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

[Randy from Boise]

Bit of blue on wannabee blue this morning. GF going at Kudpung (who else):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llaWarfare

GW is your GF???

RfB

P.S. The Hasten-The-Day crowd's hearts must be aflutter over the prospect of the thin-skinned man and GW being on the same email list together for a whole year.

[Jans Hammer]

Bit of blue on wannabee blue this morning. GF going at Kudpung (who else):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llaWarfare

GW is your GF???

RfB

Yes. But GW is defo not Kudpung's GF

[Randy from Boise]

Okay, lemme put on my scriptwriter's hat here... Here's how to make The Arbcom Show™ extremely entertaining for the 2020 season.

1. GW and Kudpung — a cliché Hollywood buddy movie pair if there ever was one — go back and forth against each other for the next five days, nonstop.

2. Kudpung finishes in last place, well under The Pie-Lady-Line.

3. Kudpung takes his butthurt on-Wiki and does something stupid with the tools.

4. An Arbcom case is started to detool Kudpung.

5. GW says she is going to recuse, then presents evidence against Kudpung, then votes anyway.

6. Kudpung loses his toolbox for behavior unbecoming of an administrator, subject to running for reapproval in a new RFA.

7. Kudpung leaps into the new RFA, and hilarity ensues. In the gargantuan Oppose section, Fram writes the wittiest punchline of the year...

My Patreon account awaits your donations. Alternatively, "Librapay really works!" </sarc>

RfB

[Osborne]

Killing me softly...

How did that car get there? The tire marks are in the wrong place. Oh wait...

[Randy from Boise]

Day 3, 10:30 am in the Western US, and only 1,158 votes in the hopper. It's looking like participation is going to show a double-digit percentage decline in 2019 versus 2018, despite the crazy-fast start. Pace of voting continues to tail off, as it always does.

Maybe they're blocking 400 Kumioko socks this year or something...

RfB

P.S. Best user name I've seen in quite a while: Gnome de plume (T-C-L)...

[Vigilant]

Where's Abd's voting guide?
Or Giraffe Stapler's?

[Randy from Boise]

Where's Abd's voting guide?
Or Giraffe Stapler's?

It'd be a lot of fun to do an Onion-style parody of a guide "written" by Count von Tinfoil...

RfB

[Osborne]

It's looking like participation is going to show a double-digit percentage decline in 2019 versus 2018
Maybe they're blocking 400 Kumioko socks this year or something...

Certainly that. We wouldn't think wp is dying and "editor retention" efforts were in vain.

It'd be a lot of fun to do an Onion-style parody of a guide "written" by Count von Tinfoil...

And to see the mighty Crow celebrating the obvious decline of wp.

[Beeblebrox]

Bit of blue on wannabee blue this morning. GF going at Kudpung (who else):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llaWarfare

When you see a sitting arb or a fellow candidate go after someone that hard, that's probably their way of saying that no matter what happens, they think this person is grossly unqualified to be an arb, and no matter how it looks they want everyone to know it.

I did basically the same thing to Calidum, basically asked a question that he couldn't answer without admitting he'd acted in an absolutely terrible manner, abused rollback, and called another editor "faggot" (all at the same time) and somehow got off with just a short block instead of an indef. I never expected him to get elected, but some folks might've supported him just for being an outsider, and they had a right to know about this, in particular since he straight-up lied about it when answering a previous question about his block log.

The GW/Kudpung thing was painful to watch the first time around, unlike some of you I don't think Kudpung is such a horrible person, but there's no doubt he was on the wrong side in that incident. The smart move would probably have been to just ignore the question, or at least give a more conciliatory reply, but he went completely the other way and played right into GW's agenda. I don't think he was a particular strong candidate to begin with, but this certainly didn't help his case.

[Jans Hammer]

Bit of blue on wannabee blue this morning. GF going at Kudpung (who else):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llaWarfare

When you see a sitting arb or a fellow candidate go after someone that hard, that's probably their way of saying that no matter what happens, they think this person is grossly unqualified to be an arb, and no matter how it looks they want everyone to know it.

I did basically the same thing to Calidum, basically asked a question that he couldn't answer without admitting he'd acted in an absolutely terrible manner, abused rollback, and called another editor "faggot" (all at the same time) and somehow got off with just a short block instead of an indef. I never expected him to get elected, but some folks might've supported him just for being an outsider, and they had a right to know about this, in particular since he straight-up lied about it when answering a previous question about his block log.

The GW/Kudpung thing was painful to watch the first time around, unlike some of you I don't think Kudpung is such a horrible person, but there's no doubt he was on the wrong side in that incident. The smart move would probably have been to just ignore the question, or at least give a more conciliatory reply, but he went completely the other way and played right into GW's agenda. I don't think he was a particular strong candidate to begin with, but this certainly didn't help his case.

He's banned so many people from his talk page or implied their involvement in non-existent PAs that he would likely need to recuse half of the AC cases next year.

[Midsize Jake]

Bit of blue on wannabee blue this morning. GF going at Kudpung (who else):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llaWarfare

More proof that he's a liar, really. Mr. 28bytes links to this diff in which Kudpung adds the words "PS. You just lost Women in Red an active supporter" immediately after his reaction to GW's asking to be referred to by her username "when discussed among men," and he posts a really snide reply about "proud" women (the word "proud" is linked to gay pride) accusing men who consider themselves supporters of women's rights of being "misandrists," and then he claims he wasn't referring to her. Ridiculous.

I don't think he wants the job — probably just wants some attention for himself.

[Pudeo]

I was checking some unknown names in the voter log, and there seem to be plenty of quite fresh Pakistani and Indian accounts. Not surprising because of the number of English-speakers in those countries. But those sure are mystery votes because they don't have any community participation.

I had to vote again because I forgot who I voted for.

[Poetlister]

I was checking some unknown names in the voter log, and there seem to be plenty of quite fresh Pakistani and Indian accounts. Not surprising because of the number of English-speakers in those countries. But those sure are mystery votes because they don't have any community participation.

I had to vote again because I forgot who I voted for.

Surely they can't vote unless they'vemade 150 edits. Or do you think only people who vote in RfAs should be allowed to vote?

[Beeblebrox]

It's pretty easy to make 150 edits without really engaging with the community, so long as they are uncontroversial, or on topics that few pay attention to. What's harder to figure is how folks who aren't engaged int he community com to their decisions on who to vote for. I guess they might actually read all the candidate statements and all their replies to the questions? I tend to assume most people don't vote that way, they look for names they recognize and vote for them, a problem all too common in many elections.

[Jans Hammer]

It's pretty easy to make 150 edits without really engaging with the community, so long as they are uncontroversial, or on topics that few pay attention to. What's harder to figure is how folks who aren't engaged int he community com to their decisions on who to vote for. I guess they might actually read all the candidate statements and all their replies to the questions? I tend to assume most people don't vote that way, they look for names they recognize and vote for them, a problem all too common in many elections.

I vote for everyone - holding my nose - and oppose only 1

[ArmasRebane]

I was checking some unknown names in the voter log, and there seem to be plenty of quite fresh Pakistani and Indian accounts. Not surprising because of the number of English-speakers in those countries. But those sure are mystery votes because they don't have any community participation.

I had to vote again because I forgot who I voted for.

I end up voting 3-4 times a year because I refactor things. I really should just write a list down and work on paper but since there's no issue with SecurePoll and multiple votes I just go wild.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't think he wants the job — probably just wants some attention for himself.

That's what they said about Donald Trump.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

I was checking some unknown names in the voter log, and there seem to be plenty of quite fresh Pakistani and Indian accounts. Not surprising because of the number of English-speakers in those countries. But those sure are mystery votes because they don't have any community participation.

I had to vote again because I forgot who I voted for.

Yeah, I like to check out a few passersby, just to kind of assure myself that things are on the up-and-up.

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

I don't think he wants the job — probably just wants some attention for himself.

That's what they said about Donald Trump.

The parallels are uncanny... right down to the part about claiming to be a big supporter of women's rights.

[Moral Hazard]

Bit of blue on wannabee blue this morning. GF going at Kudpung (who else):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llaWarfare

More proof that he's a liar, really. Mr. 28bytes links to this diff in which Kudpung adds the words "PS. You just lost Women in Red an active supporter" immediately after his reaction to GW's asking to be referred to by her username "when discussed among men," and he posts a really snide reply about "proud" women (the word "proud" is linked to gay pride) accusing men who consider themselves supporters of women's rights of being "misandrists," and then he claims he wasn't referring to her. Ridiculous.

I don't think he wants the job — probably just wants some attention for himself.

Kudpung is less of a problem once you understand that he talks like Antoine Merriwether of the Men on Film.
Gorilla Warfare.
Hated it!

[Eric Corbett]

I was checking some unknown names in the voter log, and there seem to be plenty of quite fresh Pakistani and Indian accounts. Not surprising because of the number of English-speakers in those countries. But those sure are mystery votes because they don't have any community participation.

I had to vote again because I forgot who I voted for.

Yeah, I like to check out a few passersby, just to kind of assure myself that things are on the up-and-up.

RfB

Are you advocating for check users to run CheckUser against arbitrarily chosen accounts? Or suggesting that they don't already do that, contrary to policy?

[Randy from Boise]

I was checking some unknown names in the voter log, and there seem to be plenty of quite fresh Pakistani and Indian accounts. Not surprising because of the number of English-speakers in those countries. But those sure are mystery votes because they don't have any community participation.

I had to vote again because I forgot who I voted for.

Yeah, I like to check out a few passersby, just to kind of assure myself that things are on the up-and-up.

RfB

Are you advocating for check users to run CheckUser against arbitrarily chosen accounts? Or suggesting that they don't already do that, contrary to policy?

Here's what I think:

1. IP editing should be terminated yesterday.

2. Registration should be made approximately as difficult as declaring a real-life identity for Arbcom: mail in a document, minimal checking by a real WMF-paid human, making use of a real-life email account.

3. Check users should have a permanent green light to investigate any new account they deem suspect, at their judgment, against a database of previous abusers of WP that has no expiration date.

So yeah, hell yeah, I think check users should run CheckUser arbitrarily against chosen accounts.

The policy is wrong, change the policy.

This starts with WMF, but they're more concerned with micromanaging demographics than with curbing actual abuse.

RfB

[Eric Corbett]

3. Check users should have a permanent green light to investigate any new account they deem suspect, at their judgment, against a database of previous abusers of WP that has no expiration date.
RfB

I don't think you've thought that through.

For one thing, what's your definition of "abuser"? And for another, any individual named in that database would be entitled to see whatever information was stored about them - at least if they're an EU citizen - and potentially sue for libel/defamation of character.

[Jans Hammer]

3. Check users should have a permanent green light to investigate any new account they deem suspect, at their judgment, against a database of previous abusers of WP that has no expiration date.
RfB

I don't think you've thought that through.

For one thing, what's your definition of "abuser"? And for another, any individual named in that database would be entitled to see whatever information was stored about them - at least if they're an EU citizen - and potentially sue for libel/defamation of character.

Speaking of which Eric, has there been any developments on your subject access request?

[Eric Corbett]

3. Check users should have a permanent green light to investigate any new account they deem suspect, at their judgment, against a database of previous abusers of WP that has no expiration date.
RfB

I don't think you've thought that through.

For one thing, what's your definition of "abuser"? And for another, any individual named in that database would be entitled to see whatever information was stored about them - at least if they're an EU citizen - and potentially sue for libel/defamation of character.

Speaking of which Eric, has there been any developments on your subject access request?

There has, as you can see at link

[Jans Hammer]

3. Check users should have a permanent green light to investigate any new account they deem suspect, at their judgment, against a database of previous abusers of WP that has no expiration date.
RfB

I don't think you've thought that through.

For one thing, what's your definition of "abuser"? And for another, any individual named in that database would be entitled to see whatever information was stored about them - at least if they're an EU citizen - and potentially sue for libel/defamation of character.

Speaking of which Eric, has there been any developments on your subject access request?

There has, as you can see at link

K. Thanks. I had missed that. Cannot say I am impressed by one of the protagonists over there.

[Eric Corbett]

K. Thanks. I had missed that. Cannot say I am impressed by one of the protagonists over there.

Do you mean the one who is an ArbCom candidate?

[Beeblebrox]

Between Giano's trolling and this nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =927283325 the election commission is having a rough day.

[Eric Corbett]

Between Giano's trolling and this nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =927283325 the election commission is having a rough day.

Perhaps not as rough as this election deserves, with candidates like you and Kudpung still in the running.

[Vigilant]

3. Check users should have a permanent green light to investigate any new account they deem suspect, at their judgment, against a database of previous abusers of WP that has no expiration date.
RfB

I don't think you've thought that through.

For one thing, what's your definition of "abuser"? And for another, any individual named in that database would be entitled to see whatever information was stored about them - at least if they're an EU citizen - and potentially sue for libel/defamation of character.

Bullshit.

Nobody who spends their lives on wikipedia will ever sue. Ever.
Spineless dipshits to a man.

[Beeblebrox]

Between Giano's trolling and this nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =927283325 the election commission is having a rough day.

Perhaps not as rough as this election deserves, with candidates like you and Kudpung still in the running.

Oh, your priceless wit has once again wounded me to my very core! Well played sir, truly a great takedown.

[Eric Corbett]

Between Giano's trolling and this nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =927283325 the election commission is having a rough day.

Perhaps not as rough as this election deserves, with candidates like you and Kudpung still in the running.

Oh, your priceless wit has once again wounded me to my very core! Well played sir, truly a great takedown.

One can only speak the truth, something you have only a passing acquaintance with.

[Vigilant]

Between Giano's trolling and this nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =927283325 the election commission is having a rough day.

Perhaps not as rough as this election deserves, with candidates like you and Kudpung still in the running.

Oh, your priceless wit has once again wounded me to my very core! Well played sir, truly a great takedown.

One can only speak the truth, something you have only a passing acquaintance with.

And once again we are returned to peak pointlessness with the Ferret Diddler.

[Vigilant]

I forgot to check the time.

Have another pint, Eric.

[Osborne]

Are you advocating for check users to run CheckUser against arbitrarily chosen accounts? Or suggesting that they don't already do that, contrary to policy?

3. Check users should have a permanent green light to investigate any new account they deem suspect, at their judgment, against a database of previous abusers of WP that has no expiration date.
So yeah, hell yeah, I think check users should run CheckUser arbitrarily against chosen accounts.
The policy is wrong, change the policy.

Fishing means no harm to new users. Maybe to established users? I'm not sure, unless it is used for partisan purposes, as Bbb does.
The policy is wrong, silly and favors abusers. Creating a new account is 2 clicks, catching socks takes hours of research for evidence that's only possible after a lot of abuse already happened (after weeks or months). It's also easy to hide socks with patrolling edits. Pros make it to "editor in good standing" / "experienced editor" status.

All new accounts should be checked automatically, not even by a CU. Checkusering is not objective - the decision cannot be automated -, but the likeliness of a match can be determined. Likely matches should be listed to be checked and sacked by CUs. Accounts editing the same page from the same IP in a short timeframe should be listed also to catch socks before serious damage is done. "Likeliness" is not private information, thus regular editors should be able to get that information when they suspect a sock.

Btw this used to be the Elections topic. While it's nice to pass the time, as I remember there is a checkuser specific topic.

[Osborne]

Between Giano's trolling and this nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =927283325 the election commission is having a rough day.

Don't worry, Primefac is already on it. "ped*" trigger.
Saved for posterity, before she revdels:
original, archive, webarchive.

[Poetlister]

For one thing, what's your definition of "abuser"? And for another, any individual named in that database would be entitled to see whatever information was stored about them - at least if they're an EU citizen - and potentially sue for libel/defamation of character.

Of course, "abuser" is one of those words that has a particular meaning on Wikipedia which may well differ greatly from the everyday meaning.

[Poetlister]

3. Check users should have a permanent green light to investigate any new account they deem suspect, at their judgment, against a database of previous abusers of WP that has no expiration date.
RfB

I don't think you've thought that through.

For one thing, what's your definition of "abuser"? And for another, any individual named in that database would be entitled to see whatever information was stored about them - at least if they're an EU citizen - and potentially sue for libel/defamation of character.

Bullshit.

Nobody who spends their lives on wikipedia will ever sue. Ever.
Spineless dipshits to a man.

There is no shortage of people who have been checkusered who do not spend their lives on wikipedia. Indeed, many of them have been banned. THey have nothing to lose by suing (other than a lot of money).

[Randy from Boise]

File under: Totally Fucking Stupid

A 15th hour voters' guide from SMcCandlish (T-C-L)...

link

+
Thryduulf

Kudpung

Rambling Man

DGG.........


Fuck it, read it yourself. This guy has proven himself a complete shit-eating moron.

Done.

RfB

[Poetlister]

This guy has proven himself a complete shit-eating moron.

Is he a candidate himself?

[Randy from Boise]

With 8 days to go, sitting just north of 1,300 votes cast. A total of 70 people voted yesterday, Nov. 22nd. Total votes cast will probably land within about 10% of last year — probably a little on the short side.
link

RfB

[Moral Hazard]

Speaking of Teutonic folklore:

Can you or Giraffe Stapler put a Valkyrie on the hood of Elon Musk's Tesla Cybertruck (T-H-L) with broken glass and adorned with

No Kudpung!
--Trust & Safety

surrounded by unicorns with the names of the civility-über-alles candidates?

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Jans Hammer]

[Randy from Boise]

New slogan for the site?

[Osborne]

Appropriate font Which one is it?

[Randy from Boise]

Appropriate font Which one is it?

A TrueType font called "Luminari."

t

[Beeblebrox]

I count 22 voter guides this year, a rather large percentage of them are unhelpful or badly conceived.

Some of them are done in a way that suggests the user compiling them is genuinely trying to make a helpful guide based on the best information available, with of course their own opinions as well.

Others are simple "did they give the right answer to my question?" axe-grinders.

And then there's a few that are just.... inexplicable. It's like people who vote "neutral" at RFA with comments like "I haven't done the research yet so this is a placeholder" as if everyone is just dying to know what their specific opinions on the subject are, "ego guides" if you will.

And of course one or two painfully unfunny joke guides.

[Osborne]

A TrueType font called "Luminari."

Thank ya.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Final Prediction

1. NewYorkBrad
2. Casliber
3. KrakatoaKatie
4. Worm That Turned
5. Maxim
6. Xeno
7. David Fuchs
8. Beeblebrox
9. Gadfium
10. SoWhy
11. Barkeep49

=====

12. Bradv
13. llywrch
14. DGG

Since last year showed the voter guides have a strong predictive value and Carrite lost out, I think it is worth posting here to note how the guides say this will end up. Here is how the rankings look based on the net support/oppose breakdown:

1. Worm That Turned
2. Casliber
3. NewYorkBrad
4. Xeno
5. Gadfium
6. SoWhy
7. Maxim
8. David Fuchs
9. Barkeep49
10. Bradv
11. Llywrch
_
12. DGG
13. The Rambling Man
14. Beeblebrox
15. Thryduulf
16. Enterprisey
17. KarakatoaKatie
18. Kudpung
19. Hawkeye7
20. Isarra
21. Richwales
22. Calidum

Those with the highest net support typically end up on ArbCom, though towards the edges it gets murkier. Whoever gets the most support in the guides is often the top vote-getter and who gets the most opposes is usually at the bottom. Based off this, it would suggest Worm might actually end up at the top over NYB, which is admittedly an odd result. However, there may be a reason for it as I do detect a certain anti-incumbency sentiment. A lot of the guide support is for fresh blood with only respected stalwarts managing to make it out with high marks. This may benefit Worm, who has had a much shorter tenure than NYB. It is a close contest, though.

While DGG or Beeblebrox might be able to pull through, the gap between them and Llywrch is not small. Given how utterly murdered Katie was in the guides, it would be quite astonishing if she ended up on the Committee and that happening would probably be enough on its own to suggest the guides are not a great gauge of voter sentiment. Calidum is almost certain to be at the very bottom and I don't think that should surprise anyone. Most of the rankings aren't a huge shock, I think, with Katie failing and Brad not being no. 1 being the biggest upsets if the guides end up proving predictive again.

[Randy from Boise]

Final Prediction

1. NewYorkBrad
2. Casliber
3. KrakatoaKatie
4. Worm That Turned
5. Maxim
6. Xeno
7. David Fuchs
8. Beeblebrox
9. Gadfium
10. SoWhy
11. Barkeep49

=====

12. Bradv
13. llywrch
14. DGG

Since last year showed the voter guides have a strong predictive value and Carrite lost out, I think it is worth posting here to note how the guides say this will end up. Here is how the rankings look based on the net support/oppose breakdown:

1. Worm That Turned
2. Casliber
3. NewYorkBrad
4. Xeno
5. Gadfium
6. SoWhy
7. Maxim
8. David Fuchs
9. Barkeep49
10. Bradv
11. Llywrch
_
12. DGG
13. The Rambling Man
14. Beeblebrox
15. Thryduulf
16. Enterprisey
17. KarakatoaKatie
18. Kudpung
19. Hawkeye7
20. Isarra
21. Richwales
22. Calidum

Those with the highest net support typically end up on ArbCom, though towards the edges it gets murkier. Whoever gets the most support in the guides is often the top vote-getter and who gets the most opposes is usually at the bottom. Based off this, it would suggest Worm might actually end up at the top over NYB, which is admittedly an odd result. However, there may be a reason for it as I do detect a certain anti-incumbency sentiment. A lot of the guide support is for fresh blood with only respected stalwarts managing to make it out with high marks. This may benefit Worm, who has had a much shorter tenure than NYB. It is a close contest, though.

While DGG or Beeblebrox might be able to pull through, the gap between them and Llywrch is not small. Given how utterly murdered Katie was in the guides, it would be quite astonishing if she ended up on the Committee and that happening would probably be enough on its own to suggest the guides are not a great gauge of voter sentiment. Calidum is almost certain to be at the very bottom and I don't think that should surprise anyone. Most of the rankings aren't a huge shock, I think, with Katie failing and Brad not being no. 1 being the biggest upsets if the guides end up proving predictive again.

While I freely acknowledge that my predictions were off last year, your list of outcomes of “the guides” is actually your own personal prediction wrapped in the guise of a consensus list. Not all polls are equal; some of them are frankly terrible, others are incomplete. Show your math: what weights are you giving to each particular poll? Which ones are you excluding and why?

There's nothing wrong with your list mind you; we disagree on, what, two slots? I’ve got Beebs and Katie on, you've got Bradv and Llwrch (in your 10th and 11th slots, incidentally; I have them just out of the money at 12 and 13). You could be right. I could be right. We'll see. Names making or missing the cut at the bottom of the list are pretty much a coin toss proposition.

I suspect that the thing that has your panties in a wad about such a small discrepancy between our lists is my (fairly safe) prediction that Katie will garner copious support as the only woman in the race; whereas you read the panning of her candidacy in a majority of the guides as indicative. Wanna bet $5 to charity on that proposition: whether she wins or loses? I’m sure you can come up with a soup kitchen for hungry white nationalists or some such that would inflict sufficient psychic damage upon me if you win. As for me, I will be putting the kitties aside and going straight ACLU for you, baby.

Whattaya say?

tim