User talk:Doc James/Will Beback
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Jmh649 in topic Canvassing
Mostly agree
editI agree with most of the proposal as it stands right now, but I'm skeptical about the speculation on arbcom's motivation. Cardamon (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- When arbcom uses the quote "Tell that to the ArbCom" as a justification for arbcom to ban a person I am not sure what else to attribute it to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Much like a years jail time for saying, "Tell it to the Judge", a very light-hearted common retort. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes that is what it looks like to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- @JMH649: Since 8 arbitrators voted to ban, there might have been more than one motivation. (I thought of some possibilities, but I'd rather not list them.) Cardamon (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I am sure there were. I am going primarily by the "finding of facts" within the case itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I get really bad vibes from ArbCom these days. Coren's resignation was a real eyeopener. The above confirms my deep unease. Jusdafax 02:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I am sure there were. I am going primarily by the "finding of facts" within the case itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Much like a years jail time for saying, "Tell it to the Judge", a very light-hearted common retort. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Canvassing
editNotification to the general populace of Wikipedia Editors (WE), without spending precious time defending that "act" from charges of canvassing, has always been a problem. How does a concerned editor let other concerned editors know that something of interest is going on and "you should go take a look". I know Jimbo supports editors conversing with each other. Will has hundreds of supporters. He may have just as many non-supporters. They should all be made aware of this page. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Have posted a note on ANI, Will Beback user page, Jimmy Wales user page and at wikimiedia-l. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there be a WP:CENT notice, a watchlist notice (for some reason I always thought these were the same) and basically however else the arbcom elections are advertised? Nil Einne (talk)
- You mean for this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. In the 2011 election (for which we still have some serving members) we had a much talked about low of 729 voters. Last year, we had a mild recovery to 858. While it's still early days yet compared to an arbcom election for this RFC, we are only at 53 votes/!votes (however you want to see it since this RFC seems to have been done in a rather unusual fashion as highlighted elsewhere) here. There may be a few more who have participated but note !vote/voted but I suspect it's less then 10 from current numbers. So we still end up with a small number compared to arbcom election votes. The suggestion has been made that this RFC should actually achieve something, either convincing arbcom to change their minds or an admin will unblock the editor concerned without arbcom involvement. The later in particular is an issue which quite a few including me have suggested they do not believe is proper. Definitely when I voted last year while I understood we could change policy generally, which would affect how arbcom should act, I did not believe we would be voting to directly overturn an arbcom decision. It may be there is simply little interest in this issue and the 800 or so extra people who voted in the arbcom elections will be perfectly happy whatever the outcome and perhaps even were not under the same impression. It may be that they are unaware this is being discussed. If we are going to make what some could consider such a significant decision, we should advertise it properly. Ultimately there's nothing much we can do about the fact arbcom elections nearly always happen at a similar time so are expected plus some people will simply ignore notifications since it wouldn't occur to them this may happen, however that has to be accepted and that's not so dissimilar to policy change RFCs which will generally affect arbcom to some degree. I would note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee got participation from 124 editors. (Whether it was a more RFC significant or less significant then this will depend on the editor. While it did directly affect the manner in which arbcom members were elected (including terms and numbers) some would consider that more the nitty-gritty rather then a significant change.) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee I believe got even more participation although there's no numbers mentioned that I can see (I think I have seen stats somewhere before). P.S. Of course the biggest problem this RFC is going to face is that I suspect a number of editors will simply decide nothing is going to happen and not !vote whatever the outcome. These is probably made more acute by the current numbers for both sides which to me suggest nothing much is likely to come from this since although there is a clearcut majority in support, given the nature of the case it's not likely anyone will act on it considering they will be going against arbcom and arbcom similar is likely to mostly dismiss it as irrelevant. This would reduce the numbers participating and could also skew the outcome so it looks more positive either way. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that Wikipedia is a direct participatory effort rather than a representative democracy. Arbcom members are more than welcome to weight in here. I am not yet of the opinion that community discussion means nothing either here or for that matter in my own representative democracy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. In the 2011 election (for which we still have some serving members) we had a much talked about low of 729 voters. Last year, we had a mild recovery to 858. While it's still early days yet compared to an arbcom election for this RFC, we are only at 53 votes/!votes (however you want to see it since this RFC seems to have been done in a rather unusual fashion as highlighted elsewhere) here. There may be a few more who have participated but note !vote/voted but I suspect it's less then 10 from current numbers. So we still end up with a small number compared to arbcom election votes. The suggestion has been made that this RFC should actually achieve something, either convincing arbcom to change their minds or an admin will unblock the editor concerned without arbcom involvement. The later in particular is an issue which quite a few including me have suggested they do not believe is proper. Definitely when I voted last year while I understood we could change policy generally, which would affect how arbcom should act, I did not believe we would be voting to directly overturn an arbcom decision. It may be there is simply little interest in this issue and the 800 or so extra people who voted in the arbcom elections will be perfectly happy whatever the outcome and perhaps even were not under the same impression. It may be that they are unaware this is being discussed. If we are going to make what some could consider such a significant decision, we should advertise it properly. Ultimately there's nothing much we can do about the fact arbcom elections nearly always happen at a similar time so are expected plus some people will simply ignore notifications since it wouldn't occur to them this may happen, however that has to be accepted and that's not so dissimilar to policy change RFCs which will generally affect arbcom to some degree. I would note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee got participation from 124 editors. (Whether it was a more RFC significant or less significant then this will depend on the editor. While it did directly affect the manner in which arbcom members were elected (including terms and numbers) some would consider that more the nitty-gritty rather then a significant change.) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee I believe got even more participation although there's no numbers mentioned that I can see (I think I have seen stats somewhere before). P.S. Of course the biggest problem this RFC is going to face is that I suspect a number of editors will simply decide nothing is going to happen and not !vote whatever the outcome. These is probably made more acute by the current numbers for both sides which to me suggest nothing much is likely to come from this since although there is a clearcut majority in support, given the nature of the case it's not likely anyone will act on it considering they will be going against arbcom and arbcom similar is likely to mostly dismiss it as irrelevant. This would reduce the numbers participating and could also skew the outcome so it looks more positive either way. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- You mean for this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there be a WP:CENT notice, a watchlist notice (for some reason I always thought these were the same) and basically however else the arbcom elections are advertised? Nil Einne (talk)
- Have posted a note on ANI, Will Beback user page, Jimmy Wales user page and at wikimiedia-l. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)