ARCHIVE 04: From Mediatorship to Guiding Esperanza Messages 221-290, dating from late September 2005 to October 2005 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
Hello Flcelloguy, as the acting chair I hereby christen you the medcom's newest mediator. You've earned it :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you are one of the 7 remaining active medcom members. I have immensely decluttered the WP:RFM page. Now I would like to start assigning people to cases. If you do not have the time for this, please remove yourself from the active listings. I hope that we can become active again, and we won't need WP:TINMC to cover for us as they have. Please check RfM frequently as I may be assigning you. And of course you can always turn down cases and choose your own, its not some kind of the-leaders-make-you-do-what-they-say deal... anywho, just saying I'm trying to revive the medcom. Thanks, Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that you like the changes, likewise with my pages. I checked yours viewed in IE6 yesterday and the layout is slightly different. I think it looks best in Firefox, but just goes to show we don't have only our personal reality tunnel to deal with! I found the short break from my usual practises good fun and a good stress relief. There are a number of things about your changes to my pages I like, and I'm in no rush to make changes. Alfmelmac 05:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JEFTA - "At the core of this WikiProject is the guideline to Be Bold! Just edit the f-ing article. Any article will do. If you come across an article that needs wikifying, rather than tagging it with {{wikify}}, instead just do it yourself! If there is an article with a {{cleanup}} or {{merge}} tag, clean it up or merge it! Try to encourage others to do the same. At this point (14:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)) there are thousands of articles tagged with various templates, that could easily be removed with very minor work." FYI. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is broader than simply the "extreme" voting. I don't see the point in voting neutral. It accomplishes nothing. If a user has not answered the questions, he can be notified on his talk page. Voting neutral in general seems like a fruitless effort resulting only in contribution inflation. freestylefrappe 03:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is LV guilty of voting "extreme," or did you vote no to prove a point? Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The extreme votes were simply connected to communal immaturity. I voted in opposition because of JETFA. freestylefrappe 20:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now get acceptance from both parties and find out how they want to mediate and run the case as you please. See RfM#Cberlet and Nobs01. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response. Unfortunetly, it may take me sometime to educate myself on the various proceedures & precedents associated with Wikipedia Mediation. If you can advise on the timeframes involved, or anyother source I can draw upon I'd much appreciate it. For now, I'm fine within Wikipedia at least until I'm brought up to speed on the various processes. Thank you. nobs 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Score counting has not been finished yet. I wanna add a few more last-minute points althought that doesn't change much about the final results. Congrats about the mediator stuff anyway. BTW are you a sysop? Deryck C. 06:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I WOULD like to do the question setting with you on alternate rounds. Deryck C. 07:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:MIND page says you want feedback on the rules. I'm coming around to thinking that the multipliers aren't necessarily a good thing. Even with the notification bot, they tend to make it a case of whoever gets to the quiz first will almost certainly win it.
My suggestion would be that the first right answer to each question gets just one bonus point. It would be enough to be decisive if the results were close, but it still leaves it possible for someone getting ten right answers to beat someone who only got, say, eight (depending on how much each question happened to be worth). Or maybe even drop the bonus points for being first entirely - would it be so bad if two, three, five, people happened to tie by getting all the answers right? If good faith is assumed, then although any answer other than the first could have been cheating, there's no real way to counter it, without also making the whole quiz unfair for those who happened to miss out on catching the quiz when it first went up.
What could be included instead would be that any question that goes unanswered for 24 hours gets (5?) extra points when it is answered correctly, 48 hours and it gets more, 72 hours and it gets more still.
I think there are still problems with the above scoring method, but I imagine there are going to be problems with any scoring method. As it is at the moment, the multipliers seem to be too much of a factor in the overall result though. (Although, obviously, I'm not grumbling about past results or anything like that, I'm just giving input for future WP:MINDs).
Keep up the good work. It's much appreciated. KeithD(talk) 12:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on moving up the feeding chain! -- Essjay · Talk 13:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I'm happy for you, celebrate! I'm sure you will be one great mediator and wish you all the best... Gryffindor 15:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you left a message on the talk page of 135.214.154.104 about a block. I just corrected vandalism to Owens Community College and Duct tape by this IP. There are a couple of warnings already on the user's talk page. Is there a history I should know about? Please advise. Thanks, Chick Bowen 23:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I always thought that cropped photo was you playing ;) Beware, it might be deleted soon as its source is not clear. =Nichalp«Talk»= 09:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping by and telling you that you're doing a wonderful job at RC patrolling &mdash your name keeps popping up! Keep up the good work! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much :) I'm finding that this is one of the the great things about Wikipedia; when I don't have the drive or energy to do major work on articles, there's still plenty of fun little jobs to do.
P.S. If those AOL IPs get annoying, just let me know and I'll block 'em for a couple minutes. :-)
Nah, no need. Most of them aren't really persistent, and I think just reverting their pranks and leaving them messages does more to illustrate the Wiki Way than banning them would.
Anyway, thanks again, your note was much appreciated! --Ashenai 16:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I can use the notification bot to advertize my nom? I think the WP:MIND and WP:HKCOTW people are quite willing to help. Deryck C. 16:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for jumping in on the conversation. I'd advise against it. It could be construed as touting for votes. Whilst I'd be happy to support you as an admin - and I'll head off and do so right now - using the notification bot for "personal gain" would put me off. KeithD(talk) 16:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might want to know that I gave this user a test4 to follow your test3. There was vandalism to Benjamin Franklin & Halloween. Thanks and see you around! Psy guy(talk) 21:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Psy guy(talk) 23:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see that you protected the Criticism of Islam page. Please note that the content dispute is over some additions that I made to the "History" section of the article. A certain group of users then started a revert war, trying to delete the content that I added, as I descrided in the talk page. Other users tried to prevent them from deleting my additions, until the revert war was halted by your page protection. HOWEVER, I would like to point out to you that neither the person who initiated the revert war by deleting my additions, nor any of his supporters, have written ANYTHING about their reverts in the talk page - neither before nor after your page protection. Yet you have protected the page in the REVERTED state (i.e. the state with my additions removed). I have explained this in the talk page and have been trying to get these people to explain their reverts, but they have refused to use the talk page. I feel that it is inappropriate that the page has been protected in the reverted state when the people who started the revert war refuse to use the talk page, even after the page has been protected. I think that you should protect the page in the alternate state, not because I believe that my edits deserve special treatment, but because I think that only when you do so will the revert warriors start using the talk page. Right now you have locked the article in the state that they prefer so they are refraining from using the talk page. I think it is only fair that the article either be unprotected or it be protected in the alternate state. -- Zeno of Elea 23:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my first ever spam mass produced and mailed to the spamlist. Well first of all let me re-state that we have an irc channel, #wp-esperanza, and its been rather empty, so I'd appreciate it if you come, even if you just idle about. Now, the evil polls have closed, and I left a justification note for running the evil polls. Nothing has really changed, but at least I have somewhat of a consensus. I hope to figure out a way to overturn my power to JCarriker somehow, I'll figure out a way :-) Meanwhile, I've been busy reforming the mediation system where I am the chairman now, er, acting chairman. Enjoy your spam, with extra vikings. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can unprotect this page now. I talked to one of my school's technicians, and they are going to block the edit page for Wikipedia on the school computers. The person who was vandalising Maine East's IP adress talk page was using a school computer... Cosmos 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
69.210.246.16 is the IP of the vandal from his house. It is the same person who has gotten blocked from his school IP address (66.99.49.226). My school will soon be blocking the ability to edit Wikipedia pages, so banning this person's home IP address will make it nearly impossible for them to cause more damage. Here[1] is where I copied his IP address from, after he told me he had "played" with my talk page, earlier today at school. Cosmos 18:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That recent vandalism you reverted on User:Gene Poole occured more than a week after I protected that page...Do you think I should protect it again? Also, I'm tempted to delete the entire page, and recover only the non-vandalism edits. The vandalism has cluttered that page history so much, it warrants some fixing I think to improve clarity. --HappyCamper 21:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about the deletion of the page to clean up the history? Yay, or nay? --HappyCamper 21:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I had quite a bit of experience with this after deleting Splash's entire talk page with 500+ edits in it! :-) As far as I can tell, you actually have to delete the entire page first, then restore all the ones that you want. You can do this selectively, so if you wanted to get rid of one particular edit, you'd have to delete the entire page first, then restore everything you want except for that particular edit. Very messy to do if the page history is long. Alternatively, you can ask Tim to do this, but should be reserved for very serious cases I think. The one time I remember him using it, he deleted an edit which involved an entire text dump of some Harry Potter text.
Ah, and by the way, a very belated congrats on being a Mediator! :-) I had no idea you were involved with mediation until very recently. --HappyCamper
Hello, Cool Cat. I was just wondering what the Counter-Vandalism Unit does (besides fighting vandalism, I mean... :-)) What does the bot do, and what does the "rollback" thingie mean? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Counter Vandalism Unit is designed to combat vandalism on wikipedia in general. It at the moment operates on 8 more popular languages and meta wiki. The bot serves on IRC and flags potentialy "bad" edits. Users must check the output and determine an action. The bot itself does not take any direct action. Generaly 10-20 users are active on #en.wikipedia.vandalism.
Aside from vandalims the bot detects copy vios as well. This was an unintentional result though.
"rollback" is a function designed for admin only usage. It does not work for non admins. This is because of mediawiki's design.
The rollback thing generates an eyes only url that when clicked on reverts the page without any more hassle. I am not actualy sure if it works as so far no one has used it. :) --Cool CatTalk 22:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been swishing around with this newfangled mop of mine, I've seen you all over the place. I just wanted to say that I admire your work here. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 15:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted images uploaded without permission of the copyright holder, or under a license which does not permit commercial use, which are not currently used in any article, if more than seven days old (so-called "orphaned fair use images"). Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.
This isn't the one added by Jimbo two weeks ago... it was added by User:Kelly Martin with the edit summary "added jimbo-approved orphan fair use images" (see diff). It was added with very little fanfare and presumably nobody noticed. Some admins like Zscout370 have actually been deleting orphan fair use images for weeks, but it was only added to WP:CSD last week. Coffee 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Flcelloguy, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. It came at a very important time to me, when I felt I was being somewhat distrusted, and your confidence gave me strength. I'm glad that you considered the answers I gave as noteworthy, and I hope that we continue to be in contact in the future, as you have in me a new friend. Hugs! ShauriYes babe? 20:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having accepted mediation in good faith, I believe incidents like this [2][3] are not helpful to the mediation process. nobs 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello spam list, look at this. Essjay is the new leader of Esperanza, and I'm interested in seeing how he runs it. I'm busy doing other work... Please comment at that talk page there. I will still probably run the spamlist though. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thing on mediation will be combined into this week's User:Ral315/News and notes, because I really don't have enough information to make it a stand-alone article. I would appreciate you looking at it and telling me if there were any mistakes or misinterpreted parts within the blurb itself.
I just applied to join the mediation committee- being a mediator yourself, and whom I consider a good friend, I would appreciate your input either way. Ral315WS 07:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in the history you removed the reference to WP:TINMC. I added it back. If you were in IRC you'd probably see just how much they've covered for us. We've referred at least 2 cases to them, and during the medcom's hiatus, TINMC was the only placec to get a decent mediation. I'm not trying to sound as rude as this may look by the way, I'm just saying that we really owe them one. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start removing nominations per the new rules at WP:RFA, at least until they have been discussed for more than 2 days. User:Friday, at least, expressed his willingness to be nominated at User talk:Aranda56. There's no reason people can't being to consider his nomination now. Christopher Parham(talk) 22:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the policy is a mistake, was proposed yesterday, and thus shouldn't be implemented yet. 8-10 people have commented on the project page out of probably 50 RFA regulars; policy changes need more consideration. Christopher Parham(talk) 00:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about this, so I don't plan to argue it any further, but if I did care I'd be tempted to just revert your changes to the front matter. The change you made was proposed by BD2412 less than 12 hours before you made it. I don't really see how consensus could be built in so little time. The discussion, also, was never advertised to the community that I can tell. So while everyone on the talk page agreed, there's certainly no "consensus" established for those changes. Christopher Parham(talk) 14:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip about Quale. Im still a bit disappointed (and offended) that even after I had contacted him three times, he ignored me, and made no attempt whatsoever to even tell me that he was thinking about it, and instead contacted someone else. →Journalist>>talk<< 22:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sojambi Pinola is posting things on my page that aren't true and impossible to prove as wel las being completely unsubstantiated, and when I archive them, he removes them from the archive and reposts them on the talk page. PLEASE HELP!!!Jonah Ayers 00:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I've played your first move. bxc =Nichalp«Talk»= 17:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right. wish I could tease you with another puzzle. Hang on... simple one... yeah, Other than the king, which is the only piece which you can't obtain once you reach the final rank? =Nichalp«Talk»= 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're right...but think laterally. =Nichalp«Talk»= 19:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its the bishop which runs on the colour opposite to the colour of the square of the 8th rank. I hope it wasn't silly because I thought of this up a long time ago. =Nichalp«Talk»= 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for listing me on the alert page, but my stress is waning, and I am feeling much better. It has been a little rough going at times, but am doing alright. Plus, listing it there may seem like I'm trying to garner support, which I have no intention of doing. I am going to remove it, but just be aware of my gratitude for all you do around here. Thanks my friend. --Lord Voldemort(Dark Mark)|My RfA 14:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy: I am going to formally request that you admonish Cberlet to cease running ahead of the process, which he has done twice now. It only confuses things. Please ask of him to cease editing on other pages until I respond to his Summary of Dispute. Thank you. nobs 16:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our new admin general, Essjay, has set the date for the advisory committee elections, that date being October 7th. By UTC it is October 5th right now. So see WP:ESP/E for voting in two days, and add yourself to the list if you're interested in running. On a personal note, I'm considering running, as I only resigned as admin general because of time. I'm sure I could help out on the advisory committee... Anywho, watchlist that page, and be sure to read the voting method too. Regards, Redwolf24 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given your general fairness and evenhandedness regarding user:Jonah Ayers, I think you might be dismayed to learn that your most recent comment to him was moved immediately to his archive as follows: [4]. Note that it is titled "Florida Cello weighs in, maybe needs to grow a pair." I interpret that as an insult. The change was made under user:216.175.112.9. But Jonah signed in literally 2 minutes later [5], obviously saw these changes, and left them as they were, which is strong evidence that it was he who made the change. There is a comment left by user:216.175.112.9 which seems designed to created the illusion that they are different people [6]; but plenty of evidence exists to the contrary. (The prior link, for example.) In fact, given the other evidence, this comment suggests that Jonah knows that removing messages in this way will rile people, and that this has been his agenda.
The man is harassing people right and left, then accusing them of the precise behaviors he is doing. I am not asking you to do anything at this point, but I want you to understand the situation. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle disputes with someone when they consistently act in this manner. I am open to suggestions, but understand that I and several other people have been quite patient and conciliatory given the aggression of this user.
Thank you for your understanding and time, -Sojambi Pinola 18:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. I've been asked about this before, but I would prefer not to take up this post. For one, I am uncertain if I can continue as an arbitrator for a year, and secondly and more importantly, proceedings are complicated and litigation is long and tortuous. I'm more comfortable producing featured articles; much less stress and more fulfilling. PS abt the chess: I'd asked you to think laterally. ;) =Nichalp«Talk»= 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually prefer it if you did not write the Esperanza story, since you're a candidate there, and writing this story might appear improper to readers. You're welcome to write a different story, and if I end up writing the Esperanza piece (which it appears might happen), I would make sure to go to you for some information, and probably have you comment on the article before it publishes. Ral315WS 21:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the Signpost...no worries...it's just the appearance of neutrality that I worry about. I'm sure you'd write an unbiased article no matter what, it's just much easier to avoid conflict.
I do agree that running for both at the same time does put me in an awkward position...however, I had decided to run for ArbCom based on Redwolf24's belief that being on both wouldn't conflict that greatly, other than the massive caseload. I do promise that if I'm elected to both MedCom and ArbCom that I will continue to handle any open mediations that I had been handling until I'm no longer needed; also, I will stay on MedCom for at least a month, or until a few other users join MedCom and I feel that my departure from MedCom would not significantly affect the caseload. Is this okay with you, or do you still have concerns? I do understand your worries about me joining MedCom and departing so quickly, but I promise that I won't leave MedCom until you and the Mediation Committee Chair both agree that me leaving won't disrupt the proceedings of the Mediation Committee. Tell me if you have any other concerns. Ral315WS 00:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Are up for re-election this year?/2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
No, my term is up in December 2007, more than two years from know; I'll decide whether to run for reelection at that time.
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
It is a honor that I am very grateful for. The committee is a vital part of our project and hopefully helps protects the community from those that disrupt it, either through malice, ignorance, or ideological blindness. We are a changing organization, especially of late, and for the most part I feel we are getting more effective at our job. We have a very long way to go, and there are several major problems. I have confidence that these will be rectified soon enough. Generally, after an election there is a burst of productivity, so hopefully by mid-January we can close all currently active cases. I'd like to have this as an official goal.
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
We are elected by the community and therefor have legitimacy–authority to act on behalf of all editors. In addition, our group is very diverse. We have members from Australia, Britain, the U.S., and Canada, of both genders. We also have a good basic framework that allows for much due process–many would argue that it offers too much due process that needlessly clogs the system.
5. Weaknesses?
The committee takes a very long time to decide cases. Justice delayed is justice denied, and many of our more troublesome respondents taken advantage of the long decision time by wreaking havoc. Our rate of closing cases needs to be sped up to be consummate. Part of the problem is excessive legalism. I think we should limit the number of principles and findings of fact and possibly even create a single general principle. Another problem is the number of Arbitrators that must vote on each case. If we could create panels of three Arbitrators to work on each case and make a decision–possibly subject to ratification by the full panel or another check–this would drastically speed up our progress.
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
The speed, see above.
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
No. Despite the system's flaws, it is an important process that I am glad to take part in.
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
Why are you running? If you're running purely for status, or power, or for a particular agenda, you might want to reconsider your candidacy. Arbitration is hard work. Are you dedicated? Can you afford the time needed to arbitrate? Look at your real life. Do you have some major school- or work-related issues, or vacation, that could interfere with your access to the Internet or available free time? All of these should be considerations.
If you're running to reform the committee and improve Wikipedia: I wish you the best of luck. Surely there are dozens of qualified candidates–I could probably name 30 that would be suitable.
If you are unsuccessful in your candidacy: please don't get discouraged. Your comments are always welcome and valued. This especially applied to those who will be very close to winning a seat. Remember, if a member steps down mid-term, Jimbo and the committee will search for an interim appointment, and those people are prime candidates.
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain./12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
Sometimes it is easy, sometimes it is hard. There are several complex cases that involve charts and long lists of edits and transgressions. Arbitrating between two well-known members of the community are the hardest, especially when both are respected. It is often frustrating to deal with obstinate or malicious users; it is most enjoyable when these users are banished from our community.
I'm tired and I'm going to bed. I omitted questions 10 and 11; maybe if I have time I'll answer them later. If you have any comments or follow-ups feel free to contact me on my talk page. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, now that I've posted answers to the Three Questions on my RfA, would you maybe be interested in voting on it? Thanks either way. DS 11:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am All of the temporary appointees' terms end in December.
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
I plan to run for election for a second time, yes. Hopefully this time I will be successful. :-)
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
I consider it very interesting work, and certainly useful to the community. However, it occupies quite a lot of my time related to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia generally), which I could otherwise spend doing other things, though quite probably less useful ones. :-)
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
When cases come all the way to us, the disputes are often difficult and highly acrimonious, and also seemingly never-ending. The Committee's ruling generally causes the problem to end, or at the very least abate significantly. But then, that is the entire point of the Committee, so I would say that.
5. Weaknesses?
The Arbitration Committee is, by design, much slower than any other process on Wikipedia, because we want to consider the cases carefully and try our hardest to come up with workable and successful solutions and remedies to the problems that are brought to us which are in the best interests of the project and the community at large. This slowness has been criticised, and understandably so, but I think it preferable to the Committee rushing through things and being a destructive force.
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
It is disappointing that participants in cases do not try to structure nor marshall their arguments in a way that is clear both what they consider wrong in general, the the parts that they are most concerned about. If we were merely concerned in which side presented the better argument, we could just discard them, but we're actually here for the good of the project overall, so we just have to deal with it as best we can. Sometimes it is rather frustrating that we don't force people to actually work at what they want, but I'm not sure that there's much that we can do about it, sadly.
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
No, I do not. It's a necessary duty for Wikipedia, and it doesn't tire me the way that it seems to tire others, so I suppose it's my duty to carry it out.
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
Be aware that the worst possible thing that the Committee could do, worse even than effectively stalling for months at a time and not dealing with cases, is to carry out cases in such a way that the community's trust in the Committee is reduced. The Committee only works because we keep that, and it's absolutely vital. We inherited a great deal of responsibility from Jimbo when he delegated his powers to us, and abusing or jeopardising the faith placed in us, even accidentally, would be disastrous.
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
Elements of being an Arbitrator are quite hard - analysing the evidence is often difficult, and made more so by counter-productive ways in which complaints and items of evidence are displayed. Then there's taking the flak - whatever decision you come to, at least one party will likely feel slighted at least partially. Sometimes this goes quite a bit further (death threats and to a lesser extent other threats of violence are not unknown, though they have become significantly less common of late, and then there are the obvious elements of vague legal threats, and rude emails generally). The main difficult is probably the workload - reading through reams of posts is tiring work, and not everyone (or anyone, really) would find it fun.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
Not really. I could be rather asinine and say that I wish I'd devoted more time overall, but I could always say that. There isn't really a limit to how much time you can end up spending.
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
Sometimes, certainly, it feels like the Committee not being appreciated that much by the community gets some of us down, but again this problem seems unsurmountable, really. When we do well, people don't really notice that much - there's merely one iota less friction in the system. When we do less well, however, people complain readily. :-) This is even more significantly a problem in mediation, both formal and informal, and as these underpin the dispute resolution process and are vital to making the Arbitration process work at all, really.
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
The most enjoyable part of being an Arbitrator is the sense that you are doing something significant for the community. The most frustrating part, really, is the lack of recognition. But such is life.
I hope that this helps you.
BTW, it's "Arbitrator" with a capital 'A' (and with the other terms, too), always. :-)
By all means, feel free to use whatever you like; it thrills me when people like what I've done enough to want to take it! :-) -- Essjay · Talk 18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for answering my question so promptly [7] and for moving the vote that I absent-mindedly put in the wrong place [8]. I don't usually mess things up like that! Ann Heneghan(talk) 18:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't say how long it would be, but I saw him doing a few things last night, so I'm guessing he may be keeping a low profile at the moment. If I see him, I'll ask. -- Essjay · Talk 20:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I caught him on IM and he said tomorrow at the latest. -- Essjay · Talk 23:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Flcello, I responded to Kelly Martin's question on my Mediatorship Nomination page, hopefully that clears things up. Maoririder shouldn't be able to hide behind his disability, if he can't act within the standards of the Wikipedia community, he should be treated like any other Wikipedian. Karmafist 01:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks For The Support! And btw, thanks for your support on my Rfa! Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help you out, regardless of the MedCom decision. Karmafist 14:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Flcelloguy: Even though you voted Neutral on my candidacy, I would like to thank you for taking the time to vote on my RfA, since you clearly expended a great deal of thought and effort in making your vote. Oppose and Neutral votes are as useful to me as Support votes, since they serve to highlight areas in which I can improve myself and become a better administrator; after all, Support votes of the character of "EXTREME XYZ SUPPORT" don't really give one many pointers on what needs to change. :-) As I am now an administrator, I would be most grateful if you would please tell me how you would like to see me improve, and what areas you think I should work on, as I am always looking for feedback. I am most grateful for your assistance, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)(e-mail)(cabal) 05:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The images Image:Cello small.jpg and Image:OrlandoMagic 100.png are not suitable for use on user pages. The first may be a copyvio, as it has no source information. The second is fair use only, which would not apply to user pages. Please remove these images so as not to pose a copyright violation to Wikimedia. Thanks! Ral315WS 06:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've been working on the Signpost series on the upcoming elections, and that the next edition deals with criticism of the Arbcom. Since I have been one of the more mentioned critics for over a year, if you are interested I can respond to any questions you have before the next issue comes out on Monday. 172 | Talk 09:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Flcelloguy. I hope you can somehow forgive me for voting for you twice. Ii is my sincerest wish that we can put this ugly incident behind us:-) Kidding, thanks for picking it up. Making the mistake I am supposed to be looking out for is so embarassing! Anyway, good luck with the advisory commitee elections. Cheers Banes 10:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on this proposal at the Village Pump:[edit]
Well, yup, it's started again. User:J.Sarfatti and User:GyroGearLoose, who may be a sock puppet, have engaged in some recent edits which violate consensus, NPOV, etc. Given Sarfatti's usage of sock puppets, I suggest page protection as the best choice, rather than banning him. The page hasn't changed significantly since I instituted the changes from the talk page anyway. I recommend reverting back to the edit by User:Calton and then protecting.
It may be that this page needs to stay protected a long time. --C S 02:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir: Cberlet has introduced an inordinate amount of original research, and it has just become a collossal waste of time. I am going to ask you to intervene. If we can just get back to the basics, editing in good faith, WP:NOR, WP:CITE sources, and accepted practices, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. nobs 18:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC) --> Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01[reply]
Well, I was never elected, I was appointed, but my term does expire in December
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
Yes, I do.
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
It's an important job, but it takes a lot of time.
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
It's a mechanism for dealing with editors who are damaging Wikipedia, but not so blatantly that they can be summarily banned.
5. Weaknesses?
It's overloaded, and there's a lot of burnout - sometimes before people even start work. Paradoxically, the Committee sometimes also takes on work in areas in which I think it has no mandate; specifically, it seems to want to gather evidence and prosecute cases, not just adjudicate them.
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
On the committee side, I'd like it to stick more closely to its mandate, as in the previous question. On the complainants side, I wish they would present evidence in a way that doesn't take hours and hours to slog through, and which deals with all sorts of things unrelated to policy.
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
No, no regrets. It's an unrewarding job, but I see it as a way of giving back to Wikipedia.
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
Make sure you're really, really committed to sticking it out, and putting in a lot of time.
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
It's difficult, for the reasons listed above, and because you have to try to get to the bottom of sometimes very messy and confusing cases.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
I haven't been at it long enough yet to have much of a retrospective.
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
I think it is appreciated to an extent, but would be much more appreciated if it worked more quickly. Ideally no case should take more than a month from first submission to final remedies.
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
I find the lack activity on the part of many members to be frustrating; it really slows things down. The most enjoyable part is (hopefully) making Wikipedia a better place.
Hello, I'm sending this to the five of you with cases listed as active in the active tasks template. Just wondering which of you still have it active and how you're doing with it... Please message me on my talk, or email me if you see fit. Thanks :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
Community participation, experience and common sense.
5. Weaknesses?
The work is hard and time consuming for a volunteer job.
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
I encourage acceptance of cases involving content disputes. There needs to be some resolution of questions which involve sustained edit warring about fixed positions.
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
No, this is chance to significantly contribute to a worthwhile project. Other work has suffered, but I think I have filled a need.
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
Be prepared for hard work and occasional second guessing.
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
Done well, the work is quite hard, due to the complexity of the evidence considered and the time burden in viewing it, When a matter is hotly disputed either among us or within the community it can be emotionally upsetting.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
I have sometimes slacked off for a period.
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
Yes, although the community sometimes ascribes more ability, time and wisdom to us than we actually enjoy.
12 What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
Failure of other arbitrators to have the time and energy to provide enough input is frustrating as is reluctance to propose alternatives when they oppose something. The most enjoyable is sometimes figuring out what is causing a difficulty.
... in participating in the wikipediology project since you contribute to Signpost. There are several projects within it you may be interested in and there is also the potential for independent studies. -JCarriker 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Ryan NortonT | @ | C 03:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Flcello, sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but I figured I should.
I apologize if I shattered your confidence in me, which I value, but I don't apologize for the use of the word mental retardation instead of say, the word Down Syndrome, which would be more specific, but still probably appropriate regarding Maoririder. I have a past of a bad temper, something that Wikipedia has diminished greatly, and something I actively try to continue diminishing independently (see the WP:MC talk page) by helping others where I can, but Tony Sidaway's words have sparked something in me that still make me livid.
I consider his comments basically saying that disabled Wikipedians, such as myself, are more or less inferior, and if they can't live up to community standards, it's "not their fault", and they deserve a pat on the head and a lollypop. This is equally infuriating considering he made no attempt to council Maoririder on how to become a better user, where I and several other users who endorsed my comment on how his actions were immature and may be indicative of mental retardation, did.
The final straw is how he doesn't have the courage to respond on my talk page with to my responses to his insulting statements. I can only assume that is because of Luigi's Law on the Raul's Law page, his ego must be so huge that he considers talking to me beneath him, although I assume that he considers talking to anyone with a handicap beneath him from what i've seen so far. I was willing to let this go if he apologized to me for his statements, but that's unlikely to happen, so i'll probably open an RfC on him by this weekend.
In the end, perhaps Andre was right. I haven't erased all those demons of the past yet, or I would have been able to convince Tony Sidaway why his comments are demeaning and patronizing and resolve this potential conflict between the two of us, which would be preferrable to me. Karmafist 16:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Do you plan to run for re-election this year? Why or why not?
I haven't made a final decision on whether or not to stand in this year's elections. That decision will not be made until I've had a chance to actually serve on the committee for a while. My bias is to stand for election, though; I've had too many people encourage me to run that I can't not seriously consider it.
2. How do you feel about being appointed to serve on the ArbCom?
A bit overwhelmed, and very humbled. I spent an hour and a half today reviewing evidence and arguments in order to make the decision whether or not to accept a pair of clearly related cases. The amount of material to be reviewed in some cases is outrageous, and we are obliged to review all of it before making any lasting decisions.
3. Right now, what do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? 4. Weaknesses? 5. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
I can't fairly comment on these. I know I've made several public comments about ArbCom and many suggestions on reform, but even in the short time I've been a member I've realized that some of my prior perceptions were underinformed. Reform discussions continue, both in public and in private, but I haven't come to any conclusion what the best thing to do at the moment is.
6. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
"ARE YOU INSANE?" Seriously, ArbCom is a three year commitment to a terribly nasty, difficult, and timeconsuming job. Please please please consider if you're willing to commit to spend 10 hours a week for the next three years on this. That goes especially for those of you whose lives are not yet settled (i.e. in school): three years is a LONG time. Don't just run for the prestige of it; being on ArbCom totally changes the way you relate to the rest of the community.
7. Do you think your job will be easy? Hard? Explain.
Definitely it will be a hard job. One of the biggest problems it that it's a lot harder to tell if someone is lying to you in text; you can't see body language, hesitation, facial expression, etc. We have to decide cases based on examining reams of text dumped on us (usually with no organization and little rational explanation), and that's really not easy at all.
8. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
I think too many people treat the ArbCom as an annoyance, to be used only when another annoyance is causing trouble. ArbCom is not your mother.
9. What do you think will be the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
The most frustrating thing is not commenting on, or being involved in, cases or issues that are before us or likely to soon be before us. I used to be an informal mediator, something which I really can't do anymore since any case I mediate has a good chance to appear before the ArbCom later. And I have, for some time now, been active in policy discussions and community management activities. I've had to curtail much of that as a result of my appointment. A lot of my friends are mediators, and my appointment puts an unavoidable distance between them and me. I'm not sure what I enjoy about this, except the opportunity to help make Wikipedia better. Gee, you're starting to convince me not to run now....
10. Any other thoughts regarding your appoinment?
I would like to ask people who bring requests before the Committee to please respect our 500 word pleading limit, and when submitting their evidence to please explain what the evidence link they're presenting is supposed to prove. Lay the case out for us; don't make us find it buried in a haystack of uncaptioned diffs.
Feel free to bother me if you need anything else. Kelly Martin 19:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove Garzo's subpage from RFA? I've seen the new instruction creep at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, but it's surely not a official policy. I even bothered to check, whether some of the most rectent candidate sub pages where added by the nominator or the candidate and found ample support for the non-bureacratic solution. --Pjacobi
I'm happy that you like the changes, likewise with my pages. I checked yours viewed in IE6 yesterday and the layout is slightly different. I think it looks best in Firefox, but just goes to show we don't have only our personal reality tunnel to deal with! I found the short break from my usual practises good fun and a good stress relief. There are a number of things about your changes to my pages I like, and I'm in no rush to make changes. Alf melmac 05:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
15:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC).svg){kind=small}
Shauri Yes babe? 20:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
