December 2015 Arbitration Committee Elections

[Jim]

But yeah, 90% won't.

Meh. You'd have got my vote. That would have been two, so far, and 2 maybes.

[NativeForeigner]

But yeah, 90% won't.

Meh. You'd have got my vote. That would have been two.

Eh. Why would you? I'm trying to gain some minimal insight to see whether or not I ought to. I know some people will vote for me just because I used to be on arbcom. Some against for the same reason. But essentially what did i do that you liked/would cause you to support? If I can continue to do these things, and people would vote for me, I'll more seriously consider a run. I've sort of been running on the assumption that I've not done that well, which given all the criticism is a fair conclusion to reach. But nonetheless, should by continued presence be desired I'd be willing if I could take some sort of an inter-term break.

[Zironic]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone write anything bad about you NativeForeigner, which is better then what can be said about most members of arbcom.

[NativeForeigner]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone write anything bad about you NativeForeigner, which is better then what can be said about most members of arbcom.

Eh, I perhaps am more sensitive than most. I've taken flak recently over drafting of the GMO case, and that may be clouding memory.

Also I remember getting a barnstar of decapitation last year, which was memorable to say the least.

Also see my comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =690739393

This interaction somewhat... stifled my enthusiasm.

[Jim]

But yeah, 90% won't.

Meh. You'd have got my vote. That would have been two.

Eh. Why would you? I'm trying to gain some minimal insight to see whether or not I ought to. I know some people will vote for me just because I used to be on arbcom. Some against for the same reason. But essentially what did i do that you liked/would cause you to support? If I can continue to do these things, and people would vote for me, I'll more seriously consider a run. I've sort of been running on the assumption that I've not done that well, which given all the criticism is a fair conclusion to reach. But nonetheless, should by continued presence be desired I'd be willing if I could take some sort of an inter-term break.

I'm sorry, I can't help you much, except to say I always saw you talk sense, act well, and be honest.
It's telling, I guess, that should set you apart from the current field, bar 2 (imo), but there it is.

[Carcharoth]

On the other hand if I would replace an arbitrator who I was in disagreement with even not entirely complete engagement and fighting on all matters would be better than some. Given that we had a ton of individuals on arbcom more or less go entirely inactive recently, some of whom are running, I suppose my threshold for what I consider to be active is a bit higher than what some others have set.

My advice would be the following:

*If an arbitrator you think would make the committee worse is standing for re-election, you should stand as well if you are happy with carrying on with the role. But only if you are happy doing the role (some people are better off out of it).
*You need to be fully committed to the election process and have time to answer the questions.
*You would get my vote (FWIW).
*If inactivity is something that bothers you about others, call them out on it.

[NativeForeigner]

On the other hand if I would replace an arbitrator who I was in disagreement with even not entirely complete engagement and fighting on all matters would be better than some. Given that we had a ton of individuals on arbcom more or less go entirely inactive recently, some of whom are running, I suppose my threshold for what I consider to be active is a bit higher than what some others have set.

My advice would be the following:

*If an arbitrator you think would make the committee worse is standing for re-election, you should stand as well if you are happy with carrying on with the role. But only if you are happy doing the role (some people are better off out of it).
*You need to be fully committed to the election process and have time to answer the questions.
*You would get my vote (FWIW).
*If inactivity is something that bothers you about others, call them out on it.

I'll certainly be asking some pointed questions if I don't run. I'm not sure what procedure is for asking questions should I.

Something to think on. Thanks Carcharoth.

[Casliber]

On the other hand if I would replace an arbitrator who I was in disagreement with even not entirely complete engagement and fighting on all matters would be better than some. Given that we had a ton of individuals on arbcom more or less go entirely inactive recently, some of whom are running, I suppose my threshold for what I consider to be active is a bit higher than what some others have set.

My advice would be the following:

*If an arbitrator you think would make the committee worse is standing for re-election, you should stand as well if you are happy with carrying on with the role. But only if you are happy doing the role (some people are better off out of it).
*You need to be fully committed to the election process and have time to answer the questions.
*You would get my vote (FWIW).
*If inactivity is something that bothers you about others, call them out on it.

Yeah pretty much what he said. Though I have less of a problem with segments of inactivity.

[Jim]

Yeah pretty much what he said. Though I have less of a problem with segments of inactivity.

As long as NF stands again, I'm happy.

Thanks also to the "distinguished" ex arbs for joining this "clinic". Feels like the old days.

[Kumioko]

On the other hand if I would replace an arbitrator who I was in disagreement with even not entirely complete engagement and fighting on all matters would be better than some. Given that we had a ton of individuals on arbcom more or less go entirely inactive recently, some of whom are running, I suppose my threshold for what I consider to be active is a bit higher than what some others have set.

My advice would be the following:

*If an arbitrator you think would make the committee worse is standing for re-election, you should stand as well if you are happy with carrying on with the role. But only if you are happy doing the role (some people are better off out of it).
*You need to be fully committed to the election process and have time to answer the questions.
*You would get my vote (FWIW).
*If inactivity is something that bothers you about others, call them out on it.

I'll certainly be asking some pointed questions if I don't run. I'm not sure what procedure is for asking questions should I.

Something to think on. Thanks Carcharoth.

Given my experiences with the current arbcom I can't really provide anything positive to help you decide. As I stated elsewhere I wouldn't vote for any incumbent after what I saw the last couple years.

Just because some folks like me won't vote for you though shouldn't stop you from running again if its something you want to do. No one ever got 100% so some oppose votes are just part of the game. You are one of the more level headed ones however and one of the few I may have supported if I was still able too. For me, it would depend a lot on the answers in relation to the last time you ran and what you actually did. Several of the Arbs said one thing and are answering the current questions in a way that is exactly opposite from what they did and said on various cases. Their just pandering to the mob to get reelected.

So, If its not something you want and you want to get back to editing then you should not run again and be happy in the thought that you did your time. The project needs more editors anyway, not more arbs. Plus you guys got rid of BASC so that's one segment of the workload none of the arbs took seriously anyway out of the way so it shouldn't be as bad as it was.

[Moral Hazard]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone write anything bad about you NativeForeigner, which is better then what can be said about most members of arbcom.

I remember getting a barnstar of decapitation last year, which was memorable to say the least.

Barnstar of decapitation

For driving the productive writer Badger Drink (T-C-L) off Wikipedia, Scott MacDonald (T-C-L) [CENSORED] earned this Barnstar of Decapitation.

I did license my barnstar of decapitation under the CC BY SA license; did I receive an acknowledgment? Otherwise, a Copyright Infringement Investigation could be started....

Like Salvio, Native Foreigner discussed unbanning me with integrity and according to policy, even before the WMF banned Demiurge1000 from all projects. For his and Salvio's efforts, I am grateful.

(I believe that, during our brief discussions, I humbly suggested that Arbcom was wasting his time, and so I am pleased that he shall likely not run again.)

[Kumioko]

Whenever arbcom is talking to anyone about lifting a ban, its a waste of their time. The only time Arbcom lifts a ban on anyone is when they grovel on bend and knee and kiss the ring. The BASC process was never about allowing banned editors to come back and be productive, it was designed to be a way to blackmail and extort editors who wanted to return into doing what the Arbcom says and wants.

[Carcharoth]

In other news, Gamaliel (T-C-L)and NE Ent (T-C-L) have submitted candidacies for the election. Salvidrim! (T-C-L) has withdrawn and endorsed others instead.

Best voter guide so far:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bish ... e_ACE_2015

The fireworks pic is a nice touch.

[slacker]

NE Ent? Dear Lord. If anyone's running a pool, can I have him as coming dead last (not counting all the complete no-hopers, of course).

And classy as always, here's Giano using the questions page to imply Kevin Gorman has some kind of stress related illness that would make him unfit to serve. diff Why? Because he has no time for Giano's gender trolling (he's obviously getting as much of it in before his topic ban comes into force). I'd say that was proof positive that Kevin has his head screwed on. It's only complete and total idiots who entertain the idea that the sewage that continually and unceasingly spills out of Giano's mouth in the name of free speech is of any use to anybody.

[Kumioko]

In other news, Gamaliel (T-C-L)and NE Ent (T-C-L) have submitted candidacies for the election. Salvidrim! (T-C-L) has withdrawn and endorsed others instead.

Best voter guide so far:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bish ... e_ACE_2015

The fireworks pic is a nice touch.

I have to say I like the table and it mostly matches my own feelings although I would not support NewYorkBrad myself. The whole notion of encouraging the community to contact my employer still has a bitter feeling for me. I do agree that most incumbants likely won't get reelected, I agree with their assessment of Kirill and several others. I do not think Rich or some of the other neutral ones will get it either though, so all in all this is going to be an interesting voting season.

[Vigilant]

I have high hopes that the morons at en.wp will elect the worst ever slate of candidates who will continue the monotonically decreasing curve of ARBCOM's ability and judgement.
At some point in the near future, the WMF will look on aghast as a slate of blind cave moles is elected on a straight ticket.

Go morons!

[Kumioko]

I have high hopes that the morons at en.wp will elect the worst ever slate of candidates who will continue the monotonically decreasing curve of ARBCOM's ability and judgement.
At some point in the near future, the WMF will look on aghast as a slate of blind cave moles is elected on a straight ticket.

Go morons!

Well said!

[Liz99]

I have high hopes that the morons at en.wp will elect the worst ever slate of candidates who will continue the monotonically decreasing curve of ARBCOM's ability and judgement.
At some point in the near future, the WMF will look on aghast as a slate of blind cave moles is elected on a straight ticket.

Go morons!

I feel like a broken record here but I just spent part of the last day or two reading old cases and user talk pages from 2005-2007, trying to understand the history of some feuds, why some high profile editors left when they did, etc. And though the climate 8 years ago was very different (there were editors who really used WP as a social support group), I just see the same complaints about ArbCom that I see today. People have always complained about the AC being out-of-touch, over-reaching (and, simultaneously, not being proactive), being secretive, being political (when compromising is part of the job), in fact I have never come across any editor saying ArbCom was doing a good job. So, I don't really know how we can compare this year's ArbCom against other year's ArbComs because I don't see any year being held up as an example of ArbCom doing a great job.

That said, I did wonder what the heck happened in Spring 2013 because two arbitrators quit in the space of a week which must have been due to some friction and frustration. I don't get the sense that is the case with the recent departures from ArbCom where Yunshui is withdrawing from Wikipedia completely and Euryalus wants to work on other parts of the project.

[Kumioko]

I have high hopes that the morons at en.wp will elect the worst ever slate of candidates who will continue the monotonically decreasing curve of ARBCOM's ability and judgement.
At some point in the near future, the WMF will look on aghast as a slate of blind cave moles is elected on a straight ticket.

Go morons!

I feel like a broken record here but I just spent part of the last day or two reading old cases and user talk pages from 2005-2007, trying to understand the history of some feuds, why some high profile editors left when they did, etc. And though the climate 8 years ago was very different (there were editors who really used WP as a social support group), I just see the same complaints about ArbCom that I see today. People have always complained about the AC being out-of-touch, over-reaching (and, simultaneously, not being proactive), being secretive, being political (when compromising is part of the job), in fact I have never come across any editor saying ArbCom was doing a good job. So, I don't really know how we can compare this year's ArbCom against other year's ArbComs because I don't see any year being held up as an example of ArbCom doing a great job.

That said, I did wonder what the heck happened in Spring 2013 because two arbitrators quit in the space of a week which must have been due to some friction and frustration. I don't get the sense that is the case with the recent departures from ArbCom where Yunshui is withdrawing from Wikipedia completely and Euryalus wants to work on other parts of the project.

I hope at the same time you noticed certain arbitrators said one thing to get elected (as they are doing now) and said and did something completely different in the cases they presided over. Its almost as if some of them said just what the community wanted to hear in order to get elected.

[Poetlister]

In other news, Gamaliel (T-C-L)and NE Ent (T-C-L) have submitted candidacies for the election.

Nobody's expressed horror about Gamaliel yet.

[AnimuAvatar]

Someone linked me this over IRC: http://poal.me/3i3wmw (The poll itself is, well a poll, the chatlog however does have an anti-semetic joke)
This will surely end well. /s

[Liz99]

I hope at the same time you noticed certain arbitrators said one thing to get elected (as they are doing now) and said and did something completely different in the cases they presided over. Its almost as if some of them said just what the community wanted to hear in order to get elected.

I don't have the patience and time to go through old candidate statements and the endless Q&A that gets lobbed at them. Some of the questions are so pointed or so arcane, I'm surprised they get answered.

[Peryglus]

Mahensingha (T-C-L) is now a candidate. Has no chance. (4,461 edits wtf)

I'm stil waiting for the deluge of nominations that should come just about 24 hours from now.

[Zironic]

And though the climate 8 years ago was very different (there were editors who really used WP as a social support group)

To me many Wikipedia user talk pages don't read particularly different from a facebook feed. In what way would you say that WP has become anything less of a social support group then it used to be?

[Cedric]

I have high hopes that the morons at en.wp will elect the worst ever slate of candidates who will continue the monotonically decreasing curve of ARBCOM's ability and judgement.
At some point in the near future, the WMF will look on aghast as a slate of blind cave moles is elected on a straight ticket.

Go morons!

This seems pretty likely to me, as past is so often prologue.

GO TEAM MORONS!

In other news, Gamaliel (T-C-L)and NE Ent (T-C-L) have submitted candidacies for the election.

Nobody's expressed horror about Gamaliel yet.

That's because Joe Hazelton parted company with our merry band some years ago. Hence the lack of "flaming lake of shit" references.

[Casliber]

I have high hopes that the morons at en.wp will elect the worst ever slate of candidates who will continue the monotonically decreasing curve of ARBCOM's ability and judgement.
At some point in the near future, the WMF will look on aghast as a slate of blind cave moles is elected on a straight ticket.

Go morons!

I feel like a broken record here but I just spent part of the last day or two reading old cases and user talk pages from 2005-2007, trying to understand the history of some feuds, why some high profile editors left when they did, etc. And though the climate 8 years ago was very different (there were editors who really used WP as a social support group), I just see the same complaints about ArbCom that I see today. People have always complained about the AC being out-of-touch, over-reaching (and, simultaneously, not being proactive), being secretive, being political (when compromising is part of the job), in fact I have never come across any editor saying ArbCom was doing a good job. So, I don't really know how we can compare this year's ArbCom against other year's ArbComs because I don't see any year being held up as an example of ArbCom doing a great job.

That said, I did wonder what the heck happened in Spring 2013 because two arbitrators quit in the space of a week which must have been due to some friction and frustration. I don't get the sense that is the case with the recent departures from ArbCom where Yunshui is withdrawing from Wikipedia completely and Euryalus wants to work on other parts of the project.

Sometimes the origins of antipathy can be hard to track. A couple of times it took years for me to figure and they were quite obscure links. There are plenty and many superficially "civil" people like "dishes served cold".

[Moral Hazard]

I partition the candidates into the following clusters. Reformers, whom I would support; technocrats and lightweights, whom I could consider tactically supporting this year; safe spacers, whom reformers should oppose but "hasten the day" voters could support; strange men who nobody should support, based on their apparent inability to understand dangers to children; and unknowns.

Reformers (writers):

• Casliber (T-C-L)
  Drmies (T-C-L)
  Timtrent (T-C-L)

Technocrats:

• NE Ent (T-C-L): Rules are rules.
  Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L): Former arbitrator who usually did good work. Now, employed by the WMF and no longer active, apart from block of Eric Corbett.
  Hawkeye7 (T-C-L): Previously hotheaded and authoritarian. His statment suggested that he recognized some of the errors of this year's arbcom.

Lightweights: These editors wrote vapid statements, which suggests that they are dishonest or immature.

• Keilana (T-C-L)
  Kelapstick (T-C-L)
  Samtar (T-C-L)

Unsuitable:

• Rich Farmbrough (T-C-L): Often helpful and intelligent editor with obsessive tendencies, particularly around his bots.

Safe spacers:
They argue that improving civility will end the oppression of women on Wikipedia, also reducing patriarchal bias of articles—a proposition worth considering.
The main problem is that the first four behave like Trotskyists in coordinating their actions and supporting one another; please use the search facilities at this site to learn more about the first four.

• MarkBernstein (T-C-L): Journalist and activist, particularly on gamer gate.
  Gamaliel (T-C-L): Self-important poseur, boring, involved actions on gamer gate
  GorillaWarfare (T-C-L): Votes according to politics, with little participation in drafting cases or discussing issues. Claims to be a feminist, but when Ironholds was bragging about slapping a woman around, proposing murdering numerous celebrities, and advising an editor on how to murder a woman (with a pen through the throat), GorillaWarfare vouched for him as a good feminist.
  Kevin Gorman (T-C-L): Hyperactive genderista. Still recovering from brain infection, with slurred speech and odd behavior.
  Opabinia regalis (T-C-L): Largely an unknown, but the statement reveals the politics.

Child-protection concerns:
Demiurge1000 (T-C-L)? Not a problem!

It may be that these atypical men suffer from autism or Asperger's syndrome or another neurological disorder, which would explain some of their behavior. They should not be allowed to warp Arbcom and Wikipedia around their personal interests, since they seem incapable of judging the risks to children.

• Kudpung (T-C-L): Middle-aged man who has met dozens of children without supervision but who does not see it is as a problem or risk. In the summer of 2015 (!), claimed to know no examples of dangers to children from such meetings. viewtopic.php?p=162136#p162136
  Thryduulf (T-C-L): Protector of Demiurge1000. Advertises that he edits nude. On commons, opposes deletion of oral-sex pictures. Dedicated thread: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7063&hilit=thryduulf
  Callanecc (T-C-L): Another protector of Demiurge1000. Culturally illiterate and officious about the masturbation technique of young men: Take it easy if it hurts! viewtopic.php?p=161468#p161468

All of us know strange men who are harmless, but they do not need to to be on arbcom—to decide to ban users who have been behaving like child predators, etc., when they have put their heads in the sand for years.

Unknown:

• AKS.9955 (T-C-L)
  Mahensingha (T-C-L)
  Wildthing61476 (T-C-L)

Updated: Link to Kudpung's 2015 discussion of privately meeting children and claim that he has no knowledge of any dangers.

[Kumioko]

I agree with a lot of that but I think more than half are unsuitable to be arbs including several who have been arbs in the past. For example:

I think Rich, GorillaWarfare, Kudpung and others are good people, but not suitable to be arbs although I would like to see Rich get it. If someone is running in the rules are rules camp then they shouldn't get it either. There should always be exceptions and the folks with these attitudes usually show that they will hold editors accountable to policy and let admins get away.

I also don't really get the arguments of Child protection issues. Those are pretty serious allegations and I don't like seeing them, even here, without some significant proof to back it up.

[Moral Hazard]

I also don't really get the arguments of Child protection issues. Those are pretty serious allegations and I don't like seeing them, even here, without some significant proof to back it up.

There are links, which you should have read before posting.

Update: I added direct hyperlinks to Kudpung's statements in 2015 about private meetings with children and denial of risk. In 2015, after all the sitebans by arbcom and by the WMF of editors whose behavior towards children was discussed here first.
The kindest thing one can imagine is that Kudpung is in denial about safety, despite child-editing being one of his favorite topics on Wikipedia for years, and despite his interventions in Wikipedia politics for years.

[Kumioko]

I also don't really get the arguments of Child protection issues. Those are pretty serious allegations and I don't like seeing them, even here, without some significant proof to back it up.

There are links, which you should have read before posting.

Update: I added direct hyperlinks to Kudpung's statements in 2015 about private meetings with children and denial of risk. In 2015, after all the sitebans by arbcom and by the WMF of editors whose behavior towards children was discussed here first.
The kindest thing one can imagine is that Kudpung is in denial about safety, despite child-editing being one of his favorite topics on Wikipedia for years, and despite his interventions in Wikipedia politics for years.

Actually I did read the links, I still don't really find them convincing though. Teachers interact with hundreds of children, it doesn't mean they are predators and just because Kudpung had conversations with editors on Wiki, whether underage or not isn't convincing of such behavior either. We ALL have had conversations with underage editors on wiki and off including IRC. Having a conversation is one thing, meeting them at public events like Wikimeetings or Wikiconferences with lots of like minded people gathering to talk about Wiki stuff isn't a compelling reason to call someone a predator either. When they start driving a van with Free Candy written on the side or inviting the kids over for pool parties then let me know. Otherwise your assessments of these editors being predators is uncalled for and Hyperbole. We really need more proof than unfounded conspiracies before we start accusing people of this sort of nonsense.

[Moral Hazard]

Kumioko, you have a reading disability.
Improved: Please re-read it. (Sorry for being a jerk.)
I do not call them predators. I say that they should not be handling cases regarding child safety, because of their failure to address real concerns: FFS, cannot you remember DCoetzee, Demiurge1000, ChinaBuffalo (sic.) etc. Somebody else can rattle of a list of names of persons exposed by this site. FFS, we just had a discussion of another Wikipedia editor arrested for child pornography (where I suggested changing the title to "alleged" or "accused"...[updated: since I too am sensitive to due process and avoiding ... vigilantism. end update]).

Updated: You also did not read Kudpung's statement with understanding. He is not talking about meeting minors in the context of a professional relationship where he is known by parents and other responsible persons, like a teacher, etc. He is talking about private meetings at Wikipedia meet-ups and skype meetings, etc.

[Liz99]

To me many Wikipedia user talk pages don't read particularly different from a facebook feed. In what way would you say that WP has become anything less of a social support group then it used to be?

There is no comparison. A popular editor would take a week off and when they returned to edit, there could be a couple dozen messages telling them how much they were missed (complete with little heart icons). Editors would have a list of their closest friends on their user pages. It was userbox- and barnstar-a-mania. Some editors spent a lot of time artistically designing their user pages or helping other editors to do so. Every accomplishment was greeted by talk page messages applauding them. Editors even wrote poems to their closest Wikipedia friends. Some editors saw their primary contribution to Wikipedia to be what I would call "emotional support" to other editors. There were active birthday committees posting messages on an editors' special day. And despite all of this wikilove, there were still complaints that Wikipedia wasn't a friendly-enough environment.

Of course, this was only a certain subset of editors and once the atmosphere changed, with an emphasis returning to focusing on the project rather than each other, by and large, those editors stopped editing. Part of this fraternity was fostered by the Esperanza project but it was also assisted by the IRC channels which seemed to be chat forums for editors to talk with and about each other.

But I'm sure people who have experience on Wikipedia during those years can share from their personal experience.

[Liz99]

Actually I did read the links, I still don't really find them convincing though. Teachers interact with hundreds of children, it doesn't mean they are predators and just because Kudpung had conversations with editors on Wiki, whether underage or not isn't convincing of such behavior either.

I read the links as well and I just don't read Kudpung's comments as enabling. He has said that he has taught school for over 40 years and mentioned in his ACE answers that he has children in their 40s. I just think he is of a generation that is less suspicious of editors being predators or being misogynist unless they are wearing a t-shirt proclaiming their point of view.

I studied a massive case of child abuse in the 1990s and found that frequently unless an individual was a parent of young children or had some personal experience with abuse as a child or adult, they often minimized the extent of child abuse and its effect on children unless there was severe violence involved. I remember one elderly man who described an experience as a child that was clearly sexual molestation who didn't think of it that way until he met victims of child abuse and heard their stories. For him, it was an uncomfortable encounter he didn't have a name for and he hid it back in his memory for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if his telling his story was the first time he had ever talked about the experience.

[Moral Hazard]

I studied a massive case of child abuse in the 1990s and found that frequently unless an individual was a parent of young children or had some personal experience with abuse as a child or adult, they often minimized the extent of child abuse and its effect on children unless there was severe violence involved.

Yes, many people don't understand the risks, particularly to children with disabilities---who are often targetted by predators and who are over-represented on Wikipedia.

I suspect that Kudpung is both in denial and clueless, given his years of interaction with strange editors, e.g.,

I particularly dislike the Wiki IRC channels and avoid them like the plague, but recent Skype conferences I have had on various projects have convinced me that it's an excellent way to get some honest work done without the background noise. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worth being clear about whether it's the choice of technology that's the problem, or the way it's used.

To be specific, for doing what you refer to as "honest work" on IRC, you wouldn't generally do it in one of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia IRC channels. That's the equivalent of thinking that a discussion about RFA reform will produce most productive results if held in WT:RFA - except worse, because channels like #wikipedia-en also regularly host trolls, and users who are banned on-wiki, and all sorts of other malcontents, plus people who are bored and want to discuss what they're having for dinner or their favourite meme (like... me).

So no, if you want a specific discussion about a specific topic on IRC, you create a separate channel for it (one command taking two seconds to type), and invite people who have something to contribute. Just as you would on Skype (where it's called a "conversation" not a "channel").

IRC doesn't do audio or video; but Skype does. IRC is useable by all users without needing to install anything, and is very efficient on bandwidth and client resource usage; Skype isn't. IRC allows instant access to a wide range of different Wikipedia editors with different skill sets and tool sets; Skype allows you to limit your interactions to people you've added to your contacts on Skype. They both have their pros and cons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the unique idea had nothing to do with communications. It's something I wanted to discuss with the coordinators over a 3-way video - which by the way performs with excellent results. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine - definitely not something IRC can be used for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung should take some responsibility and stop pretending that Wikipedia does not have risks for vulnerable users.
He also is prone to nasty outbursts, which should disqualify him also.

[Kumioko]

Kumioko, you have a reading disability.
I do not call them predators. I say that they should not be handling cases regarding child safety, because of their failure to address real concerns: FFS, cannot you remember DCoetzee, Demiurge1000, ChinaBuffalo (sic.) etc. Somebody else can rattle of a list of names of persons exposed by this site. FFS, we just had a discussion of another Wikipedia editor arrested for child pornography (where I suggested changing the title to "alleged" or "accused"...).

Updated: You also did not read Kudpung's statement with understanding. He is not talking about meeting minors in the context of a professional relationship where he is known by parents and other responsible persons, like a teacher, etc. He is talking about private meetings at Wikipedia meet-ups and skype meetings, etc.

Actually I read just fine but your comments are stupid, careless and libelous and I have a problem with that. I completely agree that if someone is arrested for child abuse or child porn or whatever then by all means we can discuss that at great length and detail. I do not agree that we should be making baseless accusations about editors simply on the grounds that they talked to a minor at a Wikimeetup or on Skype. I find Kudpung to be a little two faced but I simply don't agree that his statements show anything close to problematic behavior nor do the others you mention. In fact, the issue recently with the admin Neelix is far more troubling and to me shows much more of the signs of escalations of behavior that we would see from someone with the tendency to molest a child.

[Vigilant]

Kumioko, you have a reading disability.
I do not call them predators. I say that they should not be handling cases regarding child safety, because of their failure to address real concerns: FFS, cannot you remember DCoetzee, Demiurge1000, ChinaBuffalo (sic.) etc. Somebody else can rattle of a list of names of persons exposed by this site. FFS, we just had a discussion of another Wikipedia editor arrested for child pornography (where I suggested changing the title to "alleged" or "accused"...).

Updated: You also did not read Kudpung's statement with understanding. He is not talking about meeting minors in the context of a professional relationship where he is known by parents and other responsible persons, like a teacher, etc. He is talking about private meetings at Wikipedia meet-ups and skype meetings, etc.

Actually I read just fine but your comments are stupid, careless and libelous and I have a problem with that. I completely agree that if someone is arrested for child abuse or child porn or whatever then by all means we can discuss that at great length and detail. I do not agree that we should be making baseless accusations about editors simply on the grounds that they talked to a minor at a Wikimeetup or on Skype. I find Kudpung to be a little two faced but I simply don't agree that his statements show anything close to problematic behavior nor do the others you mention. In fact, the issue recently with the admin Neelix is far more troubling and to me shows much more of the signs of escalations of behavior that we would see from someone with the tendency to molest a child.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Please stop.

[Peryglus]

I think Rich, GorillaWarfare, Kudpung and others are good people, but not suitable to be arbs although I would like to see Rich get it..

This is contradictory. Is Rich suitable or not?

[thekohser]

...your comments are ...libelous...

I've found that on the Internet, when you see that phrase, about 90% of the time it isn't true.

I agree with Vigilant, just stop here now, Kumioko.

[Vigilant]

...your comments are ...libelous...

I've found that on the Internet, when you see that phrase, about 90% of the time it isn't true.

I agree with Vigilant, just stop here now, Kumioko.

The end times are upon us!!

[Kumioko]

...your comments are ...libelous...

I've found that on the Internet, when you see that phrase, about 90% of the time it isn't true.

I agree with Vigilant, just stop here now, Kumioko.

The end times are upon us!!

Hey this is your site so if you guys are ok with people making baseless accusations about others regarding inappropriate conduct towards underage children that's on you. But its pretty clear to anyone who reads it what Kiefer was inferring by their comments. If you have a problem with someone's comments it should be theirs.

[Kumioko]

I think Rich, GorillaWarfare, Kudpung and others are good people, but not suitable to be arbs although I would like to see Rich get it..

This is contradictory. Is Rich suitable or not?

Oh no I don't think he's suitable, but it would be amusing to see him get selected.

[Moral Hazard]

it's pretty clear to anyone who reads it what Kiefer was inferring by [his/hens] comments.

May I suggest that you intend "suggesting"?
Consider consulting a dictionary and a thesaurus.

Worm That Turned (T-C-L) said that Arbcom has on average 20 cases of suspected child-predators yearly. I don't want Kudpung on that committee given his comments, linked above, despite his familiarity with Demiurge1000, etc.
I don't want Thryduulf or Callanecc on the committee, as I stated above. I did not even mention the Wifione problem with the Indian diploma mill. The paranoia about considering off-Wiki evidence hinders judgment.

[Kumioko]

it's pretty clear to anyone who reads it what Kiefer was inferring by [his/hens] comments.

May I suggest that you intend "suggesting"?
Consider consulting a dictionary and a thesaurus.

Worm That Turned (T-C-L) said that Arbcom has on average 20 cases of suspected child-predators yearly. I don't want Kudpung on that committee given his comments, linked above, despite his familiarity with Demiurge1000, etc.
I don't want Thryduulf or Callanecc on the committee, as I stated above. I did not even mention the Wifione problem with the Indian diploma mill. The paranoia about considering off-Wiki evidence hinders judgment.

How about you stop acting like a dick and stop the personal attacks! Is that even possible? I don't know, but it would be kinda neat if you could try at least.

I wasn't suggesting or inferring anything. You did and I called you out. If others on this site don't care about you making potentially libelous statements than that's on them. I have spoken my piece on this issue and I am moving on to more important things...like editing articles.

[Moral Hazard]

it's pretty clear to anyone who reads it what Kiefer was inferring by [his/hens] comments.

May I suggest that you intend "suggesting"?
Consider consulting a dictionary and a thesaurus.

I wasn't suggesting or inferring anything. You did....

[thekohser]

I wasn't suggesting or inferring anything.

This would explain your apparent deficit in inference skills.

...more important things...like editing articles.

[Kumioko]

[Tarc]

That's because Joe Hazelton parted company with our merry band some years ago. Hence the lack of "flaming lake of shit" references.

Surprisingly maybe, but I'd welcome him if he showed up again. The world is a quieter place when "Sucking the Jimbo Juice" goes unsaid for this long...

[Moral Hazard]

Just announced, Hullaboo Wolfowitz (T-C-L) announced running and wrote

I was one of the editors who raised warning signals about Qworty (T-C-L) (but was unfortunately ignored), whose editing led to one of Wikipedia's worst public embarassments. I also was one of the first editors to object to the Committee's astonishingly insensitive proposed directive indicating female editors should not fight back actively against sexual harassment

Arbcom is inefficient and ineffective. It needs to resolve disputes more rapidly and more clearly, rather than trotting out a standard list of fossilized bromides. It has adopted procedures which incorporate time- and effort-wasting elements of the legal process without adopting procedures which promote efficiency, fairness, and good decisionmaking.

If elected to Arbcom, I will immediately propose, as a first step, that when a case is accepted, the Committee provide a clear statement of which matters it intends to address in that case. That will do much to eliminate the absurd waste of community time and effort when amorphous cases turn into free-fire zones and timesinks, both in evidence and workshop pages. I also believe far more discussion should take place in public.

Despite our similar names, H-Wolfowitz and I had only a few interactions. When I came across Hullaboo Wolfowitz, the editor seemed sensible and intelligent, just like in the above statement.

Support as a writer, part of the reform slate.

[Vigilant]

I was one of the editors who raised warning signals about Qworty (T-C-L)

I should toss my hat in the ring.

[Carcharoth]

Now 23 candidates.

Former arb Casliber (T-C-L).
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (T-C-L) (as mentioned above).
And now current arb LFaraone (T-C-L).

If you count the withdrawn candidate, that is 24. I wonder what the record number of candidates is? I suspect some may withdraw. It will be interesting to see if all the former and current arbs get in. They might not all do so. I may rustle up an on-wiki voter's guide, but really need to do so tonight as most votes go in early when voting opens.

The figures below are the final number of candidates when results announced (i.e. does not include candidates who withdrew before voting started and were not on the ballot paper).

2014: 20 candidates
2013: 23 candidates
2012: 21 candidates
2011: 17 candidates
2010: 21 candidates
2009: 22 candidates
2008: 28 candidates
2007: 34 candidates
2006: 37 candidates
2005: 68 candidates (January 2006)
2004 (December): 34 candidates
2004 (July): 10 candidates

That is the complete list (numbers not guaranteed to be 100% accurate). I am still astounded by some of those early names and numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... statements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... statements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Math ... nuary_2006
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ember_2004
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _July_2004