, I looked at the rankings by percentage support, since that's how I assumed it would work (with the possibility of a veto). If I'd looked at the rankings by some other metric I may have come to a different conclusion and might have voted. I'm sure there are plenty of other people that also made decisions based on the rankings, or even just based on counting method without looking at earlier votes (eg. if it's done by net support there is no difference between supporting your favourites and abstaining on the others vs opposing the others and abstaining on your favourites, whereas there is a difference by percentage support, so people may choose to vote differently under each circumstance). --] (]) 19:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I leave it to the new ArbCom to make their own decisions regarding the use of public workshops versus the private ArbCom wiki versus the mailing list - all are valid tools. I simply strongly encourage a renewed focus on the desire of the community for strong transparency in ArbCom operations. | |||
| *Jimbo waited ''10 days'' last year before announcing the election results, but all he did was appoint the top 6 candidates in order of percentages. See ]. Why do you think he would anything crazy this time? from his statement, sounds like the top five candidates are set and he won't even think about reappointing Charles Matthews or Jdforrester ] (]) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **I don't think Jimbo has said anything about the top five. I think you might be looking at Newyorkbrad's comment (which leads this section). Jimbo's follows it and is not offset, so perhaps they run together. ] '']'' 19:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| --Jimbo | |||
| === Is Jimbo's approval needed? === | |||
| Do we really need Jimbo's approval here? His role seems to be largely unnecessary—other Wikipedias in different languages elect their own arbitration committees without Jimbo's final screening of candidates. It strikes me that Jimbo's role solely increases bureaucracy and allows him to stick a hand into the most powerful entity on Misplaced Pages (aside from himself, of course). It's not that I don't like Jimbo, but I really don't like his role here. – ] 03:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It occurs to me that the time to discuss this was ''before'' the election, not at the end of the process. Starting in January – after recovering from New Year's Eve hangovers – we'll have a solid ten months to discuss changes to the ArbCom selection process. ](]) 04:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::My standing proposal is that we all wait 'til Feb. 1, 2009 then go at it full force. Quite a few people probably need the time to let emotions and raw experience cool down a bit. I have quite a list of minor and major points in my notebook. I certainly plan to file an RFC on Feb 1 (start drafting mid-Jan), but I do think we all need to take a brief pause - especially since ''whatever'' Jimbo does will produce another burst of (sometimes hysterical) commentary. ] (]) 05:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Since the arbcom is an extension of Jimbo's personal authority as chief problem-sorter, yes. --] (]) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Jimbo's formal role here is unnecessary, and as best I can tell, probably unsupported by any consensus policy as of this second. That doesn't mean it isn't good for the project to let him act out this role-- so long as he doesn't do anything caligula-esque, what harm will it do to let him make the final pick this year. Even though it was never spelled out, I think that was the communal understanding of how this election was going to go, so raising this issue now is a bit of bad cricket. And after all, jimbo's never deviated from the elections before, it's unlikely he'll start now. | |||
| :As for future years, I think it's reasonable to inquire whether a consensus truly exists for jimbo to have this role. My read, just anecdotally, is that no, consensus no longer supports such a role, and Misplaced Pages is ready to grow up. | |||
| :Besides, Jimbo doesn't need a formal power to veto a candidate. He's sufficiently popular that a few well-reasons words from him would probably be sufficient to dissuade voters from electing someone anyway. That's how I hope Jimbo's powers over elections will happen in the future. --] (]) 05:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is certainly no consensus for Jimbo to have this role, however we usually require a consensus to ''change'' the status quo, not to keep it. I don't think there is a consensus for change. It's a discussion we need to have (it was started before this election, but didn't get very far). My suggestion is to hold a referendum on it (I suggested it be part of this election, but that didn't happen). We need to have a discussion to determine the options, and then vote on it. Trying to use consensus for these kind of matters doesn't work since there are far too many people involved for there to ever be a true consensus. --] (]) 12:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't as shadowy or sinister as you guys seem to want it to be. Jimbo's frequently compared his role on Misplaced Pages to that of a ] like Queen ]. In the British system, monarchs have ]. Jimbo's exercising the first of these rights. Of course, when he crafted his metaphor Jimbo was also undoubtedly aware of ]. I am by no means saying this is the way it should be or it must be, just that this is the way it is. | |||
| :Oh, and about the "no consensus for Jimbo to do this"? Jimbo created ArbCom solely through his power, not through the community's power. He alone holds the power to appoint members. However, since Jimbo's not an idiot, he allows us to elect them first. That distinction, that Jimbo and Jimbo alone holds the power to create and destroy Arbitrators but allows the community to elect them first, is critical in understanding this process. This is all about legitimacy. ArbCom gets legitimacy from the community through the elections and from Jimbo through the appointment. --] (]) 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's abosolutely untrue that Jimbo created ArbCom from his own power. It was empowered through a community vote for its ''creation'' as well. It was created through the community's power, and Jimbo's power (though the latter flows from the former). ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's important to realise that when the ArbCom was created this was still very much "Jimbo's site". While legally most things had been transferred to the WMF by then, the WMF was just Jimbo and a couple of his business partners. The first board elections weren't held until a few months later. A lot has changed since then, this is no longer Jimbo's site, it is completely community owned and run. Everything else has moved on, ArbCom hasn't, and it's about time it did. --] (]) 17:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tango and WilyD are entirely correct. Any power Jimbo has comes either from the community or from the foundation. In a discussion a while back, many high-people made the claim that the WMF has never made any such grant. If true, that means any unique powers Jimbo hold are those that are given to him, implicitly if not explicitly, by the community. --] (]) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The WMF doesn't I believe have the authority to do such a grant to Jimmy, and I think it would be foolish, as it would possibly expose either himself or the WMF to Section 230 liability by being "responsible" for content posted on the English Misplaced Pages. Jimmy and the Arbitration Committee serve in their roles at the pleasure of the community of editors and have ever since the WMF was no longer legally owned by him. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The WMF has the authority to do whatever the hell they like (within the law), they have the good sense not to, though (Misplaced Pages minus the community isn't worth much to anyone). Jimbo's power is purely due to tradition and the respect of the community. As long as he stays within certain bounds, he'll keep that respect and thus the power, if he goes beyond those bounds he'll very quickly find himself powerless. The discussion we need to have is whether we're happy with that system or if we would rather pre-empt any possible breach and remove the power now. The reason for that could be one of loss of trust, or simply ideological. --] (]) 23:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It certainly is needed this year as we all voted based on the assumption that his approval was needed, and some of us may well have voted differently if this assumption were not true. If it were agreed that his approval was not needed next year that would be fine but we cannot be thinking along these lines while waiting for the 2008 appointments. Thanks, ] 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == How to remove arbcom/bad arbitrators == | |||
| I'd like your opinion: how would you suggest the community expresses its opinion on its thoughts about arbcom, and/or the current arbitrators? Taking an arbitrator to arbcom won't work; ArbCom are naturally biased towards each other and their friends. How about an RFC? In fact, is it even possible to even suggest abolishing arbcom, because I'm sure you stand in the way? Currently, ] suggestion that at least one arbitrator no longer has any community confidence. But bringing him before ArbCom in an effort to remove him will have no effect because arbcom would never remove one of their own, I'm sure of it. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 16:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : BS, Majorly. It is obvious you are disaffected, but please do not claim to speak for "the community". ] <small>]</small> 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Majorly's statement is reasonable. It's unclear to me how you ought to read that poll, but there is a ''suggestion'' that at least one Arb has little or no confidence from the community. Whether it's true or not is hard to tell. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No actual claim of speaking for the community in there and it is a slightly interesting question even from a mostly theoretical perspective (the "how do I get rid of you?" question is a common one to point at positions of power).] 17:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: For Pete's sake, that poll is a joke. Wanna give feedback to ArbCom members, you can always do that: RFC. ] <small>]</small> 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If you are not prepared to accept arbcom as a method of removal on paper you have a number of options. Elect people who promise to remove them. If the entire new intake is interested in getting someone off arbcom they will probably be able to do so. Appeal to the foundation. You might be able to do something through the stewards but that is highly theoretical. Im terms of a community based solution about 200 admins will likely do it (ultimately arbcom's power comes from admins supporting their decisions). Could probably do it with fewer depending on the identity of the admins.] 17:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)::: | |||
| (ec) Majorly, you, or any editor can always open a user RFC on ''any'' editor, and that includes ArbCom members. He does not need Jimbo's approval to do that. ] <small>]</small> 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :RFC is a toothless appeal to drama. Majorly explicitly asked how to remove an arb from their position. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''a toothless appeal to drama''? I would call it a reasonable way to provide an editor with actionable feedback. ArbCom members are editors first, and they give more time and effort to this project than many of us, and I can assure you that they would welcome feedback. ] <small>]</small> 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are we talking about the same RFC? RFC has it's uses but takeing an arcom memeber there would result in much drama and little else. It would probably get thrown out for procedual reasons in any case because even our drama loveing rule lawyers would view it as a step too far.] 17:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: You see, you call it a ''position''; I would call it a ''service to the community''. In that lies the difference in approaching this. ] <small>]</small> 17:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::We disagree on some things, but we agree on this 100%. It's both. But, if an Arb runs, and gets in, there's an expectation they will be available to make the tough calls, and tough decisions, ''and'' to accept the repercussions that come with both good and bad decisions. There is currently no mechanism to deal with the latter. I think that's the crux of why people are so upset the past year. That's why things like ] have spawned, an RFC on the AC earlier this year, and the massive uproar over Moreschi apparently standing up to what the community, who gives the AC their power, over a bad block. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I would say some kind of standard like x:y w/at least z total votes on something like http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump/ACFeedback, but more publicly advertised. Perhaps the standard could be voted on. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The comment being tossed around these days that the Arbs do not have community approval seems ridiculous. This is a huge community. Has any one polled the whole community? “Does not agree” does not equal “does not have support”; it equals “does not agree”. I don’t always agree with the Arb decisions, but I respect them as a group of community-elected people volunteering to do a tough job. We have had editors and admins “running amuck” in the last few days, acting as vigilantes. How is that a tenable situation? We are Misplaced Pages, and we create the environment here. We make it more or less easy to work in. If it doesn’t work we fix it, but not by placing blame on a few people asking them to shoulder the responsibility for thousands of editors. Misplaced Pages is collaborative, my hobby horse, I admit. Civility is a cornerstone of collaboration, but that doesn’t mean things are perfect, or there are wrongs or rights, or everybody agrees all of the time or even some of the time. It means tolerance, respect and making things works as best as possible so we create around ourselves and the Arbs the best decision making environment possible on every level of Wikiepdia activity. We all have the ability to “run amock”, to step over the boundaries seen as the best collaborative environment for collaborative communities, and for reasons that range from having a bad day, to true righteousness. Its easy to blame someone else for the trouble this causes Better maybe to do as Slim Virgin said at one point and” take it in the chin”. When we cross those lines we pay. That’s how it has to be in collaboration. That’s maturity in ourselves, and will go a long way towards creating a mature community. Two cents for what its worth.(] (]) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::: Well said, Olive. @Rootology: ''I think that's the crux of why people are so upset the past year.'' Who is "people"? Sure, ''some'' people may be upset, and will always happen. After all, ArbCom is the last resort for DR and one side of a dispute may be not happy with the results of a case. ] <small>]</small> 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::People seemed generally fairly unhappy in the RFC, and I haven't seen but a small minority of pro-AC commentary of late. Add in that the only two sitting Arbs that ran for re-election, James and Charles, were all but pantsed in the election... <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::None of this speaks at all to the effect of whether or not instituting a no-confidence procedure into the current arbcom system would improve it or make it worse. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::no-confidence procedures effectively exist. However at the moment most the upset appears to be limited to wikipedia more politicaly aware/active users. If there is a mechanism by which the gerneraly politically aware/active users can on their own force the removal of a memeber of arbcom is an interesting question. Personaly I doubt it.] 20:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What no-confidence procedures exist? There's Jimbo who probably wouldn't step in except under very extreme circumstances (eg. Essjay), and there's an outright coup (admins could decide not to enforce ArbCom rulings and to undo any attempts by ArbCom to enforce them, and then the Stewards would get dragged in and I would expect them to run for the hills). A less drastic approach would be better. The idea with recall is that the politically active users trigger the recall and then everyone votes on it. --] (]) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Either get them removed through an arbcom case or demonstraite that that a significant number of admins includeing those not politicaly active not uphold their descisions. And yes this may require a vote of some type but the current vote doesn't appear to be drawing much support from the less polticaly active admins.] 12:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::An ArbCom case against an Arb isn't likely to go well - Arbs are naturally going to be biased towards someone they work closely with, however much they may try and remain impartial. Admins not upholding arbcom decisions is a way to dealing with a loss of confidence in the whole of arbcom, not in an individual arb. It would work quite well for that purpose, but something less drastic to use when only one or two arbs are a problem would be good. --] (]) 12:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::An ArbCom case against an arbitrator isn't going to go anywhere: the last few times one was filed, it was rejected on the grounds that the ArbCom can't fairly judge itself. --] (]) 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Attack page == | |||
| Hello Jimbo, I would like to know if you think that keeping an '''attack page''' (his words) like is normal behaviour on Misplaced Pages. Apparently, there are admins that think it is . I had never seen anything like it before and would not dream of doing the same myself, not even with a user that has been harassing and stalking me 24/7 for over a year now. Regards, ] (], ]) 02:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I don't agree with the page being up there either. It's offensive. Plain and simple! I'm also unsure of why admin Smashville closed this discussion after only three votes (in a rather uncivil fashion at that, accusing Guido of being vexatious) which is barely a consensus. The admin should have allowed more people to comment on the issue instead of closing the discussion down so abruptly. Cheers! ] (]) 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Where else should I start a review and discussion of problematic edits? It's public, Guido has a chance to, if he wants, analyze and rebut anything he wants. Based on the comments in that MFD, I'm even trying to speed up to keep this from lingering. I could take it off-line, but that's far, far less convenient and doesn't allow any other editors to comment; some have already and I've taken their suggestions. At best (or worst), I'm including analysis, in my own personal space, for the purposes of whatever final posting occurs. And why has this been ] when it's already been through the MFD? ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 02:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It's brought up again because the administrator removed it after only three votes in a very short period of time with an uncivil reason. Speaking as an outsider not involved in the matter, I think it's obvious that this page is mean-spirited and vicious. It's pointless for this type of attack page to be up on wikipedia unless to hurt the feelings of another editor. It would hurt mine as I'm sensitive to blatant attacks. I wouldn't want this type of page up about anybody. It's inappropriate. Cheers! ] (]) 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Per ], item 10, "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner.". It is clear that WLU is intending to start a ] and is merely compiling that information temporarily at his subpage before moving it to the appropriate area. This is '''expressly''' allowed by our Userpage policy, and is not an attack page. --].].] 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo, I found the page disgusting and hopefully with you knowing all about the rules, there's a way to remove it. If no one is willing to get rid of this page and there's no way we can get rid of the page per the rules, I find that very sad. I thought MFD was a good start on getting a consensus but admin Smashville effectively ruined that process. ] (]) 03:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Well, I would recommend that the page be moved as quickly as possible to a proper RFC space, that's all. It looks like a pretty detailed and perfectly appropriate and well documented page about an editor with a long history of blocks. There's no reason to keep it as a user subpage for very long.--] (]) 04:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Jim, we already had an RfC. Everything on that page has been discussed at least three times already in various procedures. ] (], ]) 12:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Timing is noted, I'll try to finish today or tomorrow. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::A previous RfC is no reason not to have another one. The previous ] happened in May and June 2008: since then, a lot of things have happened, including four more blocks and multiple ANI threads. If there is a new RfC, it should focus on what happened since the last one, but should take the previous one in consideration as well. ] (]) 12:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And on reflection, I was not preparing it for a RFC, but for an AN posting; I used the RFC sub-page because I didn't want to create a new one and had a previously-existing page for a similar purpose (per comments above, I have removed the old set of diffs that related to another user). Apologies for the confusion, I don't know if that's going to make a difference, but I'll still try to push it out quickly. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 13:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for confirming that there won't be another RFC. I very much doubt that AN can handle this amount of material though. I'm certain that I can't, at the usual AN speed. ] (], ]) 14:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Jimbo, on the basis of your comment above (and someone else's at the MFD) I have the page. Guido has been banned based on ] discussion - I thought the discussion was premature and as expected it left many users with questions that may have been resolved via the evidence page, but I hope in its ultimate version it will be sufficiently convincing to settle the concerns of the community. I will now be building a version of the page that would have supported the AN posting I had hoped to make; once it is finished, I expect to move it completely out of my userspace and onto WP:AN. I will still try to be quick, but it is Christmas and real life is a bitch. I hope this is acceptable and apologies for cluttering your talk page again (this is part because Jimbo mentioned the timing issue, part because his page is monitored a lot and I don't feel like cross-posting this a dozen times). ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 14:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Michael Crichton's battle with a velociraptor == | |||
| . Vandalism was evidently there long enough for somebody to take a web shot of it. ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 10:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *. One can guesstimate that between 2 and 225 people saw that revision (assuming it was there for 1 second -> 2 minutes) using . ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 14:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Mmm, seems to me it is highly likely the person who wrote that also took the screenshot if it was just two minutes. I came across this on flickr when I was looking for an image to go in Crichton's article abd I can't believe that somebody would upload a shot of a wikipedia page, particularly on something so quite unfunny. ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 15:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Really? It was one of the funniest pieces of vandalism I've seen in a long time. ] (]) 20:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| What when somebody dies from cancer relatively young and it is made the subject of a joke? Ha ha yes very funny. ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is such a thing as morbid humor. As there is such a thing as tasteless but funny humor. ] (]) 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :On a different note, we ''should'' assume good faith of those outside our community as well. Yes, it crossed my mind that the flickr user ''may'' have been the vandaliser, but ~100 people saw that particular vandalism, perhaps one thought it worth saving. Even though it's unlikely, when you integrate that small chance across every article that gets vandalised, the chances become large. There's a strong observational bias that needs to be accounted for. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 21:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Just as well it was only two minutes then. Perhaps it was at a peak time soon after a lot of people heard the news on it and flocked to his page. By the way it is posted on flickr makes it look like it went unnoticed for days. Either way posting examples on flickr of wikipedia vandalism I don't see as "good" in any way, however "funny". Doesn't really help the caus eeither given that the first reference is unfortunately entitled, "For young readers". ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, there were ~100 000 pageviews that day. So even being there a very short period made it visible to a decent number of people (the view rate was ~1.9 views/second). ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *The screenshot appears to have been taken the same day, but could have been taken at any point after the edit was made. You just need to go to the history and load the old version of the article and (depending on what templates are in the article) you will have a reasonable idea of what the article looked like back then. ] (]) 01:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == User page == | |||
| Jim, since users are now starting to editwar over it, I'm asking your opinion with regard to keeping the summary of my report on Misplaced Pages to the United Nations on my user page. I'll remove it if you request so, as IMHO your veto right applies here. ] (], ]) 15:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Forum-shopping-tastic. :):):) ] ] 16:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::AFAIK, only one user has a veto on Misplaced Pages. But I could be mistaken. ] (], ]) 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::A bit of background on this, Jimbo. ] was filed on 13:23, 16 December 2008, and I was the administrator who closed it at 16:56, 17 December 2008. Prior to the closure, Guido started ] at 14:15. After the closure, Guido filed a DRV at ] at 18:16. During this time, at 15:23, Guido the deleted content to his userpage, which was , then for CSD G4, then by an administrator, then . I surmise this was done because the MFD was not appealing in a manner that benefited him. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please explain wat benefit you think I receive for having the summary on my user page. ] (], ]) 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Doesn't matter. Consensus was to delete it. Consensus in the DRV has been to keep it deleted. You are deliberately disrupting and going against consensus. //] ] 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::This is already the third violation of your restricions. Please start assuming good faith. | |||
| :::::The MfD was both started and closed prematurely, and conclusions were drawn from the deletion review while it is still running. Please read the arguments to overturn that were added later. ] (], ]) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Note that ] has been editwarring on my user page and then used his admin privileges to protect his preferred version. ] (], ]) 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Nobody is required to assume good faith when it's been demonstrated that no good faith is to be had. So there's that out of the way. Second, it's impossible to ''start'' and MfD 'prematurely'. Third, you're ] at this point. Fourth, the overwhelming consensus at DRV is that the deletion was good. Fifth, recreation of consensus-deleted material is explicitly not allowed. Sixth, enforcing that deletion is not an abuse of admin privileges. Seventh, it is abundantly clear that consensus is against you. Accept it and move on. You have your 'report', you've spent over a year disrupting Misplaced Pages to get it, accept gracefully that Misplaced Pages is not the correct place to host it. //] ] 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| See also: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] <small>] | ] | ]</small> 20:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I'd like to make one thing clear, which is that the community is ultimately responsible for making decisions regarding pages such as these, not Jimbo. I'm not aware of the background to the dispute, but if the community consensus was to delete then the page should be deleted. – ] 23:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is not about the subpage, but about my main user page. The community has no authority to delete that page. ] (], ]) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: According to ], you are incorrect—"... pages in user space still do belong to the community". – ] 23:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I suggest you read that guideline, and what I said, again. ] (], ]) 23:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Could you explain why the page is appropriate for Misplaced Pages, in light of the guideline I previously (and correctly) references, policies such as ], and common sense? You are very welcome to create and maintain a userpage that contains material consistent with established Misplaced Pages standards, but continuing to try to push the limits of guidelines and policies is disruptive and annoying. Cheers, – ] 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Guido, I saw edits such as which consist of your attempting to include your social study on your userpage. Your userpage doesn't seem to have been deleted, only the study which is inappropriate for your userpage. | |||
| ::::: The study seems very interesting, however, and I suggest you post it somewhere on another site and link to it. I'd very much like to read the study in light of my perceived problems with Misplaced Pages; would you be willing to e-mail me a copy? Thanks in advance. – ] 23:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) The report contains private information, and therefore only the summary is publicly available. The summary is appropriate to have in my user space according to the very guideline you just linked to: | |||
| * ''Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Misplaced Pages, and your opinions about Misplaced Pages. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Misplaced Pages, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Misplaced Pages articles or policies should be changed.'' ] (], ]) 00:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*Quit forum shopping. Your DRV is not concluded. --]] 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *: Nowhere do I hear a full summary of a study mentioned in the guideline ... in any case, common sense prevails. A study is quite different from an "opinion"; it is (or at least should be) a reasoned, neutral investigation. | |||
| *: Anyway, I suggest that everybody steer off this forum of Jimbo's talk page, since he does not have the community mandate to veto a community decision. – ] 00:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::That's a very odd thing to say, Thomas. I don't see any reason for you to hijack this discussion to spread your own Jimbo v. community meme.--] (]) 02:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Does that mean there will be no Jimbo vs. Mortal Kombat video game? --]] 05:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == You're awesome!!!!! == | |||
| because you're the founder!Merry Christmas! :-)--] (]) 22:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Tight restrictions on German wikipedia == | |||
| Wow the current protection on German wikipedia is extremely anti-IP editing. I;ve just been transwikiying some German articles using some images from the German archives donation in the commons and I added the english wikipedia links to German wikipedia article version in good faith to connect it to ours. Then I see a notice at the top saying it has been edited by an IP then within minutes it toally wipes out my edit automatically and restores it to its former version, removing my constructive it. Thus makes it, as a result, not an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, in fact very restrictive. I know that often IP addresses are vandals but many are also constructive edits and German wikipedia is bound to be affected in terms of contributions. Who authorised this operation on German wikipedia? ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 13:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, it is called ] and the English Misplaced Pages is considering introducing it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The Germans authorised it, because they're serious about building a quality encyclopaedia. Their reaction has been strongly positive as well, though it has some dissenters. While IPs do add good content, they are the source of almost all vandalism, and even their good content usually needs to be massaged by experienced users. | |||
| :As MBisanz notes, English Misplaced Pages is also trying to figure out what to do about this feature. Whether we're pro-active, and introduce in a slow roll-out that allows us to adapt to it and use it intelligently, or get our hand forced by a serious scandal is up to us, though. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 13:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Blofeld, the edit wasn't wiped out. It simply isn't displayed until some editor comes along and approves it. We're using an identical system on the English wikinews also. ] (]) 15:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Right. Btw: why are you adding iw-links as IP and not with your (SUL-)Account? —] (]) 16:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Because I altered my user name so I'm automatically not signed in any more on other wikis. ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If the English version begins flagged revisions it will, IMO, mark the end of wikipedia; as the encyclopedia that not anyone can edit, and where one has to wait weeks to see one's edits online, it will be doomed to failure, and rightly so. This is the silliest idea I have come across on wikipedia, it may work on wikinews but wikinews has never worked anyway. Thanks, ] 16:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Or we will eliminate a vast number of our BLP issues. As a strident BLP defender, I'd guess you'd be all over flagged revisions as a great thing. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 16:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In fact, flagged revisions are a very necessary part of ''any'' scheme to deal with the BLP problem. I don't think anyone who doesn't support it can be considered a BLP defender at all. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why does it need to be weeks. Move our RC patrollers over to the unreviewed edit queue, and reprogram Huggle, and it'll be just the same as handling our current queues, but without needing to remove the vandalism, rather proactively approving quality edits. ] (]) 16:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Last time I looked, we had about 6,000 new articles a day and 70,000 new edits. Given that we cannot even patrol all 6,000 new articles within a month of them being created (Dragonfly tries hard), I doubt we could patrol 70,000 new edits every day. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Then don't put FlaggedRevs on every single page. Just put it on the high priority ones (FAs perhaps, and BLPs) and those that we'd currently semi-protect. My point is that it needn't be an all-or-nothing proposiion ] (]) 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Flagged should (when we do finally turn it on) only be on all BLPs and semi-protected articles to start. It would be too much otherwise, and theres no need for it on Misplaced Pages space. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We should be trying to solve the issues on the basis that we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit; while we currently do have a system in place for reviewing new articles the articles go live before they are reviewed, and thus it should be; this is what makes wikipedia exciting and live and stopping that cannot be helpful. Sure we can avoid scandals or indeed any other type of publicity other than as a historical project that destroyed itself by flagging revisions; it would be a good time for others to copy the material and instigate a non-flagged revisions version. Thanks, ] 17:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't see the evidence behind your assertion that FlaggedRevs will "destroy" Misplaced Pages ] (]) 17:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What I mean is that people will l;ose interest in editing wikipedia, and its our many editors that make us so popular, and without a large and expanding base of editors are popularity will plummet. Who is going to want to edit and then have to wait who knows how long to see said edit appear. Its not gripping in the same way. Personally I want to edit here not review other people's edits and sacrificing good editors for reviews would eb a colossal mistake, and in reality we would need as many reviewers as we now have editors. Thanks, ] 17:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::(e/c)We obviously disagree on this, and hopefully the proposed trial will help us see the extent of the problem. I wouldn't favour turning it on on every single article, which would keep the backlogs down. ANd using it in even a limited extent such as in place of semi-protection would allow more people to contribute constructive material during periods of chaos at a given article. ] (]) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: SB, There's been no shortage of IP editors at the English Wikinews. And my impression is that similar remarks apply to the German Misplaced Pages. The key issue with flagged revisions is that we explain to editors how it works and they understand that they can look at either version. As long as they understand they are generally fine with it. Again, other projects have adopted flagged revisions with no substantial negative impact. ] (]) 19:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::My suggestion was, and remains, that we should try semi-protecting all BLPs and seeing if that statistically reduces vandalism at all, and then deciding if we need flagged revs beyond it. A bot could manage the semi-protection off of the categories very easily. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I think a simple trial of FlaggedRevs over BLPs would be a more convincing experiment as it protects against registered editor vandalism as well. ] (]) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Either or is probably worth trying - early efforts towards each are in the pipes, we'll see who gets their first. Anonymous editors are the source of almost all vandalism . ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Indeed - my feeling is simply that that statistic does not equate to 97% of all anon edits being vandalism. If we want to stick to anyone can edit, whilst still attempting to improve the integrity of our material, then FlaggedRevs would allow us to let anons edit easily on certain articles, whilst we preemptively screen for vandalism. At the moment, semiprotection is quite discouraging ] (]) 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Most vandalism does indeed come from anonymous editors, but most anonymous editors are not vandals. There is a serious risk of scaring off unregistered or casual editors if we apply flagged revisions. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 17:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If the Flagged is only done on BLPs and we have very plain-language "this is what Flagged means" wording on the editing notice, it shouldn't scare them off, and could encourage even more users joining if done right. The protection of BLPs, however, outweighs scaring off a handful of people on those articles. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 17:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed. My ''suspicion'' is that once we see how useful flagged revs on, there'll be widespread demand for it. But starting with our most vulnerable class is sensible. I agree with the sentiment that semi-protection is far more damaging to new contributions than flagged revisions, and that ''something'' needs to be done about the BLPs problem. It's just a fear of the unknown. The Germans have been very successful using flagged revisions - I'd like to avoid the defeatist attitude that they're just better at encyclopaedia building than we are. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <outdent> And as ever, it is a question of balance. We can't keep on at the scale Misplaced Pages has reached in terms of content without doing something to defend our more vulnerable articles. One option is semi-protection, which scares off all IP and newly registered editors from editing ''those'' articles (noone seems to be suggesting full implementation over all articles). Another option is FlaggedRevs, which has a throttled means of allowing everyone to edit an article. The other option is to do nothing and let the more vulnerable articles degrade or leave it to chance that the vandalism will be caught, leaving us exposed to charges of having no quality in our information, or no concern for the subjects of our articles (in the case of BLPs). ] (]) 17:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :One of the concerns I've had about flagged revisions that nobody has ever satisfactorily responded to is how they will be perceived by our readers. Certainly, if I went to a website and saw something like that, I would expect that the information within the article was ''verified'' and ''reliable'' - which those of us who "work" here know is not the case. When I did a "random article" search through the German Misplaced Pages, I saw BLPs that weren't flagged, and also (even though I don't read German) quickly figured out that anyone can also see the unflagged version with one click. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, who gets to approve the edits? Will the edit-approvers be held responsible for their actions, just as editors are now responsible for our edits? How will we deal with the inevitable "ownership" issues, if there are disputes? Whose edits will have to be flagged - everyone's? only new users? will there have to be a special permission for editors to be able to edit articles directly? I can visualise considerable difficulty when doing a major improvement of a flagged article when one cannot edit the article directly and has to have every edit individually approved. I'd rather see BLP semi-protection if it is necessary, rather than move into flagged revisions without having a good plan and understanding of the effects. Don't get me wrong, I think flagged revisions (in some form) is where we need to go. I just want to make sure we get there in a way that protects the articles without alienating the subjects, the editors, and the readers. ] (]) 17:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Many of these questions answer pretty easily - the ability to flag revisions will be given out as a "flag" on you, the way rollbacker, admin, whatever is done now. Despite very similar worries about the rollbacker flag, it was a bumpy ride for a week or two and is now smooth as silk. Presumably everyone who is not a "flagger" will need to have their edits flagged. Ownership disputes will ''continue'' to exist, but there's no ''additional'' problem here. Some bits will have to be adjusted on the fly, but there's no need to pooh-pooh ourselves and say we're simply not up to the challenge. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 18:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, no they don't. If they were easy answers, there would be no problem. And our habit of doing things on the fly has led to a mishmash of policies and practices that, over time, have created some very serious messes (q.v., MOSNUM, citations, etc.). We're a mature project now and can think about our actions before taking them. There is a huge gulf between the qualifications (?) for rollbacker and those for adminship. We already have cultural issues between editors who work almost exclusively in content creation/improvement and those who work primarily in the anti-vandal and administrative roles; if we don't automatically grant flag privileges to the former, we're setting ourselves up for further conflict. We do not have nearly enough editors right now carrying out new page patrol, which is swamped on a daily basis, and we have no reason to believe that it will be different for this. We don't know what percentage of reverted vandalism caught by our anti-vandal team relates to BLPs, or whether those editors will be willing or able to "switch" from vandal-fighting to revision review; there are quite a few vandal fighters who are already having difficulty telling the difference between a good edit and a vandalistic one. Mostly though, making it up as we go along has had mixed success and narrowed a lot of options over time for this community; initiating a change that directly alters the philosophy of the project needs to have the I's dotted and the T's crossed before it proceeds. It's sort of working on the German Misplaced Pages, but their foundational philosophy has always been very different, and they're a smaller and much more cohesive community. Yes, this is where I think we need to go, but we need to ensure we know what and how we are going to do it. Let's not risk jumping the shark because we can't be bothered putting more thought into the practicalities. ] (]) 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Risker - Don't get me wrong. I am '''not''' saying "Turn it on today" but "Start working how how to implement a trial run today." We ''know'' we ''need'' some form of this, more urgently than anything else. So why twiddle our thumbs? It's been run on test wiki, other wikis - we have some ideas. If the question needs to be asked "How do we select who can flag a revision?", then ''Let's ask that now''. Trial runs have been discussed only affectiving featured articles or such. Why not look at this? Or allow flagging to be turned on and off for individual articles as a test run? ''If we need to plan, why aren't we planning?'' ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 19:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Umm, hi. Shouldn't this be discussed on ] instead of here? <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font> • <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font> 22:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree though I think this has been a very useful thread to open here. Thanks, ] 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Based on the above conversation, for your convenience=== | |||
| * ] | |||
| Lets see what is actually desired, to begin with. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Jimmy should answer=== | |||
| Jimmy, what is ''your'' opinion on implementing flagged revs on all BLPs, semi-prot on all BLPs, or both on all BLPs, as a test? The BLP problem won't be fixed unless you use that muscle to force it through. Whats your opinion? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 17:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :IMO the blp problem won't be fixed at all by forcing this through though I would be equally interested in your opinion. Thanks, ] 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would be thrilled with the implementation of flagged revs on all BLPs as a test. I don't think I should force it through, but I strongly support that we experiment with it. What I will do is this: I will gladly serve as a formal point of contact to ask the Foundation directly to implement whatever we decide on. What I recommend is a timed test, i.e. turn on flagged revs for all BLPs for 3 months, and have a poll in the last two weeks of that period to determine whether we want to keep it. I feel confident that we will. | |||
| :::I would also support us simply copying what the Germans have done with it. I know there are concerns about volume, but the Germans are able to deal with it just fine as I understand it. Yes, we have more edits, but we have more community members. So I reckon we can deal with it quite well. However, I'm *thrilled* about it for BLPs and merely *supportive* for all articles.--] (]) 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, Jimmy. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 23:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for your input. Hopefully a voice as weighty as yours will give everyone pause to consider it seriously. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Actually I think thats a great idea if the edit isn't wiped out but it there for checking later. However, surely by flagging every edit made by an IP in a day it will mean a great deal of work for people to go through the logs. I'm sure we all agree that it could come off well for Jimbo when asked questions about how open wikipedia is to vandalism and he could respond by saying that we have a greatly improved monitoring system now in place. Well I;ve long said there should be a tighter form of control but the important thing is it doesn't put off editors and it doesn't become *too restrictive** , and some people may be concerned that the "💕 that anybody can edit" is getting narrow and narrower in reality. Perhaps it may encourage people to register an account and contribute. This however implies that all IPs are lousy editors and all those with registered account make decent edits. The thing is Fritzpoll, you say about resricting it to the most important articles, every wikipedia article should be regarded important. In reality a lot of the more "important" or "vulnerable" articles are watched like a hawk on many peoples watchlists anyway and are spotted immediately on recent changes patrol. It is actually the lesser edited articles which it would be more useful for. I;ve lost count how many articles I;ve gone through, today on some places in Bangladesh and noticed people who barely speak English adding a whole load of rubbish so the article looks quite embarrassing. One article I came across a few minutes ago stated something like "the brothel is the finest in all the Bangladesh. It is run by the President of the district .. and it is open all day and all night. And this man is supposed to be our leader!!".Ahh, heres the diff if anybody cares to . Another listed all the boys on the local football team and practically everybody in the village. This was mildly amusing but the previous was potentially libellous all the same and is exactly the sort of lesser edited articles that also need watching. ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Developers == | |||
| When I leave messages on a developer's talk page, the developer doesn't respond. Which developer can I contact to suggest that features be implemented? -- ] ] 22:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :] or ] are the best places to go, depending on exactly what the issue is. Bear in mind that if you approach a developer out of the blue and ask them to rewrite a piece of software used world-wide without discussion just because you told them to, the response may not be quite what you wanted. – '']'' 01:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You just have to say developers, developers, developers, .... a sufficient number of times to summon one. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 13:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Coming around == | |||
| I was a user you used to have a problem with before but was brought back and encouraged to make a clean start by one of the administrators. I did that because I want to help out here when I can. I hope you can forgive me Mr. Wales. Incidentally, the real reason I am writing is that I had to do a recent research assignment and one of the rules of the assignment was that Misplaced Pages was not an acceptable source? Doesn't that bother you that a college professor has said no to using Misplaced Pages? I saw my faculty advisor had printed out information from here himself. ] (]) 01:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is not a "good source" for anything academic. No one here would expect it to be; it is too accessible and too open to error. It is, however, an excellent place to start looking for academic information, and provides, in most cases, a very good introduction to a topic. There are articles that would pass any academic's review; the "problem", from an academic perspective, is that there is no guarantee that the article will be the same ten seconds from now, never mind ten minutes, days, weeks or months. In short, I doubt Mr Wales is in any way embarrassed. Misplaced Pages is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. It is not an academic sanctuary. ] (]) 01:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) Please see ] for more information. ] (]) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Adirondackman, I don't know who you used to be, but it doesn't matter. I forgive you without hesitation. I hope things go positively for you this time around.--] (]) 05:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Nationalism on Misplaced Pages. == | |||
| Misplaced Pages is a hot bed of nationalistic promotion. I.e. one user trying to smear another country by saying it is not really a country because it some how does not have a government (Yes, i am referring to the ]... On the other hand, its users trying to make out that people from Scotland/Ireland/Wales/England ECT cannot be called Welsh/Scottish/English/NIrish because they do not have a government. They must be all called "British"ect. (Using the UK as an example, nothing more) Im sick of people using wikipedia to promote there nationalist cause by trying to distort the truth and violate NPOV. Bah. It has to be one of the most annoying things on Misplaced Pages. Agree? ] (]) 14:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Err, it sounds to me like you are guilty of what you are accusing others of. Nobody has English/Welsh/Scottish nationality as we are all British. Thanks, ] 18:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages ''reflects'' the mutability of the concept of country, as evidenced by (among others) the United Nations. Historical countries are often subsumed into larger "nations", and may again appear as sovereign nations - witness the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia, and the division of the Czech nation from Slovakia (while sometimes a divided historical country can remerge, as did Germany). All Misplaced Pages can and should do is to apply such labels and divisions as is currently accepted by the majority of other nations. Nationalist views of what may be more appropriate than the actuality need only be recorded where they are notable, but within the context of the real world nation status. It isn't a Misplaced Pages problem. ] (]) 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My point was that people are deliberately using wikipedia to get across there nationalistic opinions which violates NPOV half the time. They enjoy distorting the truth. I was talking about people, not articles. | |||
| TL,DR: Im fed up of '''Trolls.'''] (]) 17:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe that there is a nation for trolls; somewhere on the ], as I remember. ] (]) 17:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Squeakbox is wrong. We are what we want to be identified as. I am an englishman who identifies as Hungarian due to my ancestry as such. I was not born in britain, I was orn in England. Also, wrong place. <font face= xirod>] ]] 21:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Facial Hair == | |||
| I do not approve of your facial hair. Please shave it off at once! | |||
| Yours sincerely, | |||
| A DISGUSTED user <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ], mate. Thanks, ] 21:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Appointments, please== | |||
| Jimbo, in case you've forgotten, you said you'd announce your ArbCom appointments today. ] (]) 23:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I give another 22 minutes, since Misplaced Pages works in UTC time. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 23:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:30, 20 December 2008
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
With this edit, I am making the following appointments to the Arbitration Committee:
3 year terms: Tranche Beta - Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse Tranche Beta (expansion seat) - Jayvdb
2 year terms: Tranche Gamma - Vassyana, Carcharoth Tranche Gamma (expansion seat) - Wizardman
1 year term: Tranche Alpha (expansion seat) - Coren
Some notes:
1. Some in the community suggested that I should look at both percentage of support and at net "pro" votes. Or that I should look at net "pro" votes instead of percentage of support. As it turns out, when making 3 expansion appointments, there is a lucky coincidence: - Top six on both metrics are all appointed to 3 year terms - Next three on both metrics are all appointed to 2 year terms - Number ten on both metrics is appointed to a 1 year term
So, in this case, it would not matter which metric I favored.
2. As a "sanity check" on the appointments process, and in response to public and private concerns raised about inappropriate block voting, I also considered the votes of *just* admins. In the end this had no impact. There were two interesting small variations: - Jayvdb got much higher admin support, reflecting I think the results of an offsite campaign (I checked into the concerns of the campaigners and found them to be without merit) - CoolHandLuke got much lower admin support, reflecting I think the nature of his campaign - "In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us."
These variations are interesting, nothing more, and certainly not sufficient for me to posit a major rift between the broader community and the admins. Most of the vote counts were very similar for admins versus non-admins.
3. All 10 appointees have agreed to identify to the Foundation. This is not a requirement of the Foundation, and I chose not to make it a requirement for my appointments, either. It was merely a request. Nonetheless, all 10 eagerly agreed to it. There is no need for them to do so *before* taking office, and I'm sure it'll happen quickly enough.
4. Deskana is resigning his seat. I am not filling that seat right now, but I intend to do so in an interim election at some point in 2009, yet to be determined. There have been some mentions of other possible retirements, and so I will wait to see if anyone else is looking to retire early next year, and then we'll see about an election in March or June or so. With the 3 expansion seats, it is not as if we will be short-staffed.
My exploration of the voting results tells me that this was an election for change. The only 2 current Arbs who were running were soundly defeated. This was a key factor in my decision to expand the committee - appointing 7 of 15 seats would not even be a majority, and 8 of 15 (by filling Deskana's seat) would barely be.
As it stands, we have 10 of 18 seats filled with new members, and with 1 retirement, in fact we have 10 of 17 arbs new. The community has asked for change, and I support this fully.
The mandate for the new arbs, as I see it, and a small change.
1. Many people are of the opinion that the 2008 ArbCom moved much too slowly, and got too little done. I intend that with more members, the committee will explore ways to get more things done and more quickly. Various proposals have been put forward in the past, and all have merits. I encourage the new committee to act quickly and decisively to reorganize and reexamine working methods to get faster resolution to conflicts - justice delayed is justice denied.
2. Many people are of the opinion that the 2008 ArbCom was too opaque, hearing too many matters in private. I encourage the creation of new rules clearly limiting the scope of private decisionmaking.
Rather than completely outlawing it, because I do think there can be situations where a privately-handled matter is important for the dignity of all participants, I will simply strongly discourage private votes of any kind. There should be no "secret trials" or anything resembling them, and there can be no valid ArbCom action unless the person being sanctioned has had the opportunity for a public defense.
There are problems with this: drama on the wiki will increase in some ways. But the bigger drama of conspiracy theories and decisions made in error due to insufficient eyeballs on the case will be avoided.
3. We want arbs to be both responsive to community concerns, and also immune from populist campaigns that push rash decisionmaking. These are competing concerns which must be kept in balance. I request the new ArbCom to reflect on and discuss the creation of a method for the community recall of unpopular ArbCom members. This discussion should take place in June of 2009, once the new Arbs have some experience of the job and thus a deeper understanding of the pressures involved. I would like to see a procedure in place by the time of the next election.
The small change: while not completely outlawing all private decision making, I will simply state that I will be strongly inclined to overturn on appeal any decision of the ArbCom that did not include a public discussion and vote.
I leave it to the new ArbCom to make their own decisions regarding the use of public workshops versus the private ArbCom wiki versus the mailing list - all are valid tools. I simply strongly encourage a renewed focus on the desire of the community for strong transparency in ArbCom operations.
--Jimbo