User talk:Majorly/ACE2008

Hey, just a quick question: why the "Al" bit? Did you expect you'd get significantly different answers (in general, not just from me) if you had asked them as Majorly? — Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al because Majorly is on a break right now. Al Tally ^talk 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insight

If you see drama, and you see me on the scene, does that mean I caused the drama, or that I am responding to it, and trying to control the disruption? Be careful of non sequitur (logic). You seem to admire Carcharoth's sparse block log. One reason dramas stop is because discussion resolves the conflict. (See User:Carcharoth). Another reason dramas stop is because an admin spends a few hours investigating the matter fully, and places a block justified by ample evidence, in full compliance with policy ("wonkery"). (See User:Jehochman). I submit that to function well, Wikipedia and the ArbCom need people with both types of skills who are willing to work together. Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involving yourself in drama can be just as bad as causing it. I'm not saying it's good or bad to have lots, or otherwise few blocks, just I think it's interesting as someone who will potentially have the ability to ban somebody has never made a block. Al Tally ^talk 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a non-administrator serving on the committee, therefore, I would also not object to an administrator who has never placed a block. Providing sound analysis of evidence is also a valuable skill. Jehochman ^Talk 01:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to questions

Which answers are worrying? There's well over 125K, and I can't figure out what troubles you. Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to my own questions. Al Tally ^talk 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. "Al Tally."

In this post-Poetlister environment, do you honestly believe that voting for checkuser is a good idea? I'm open to other suggestions, but when you say there have been no problems with votes on other projects, I think you're wrong.

At any rate, I didn't fully answer that question.[1] Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I do. ArbCom would make the same mistake anyhow. Some of the best CUs on Wikimedia were voted in. That one rogue person got the bit doesn't mean the community messed up. It's like saying "let's stop voting for RFAs because of Archtransit". It's a poor argument. Al Tally ^talk 00:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like votes for admins or any other role. Checkusers exist to prevent socks, which (among other things) are used for double voting. Socks will be interested in checkuser by definition as it allows them to refine their craft; votes for checkuser is the sweetest imaginable honeypot on the project. At any rate, I have an example of a sock getting CU by voting, do you have en example of Arbs making the "same mistake"?

Doesn't it at least give you pause that your proposal was championed on Wikipedia Review by Poetlister, Guy, and Yehudi? Even a little? You yourself said the last batch of ArbCom picks was good (and I agree it was).

At any rate, I hope that you're not a single-issue voter. As far as I can tell, I generally support your other views. I dislike ArbCom's insular and unaccountable nature, and I think that the community (rather than Jimbo or former Arbs) should be in charge. Cool Hand Luke 01:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a positive person. I'm looking for reasons to support people, not oppose them. Some people are obviously no-hopers for me, but mostly, I'm looking for reason to support, not oppose. Persuade me you'll make a good arbitrator, and hopefully I'll support :-) Al Tally ^talk 00:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of our stewards are voted in too. English Wikipedia is often doing things very differently, and often without realising it. Sometimes this is due to being further developed, so "bigger solutions" are needed, but often it is because it was the first to do something, and then gets stuck in a rut. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're also the only to hard block Tor IPs, another practice opposed by socks like Poetlister, but necessary due to the more sophisticated attacks we suffer. Cool Hand Luke 01:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point, which you havent considered yet, is that stewards are elected. This is part of what Majorly is driving at. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't clearly say it enough, but the community does retain all power over ArbCom; all power to reverse ArbCom. If the community could give comparable participation to CU as a steward elections, it would not be illegitimate. As an arbitrator I would not stand in the way. That said, no one has ever seriously looked for consensus on this matter. Shotgun elections based on a policy no one has even heard of, let alone ratified, does not count as community consensus. The RfB model is not the right one for checkusers; we should have as few as needed. Steward is a better one, but no one has ever seriously proposed that either. Al Tally's question asks about using a process like the smaller projects use. Do you agree that their processes are inappropriate for English Wikipedia?Cool Hand Luke 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The community is ineffectual at overturning, supplanting or ignoring ArbCom.

I believe the processes used on smaller wikis scale can scale. There is one fundamental difference between the process used by smaller wikis and the steward and arbcom elections - elections are annual, which can be helpful in focusing peoples attention to help bring about a better vote. Steward elections the example of it scaled up, and with arbcom the number of seats are predetermined, which means that being "good enough" isnt enough - people fail because there are better candidates.

Your statement that we should have as few as CU/OS as possible isnt one I've heard before, and it doesnt resonate with me (yet; I can see where you're coming from..)... if there are many appropriate people doing the work, it means there is less load on arbcom and on each person.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership failed because it was pushed too hard, and the community and Arbcom both went "argh!". At the time it was launched, there wasn't even a clear understanding on whether Foundation policy permitted it.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing this with me on Majorly's page. I agree with most of what you say here. I'll revise my answer in a bit. I would favor a practice entirely different from the one previously proposed. Annual elections, and the high turnout they drive, are a good check against potential ArbCom capriciousness and sock puppets.

Checkuser should be in enough hands to ensure independent review, but no more hands than necessary in order to prevent potential hacks or leaks of information protected by the privacy policy. Cool Hand Luke 01:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Korn

I believe Sam Korn was not an arbitrator at the time of the Mantanmoreland case but I could be incorrect. Perhaps you were thinking of Sam Blanketer? Sam Korn has no edits on the workshop page, and none on the proposed decision page either. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm referring to the community discussion, not the ArbCom case. There was a discussion, probably located in a subpage of AN, where it was attempted to ban Mantanmoreland. I distinctly remember Sam Korn being a part of the "let's let Mantanmoreland off the hook" crowd, which was immensely concerning. See this, this (process wonking) and this where he says ArbCom didn't make a mistake the first time round. Surprised you didn't remember this, Lar, since you are having conversations with him on those pages. But my mind is firmly made up with Sam Korn. We don't need anymore brown-nosers who think arbcom are infallible, and judging by his answers to questions, believes they are above and separate from the community, and do not have to answer to anyone. Bad, bad attitude. Al Tally ^talk 00:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct. I thought you were referring to the arbitration discussion itself rather than the aftermath. Thanks for jogging my memory. ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute your thoughts on Sam_Korn's stance on Mantanmoreland and I make no further comment. Important point, however: Sam didn't burn out, from what I gather; he was removed from the Committee at the inception of the Access to nonpublic data policy resolution. He was then inactive as an editor, but not as an Arbitrator; perhaps due to exams? AGK 01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe he was removed from ArbCom; I think his term just expired. (If I recall correctly he'd been appointed to a partial term to fill a vacancy.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sam was appointed in January 2006, following a successful election, replacing Kelly Martin, who in turn had replaced Nohat. Nohat was originally appointed for three years in Jan 2004, so his term would have come to an end in Dec 2006. So Sam simply didn't run again. However, looking through his edits around that time, his last public ArbCom "action" was here, on 24 September, three months before his term expired. It looks like he simply burnt out to me. And judging by the note on his userpage, and lack of activity after 26 December 2006, it really seems this was the case. It was nothing to do with Access to nonpublic data (that came in after the Essjay fiasco, IIRC, which was March 2007). Al Tally ^talk 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]