Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 24 August 2010

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Upcoming Checkuser and Oversight appointments

Announcement

Roger Davies provided a link from ANI to here to discuss.

I like some of the names suggested. Some of the names from the previous May Secure Poll do not appear but may be better choices, in some cases.

I commend the Arbitration Committee for not immediately throwing out the May Secure Poll and imposing its own will. Waiting 3 months as a cool down period is a more responsible act. It could be improved by adding the names of the May Secure Poll candidates and allowing the community to select, by Secure Poll, the top 4 CU and 6 OS (the number that AC seems to suggest) among the 6 CU and 11 OS candidates. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the candidates vetted for the May election may not have expressed interest in this round. –xeno 15:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting selection. Are we supposed to email the mailing list for all comments, or just concerns/opposes? I'm guessing that anyone who does not email the list is assumed to be supporting or indifferent toward all the candidates. —fetch·comms 15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to heartily endorse a particular candidate, then you should feel free to e-mail ArbCom. I'm sure they'll appreciate that feedback as much as they would any negative feedback. --Deskana (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I was expecting a public page where people could make comments (positive or negative). If negative comments are sent to ArbCom about a candidate, will the candidate be told about the details (who said what?) or will they just be told "sorry, we got complaints..."? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Endorse! Of the 9 people listed to become CU or OS, you are in my top 2! You are very responsible. Of course, I think it is a foregone conclusion that all will be appointed. I don't need to e-mail, I publically endorse Phantomsteve and this message was approved by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe so (probably not who said what, but more likely what was said). –xeno 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

When this happened last time (August 2008) I was told what the concerns were about me, but I was not told who said it, which I believe was the best outcome. -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that knowing the concerns and not the whos is good from my point of view. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Follow-up announcement - Thanks for the comments received so far (both here and by e-mail). I'm currently co-ordinating the responses received, and am collating them into one document for ongoing review. People can make comments here if they wish (and those comments will be noted), but it will be easier for me to add them to the document if the comments are also e-mailed, and please note what Roger Davies said in the original announcement: "As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia privacy policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list". Xeno is correct that comments received, or a paraphrase, will be passed to the candidates, but we will anonymise those comments and concerns before passing them on. This also addresses the point raised by PhantomSteve. I'll be contacting the candidates towards the end of the comment period, and the final review will take place between 25 August and 1 September. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Great candidates all around, expect that most, if not all, will be given the promotion. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• A fine selection. As, for the most part, were the previous candidates. I feel it's a shame that the community isn't being allowed more involvement, but the positions need filling. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not interacted with Frank or Bastique, but support all the others no problems. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd follow Bastique into hell. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Are they likely to lead you there..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't he studying theology after leaving the WMF? </offtopic> —fetch·comms 22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely putting my dollar on Bastique. I'm just concerned with Frank getting CU. I just pulled up the most recent 500 edits in WP space and there're only 3-4 edits directly related to sockpuppets. Does ArbCom really thinks Frank is a suitable candidate for being a CU? OhanaUnited 05:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed, just wait for the rules of the game to change. It really doesn't give anyone any pause that, in some cases, for nearly every support a candidate got, they got an equal oppose vote? In some cases, over 100 contributors actively opposed their candidacy (WP:100, anyone?). And there were voter eligibility requirements, so these weren't just drive-by voters. But I guess it's okay to ignore these facts because the encyclopedia would cease to exist without a few people in these positions. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For reference, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election#Results. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

</me waves>Well, obviously most candidates got almost as many opposes as supports - that is why only one candidate in the May elections made the 70%+ support (slightly more than 2 supports for every 1 oppose) standard. Does this reflect upon the candidates or the process? It may be also borne in mind that whatever the process, poor or abusive CU/OS'ers can have the flags removed. In the meanwhile, there will be more people to undertake some necessary tasks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it to heart, (I'm sure you haven't)I think it was the format that attracted the oppose votes not so much a specific rejection of the candidate. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, people had the option to vote neutral. And many did. But a good number said "no, I don't think person should be in this position." If the vote had been held without a neutral option (which was also the default voting option in the form, as I recall), I'd be more inclined to say that opposition was a result of the format. But in May, people were given a choice, they decided to actively participate in the election, and a good number decidedly to actively oppose certain candidates. For nearly any election (ArbCom, steward, adminship), this would mean a fairly clear result. In this case, it just means that a few months have passed.

If there are other significant factors I'm missing beside the passage of time that make the result of the May elections irrelevant, please feel free to point them out. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time we did this dance, I seem to recall you telling me to calm down about it. Look, the earlier process was a disaster. Only one candidate made it through, and we got zero feedback, so none of us knew why we didn't get through. I have still not had one single person explain to me why they thought I couldn't be trusted with oversight. The previous process seemed like a good idea at the time, but it just didn't work. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Second follow-up announcement - Thanks again for the comments received so far (both here and by e-mail). I've recently posted some follow-up notices to provide updates and ask for further comments. I'm continuing to co-ordinate the responses received, and collate them into one document for ongoing review. As I said above, I'll be contacting the candidates towards the end of the comment period, and the final review will take place between 25 August and 1 September. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support of MuZemike, Tnxman307, Beeblebrox, LessHeard vanU, MBisanz and Phantomsteve. Haven't paid enough attention to the others to have an opinion, but no concerns noted.--SPhilbrickT 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support for all the CU candidates. (But we always lose good clerks this way.) --jpgordon 16:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Announcement

Besides ignoring the original purpose of this appeal, also ignored in this ArbCom process is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’ , that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the five pillars or guidelines. There is every appearance that this hearing was hijacked to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators.

The administrators also have not considered an alternative remedy suggested by myself that is at the same time more draconian and more germane to the events leading to this action.

However, I now am quite used to knee-jerk administrative behavior that ignores WP welfare and the facts, and half-baked vague sanctions that encourage further fruitless ArbCom intervention to clarify matters that could have been stated clearly at the outset. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I truly do not understand why or how the committee would vote this. I saw attempts to discuss and make a consensus and a lot of head hunting. I guess it's easier to scapegoat people then to deal with the issue Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I only see this now. Students trowing out the professors - how is that going to improve an encyclopedia? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages is not actually about professors and students. One of my colleagues did mention professors and students, but I think that was not the best comment to make in the circumstances (with apologies to that arbitrator). What Misplaced Pages is about is editors working together to improve articles, and invariably those sanctioned by ArbCom have had problems working with others, regardless of their expertise or otherwise. If you look around, you will find plenty of experts and PhD students and probably professors as well, editing Misplaced Pages with no problems. The trick is to learn how to edit Misplaced Pages and work with others while doing so (work to your own strengths and recognise your own weaknesses and the strengths of others), and that does take a while to work out if you are used to a more individualistic approach. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Real encyclopedias ask experts. Brews has shown endless patience trying to explain things on talk pages - how can that be a reason to block him? Most experts give up on editing wikipedia in their own field in frustration. Instead, wikipedia is dominated by wannabies and crackpots. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting that Brews is an expert, and not a fringe theorist whom anyone with a high school education or greater is going to disagree with (and I would suspect the higher the education, the more strongly so?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: Apparently you haven't visited my user page or googled my name. Yes, I am an expert, no I am not a fringe theorist, yes I am disputed by a bunch of wannabes with no conception of balanced judgment. Brews ohare (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The original appeal concerning Sandstein's indefinite block has not been discussed or ruled upon, so the entire purpose of this appeal has been completely side-stepped in exchange for a meaningless remedy treating an imaginary problem. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Things go wrong with Brews i.m.o. because of a rather trivial reason: the lack of proper talk page management. When Brews edits an article, he tends to generate rather large volumes of talk page content. Whenever there is a dispute, that volume becomes a huge problem. I'm pretty sure Brews would not have been in trouble at all had he been editing with a "William Connelly" like figure who would archive irrelevant threads, threads that have strayed too far from the topic, and then start a new thread that summarizes the main arguments that are relevant and then come to a quick resolution on these issues. Count Iblis (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)