Go the full monte and get a tattoo!Hex wrote:Finally, I can complete the look!Kelly Martin wrote:Stock up on beard care products, Rip Van Winkle.Hex wrote:Somebody wake me up when Colton says something interesting, novel, or involving a logical premise based on effective reading comprehension.
Sadly, that would clash with my existing tattoos.Vigilant wrote: Go the full monte and get a tattoo!
Courcelles has been on the committee before, but not continuously since 2011.Hex wrote:He's been on it since 2011, hasn't he? If I'm reading it right from a quick search of posts here. Clearly that's a niche he feels comfortable in. I also hadn't noticed, until that search revealed someone talking about it, that it's clearly not his first user account either. A player through and through.Randy from Boise wrote: In my opinion there are fresh concerns that necessitate a new vote on Courcelles for ArbCom, halfway through his first disaster of a year.
Color me shocked.Thryduulf
Post subject: PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 23:19
Offline
Member
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:17
Posts: 1050
Location: Walking distance to the A2204
Another good book on this subject is
The Street Names Of Bristol Their Origins and Meanings by Veronica Smith
published in 2001 by
Broadcast Books, Bristol (ISBN: 1-874092-90-7)
It covers the unitary authority of Bristol and those parts of South Gloucestershire that are part of the Bristol urban area.
Chris
_________________
The user formerly known as Chris 'Awkward' McKenna
collect wrote:Many of them show the clear signs of a misspelt youth...
1) What do you suppose the correlation between 'experienced Wikipedians' and 'good at arbitration' is?GorillaWarfare wrote:The people on the Arbitration Committee are all experienced Wikipedians who are fairly level-headed and willing to put in the time to try to resolve these disputes. I don't think anyone on Wikipedia is under the impression that we are trained or vetted arbitrators in the formal sense of the term. It would be lovely if the arbitrators were trained professionals, but I would be impressed if we were somehow able to pull fifteen trained arbitrators willing to donate their time to this out of the Wikimedia community. The way the system is currently structured, I think the hodge-podge of people from very different professional backgrounds is fairly unavoidable, and I'm not sure how this would change without the Wikimedia Foundation hiring professionals who are trained in dispute resolution.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.Carcharoth wrote:Some of this stuff is really old. If I was better organised, I might have similar stuff up on a website somewhere. Not sure if that would be a good thing or not...
In all seriousness, what is the point in digging through stuff like this? Like Everest, it is there, but that's not really a good reason is it? Is it that what someone put on their personal website dating from years ago shines an illuminating light on what they are like now?
Or this howler!!Smart man + smart woman = romance
Smart man + dumb woman = pregnancy
Dumb man + smart woman = affair
Dumb man + dumb woman = marriage
Smart boss + smart employee = profit
Smart boss + dumb employee = production
Dumb boss + smart employee = promotion
Dumb boss + dumb employee = overtime
A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn't need.
A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.
A successful man is one who makes more money that his wife can spend.
A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
To be happy with a man, you must understand him a lot and love him a little.
To be happy with a woman, you must love her a lot & not try to understand her at all.
Married men lived longer than single man,
but married men are a lot more willing to die.
Any married man should forget his mistakes,
there's no use in two people remembering the same thing.
A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change, and she does.
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.
There are 2 times when a man doesn't understand a woman
before marriage and after marriage.
Keep them coming, Chris!Awkward's Humour and Sillies
Demerit System Used By Women
For all you guys out there who just can't figure it out, here it is. In the world of romance, one single rule applies: Make the woman happy. Do something she likes & you get points. Do something she dislikes & points are subtracted. You don't get any points for doing something she expects...
Sorry, that's the way the game is played. Here is a guide to the point system.
Simple Duties
You make the bed +1
You make the bed, but forget to add the decorative pillows 0
You throw the bedspread over rumpled sheets -1
You leave the toilet seat up -5
You replace the toilet-paper roll when it's empty 0
When the toilet-paper roll is barren, you resort to Kleenex -1
When the Kleenex runs out you shuffle slowly to the next bathroom -2
You check out a suspicious noise at night 0
You check out a suspicious noise and it's nothing 0
You check out a suspicious noise and it's something +5
You pummel it with a six iron +10
It's her father -10
Social Engagements
You stay by her side the entire party 0
You stay by her side for a while, then leave to chat with a college drinking buddy -2
...Named Tiffany -4
...Tiffany is a dancer -6
...Tiffany has implants -8
Her Birthday
You take her out to dinner 0
You take her out to dinner and it's not a sports bar +1
Okay, it is a sports bar -2
And it's all-you-can-eat night -3
It's a sports bar, it's all-you-can-eat night, and your face is painted the colors of your favorite team -10
Thoughtfulness
You forget her birthday completely -20
You forget your anniversary -30
You forget to pick her up at the bus station -45
Which is in Newark, New Jersey -50
And the pouring rain dissolves her leg cast -60
A Night Out With The Boys
Go out with a pal -5
And the pal is happily married -4
Or frighteningly single -7
And he drives a Mustang -10
With a personalized license plate (GR8 N BED) -15
You have a few beers -9
And miss curfew by an hour -12
You miss curfew by an hour and you didn't call -20
You get home at 3 am -30
You get home at 3 am smelling of booze and cheap cigars -40
Her Night Out
You stay home while she goes out with her annoying friend from work +5
She goes out with her annoying work friends, and she comes home real late +10
...You wait up +15
She goes out, comes home late and drunk, and you put her to bed +20
A Night Out
You take her to a movie +2
You take her to a movie she likes +4
You take her to a movie you hate +6
You take her to a movie you like -2
It's called DeathCop 3 -3
You lied and said it was a foreign film about orphans -15
Flowers
You buy her flowers only when it's expected 0
You buy her flowers as a surprise, just for the hell of it +20
You give her wildflowers you've actually picked yourself +30
And she contracts Lyme disease -25
Your Physique
You develop a noticeable potbelly -15
You develop a noticeable potbelly and exercise to get rid of it >+10
You develop a noticeable potbelly and resort to loose jeans and baggy Hawaiian shirts -30
You say "I don't give a damn because you have one too" -800
Finances
You spend a lot of money on something impractical -5
Something she can't use -10
Such as a motorized model airplane -20
And she got a small appliance for her birthday -40
Driving
You lost the directions on a trip -4
You lost the directions and end up getting lost -10
You end up getting lost in a bad part of town -15
You get lost in a bad part of town and meet the locals up close and personal -25
...You know them -60
The Big Question
She asks, "Do I look fat?"
(Sensitive questions always start with a deficit) -5
You hesitate in responding -10
You reply, "Where?". -35
Communication
When she wants to talk about a problem, you listen, displaying what looks like a concerned expression 0
When she wants to talk, you listen, for over 30 minutes +5
You listen for more than 30 minutes without looking at the TV +10
She realizes this is because you've fallen asleep -20
Contact me at cmckenna@sucs.swan.ac.uk
Last updated 14/02/2001 at 21:38
Nice to see that Chris McKenna is a fucking misogynist.Awkward's Humour and Sillies
Genie On Malibu Beach
A man was walking along the beach at Malibu when he found a bottle. He
looked around and didn't see anyone so he opened it.
A genie appeared and thanked the man for letting him out. The genie said,
"For your kindness I will grant you one wish, but only one.."
The man thought for a minute and said, "I have always wanted to go to
Hawaii but have never been able to because I'm afraid of flying and ships
make me claustrophobic and ill. So, I wish for a bridge to be built from
here to Hawaii."
The genie thought for a few minutes and said, "No, I don't think I can do
that. Just think of all the work involved with the pilings needed to hold
up the highway and how deep they would have to be to reach the bottom of
the ocean. Think of all the pavement that would be needed.
No, that is just too much to ask."
The man thought for a minute and then told the genie, "There is one other
thing that I have always wanted. I would like to be able to understand
women. What makes them laugh and cry, why are they temperamental, why are
they so difficult to get along with? Basically, what makes them
tick?"
The genie considered for a few minutes and said, "So, do you want two
lanes or four?
Contact me at cmckenna@sucs.swan.ac.uk
The very specific kind of schadenfreude that only comes from reading terrible poems about railway stations. The teenage emo ones are too obvious.Carcharoth wrote: In all seriousness, what is the point in digging through stuff like this?
What's next?Hex wrote:The very specific kind of schadenfreude that only comes from reading terrible poems about railway stations. The teenage emo ones are too obvious.Carcharoth wrote: In all seriousness, what is the point in digging through stuff like this?
Seriously? Those are just stock "men don't get women jokes", mostly old, and mostly around the Tim Allen level of tastelessness. Not very compelling evidence of misogyny.Vigilant wrote:Nice to see that Chris McKenna is a fucking misogynist.
Great pick, wikipedia!
I'm no fan of Beeblebrox, but this is bullshit.Triptych wrote: Xeno was instrumental in getting Beeblebrox made an admin. Beeblebrox had a failed RFA (maybe it was two of them) in significant part because nay-voters kept linking to a verbal attack he made on some IP. He had said "fuck you, idiot" or "fuck off, clown" or something like that. So Beeblebrox slyly asks that the attack be rev-deleted so as not to hurt the feelings of possible subsequent users of the IP. Xeno rev-deletes it, falsely categorizes it as "routine housekeeping." The maneuver is a success. The community can no longer see the attack, Beeblebrox' third RFA is successful.
Thanks for taking the time to doublecheck. I got the timing wrong. Is it your position that the rev-delete of the comment (which you can see and I can't) was done properly, as a sincere matter of regret by Beebs, and was correctly categorized as Xeno as "G6: housekeeping."Hex wrote:I'm no fan of Beeblebrox, but this is bullshit.Triptych wrote: Xeno was instrumental in getting Beeblebrox made an admin. Beeblebrox had a failed RFA (maybe it was two of them) in significant part because nay-voters kept linking to a verbal attack he made on some IP. He had said "fuck you, idiot" or "fuck off, clown" or something like that. So Beeblebrox slyly asks that the attack be rev-deleted so as not to hurt the feelings of possible subsequent users of the IP. Xeno rev-deletes it, falsely categorizes it as "routine housekeeping." The maneuver is a success. The community can no longer see the attack, Beeblebrox' third RFA is successful.
It's bullshit because Beeblebrox asked for the comment to be deleted on 6 June 2010. He passed RfA on... 30 August 2009.
That RfA, by the way, was a self-nomination. Which he began by addressing the issue of the bad edit summary.
Why do you even bother logging in here?
I'm going to have to go with SBJ on this one, they're old as the hills. I know for a fact that I heard the one about the genie when I was a teenager. (And found it funny, because I was a teenage boy who really didn't know anything about women except vague stereotypes.) The only thing of note about them, I think, is that they're still there, rather than having been quietly taken down in embarrassment years later.SB_Johnny wrote:Seriously? Those are just stock "men don't get women jokes", mostly old, and mostly around the Tim Allen level of tastelessness. Not very compelling evidence of misogyny.Vigilant wrote:Nice to see that Chris McKenna is a fucking misogynist.
Great pick, wikipedia!
Yes. Please do your own doublechecking before posting theories like that, especially if they drag in other people.Triptych wrote: Thanks for taking the time to doublecheck. I got the timing wrong. Is it your position that the rev-delete of the comment (which you can see and I can't) was done properly, as a sincere matter of regret by Beebs, and was correctly categorized as Xeno as "G6: housekeeping."
I don't know anything about it. Produce some links or quotations or whatever and I could look at your assertions.Triptych wrote: Is it your position that my "erase the history that I may gain administrative power" argument can't be equally applied to Beebs' campaign and election to Arbcom, which occurred post 6 June 2010?
Your recollection wasn't far off. As you may recall from the events of the last few days, I'm not able to share revdeleted content.Triptych wrote: EDIT: Would you also mind telling us all the comment, so we can have a better understanding of it?
Landlubber please. Tell it to my rainbow seahorse.Vigilant wrote: What's next?
Are you going to tell me you're gonna fight me for my daily draught of unicorn blood?
I don't recall it but I surmised it. By your accounting, Arbcom's extraordinary intervention in your resysop, had to do not with any intelligence they wanted from Wikipediocracy, but rather something you had done here in the past.Hex wrote: Your recollection wasn't far off. As you may recall from the events of the last few days, I'm not able to share revdeleted content.
I'm sorry.SB_Johnny wrote:Seriously? Those are just stock "men don't get women jokes", mostly old, and mostly around the Tim Allen level of tastelessness. Not very compelling evidence of misogyny.Vigilant wrote:Nice to see that Chris McKenna is a fucking misogynist.
Great pick, wikipedia!
You did see earlier where I wrote "I'm not at liberty to divulge what it was", right?Triptych wrote:Am I way off-base?
Excellent point.Vigilant wrote:Now, if ARBCOM had found a page like that on Scott's old webpage, would we still be talking about having a full case before ARBCOM? I think we would.
So, uhhhh, what was it?Hex wrote:You did see earlier where I wrote "I'm not at liberty to divulge what it was", right?Triptych wrote:Am I way off-base?
Did you go to FBI School?? I can't handle this incisive questioning!Vigilant wrote:So, uhhhh, what was it?Hex wrote: You did see earlier where I wrote "I'm not at liberty to divulge what it was", right?
I don't know what information you're referring to, but if it reveals personal information that someone has requested be removed, I don't see why you would restore it. People may have been accusing you of censorship for moving material to pages that Google isn't crawling, but I certainly haven't been among them.SB_Johnny wrote: GW, since you're here, maybe you could answer Zoloft's earlier question. It's become rather tiresome when we are on the one hand condemned for allowing certain kinds of commentary, while on the other hand accused of censorship when we move things away from Google's panoptical view.
Zoloft wrote:Since we're now apparently under ARBCOM control, should I restore the posts by one of our members discussing various indiscretions and shenanigans by a Wikipedia complainant to public view?
SB_Johnny, Hex, and I have been removing this information from view and search engine access to protect this person's reputation from further deteriorating.
Does ARBCOM want us to behave as poorly as Wikipedia does?
This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like a sitting member of ARBCOM to reply to me either here or at the 'Temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges' page.
Question: do you want us to restore the entire topic to view, or not? Bear in mind the hidden posts reveal personal information about a Wikipedian. Information we've hidden before at their request.
I'll wait right here.
1. I can't give you a coefficient, but generally: experienced Wikipedians are familiar with the policies. I don't think that all experienced Wikipedians are good arbitrators, nor do I think all good arbitrators are experienced Wikipedians, but I generally think it's important for those serving on the committee to be both familiar with the policies they're working with, and used to editing the encyclopedia under them.Vigilant wrote: 1) What do you suppose the correlation between 'experienced Wikipedians' and 'good at arbitration' is?
2) Why do you suppose that 'volunteers' (read elected in a popularity contest) would be a reasonable way to handle nearly intractable disputes such as Northern Ireland or Israel v Palestine?
3) What makes you think that the outcomes of your tribunals are anywhere near reasonable or best outcomes for an encyclopedia project?
4) Do you think your public postings in relation to Oliver Keyes' horrific shitposts (he's my friend) were the hallmark of someone level-headed and impartial?
5) Do you think that the ARBCOM's historic rulings would land anywhere near what a group of professional arbitrators would?
The other mods and I removed it preemptively. The number of people leveling accusations of censorship is actually quite small, and pretty much completely comprises people without a forum account, so I wouldn't have imagined you to be one.GorillaWarfare wrote: I don't know what information you're referring to, but if it reveals personal information that someone has requested be removed, I don't see why you would restore it. People may have been accusing you of censorship for moving material to pages that Google isn't crawling, but I certainly haven't been among them.
Thanks for answering and doing so honestly.GorillaWarfare wrote:Not sure if protocol when catching up on a lot of posts is to reply individually or en masse, but I'll go with en masse...
I don't know what information you're referring to, but if it reveals personal information that someone has requested be removed, I don't see why you would restore it. People may have been accusing you of censorship for moving material to pages that Google isn't crawling, but I certainly haven't been among them.SB_Johnny wrote: GW, since you're here, maybe you could answer Zoloft's earlier question. It's become rather tiresome when we are on the one hand condemned for allowing certain kinds of commentary, while on the other hand accused of censorship when we move things away from Google's panoptical view.
Zoloft wrote:Since we're now apparently under ARBCOM control, should I restore the posts by one of our members discussing various indiscretions and shenanigans by a Wikipedia complainant to public view?
SB_Johnny, Hex, and I have been removing this information from view and search engine access to protect this person's reputation from further deteriorating.
Does ARBCOM want us to behave as poorly as Wikipedia does?
This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like a sitting member of ARBCOM to reply to me either here or at the 'Temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges' page.
Question: do you want us to restore the entire topic to view, or not? Bear in mind the hidden posts reveal personal information about a Wikipedian. Information we've hidden before at their request.
I'll wait right here.
1. I can't give you a coefficient, but generally: experienced Wikipedians are familiar with the policies. I don't think that all experienced Wikipedians are good arbitrators, nor do I think all good arbitrators are experienced Wikipedians, but I generally think it's important for those serving on the committee to be both familiar with the policies they're working with, and used to editing the encyclopedia under them.Vigilant wrote: 1) What do you suppose the correlation between 'experienced Wikipedians' and 'good at arbitration' is?
2) Why do you suppose that 'volunteers' (read elected in a popularity contest) would be a reasonable way to handle nearly intractable disputes such as Northern Ireland or Israel v Palestine?
3) What makes you think that the outcomes of your tribunals are anywhere near reasonable or best outcomes for an encyclopedia project?
4) Do you think your public postings in relation to Oliver Keyes' horrific shitposts (he's my friend) were the hallmark of someone level-headed and impartial?
5) Do you think that the ARBCOM's historic rulings would land anywhere near what a group of professional arbitrators would?
2. Because it's the best we've got. I do think the committee would benefit from people who are trained and experienced in arbitration, but I am certainly not going to spend my own money on the training. It would be great if someone either paid for volunteer Wikipedians to be trained in arbitration, or for experienced arbitrators to be hired, but for now we're making do.
3. I'm curious to hear what you would suggest when situations are not resolved after multiple dispute resolution steps, etc. It's definitely possible that arbitration doesn't produce the best results, but I don't personally have an alternative suggestion.
4. Hm, I'm getting deja vu. I had hoped that I'd answered your questions about my comments on Ironholds sufficiently then, since you'd stopped asking them, but here it appears that I had not. "Public postings" is a bit of a stretch, given that I made the comment you're referring to in an IRC private message that badmachine later posted publicly. Do I think referring to someone as my friend was "level-headed and impartial"? Certainly not impartial, but I don't see where impartiality was expected. I have friends who are Wikipedians, and I recuse if there's a situation where I'd need to be impartial about their actions. Nowhere have I condoned the violent comments that Ironholds made; in fact, last time this came up I agreed with you that his comments were "vile and unprofessional". Was I less aware of the severity of these kinds of comments when they were made? Certainly. But did I condone it? No. If you have any more questions about this, please ask me about them (here, in another thread, privately, whatever is most suitable) because this seems to be a pretty common topic here, and there seem to be misunderstandings.
5. I honestly have no idea. I would assume not, though this would also depend somewhat on the professional arbitrators' knowledge of the site. These questions lead me to believe that you think I think that the Arbitration Committee is somehow more capable of arbitration than professional arbitrators, which is not a view I hold.
What this forum needs is a Rot13 tool for the mods that allows you to select a section of text and Rot13 it in place in someone's post.Hex wrote:Did you go to FBI School?? I can't handle this incisive questioning!Vigilant wrote:So, uhhhh, what was it?Hex wrote: You did see earlier where I wrote "I'm not at liberty to divulge what it was", right?
P.S.... Lest Triptych take my non-addressing of his comment as some kind of silent acknowledgement, that post was subsequently removed by the mods. These days I'd work out a different way to deal with any similar situation. Or maybe just go and make a cup of tea instead and let somebody else.
None that immediately come to mind.Vigilant wrote:Do you have any questions for me?
GorillaWarfare wrote:None that immediately come to mind.Vigilant wrote:Do you have any questions for me?
What's your opinion on toaster-hole depth?Vigilant wrote:GorillaWarfare wrote:None that immediately come to mind.Vigilant wrote:Do you have any questions for me?
Boxers or briefs?Vigilant wrote:GorillaWarfare wrote:None that immediately come to mind.Vigilant wrote:Do you have any questions for me?
AH!Randy from Boise wrote:Boxers or briefs?Vigilant wrote:GorillaWarfare wrote:None that immediately come to mind.Vigilant wrote:Do you have any questions for me?
RfB
1. An alternate theory would have it that people experienced with editing Wikipedia are too heavily invested in it to make fair and unbiased arbitration decisions. In my view, editing and arbitration are different skill sets, one does not necessarily lead to the other.GorillaWarfare wrote:1. I can't give you a coefficient, but generally: experienced Wikipedians are familiar with the policies. I don't think that all experienced Wikipedians are good arbitrators, nor do I think all good arbitrators are experienced Wikipedians, but I generally think it's important for those serving on the committee to be both familiar with the policies they're working with, and used to editing the encyclopedia under them.Vigilant wrote: 1) What do you suppose the correlation between 'experienced Wikipedians' and 'good at arbitration' is?
2) Why do you suppose that 'volunteers' (read elected in a popularity contest) would be a reasonable way to handle nearly intractable disputes such as Northern Ireland or Israel v Palestine?
3) What makes you think that the outcomes of your tribunals are anywhere near reasonable or best outcomes for an encyclopedia project?
4) Do you think your public postings in relation to Oliver Keyes' horrific shitposts (he's my friend) were the hallmark of someone level-headed and impartial?
5) Do you think that the ARBCOM's historic rulings would land anywhere near what a group of professional arbitrators would?
2. Because it's the best we've got. I do think the committee would benefit from people who are trained and experienced in arbitration, but I am certainly not going to spend my own money on the training. It would be great if someone either paid for volunteer Wikipedians to be trained in arbitration, or for experienced arbitrators to be hired, but for now we're making do.
3. I'm curious to hear what you would suggest when situations are not resolved after multiple dispute resolution steps, etc. It's definitely possible that arbitration doesn't produce the best results, but I don't personally have an alternative suggestion.
4. Hm, I'm getting deja vu. I had hoped that I'd answered your questions about my comments on Ironholds sufficiently then, since you'd stopped asking them, but here it appears that I had not. "Public postings" is a bit of a stretch, given that I made the comment you're referring to in an IRC private message that badmachine later posted publicly. Do I think referring to someone as my friend was "level-headed and impartial"? Certainly not impartial, but I don't see where impartiality was expected. I have friends who are Wikipedians, and I recuse if there's a situation where I'd need to be impartial about their actions. Nowhere have I condoned the violent comments that Ironholds made; in fact, last time this came up I agreed with you that his comments were "vile and unprofessional". Was I less aware of the severity of these kinds of comments when they were made? Certainly. But did I condone it? No. If you have any more questions about this, please ask me about them (here, in another thread, privately, whatever is most suitable) because this seems to be a pretty common topic here, and there seem to be misunderstandings.
5. I honestly have no idea. I would assume not, though this would also depend somewhat on the professional arbitrators' knowledge of the site. These questions lead me to believe that you think I think that the Arbitration Committee is somehow more capable of arbitration than professional arbitrators, which is not a view I hold.
I believe you are right that editing and administrating/arbing are different skill sets.Kevin wrote: 1. An alternate theory would have it that people experienced with editing Wikipedia are too heavily invested in it to make fair and unbiased arbitration decisions. In my view, editing and arbitration are different skill sets, one does not necessarily lead to the other.
2. If you feel that arbitration training would be useful to be an arbitrator, why aren't you doing it? Have you or the other ever asked WMF for funding for this? Does the committee discuss its shortcomings, and methods to remedy them?
Hmmm. I'm waiting for an answer back from Alison about a recent edit of mine that she suppressed.Triptych wrote:Nope, too late to stop Wikipedia administrator Scott, formerly Scott Martin, formerly Hex, formerly ? from being resysoped.
It might not be all the answer, but it's hard to see it making them worse arbitrators than they are now. As for frequent elections, that hasn't achieved anything positive so far. I doubt it will in future.Randy from Boise wrote:I believe you are right that editing and administrating/arbing are different skill sets.Kevin wrote: 1. An alternate theory would have it that people experienced with editing Wikipedia are too heavily invested in it to make fair and unbiased arbitration decisions. In my view, editing and arbitration are different skill sets, one does not necessarily lead to the other.
2. If you feel that arbitration training would be useful to be an arbitrator, why aren't you doing it? Have you or the other ever asked WMF for funding for this? Does the committee discuss its shortcomings, and methods to remedy them?
I don't think training is the answer. Frequent elections are the best we can do. The current ArbCom has been a great disappointment, outside of perhaps two people. NYB is missed.
RfB
Despite the logistics, I think training would be a good idea for the foundation to put in place. As suggested, it can only help on the actual decisions, it will act as an incentive to do the work and do it right too.Randy from Boise wrote: I believe you are right that editing and administrating/arbing are different skill sets.
I don't think training is the answer. Frequent elections are the best we can do. The current ArbCom has been a great disappointment, outside of perhaps two people. NYB is missed.
RfB
I just got back from Big Sur a few hours back, so pardon the delay. I was largely without intarweb for nearly four days, something I enjoyed way more than I expected.MZMcBride wrote:Hmmm. I'm waiting for an answer back from Alison about a recent edit of mine that she suppressed.Triptych wrote:Nope, too late to stop Wikipedia administrator Scott, formerly Scott Martin, formerly Hex, formerly ? from being resysoped.
*cough* Charles Matthews.turnedworm wrote:Frequent elections mean bugger all, if you've been an arbitrator in the past you are a shoo-in, no matter how ineffective you've been. The only time your not is if you do something particularly egregious, causing a lot of drama.
Very true. I just ended up on this page:Hex wrote:Thank you! Very useful post. That also contributes to my general theme of pointing out how bad WP's documentation practices are for most parts of its history.
