Ritchie333

Ritchie333 · Unread post by **Ritchie333** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:41 am

Beeblebrox wrote:The problem will be finding people with sense but who somehow actually want the job.

The problem with Arbcom is since anyone on it becomes Public Enemy Number One, has no remuneration, and requires a rough equivalent of trying to get a pig to sing, it suffers from the Dilbert principle (T-H-L). Anyone who would be a good arb won't want to do it, so it will naturally attract those that don't realise it's a poisoned chalice. I've been asked to run for Arbcom a few times and my usual response is that I'd rather look at this:

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:39 pm

It really is a shit job, By the time I'd been on for a few months I was glad I only got a one-year term and knew I wouldn't run again, there's now ay I could've done that for three years without burning out. It's just endless, there's always something that's not getting done, and there's always somebody telling you how much you suck. And, being perfectly frank, there is always at least one arb who does suck.

From what I hear it sucks slightly less overall than it used to, with BASC and AUSC gone and some better email filtering there isn't quite as much crap to go through on a daily basis, but I'd imagine framgate has been pretty miserable.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:21 am

Beeblebrox wrote:It really is a shit job, By the time I'd been on for a few months I was glad I only got a one-year term and knew I wouldn't run again, there's now ay I could've done that for three years without burning out. It's just endless, there's always something that's not getting done, and there's always somebody telling you how much you suck. And, being perfectly frank, there is always at least one arb who does suck.

From what I hear it sucks slightly less overall than it used to, with BASC and AUSC gone and some better email filtering there isn't quite as much crap to go through on a daily basis, but I'd imagine framgate has been pretty miserable.

I'm pretty sure all arbs think this and are all certain it's not them.

Which one sucked from your time?

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:34 am

Vigilant wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:It really is a shit job, By the time I'd been on for a few months I was glad I only got a one-year term and knew I wouldn't run again, there's now ay I could've done that for three years without burning out. It's just endless, there's always something that's not getting done, and there's always somebody telling you how much you suck. And, being perfectly frank, there is always at least one arb who does suck.

From what I hear it sucks slightly less overall than it used to, with BASC and AUSC gone and some better email filtering there isn't quite as much crap to go through on a daily basis, but I'd imagine framgate has been pretty miserable.
I'm pretty sure all arbs think this and are all certain it's not them.

Which one sucked from your time?

I mean, i wasn't the greatest myself and was very aware of it, but I don't think I was the most irritating person in the 2014 committee, and I'd imagine you could figure out for yourself who was.

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:44 am

Ritchie333 wrote: The problem with Arbcom is since anyone on it becomes Public Enemy Number One, has no remuneration, and requires a rough equivalent of trying to get a pig to sing, it suffers from the Dilbert principle (T-H-L). Anyone who would be a good arb won't want to do it, so it will naturally attract those that don't realise it's a poisoned chalice. I've been asked to run for Arbcom a few times and my usual response is that I'd rather look at this: 10 hours of paint drying

Thank you for this post.
Sadly ArbCom is very politicized. This is inherent to any election based board. The model/experiment failed.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:46 am

I am not sure I could even have named all the 38 arbs I was on ArbCom with before looking them up. Not even sure I've got the number correct. Some arbs you see very briefly as they are exiting as you enter (or are entering as you leave). I am guessing Newyorkbrad has had the most number of different arbs he has worked with (maybe someone can calculate the number?). Some arbs do make more of an impression than others. Some are not very memorable, but sometimes that is a good thing!

Heh, there have been a total of 101 different arbs so far in ArbCom's history. Not sure anyone has ever counted them up before (the full listing is here).

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:39 am

That sounds about right. There seemed to be some arbs who just show up to vote but are otherwise barely involved with the day-to-day operations of the committee, and that's probably fairly common. I was active enough on the mailing lists but I was only a drafter on one case, the nightmare known as GamerGate, and I got a flu in the middle of working on the PD so in the end I really never even drafted a case. I volunteered for that one because I knew it was going to be horrible but that I'd be done when it was over.

One of the things nobody tells you is that during January the banned users come out fo the woodwork thinking maybe they'll find sympathetic voices on the new committee. You get bombarded with emails from a lot of the "worst of the worst." We didn't have the SanFran Ban back then, it came to be during my term. It does have a purpose.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:45 am

Beeblebrox wrote:I mean, i wasn't the greatest myself and was very aware of it, but I don't think I was the most irritating person in the 2014 committee, and I'd imagine you could figure out for yourself who was.

Feel free to share!

RfB

Alex Shih · Unread post by **Alex Shih** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:17 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:I mean, i wasn't the greatest myself and was very aware of it, but I don't think I was the most irritating person in the 2014 committee, and I'd imagine you could figure out for yourself who was.
Feel free to share!

RfB

This is such a easy guess looking at Beeblebrox's batch. Of course it was AGK, whom by the way was probably the last straw that chased Floquenbeam off.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:50 am

To be fair on AGK (who I met in person at Wikimania 2014 in London), he is absolutely fine in person, but he can come across the wrong way in emails and online. I am sure he is aware of that (as are we all to an extent, I know I come across the wrong way sometimes and have certain characteristics that annoy the hell out of some people), but it is the degree to which one can be self-aware that can be an issue. I would prefer working with AGK to some other arbs (who I won't name).

What has tended to characterise all arbs is that they do care about Wikipedia. Whether that is for altruistic motives or because they want Wikipedia to succeed because they are invested in it as part of their identity, is another matter. This also applies to long-term editors as well (and dare I say, to some of the more invested people associated with Wikipediocracy and other Wikipedia criticism sites).

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:58 am

AGK (T-C-L) = 'Moronic Hat Collector'

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:59 am

Carcharoth wrote:To be fair on AGK (who I met in person at Wikimania 2014 in London), he is absolutely fine in person, but he can come across the wrong way in emails and online. I am sure he is aware of that (as are we all to an extent, I know I come across the wrong way sometimes and have certain characteristics that annoy the hell out of some people), but it is the degree to which one can be self-aware that can be an issue. I would prefer working with AGK to some other arbs (who I won't name).

What has tended to characterise all arbs is that they do care about Wikipedia. Whether that is for altruistic motives or because they want Wikipedia to succeed because they are invested in it as part of their identity, is another matter. This also applies to long-term editors as well (and dare I say, to some of the more invested people associated with Wikipediocracy and other Wikipedia criticism sites).

So, why aren't you more incensed about the Laura Hale/Maria Sefidari Huici corruption?

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:59 am

Ritchie333 wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:The problem will be finding people with sense but who somehow actually want the job.
The problem with Arbcom is since anyone on it becomes Public Enemy Number One, has no remuneration, and requires a rough equivalent of trying to get a pig to sing, it suffers from the Dilbert principle (T-H-L). Anyone who would be a good arb won't want to do it, so it will naturally attract those that don't realise it's a poisoned chalice. I've been asked to run for Arbcom a few times and my usual response is that I'd rather look at this:

You Would Not Have Had A Chance In The Election Times.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:28 am

Vigilant wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:To be fair on AGK (who I met in person at Wikimania 2014 in London), he is absolutely fine in person, but he can come across the wrong way in emails and online. I am sure he is aware of that (as are we all to an extent, I know I come across the wrong way sometimes and have certain characteristics that annoy the hell out of some people), but it is the degree to which one can be self-aware that can be an issue. I would prefer working with AGK to some other arbs (who I won't name).

What has tended to characterise all arbs is that they do care about Wikipedia. Whether that is for altruistic motives or because they want Wikipedia to succeed because they are invested in it as part of their identity, is another matter. This also applies to long-term editors as well (and dare I say, to some of the more invested people associated with Wikipediocracy and other Wikipedia criticism sites).
So, why aren't you more incensed about the Laura Hale/Maria Sefidari Huici corruption?

Partly because I've seen how hard it is to get people removed from the Board, either democratically via elections (too many of the people voting from other wikis in Board elections will not care at all about the 'storm' that took place on en-Wikipedia) or by direct representation to those responsible for Board governance issues. Look at what Jbhunley has been trying to do. It is not easy.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:43 am

Carcharoth wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:To be fair on AGK (who I met in person at Wikimania 2014 in London), he is absolutely fine in person, but he can come across the wrong way in emails and online. I am sure he is aware of that (as are we all to an extent, I know I come across the wrong way sometimes and have certain characteristics that annoy the hell out of some people), but it is the degree to which one can be self-aware that can be an issue. I would prefer working with AGK to some other arbs (who I won't name).

What has tended to characterise all arbs is that they do care about Wikipedia. Whether that is for altruistic motives or because they want Wikipedia to succeed because they are invested in it as part of their identity, is another matter. This also applies to long-term editors as well (and dare I say, to some of the more invested people associated with Wikipediocracy and other Wikipedia criticism sites).
So, why aren't you more incensed about the Laura Hale/Maria Sefidari Huici corruption?
Partly because I've seen how hard it is to get people removed from the Board, either democratically via elections (too many of the people voting from other wikis in Board elections will not care at all about the 'storm' that took place on en-Wikipedia) or by direct representation to those responsible for Board governance issues. Look at what Jbhunley has been trying to do. It is not easy.

You're not upset about endemic corruption at the highest levels of the WMF because it's hard to do anything about it?

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:26 pm

I'm not happy about it, but there are other things I care about more.

What would you suggest should be done?

Alex Shih · Unread post by **Alex Shih** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:38 pm

I am sure most of the people on Wikipedia are absolutely fine in person over a couple beers (with a few exceptions of course, ahem), even the socks and trolls. Even RHaworth (T-C-L), who comes off as awfully curt and intimidating, apparently is absolutely fine in person as well

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:35 pm

Carcharoth wrote:To be fair on AGK (who I met in person at Wikimania 2014 in London), he is absolutely fine in person, but he can come across the wrong way in emails and online. I am sure he is aware of that (as are we all to an extent, I know I come across the wrong way sometimes and have certain characteristics that annoy the hell out of some people), but it is the degree to which one can be self-aware that can be an issue.

Feel free to share!

(This is how we learn who is suited and unsuited for the job.)

RfB

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:39 pm

You want the lowdown on all 38 arbs I've worked with?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:40 pm

Carcharoth wrote:I'm not happy about it, but there are other things I care about more.

What would you suggest should be done?

I dunno man, that might be the most spineless thing I've ever read.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:40 pm

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:15 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:and there's always somebody telling you how much you suck.

It would be amazing if that didn't happen. Even proper judges suffer from it.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:24 pm

Carcharoth wrote:I'm not happy about it, but there are other things I care about more.

What would you suggest should be done?

Go to the press? A letter to the New York Times signed by a dozen ex-Arbs would probably raise an eyebrow or two.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:28 pm

Carcharoth wrote:You want the lowdown on all 38 arbs I've worked with?

Ab-so-fucking-lutely. Give us 25 or 50 words on each!

Or failing that, just categorize them as follows:

1. Five Star Arbs

2. Well meaning, but in over their head

3. Just plain in over their head

4. People that should never be allowed to do that job again

RfB

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:44 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:You want the lowdown on all 38 arbs I've worked with?
Ab-so-fucking-lutely. Give us 25 or 50 words on each!

Or failing that, just categorize them as follows:

1. Five Star Arbs

2. Well meaning, but in over their head

3. Just plain in over their head

4. People that should never be allowed to do that job again

RfB

The trouble with that is some other ex-Arbs might respond with their views on him!

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:46 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:You want the lowdown on all 38 arbs I've worked with?
Ab-so-fucking-lutely. Give us 25 or 50 words on each!

Or failing that, just categorize them as follows:

1. Five Star Arbs

2. Well meaning, but in over their head

3. Just plain in over their head

4. People that should never be allowed to do that job again

RfB
The trouble with that is some other ex-Arbs might respond with their views on him!

This is known as "crowd-sourcing" and sometimes it actually works!

tim

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:07 am

I did read the above. One problem is that this was 9-10 and 5-6 years ago respectively, so I am not sure how accurate my memories will be. It's also probably a bad idea anyway! I could do five-star arbs, possibly. But it would still only be my subjective opinion.

Why not start (in a new thread appropriately titled) with your (collective view) of what you've seen of the 100+ arbs in public and where you would rate them in your 4-way category system. Kind of like your ArbCom Election guides!

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:42 pm

Carcharoth wrote:I did read the above. One problem is that this was 9-10 and 5-6 years ago respectively, so I am not sure how accurate my memories will be. It's also probably a bad idea anyway! I could do five-star arbs, possibly. But it would still only be my subjective opinion.

Why not start (in a new thread appropriately titled) with your (collective view) of what you've seen of the 100+ arbs in public and where you would rate them in your 4-way category system. Kind of like your ArbCom Election guides!

The key thing would be learning the best and the worst. That information would help identify particularly good or bad future candidates.

RfB

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:42 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:The key thing would be learning the best and the worst. That information would help identify particularly good or bad future candidates.

RfB

Top tip: avoid candidates who are into zoophilia (T-H-L).

Jbhunley · Unread post by **Jbhunley** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:38 am

Poetlister wrote: Top tip: avoid candidates who are into zoophilia (T-H-L).

Hmmm... I would have pretty much taken that as a given, it is not like Arbcom is a dining club. There are a potential/ex arbs who could be described as 'fucking muppets' but I think that would be an adjective not an orientation.... Oh!.... furries!... we have furries?!

--
Jbh

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:17 am

Vigilant wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:I'm not happy about it, but there are other things I care about more.

What would you suggest should be done?
I dunno man, that might be the most spineless thing I've ever read.

Somebody explained cost--benefit analysis to the dude.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:19 am

I dunno. The thought did cross my mind (only after my initial replies above) that some arbs and ex-arbs might well complain to T&S if I went too far. Now, on Wikipedia it is fairly clear what the rules are about off-wiki conduct and where various people draw the lines in various circumstances, but it is completely unclear what a shadowy unaccountable body like T&S does when presented with off-wiki activities that make people on-wiki feel "unsafe". So I guess that does make me spineless!

(Actually, some on-wiki reaction would probably be more likely. I guess I want to leave options open for the future. Once you take some steps you can't really go back on them. Oh, this is rambling too much: what Kiefer said: cost-benefit analysis.)

Alex Shih · Unread post by **Alex Shih** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:51 am

Jbhunley wrote:
Poetlister wrote: Top tip: avoid candidates who are into zoophilia (T-H-L).
Hmmm... I would have pretty much taken that as a given, it is not like Arbcom is a dining club. There are a potential/ex arbs who could be described as 'fucking muppets' but I think that would be an adjective not an orientation.... Oh!.... furries!... we have furries?!

--
Jbh

I believe Poetlister was making a FT2 reference.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:38 pm

Alex Shih wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
Poetlister wrote: Top tip: avoid candidates who are into zoophilia (T-H-L).
Hmmm... I would have pretty much taken that as a given, it is not like Arbcom is a dining club. There are a potential/ex arbs who could be described as 'fucking muppets' but I think that would be an adjective not an orientation.... Oh!.... furries!... we have furries?!

--
Jbh
I believe Poetlister was making a FT2 reference.

Alex: You said it; I didn't.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:02 pm

Carcharoth wrote:I dunno. The thought did cross my mind (only after my initial replies above) that some arbs and ex-arbs might well complain to T&S if I went too far. Now, on Wikipedia it is fairly clear what the rules are about off-wiki conduct and where various people draw the lines in various circumstances, but it is completely unclear what a shadowy unaccountable body like T&S does when presented with off-wiki activities that make people on-wiki feel "unsafe". So I guess that does make me spineless!

(Actually, some on-wiki reaction would probably be more likely. I guess I want to leave options open for the future. Once you take some steps you can't really go back on them. Oh, this is rambling too much: what Kiefer said: cost-benefit analysis.)

Don't believe for a second that there aren't people in here who wouldn't give a second thought to sharing stuff from the private forums with functionaries or arbcom in an effort to get someone banned for "offsite harassment."

Casliber · Unread post by **Casliber** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:59 am

Beeblebrox wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:I dunno. The thought did cross my mind (only after my initial replies above) that some arbs and ex-arbs might well complain to T&S if I went too far. Now, on Wikipedia it is fairly clear what the rules are about off-wiki conduct and where various people draw the lines in various circumstances, but it is completely unclear what a shadowy unaccountable body like T&S does when presented with off-wiki activities that make people on-wiki feel "unsafe". So I guess that does make me spineless!

(Actually, some on-wiki reaction would probably be more likely. I guess I want to leave options open for the future. Once you take some steps you can't really go back on them. Oh, this is rambling too much: what Kiefer said: cost-benefit analysis.)
Don't believe for a second that there aren't people in here who wouldn't give a second thought to sharing stuff from the private forums with functionaries or arbcom in an effort to get someone banned for "offsite harassment."

The three negatives in a row at the beginning of that sentence had me reading it a few times.....

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:30 am

Beeblebrox wrote:Don't believe for a second that there aren't people in here who wouldn't give a second thought to sharing stuff from the private forums with functionaries or arbcom in an effort to get someone banned for "offsite harassment."

Jimbo shoved me repeatedly with a shopping cart in the Express Lane checkout at the supermarket yesterday.

ZettaComposer · Unread post by **ZettaComposer** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:25 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:Don't believe for a second that there aren't people in here who wouldn't give a second thought to sharing stuff from the private forums with functionaries or arbcom in an effort to get someone banned for "offsite harassment."
Jimbo shoved me repeatedly with a shopping cart in the Express Lane checkout at the supermarket yesterday.

Although Jimbo's actions were an overreaction, the sign clearly said 12 items or less. You shouldn't have grabbed that candy bar at checkout bringing your total to 13.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:32 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:Don't believe for a second that there aren't people in here who wouldn't give a second thought to sharing stuff from the private forums with functionaries or arbcom in an effort to get someone banned for "offsite harassment."
Jimbo shoved me repeatedly with a shopping cart in the Express Lane checkout at the supermarket yesterday.

Now he's a British citizen, he should know that's not how we British people behave.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:43 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:Don't believe for a second that there aren't people in here who wouldn't give a second thought to sharing stuff from the private forums with functionaries or arbcom in an effort to get someone banned for "offsite harassment."
Jimbo shoved me repeatedly with a shopping cart in the Express Lane checkout at the supermarket yesterday.
Now he's a British citizen, he should know that's not how we British people behave.

It’s all about proper queuing.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:18 am

Zoloft wrote:It’s all about proper queuing.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:19 am

tarantino wrote:
Zoloft wrote:It’s all about proper queuing.

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:03 pm

tarantino wrote:
Zoloft wrote:It’s all about proper queuing.

That was pretty good. I've been in a couple of Trader Joe's. I never had an experience anything like that.

Ritchie333 · Unread post by **Ritchie333** » Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:49 pm

Meanwhile, dammit I can't decline the CSD on Paul Cauthen (T-H-L) because Praxy tagged it. Looks like she wants to stick the knife in Erika. :-(

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:01 pm

Meh, it is that a Young Daughter does your Job For You

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:07 pm

10920 wrote:
tarantino wrote:
Zoloft wrote:It’s all about proper queuing.

That was pretty good. I've been in a couple of Trader Joe's. I never had an experience anything like that.

Mon They sucking for their sense of self-entitlement creation

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:09 am

Guess who's come to the rescue.

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:34 am

Praxidicae (T-C-L) is clearly on the deletionist destructionist end of the "Here to create an encyclopedia" spectrum.
It's ridiculous that respected editors constantly need to be reminded of the proper wording of rules, and that we are here to CREATE and encyclopedia.
Counseling for Praxidicae: The rule does not say you MUST delete the page, it ALLOWs deleting the page, if that's an improvement for WP. This article clearly benefits the encyclopedia.
However, in this case the rule did not even allow deleting it, and the CSD tag is a misapplication of the rules. WP:REVENGE (T-H-L)? Take better care.

Ritchie333 · Unread post by **Ritchie333** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:53 am

Can anyone tell me when was the last time Praxidicae expanded an article that wasn't a direct consequence of reverting somebody?

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:06 pm

Ritchie333 wrote:Can anyone tell me when was the last time Praxidicae expanded an article that wasn't a direct consequence of reverting somebody?

https://en.wikiscan.org/utilisateur/Praxidicae
Article diffs excluding reverts -6.8 M

Numbers don't lie.