WP Sado-Masochism Festival — It's 2019 Arbcom Election Time!

[Randy from Boise]

Fram should appeal his desysoping and then we'll see who was actually elected.

Moot since he failed in a new vote at RFA.

RfB

That case needs to be relitigated with the 'sekret evidence' laid out and Fram able to participate.

I know it's a vain hope, but I burn with the gross violation of fundamental fairness the WMF perpetrated.

Mistakes were made, injustices took place, but the correct result was eventually achieved.

t

[Osborne]

That case needs to be relitigated with the 'sekret evidence' laid out and Fram able to participate.
I know it's a vain hope, but I burn with the gross violation of fundamental fairness the WMF perpetrated.

Everybody has moved on, except you. I wonder if you are Fram, or you just live together?

[Ryuichi]

Katie dropped nearly 12% from her first run.

Big field = lower support percentages.

t

Interesting thought. I'm intrigued by the reasoning. I could see it easily if each voter were limited in the number of support votes, but there's nothing to stop them from voting for all the candidates. Or is it just observation from historical ACEs?

[turnedworm]

Interesting thought. I'm intrigued by the reasoning. I could see it easily if each voter were limited in the number of support votes, but there's nothing to stop them from voting for all the candidates. Or is it just observation from historical ACEs?

There's a lot of discussion over voting methods, but the prevailing opinion (that I could see) was that you should support a maximum of [NUMBER OF SEATS] candidates. If there are further candidates you feel would be fine, put them as neutral. Those you do not want to see on the committee, you oppose.

I'm not saying that's how everyone voted, but I think that's the modal voting strategy

[SoWhy]

Interesting thought. I'm intrigued by the reasoning. I could see it easily if each voter were limited in the number of support votes, but there's nothing to stop them from voting for all the candidates. Or is it just observation from historical ACEs?

There's a lot of discussion over voting methods, but the prevailing opinion (that I could see) was that you should support a maximum of [NUMBER OF SEATS] candidates. If there are further candidates you feel would be fine, put them as neutral. Those you do not want to see on the committee, you oppose.

I'm not saying that's how everyone voted, but I think that's the modal voting strategy

I agree and that fits with most guides as well. That's also why I don't think lumping together opposes and neutrals into a !support is really meaningful. Most, if not all, people who voted neutral on a candidate did so either because they felt those would be okay but not preferred or because they had no opinion either way and deferred to those who did (which probably explains how I got elected).

By that metric, only 12.25% of voters actually did not want NYB to be elected which puts him in second place behind Casliber who only 11.65% really did not want to serve. Interestingly enough assuming that neutral votes represent voters who believe that a candidate would be okay as an Arb, would place Llywrch, Barkeep49 and Gadfium before the actually elected Bradv, Beeblebrox and KratoaKatie and Thryduulf before DGG. Which again explains why I think an election method that allows voters to indicate secondary preferences (which they currently can only do by voting neutral) would be more representative.

[Jans Hammer]

I support everyone except ONE particular candidate. It gives me a sense of satisfaction that it is effectively a 2 vote swing against the ONE.

But is it fair?

[Randy from Boise]

Katie dropped nearly 12% from her first run.

Big field = lower support percentages.

t

Interesting thought. I'm intrigued by the reasoning. I could see it easily if each voter were limited in the number of support votes, but there's nothing to stop them from voting for all the candidates. Or is it just observation from historical ACEs?

I've observed it before. Think of it like this:

The percentage = Support / (Support + Oppose)

Neutrals are totally ignored.

Let's say there were four candidates to elect 3. Those voters strategic voting would tend to cast 3 support votes and 1 oppose vote. These oppose votes would probably scatter (unless Kudpung was one of the four candidates!) but 75% of the votes being cast would tend to be supports and these would stack up fast, versus a smattering of opposes. High support percentage.

Now let's say there were ten candidates to elect 3. Sure, lots of neutrals might be cast, but they are all tossed from consideration. Those voting strategically are going to tend to cast 3 support ballots and seven opposes — 70% of the ballots being cast one way or the other are going to tend to be opposes, only 30% supports. So the No Snow is gonna stack up for everybody, even New York Brad. And poor Kudpung! He might even get beat by the pie lady.

This is the general principle that causes big fields to have relatively lower support percentages than small fields.

RfB

[10920]

I support everyone except ONE particular candidate. It gives me a sense of satisfaction that it is effectively a 2 vote swing against the ONE.

But is it fair?

Good strategy to try and keep someone out, no doubt.

I didn't support or oppose based on the number of seats. I merely voted support for those I liked, oppose for those I disliked, and neutral for no opinion.

[Carcharoth]

I wonder if the new arbs will be privy to the secret evidence and if they would endorse the decision of the previous ArbCom. Fram (or someone) might at least want to ask that. Or see if it is possible to ask that. Of course, you wouldn't want to do this every year, but maybe doing that this year (wait until the New Year) is justified (some would say that there is a need to support previous ArbComs as a matter of principle, but some would say not).

[10920]

Thread from October with comments about ArbCom https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =921806380

[arkon]

Oof, seeing DGG back on the committee brings me back to the Gammy arb case. One of the worst throughout that one (along with Drmies).

[Poetlister]

I wonder if the new arbs will be privy to the secret evidence and if they would endorse the decision of the previous ArbCom. Fram (or someone) might at least want to ask that. Or see if it is possible to ask that. Of course, you wouldn't want to do this every year, but maybe doing that this year (wait until the New Year) is justified (some would say that there is a need to support previous ArbComs as a matter of principle, but some would say not).

Some of this year's Arbs are continuing, of course. Would they be allowed to pass on what they know to the newly elected Arbs? It would be quite wrong if they are not allowed to.

[Beeblebrox]

There may be material on the arbwiki, but unless the whole matter comes back before the committee for some reason I can't see why we'd even be discussing it The committee usually has more than enough business to attend to without rehashing old cases.

That's not to say I'm not curious, of course I am, as I'm sure all the incoming arbs are, but peeping at old sensitive material really isn't the point. And of course no matter what we may or may not discover we can' discuss it publicly anyway.

[SoWhy]

I wonder if the new arbs will be privy to the secret evidence and if they would endorse the decision of the previous ArbCom. Fram (or someone) might at least want to ask that. Or see if it is possible to ask that. Of course, you wouldn't want to do this every year, but maybe doing that this year (wait until the New Year) is justified (some would say that there is a need to support previous ArbComs as a matter of principle, but some would say not).

I think the newly constituted Committee should focus on those cases that come before it, not previous cases. Not spending time on old cases that have no impact on new cases does not imply any support or opposition for previous decisions.

[Vigilant]

That case needs to be relitigated with the 'sekret evidence' laid out and Fram able to participate.
I know it's a vain hope, but I burn with the gross violation of fundamental fairness the WMF perpetrated.

Everybody has moved on, except you. I wonder if you are Fram, or you just live together?

Do you realize how much you sound like a typical wikipediot?

"Errr, stop talking about this thing that makes me uncomfortable, errr, there's an encyclopedia to write, derrr."

Given your tenure on sucks, I'd have thought you too shamed to speak any longer.

[Osborne]

"Errr, stop talking about this thing that makes me uncomfortable, errr, there's an encyclopedia to write, derrr."

I'm just bored with your whining. While you were crying for your - God knows why - so important friend's lost admin bit, I've cleaned out the trolls from Sucks, pushed El_C to undo his overzealous block of Sashi and documented quite a few admin policy violations aka. tool "misuse". What have you done for the community in the meantime? If any of us has a reason to be ashamed, guess who it is, but this time guess better

[Vigilant]

"Errr, stop talking about this thing that makes me uncomfortable, errr, there's an encyclopedia to write, derrr."

I'm just bored with your whining. While you were crying for your - God knows why - so important friend's lost admin bit, I've cleaned out the trolls from Sucks, pushed El_C to undo his overzealous block of Sashi and documented quite a few admin policy violations aka. tool "misuse". What have you done for the community in the meantime? If any of us has a reason to be ashamed, guess who it is, but this time guess better

Cleaned out the trolls at sucks?
You dipshits made the biggest one a mod.

I have no idea while you feel you need to opine on my posts.
I have yet to run into a cogent post from you on any topic.

You're really just the annoying yappy stray around here.

[Randy from Boise]

"Errr, stop talking about this thing that makes me uncomfortable, errr, there's an encyclopedia to write, derrr."

I'm just bored with your whining. While you were crying for your - God knows why - so important friend's lost admin bit, I've cleaned out the trolls from Sucks, pushed El_C to undo his overzealous block of Sashi and documented quite a few admin policy violations aka. tool "misuse". What have you done for the community in the meantime? If any of us has a reason to be ashamed, guess who it is, but this time guess better

Cleaned out the trolls at sucks?
You dipshits made the biggest one a mod.

I have no idea while you feel you need to opine on my posts.
I have yet to run into a cogent post from you on any topic.

If I may step in to advocate for Mr. Beelzebub (you can just call him "Bub")... Vig is not a Wikipedian, never has been a Wikipedian, so far as I am aware,† and is under no ethical imperative to "do something for the community." Even though we differed diametrically on how the Fram case should have been handled coming down the stretch, I've never doubted for a moment that Vig's motivation was based on a desire to see fundamental fairness and established legal principles upheld. He thought, and still thinks, that the case against Fram should have been dismissed with prejudice since it was based on the "fruit of the poison tree" and that Arbcom and the community (and me personally) failed blatantly and grossly by going ahead and stripping Fram of tools anyway.

I understand the sentiment and appreciate where he's coming from. I've stated my own perspective before and there's no need to continue that particular debate. But do try to understand his perspective — it's still a burning injustice that has been done in his view, and he will continue to remind us of that, no doubt.

RfB

†- Whoops, I take that back. He was, but not in this decade, and he's been consistently a Hasten The Day sort since.

[Beeblebrox]

I also don't think they handled the case properly, I was strongly in favor of just overturning the office's actions and closing it up, while still allowing for the immediate filing of a new, normal arbcom case to discuss Fram's behavior, since allegedly all the evidence is on-wiki anyway.

But that's not what happened and I don't see any benefit in re-opening it now. Maybe before he went back to RFA it might have made some sense, but that ship has sailed.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't see any benefit in re-opening it now. Maybe before he went back to RFA it might have made some sense, but that ship has sailed.

Exactly.

t

[10920]

ArbCom's handling of the Fram case was patently nonsensical and self-contradictory.

[Poetlister]

ArbCom's handling of the Fram case was patently nonsensical and self-contradictory.

The issue was much bigger than just Fram, and has not been resolved. It is about the relationship between WMF and individual wikis. If the WMF decides that someone should not be allowed ever again to edit any WMF wiki, that is its prerogative. That was not the case with Fram. The ban was on only one wiki, even though he edited on others, and nor was it permanent. It was thus treading on the toes of the ENWP community. Arbcom should have overturned the ban and insisted on a proper Arbcom case. What could the WMF have done? Block every Arb?

The new Arbcom should accept a case against the WMFoffice account and thrash this out. I hope that those Arbs not continuing next year will ask for such a case.

[eagle]

I wonder if you are Fram, or you just live together?

I love the backhanded reference to Hawkeye7 and LauraHale (or more recently, LauraHale and Raystorm.)

[Osborne]

I wonder if you are Fram, or you just live together?

I love the backhanded reference to Hawkeye7 and LauraHale (or more recently, LauraHale and Raystorm.)

[Midsize Jake]

I should probably split the recent Fram-related posts out of this thread, but FYI for folks like Mr. Osborne who haven't been with us all that long, Mr. Vigilant (from what I gather) works as some sort of IT project manager/analyst, or something to that effect, and his higher-than-usual respect for Mr. Fram is mostly based on Mr. Fram's past willingness to "internally" criticize various terrible WMF software initiatives (in particular, the so-called "Visual Editor" disaster). This was at a time when most, if not all, other Wikipedians were trying to pretend everything was going along just fine, "nothing to see here," etc.

Also, while he can often be abrasive (or even abusive, at least in a few prior incidents), Mr. Fram tends to not play favorites or discriminate, unlike many WP admins — or for that matter, many WP editors. I guess some people find that refreshing.

[Randy from Boise]

A little bit of bump for our friends.

t

[ZettaComposer]

It is nice to see the new members injecting life back into Arbcom. Right as the year started the new class is rolling through most of ARCA.

Crouch, Swale (T-C-L)'s attempt to appeal to the new class has gone down in flames. The TRM motion is basically saying "The previous ARBCOM screwed this up so let's try again when TRM comes back right after we wrap this up."

[Poetlister]

It is nice to see the new members injecting life back into Arbcom. Right as the year started the new class is rolling through most of ARCA.

Crouch, Swale (T-C-L)'s attempt to appeal to the new class has gone down in flames. The TRM motion is basically saying "The previous ARBCOM screwed this up so let's try again when TRM comes back right after we wrap this up."

You can't blame him for trying. There are different dice, so rolling them might produce a different random result.

[Beeblebrox]

With the attrition rate last year, there just weren't enough arbs left at the end to get everything done so there's a lot of unfinished business and we're trying to plow through it . As if I didn't have enough problems, I also found it necessary to drag Rich Farmbough to ANI for doing....wait for it... unhelpful mass edits with some sort of automated process.

[Vigilant]

With the attrition rate last year, there just weren't enough arbs left at the end to get everything done so there's a lot of unfinished business and we're trying to plow through it . As if I didn't have enough problems, I also found it necessary to drag Rich Farmbough to ANI for doing....wait for it... unhelpful mass edits with some sort of automated process.

There were also a ton of shitty, shitty decisions last ARBCOM, at least one of which you guys should revisit.

I'll wait, probably in vain, to see if any honor or decency exists on this ARBCOM...

[Icewhiz]

It is nice to see the new members injecting life back into Arbcom. Right as the year started the new class is rolling through most of ARCA.

Crouch, Swale (T-C-L)'s attempt to appeal to the new class has gone down in flames. The TRM motion is basically saying "The previous ARBCOM screwed this up so let's try again when TRM comes back right after we wrap this up."

CS's probably should've gotten a bit of rope. They made the right call on TRM - the sanction was causing more drama and wikilawyering (as well as being unenforceable for these borderline snubs) than what it was preventing. TRM is a productive editor, incivility/frankness aside. There are several established editors (lets avoid names) that are much more prickly than TRM, however they either have the sense (or the luck) of mainly bashing less established editors (e.g. non-admins or Jewish editors who are open game on Wikipedia). TRM is more civil than several editors - but mouths off at anyone (e.g. admins that are connected to the inside circle) - which leads to more heat.

[Poetlister]

There's a well-known principle on Wikipedia called OTHERSTUFEXISTS. It's meant to be used at AfD to say that the fact that there are umpteen articles similar to the one under discussion is no reason to keep that one. But similarly, the fact that there may be other editors who behave like TRM and get away with it is not a defence of TRM's behaviour.

[Icewhiz]

There's a well-known principle on Wikipedia called OTHERSTUFEXISTS. It's meant to be used at AfD to say that the fact that there are umpteen articles similar to the one under discussion is no reason to keep that one. But similarly, the fact that there may be other editors who behave like TRM and get away with it is not a defence of TRM's behaviour.

In TRM's defense, it is hard to slog on spotting error after error on the main page (or main page to be) - errors that slipped through reviewers and admins working the queues.... And not question the competence of some of those reviewers and admins who let said errors slipped.

He might berate other users too much, but he is right much of the time.

In terms of other in-civil editors (and there are a few in a number of topic areas) - some of them are much worse than TRM and much less useful.

[Bezdomni]

“Any information kept long enough eventually leaks.” —Hochman’s Law.
Jehochman (T-C-L) Talk 17:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That presumably means that T&S should delete it too. You never know when there might be a whistleblower.

I am slightly surprised there has not been a leak.

I'd gamble that if they try and delete it as a prophylactic measure, there will be.

RfB

Somewhere in the corridors, someone was heard to sneeze
Goodness me, could this be Xypedial Disease

Who is this Hochman guy? Apparently, he has laws? (he makes fine strawmen too... discount rates! §)

nb: it was he who opened a thread called "Code of Conduct" to ask that the white list and black list be renamed. Did he know beforehand that MastCell was going to troll forth with his shiny rhet'riculator to create a little buzz and draw people in to "code of conduct" discussions or was he just lucky?

I notice that laughter is not yet strictly prohibited in the code of conduct, so the first universalist code of conduction violation was, well, MastCell: violations of both 3.1 and 3.2. tsk.tsk. Now how did that happen?

[Poetlister]

Oh yes, he's one of our favourite admins. He's mentioned in nearly 600 posts on here and was heavily involved in the Fram saga. But this is thread necromancy.

[Zoloft]