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

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:59 pm

So the preliminary arguments of the 2019 Arbcom election season have begun.

Current debate at:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019 (T-H-L)

Link to last years thread here.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:45 pm

Dysklyver wrote:So the preliminary arguments of the 2019 Arbcom election season have begun.

Current debate at:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019 (T-H-L)

Link to last years thread here.

This election will doubtless merit rather more popcorn than usual, especially with the Fram case currently still unresolved. Presumably, it will have to be finished before voting starts, or the current arbs will look even more ridiculous than they often do.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:34 pm

I'm personally wondering if TonyBallioni (T-C-L) will pick this year to finally run.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:19 pm

Dysklyver wrote:I'm personally wondering if TonyBallioni (T-C-L) will pick this year to finally run.

It does seem like he's been preening himself for such a run for two years at least...

RfB

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:29 pm

Proposal: Rename "the Arbitration Commitee" as "the WMF's submissives".

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:53 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:Proposal: Rename "the Arbitration Commitee" as "the WMF's submissives".

The Power Bottoms

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:43 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:I'm personally wondering if TonyBallioni (T-C-L) will pick this year to finally run.
It does seem like he's been preening himself for such a run for two years at least...

RfB

Please someone, please, persuade him. Just in case the Fram case doesn't cause enough fun and games, we need a fallback.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Sep 04, 2019 2:25 pm

I asked several people to consider running last night.

Jim/Cullen already said, "No, thanks," citing reasons of time.

RfB

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:12 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:I'm personally wondering if TonyBallioni (T-C-L) will pick this year to finally run.
It does seem like he's been preening himself for such a run for two years at least...

RfB
Please someone, please, persuade him. Just in case the Fram case doesn't cause enough fun and games, we need a fallback.

I'm not certain he will go for Arbcom, since he may instead be eyeing a Stewardship position as his ultimate goal.

WBG · Unread post by **WBG** » Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:22 pm

Incidentally, I hazily recall Tony asserting of someone in an important position, (who knew FRAMBAN's circumstances), having told him in private, that it was a highly justified action. He made some posts around this effect over ACN and other venues in the very initial phases, before swimming away from the mess, once folks started getting a clue of the cluster-fuck.

That being said, I agree that shall the Fram case doesn't cause enough fun and games, we need a fallback. So someone persuade him, please.

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:32 pm

It should be that Fram stands

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:46 pm

Given the declining quality of the candidates in recent years, the lack of competency and activity of those who have passed and the progressively lower passing percentages, this year is likely to be an interesting election. So many seats are up for reelection, it will be interesting to see if they even have enough pass to fill the vacating positions.

Personally I would love to see a time when not enough people apply or not enough pass to fill all the vacating seats. To me, that would be a great day for the project.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:56 pm

C&B wrote:It should be that Fram stands

That would be the ultimate popcorn producer. He would doubtless get very many supports. Whether he would get even more opposes, or at least nearly as many, is a very good question. Then there could be arguments over whether the winning candidates are those with the most supports, the most net supports (support less oppose) or the highest ratio of support (supports divided by oppose).

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:25 am

WBG wrote:Incidentally, I hazily recall Tony asserting of someone in an important position, (who knew FRAMBAN's circumstances), having told him in private, that it was a highly justified action. He made some posts around this effect over ACN and other venues in the very initial phases, before swimming away from the mess, once folks started getting a clue of the cluster-fuck.

That being said, I agree that shall the Fram case doesn't cause enough fun and games, we need a fallback. So someone persuade him, please.

Yeah he said it here, but never gave any more details than that. I would really like to know who he heard from and what they said...Dysk is probably correct that he wants a Steward position, and seems to have been cultivating relationships over it, but why would he prefer that over Arbcom?

People I trust say this is warranted, but I do object that this was communicated to stewards and not the local ArbCom. Most en.wiki users don’t even know what a steward is, and the local arb with the least here has more voters for them than even the most popular steward. Stewards do great work and I trust them and have a good working relationship with them, but local only blocks should be disclosed to the local ArbCom, not s global user group that is mostly behind the scenes on en.wiki. This action was guaranteed to get local pushback, and having users who were trusted locally be able to explain it. I’m someone who has a good relationship with the WMF and stewards, and as I said, from what I’ve been told by sensible people this was justified, but if I was trying to think of a way to make the WMF intentionally look bad on their biggest project, I couldn’t. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:46 am

MrErnie wrote:Dysk is probably correct that he wants a Steward position, and seems to have been cultivating relationships over it, but why would he prefer that over Arbcom?

It depends on what sort of power he wants. Stewards can do all sorts of things on every WMF site. Also, he might believe that it's much less work than being an Arb, and much less likely to lead to adverse criticism.

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Thu Sep 05, 2019 9:10 am

I suspect that Stewards also have a greater chance of eventual WMF employment.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:33 am

Drmies has also indicated that he won't be running because the the workload.

RfB

Alex Shih · Unread post by **Alex Shih** » Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:15 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Drmies has also indicated that he won't be running because the the workload.

RfB

Right. It's more like he doesn't want to be embarrassed again by losing.

And I actually also agree that TB is probably leaning toward Steward rather than ArbCom; it's more inline with their message of being part of the "Wikimedia movement" (something in which I called them out on), far less time consuming (something that they can balance with the graduate work that they are doing), and less likely to expose them to all of the legitimate criticism on the way TB has been conducting their business (something that I believe quite a few admins are irritated by).

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:24 pm

What is that way, then? He would certainly be a busy bodied, but has annoyed colleagues is it?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Alex Shih wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Drmies has also indicated that he won't be running because the the workload.

RfB
Right. It's more like he doesn't want to be embarrassed again by losing.

There are going to be a lot of open seats this time and the pool of candidates has been steadily dwindling, so I doubt that's the case.

You should run again, that would be fun.

RfB

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:21 am

Blocking: Blocking policy applies normally, but a candidate shouldn't be disqualified for being blocked (except for sockpuppetry) after nominating him/herself.

Interesting how they are covering this in advance this time.

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:52 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
Blocking: Blocking policy applies normally, but a candidate shouldn't be disqualified for being blocked (except for sockpuppetry) after nominating him/herself.
Interesting how they are covering this in advance this time.

Stated reason: happened in 2012.
Of course this is only a question (or problem) at all, because the naive model of blocking was "designed" before wikipedia became popular, and the model simply did not scale. The solution is simple: block if necessary, but enable editing the election pages. If the reason to block is so severe, that the user should not become arb, then the community will vote that way.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:57 pm

Osborne wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:
Blocking: Blocking policy applies normally, but a candidate shouldn't be disqualified for being blocked (except for sockpuppetry) after nominating him/herself.
Interesting how they are covering this in advance this time.
Stated reason: happened in 2012.
Of course this is only a question (or problem) at all, because the naive model of blocking was "designed" before wikipedia became popular, and the model simply did not scale. The solution is simple: block if necessary, but enable editing the election pages. If the reason to block is so severe, that the user should not become arb, then the community will vote that way.

Yeah but when I got blocked it was only a few days before the 2017 Arbcom election I was standing in and I was disqualified from the ballot as a result. And then Fred got blocked in the Arbcom election last year, so it's really not that uncommon.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:40 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
Osborne wrote:Stated reason: happened in 2012.
Of course this is only a question (or problem) at all, because the naive model of blocking was "designed" before wikipedia became popular, and the model simply did not scale. The solution is simple: block if necessary, but enable editing the election pages. If the reason to block is so severe, that the user should not become arb, then the community will vote that way.
Yeah but when I got blocked it was only a few days before the 2017 Arbcom election I was standing in and I was disqualified from the ballot as a result. And then Fred got blocked in the Arbcom election last year, so it's really not that uncommon.

It would clearly be the democratic thing to allow blocked candidates to stand and let the voters decide. Otherwise, there is an incentive for an admin to block someone just before the elections because that admin didn't want that person elected. Whether any blocked candidate would stand much chance is a good question; we'd have to try it and see.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:20 am

Thoughts on Jechoman as a candidate? Certainly been prominent in the Fram saga and keeps popping up in relevant places.

Alex Shih · Unread post by **Alex Shih** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:34 am

Jans Hammer wrote:Thoughts on Jechoman as a candidate? Certainly been prominent in the Fram saga and keeps popping up in relevant places.

You are joking right? The man is barely coherent and flips around back and forth if you have been following the Fram thread

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:49 am

Alex Shih wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:Thoughts on Jechoman as a candidate? Certainly been prominent in the Fram saga and keeps popping up in relevant places.
You are joking right? The man is barely coherent and flips around back and forth if you have been following the Fram thread

Personally I can't stand the bloke. I'm simply canvassing other's views about him.

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:33 am

Alex Shih wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:The man is barely coherent

but completely Jechoherent

el84 · Unread post by **el84** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:42 am

Just vote each potential candidate under the 50% pass threshold, then times will get fun.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:09 am

el84 wrote:Just vote each potential candidate under the 50% pass threshold, then times will get fun.

If that happens, they'll just have to amend the rules. Alternatively, Jimbo will descend from the heavens in his chariot and appoint the people he likes.

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:17 am

If you post the word “Fram” in any of the questions you get an auto block.

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:19 pm

C&B wrote:
Alex Shih wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote: Thoughts on Jechoman as a candidate? Certainly been prominent in the Fram saga and keeps popping up in relevant places.
The man is barely coherent
but completely Jechoherent

This. And he does not realize...
He just wants to be there, unnecessarily.

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:10 pm

Osborne wrote:
C&B wrote:
Alex Shih wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote: Thoughts on Jechoman as a candidate? Certainly been prominent in the Fram saga and keeps popping up in relevant places.
The man is barely coherent
but completely Jechoherent
This. And he does not realize...
He just wants to be there, unnecessarily.

Maybe we can have thoughts on Guy Macon too.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:33 pm

rhindle wrote:
Osborne wrote:
C&B wrote:
Alex Shih wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote: Thoughts on Jechoman as a candidate? Certainly been prominent in the Fram saga and keeps popping up in relevant places.
The man is barely coherent
but completely Jechoherent
This. And he does not realize...
He just wants to be there, unnecessarily.
Maybe we can have thoughts on Guy Macon too.

Not an Admin? If not, that is a high barrier to overcome.

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:40 am

Yes, the document is in our archives and therefore will be available to any future arbitrators added to the mailing list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyone going to run simply because they're curious to read that (referring to the Fram T&S Dossier)?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:35 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:
rhindle wrote: Maybe we can have thoughts on Guy Macon too.
Not an Admin? If not, that is a high barrier to overcome.

We'll know more when we see the list of vacancies and the list of candidates, but it would not surprise me if this were to be the year that a non-Admin won election to Arbcom. Guy Macon would be one of those who might be able to break the glass ceiling. The count of administrators continues to fall, Arbcom is going to have a large number of vacancies, and many of the usual suspects have been on the committee and burned out.

Again: this year, I wouldn't be surprised.

RfB

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:44 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:
rhindle wrote: Maybe we can have thoughts on Guy Macon too.
Not an Admin? If not, that is a high barrier to overcome.
We'll know more when we see the list of vacancies and the list of candidates, but it would not surprise me if this were to be the year that a non-Admin won election to Arbcom. Guy Macon would be one of those who might be able to break the glass ceiling. The count of administrators continues to fall, Arbcom is going to have a large number of vacancies, and many of the usual suspects have been on the committee and burned out.

Again: this year, I wouldn't be surprised.

RfB

Yes, it certainly looks like the year for Kudpung and Jokoman to creep in.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:08 pm

Over at Sucks, Mr. Crow has just stated there will be 11 open seats this year (on a committee of 13).

Is this right?

RfB

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:16 pm

It has been stated at the Fram arbitration noticeboard talk page thread, so it must be true... I think it is calculated by taking into account SikTork's resignation, which leaves 4 arbs to carry over to next year (GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, and AGK), and the assumption is that the pre-election RfC (which closes at the end of September) will approve an increase in the size of the committee back to 15. Hence 11. But the record appears to have been 12 in 2010 (stats courtesy of Hammersoft).

What is strange is the imbalance between Tranche Alpha (7 but only six filled last year) and Tranche Beta (eight with seven filled last year). I think the election RfC is balancing that out as well, so of the 11 spots, some will be 1-year slots only. The election RfC is linked at the start of this thread, here is the link again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ember_2019

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:47 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:
rhindle wrote: Maybe we can have thoughts on Guy Macon too.
Not an Admin? If not, that is a high barrier to overcome.
We'll know more when we see the list of vacancies and the list of candidates, but it would not surprise me if this were to be the year that a non-Admin won election to Arbcom. Guy Macon would be one of those who might be able to break the glass ceiling. The count of administrators continues to fall, Arbcom is going to have a large number of vacancies, and many of the usual suspects have been on the committee and burned out.

Again: this year, I wouldn't be surprised.

RfB

If non-admins are elected, would they automatically be made admins or would they need an RfA? if the latter and the RfA fails, would they have to resign?

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:20 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:
rhindle wrote: Maybe we can have thoughts on Guy Macon too.
Not an Admin? If not, that is a high barrier to overcome.
We'll know more when we see the list of vacancies and the list of candidates, but it would not surprise me if this were to be the year that a non-Admin won election to Arbcom. Guy Macon would be one of those who might be able to break the glass ceiling. The count of administrators continues to fall, Arbcom is going to have a large number of vacancies, and many of the usual suspects have been on the committee and burned out.

Again: this year, I wouldn't be surprised.

RfB
If non-admins are elected, would they automatically be made admins or would they need an RfA? if the latter and the RfA fails, would they have to resign?

The WMF's position on this has been that they require something "RFA equivalent" and that ACE is enough of a vetting process for adminship. So they would go straight from being rank-and-file users to having not only admin tools but CU and OS as well.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:36 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Over at Sucks, Mr. Crow has just stated there will be 11 open seats this year (on a committee of 13).

Is this right?

RfB

This appears to be correct, since the committee is probably going from 13 to 15 as a result of an ongoing RFC. link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... rbitrators[/link]

Returning Arbs will be: AGK (T-C-L) , Mkdw (T-C-L) , GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) , and Joe Roe (T-C-L)

Not the four I would have chosen...

ELEVEN openings. Last year there were nine plausible Administrators running for eight seats.

Good fucking luck.

RfB

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:40 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Over at Sucks, Mr. Crow has just stated there will be 11 open seats this year (on a committee of 13).

Is this right?

RfB

This appears to be correct, since the committee is probably going from 13 to 15 as a result of an ongoing RFC. link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... rbitrators[/link]

Returning Arbs will be: AGK (T-C-L) , Mkdw (T-C-L) , GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) , and Joe Roe (T-C-L)

Not the four I would have chosen...

ELEVEN openings. Last year there were nine plausible Administrators running for eight seats.

Good fucking luck.

RfB

The math is a little better if current arbs run for another term. Or it would be in a normal year, maybe not this year. Being an incumbent may actually be a disadvantage.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:12 pm

Didn't AGK sit on the injured reserve list this term, as he has previous terms?

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:15 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: "If non-admins are elected, would they automatically be made admins or would they need an RfA?"
The WMF's position on this has been that they require something "RFA equivalent" and that ACE is enough of a vetting process for adminship. So they would go straight from being rank-and-file users to having not only admin tools but CU and OS as well.

That's interesting, can you share the source?

Many procedures are from the times, when WP was still in its infancy, and did not scale well with the expanse. These procedures need to be updated (for more than a decade now).
An arb does not need access to the admin tools, while on the board. The decisions can be implemented by a clerk, or another arb with the tools. The German WP explicitly removes the admin bit of arbitrators, until resignation.
Furthermore, why do an Arb need CU and OS per default? Even the Fram case did not need those tools.
An editor could become an Arb without CU, OS. If necessary for a case, and the non-admin arb gained some trust since they were elected, then these can be given.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:21 pm

Osborne wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote: "If non-admins are elected, would they automatically be made admins or would they need an RfA?"
The WMF's position on this has been that they require something "RFA equivalent" and that ACE is enough of a vetting process for adminship. So they would go straight from being rank-and-file users to having not only admin tools but CU and OS as well.
That's interesting, can you share the source?

Many procedures are from the times, when WP was still in its infancy, and did not scale well with the expanse. These procedures need to be updated (for more than a decade now).
An arb does not need access to the admin tools, while on the board. The decisions can be implemented by a clerk, or another arb with the tools. The German WP explicitly removes the admin bit of arbitrators, until resignation.
Furthermore, why do an Arb need CU and OS per default? Even the Fram case did not need those tools.
An editor could become an Arb without CU, OS. If necessary for a case, and the non-admin arb gained some trust since they were elected, then these can be given.

It comes up every time a non-admin runs for the committee, but since no non-admin has ever gotten in its never been tested in practice. The idea behind giving them all the tools as that by the very act of being elected they have already been found to be trustworthy by the community, and the tools can sometimes help in actual cases.

In practice I agree it is fairly rare. However, I do think it is important for arbs to have these tools so they can look for themselves in the cases where they are needed. The only other way would be for tool users to share their findings on the mailing list, which requires a functionally identical level of trust.

They are also the first line of defense when it comes to questionable CU or OS actions, so they need to be able to see what the functionaries (and fellow arbs for that matter) are doing.

EDIT: It is also worth noting that all arbs must be legal adults in their country of residence.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:03 pm

Osborne wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote: "If non-admins are elected, would they automatically be made admins or would they need an RfA?"
The WMF's position on this has been that they require something "RFA equivalent" and that ACE is enough of a vetting process for adminship. So they would go straight from being rank-and-file users to having not only admin tools but CU and OS as well.
That's interesting, can you share the source?

I've seen this as well, Beebs is correct here.

t

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:20 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: The idea behind giving them all the tools as that by the very act of being elected they have already been found to be trustworthy by the community, and the tools can sometimes help in actual cases.

That's a bureaucratic measure of "trustworthy", that's too generic. Trust is not homogeneous and constant in a community. My point is: access to the tools should not be simply and directly tied to being elected. Admin, CU, OS tools should be handled separately, and enabled, when needed for a case. The "trust" can mean the person is trusted to use the tools appropriately in a case, but need not include that they are trusted to not use those outside a case, for whatever (maybe personal) purpose.

Beeblebrox wrote: The only other way would be for tool users to share their findings on the mailing list, which requires a functionally identical level of trust.

That would be feasible in the case of a new arb without the tools, in the first eg. 2-3 cases. Then they can be trusted with the tools. Even then it's possible to only enable the tools while a case is in progress.

Beeblebrox wrote: They are also the first line of defense when it comes to questionable CU or OS actions, so they need to be able to see what the functionaries (and fellow arbs for that matter) are doing.

That line of defense does not really exist. I asked for such CU "defense", and also oversight. Nothing was done, although the CU policy explicitly states what you say.

Randy from Boise wrote:I've seen this as well, Beebs is correct here.

Sure, I don't question him (did it sound like that?). I'm asking for the source, cause I'm curious and I do my own research.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:36 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:Being an incumbent may actually be a disadvantage.

In view of the anger generated by the Fram case, that statement might be a mild understatement!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:38 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:The WMF's position on this has been that they require something "RFA equivalent" and that ACE is enough of a vetting process for adminship. So they would go straight from being rank-and-file users to having not only admin tools but CU and OS as well.

Is that done in every case? I don't recall that NewYorkBrad was ever a checkuser.