Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-10/ArbCom election

Hi,

If it's of any help, for further information on some of my more mentioned criticisms from March 2004, see [1], [2], [3], and [4]. While I was around 7 points from winning in the last election in December, these links feature the two runner-ups in that election alluding to my statements and touching on the same line of criticism. 172 | Talk 01:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of the poorer Signpost articles I've read recently. The arbitration committee has been much criticised over the years. However, this article misses a great deal of the issues, instead giving half its time to Everyking and Ril's whingeing about a decision which was pretty much universally praised/accepted by everyone else. Ambi 12:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which issues do you think I missed? Thanks for the input. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days, it focused around the fact that they were so slow and were perceived as being relatively toothless. After the changing of the guard in January, there was a period where we were copping some flak for making decisions too quickly, and then as people burned out, we were again being criticised for being very much too slow. There's also been criticism of being involved in cases between good editors (the Jguk debacle comes to mind). But when the focus is instead on whingeing from all of two users who've got axes to grind after themselves being sanctioned (in decisions that were widely supported by the community), then it just comes across as bad journalism. Ambi 04:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree - I think it's particularly odd that Mirv's criticisms about the arbcom aren't mentioned anywhere in the article. If you want someone making arguments similar to EK and Ril that is unsanctioned, did well in the last arbcom election, and has been very vocal, I'd turn to him. Snowspinner 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to laugh. Here's Ambi complaining that you noted that the cabal chose the temporary arbcom members and some complained. Hmmm. I don't believe there was "universal" praise for Jimbo's decision. There was some of the usual kissing up to Jimbo but some unhappiness at the notion that the cabal's choice is preferable to the community's choice. Grace Note 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Three sanctioned users. Still doesn't equal "the community". Ambi 01:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost appreciates all of your input, and we'll strive to improve our quality in the future. We are dedicated to reporting a fair and balanced story, and we will continue to do so. While the article was indubitably lacking in some aspects in retrospective, I will stand by the article including opinions from -Ril- and others. I see no reason why we should exclude their opinions, even if some consider it "whining" — it is a valid criticism (and when I say valid, I don't mean that I support - or not support - their opinions) that adds to the article. In the future, we will try and improve our articles. Thank you for your feedback, and please continue giving us your valued opinions. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That you mention their opinion is not my beef. That you refer to it as being held by "many" and go into more detail about it than other is patently misleading. Upon reading this article, one would assume that there'd been widespread controversy about this - not the complaints of two or three users with a grudge after themselves being sanctioned. Ambi 06:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, "some" would probably have been a better term to use, and I apologize. Also, I've already said that I probably could have expanded some of the earlier criticisms, but I didn't intentionally try to do any of this. I guess the point is kind of moot now, but thanks for the input. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]