Arbcom Elections 2020

[Vigilant]

Two outta nine ain't bad.

I'm sure that was a passing grade in your social studies classes.

Math classes tend to be a bit more rigorous though.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Two outta nine ain't bad.

Well, that brings up a new tangent.

In November 2003, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly invited the rapper Cam’ron to The O’Reilly Factor. As Cam’ron and his manager Dame Dash defended their music to O’Reilly, the segment grew somewhat heated. Cam’ron, laughing, pointed his finger at O’Reilly, and, in a singsong voice, unleashed a grievous insult: “You mad.”

Damon Dash (T-H-L) has been semi-protected since 2014, following 3 years of full protection. The logs are interesting. Anyone know why Damon Dash is so special?

EDIT: Never mind. I should have searched first.

[Capeo]

Aside from the Fae dustup the questions and answers this year are pretty dull. Predictably, SMC got asked about the Signpost essay and Hawkeye wasn't forthcoming about the whole story behind their desysop, but the rest are basically the same people asking the same questions being answered the same way.

There does seem to be some willingness to "reform" Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in some way. Though that would require the entirety of Arbcom to decide to take that on. Really, the only issue DS currently has is allowing admins to come up with completely novel restrictions. Awilley, for instance, does this too often and when it comes to AE other admins sometimes don't want to enforce their custom restrictions. Arbcom just needs to codify what an admin can do that are outside of the typical admin tools like, TB's, blocks, page protection, etc. The restrictions that seem to cause the most consternation are regarding what 1RR or "consensus required" means. Just codify those into one, understandable restriction, that admins are allowed to apply in DS areas. Aside from that the typical admin actions should cover anything, especially now that partial blocks are a thing.

[C&B]

To be. Did not Swarm (T-C-L) recently Tear Awillley a New one over his One-Piece-At-A-Time DS restrictions?

[Capeo]

To be. Did not Swarm (T-C-L) recently Tear Awillley a New one over his One-Piece-At-A-Time DS restrictions?

The only recent dustup I saw between them was when Specifico was brought to AE for violating one of those overly complex 1RR type restrictions. There was agreement amongst admins that it was a pretty clear cut violation but because they basically thought that type of article restriction was stupid they wouldn't enforce it. Swarm came along an noted that, even if admins don't like this particular type of restriction that doesn't excuse a clear cut violation of it. While conversation was ongoing Awilley unilaterally removed the restriction from page, predictably, allowing Specifico to then say they can't be punished because the restriction has been vacated. Swarm was not happy with Awilley's unilateral move while discussion was ongoing. Awilley ended up giving Specifico a two week topic ban which seemed mainly a move to appease Swarm.

[C&B]

You could summarise Bible in 200 words!

Yes, that was the case I was thinking of. Specifo Had, by then, already Been around the AErena twice: Third time unlucky, aye!

[Volunteer Marek]

To be. Did not Swarm (T-C-L) recently Tear Awillley a New one over his One-Piece-At-A-Time DS restrictions?

The only recent dustup I saw between them was when Specifico was brought to AE for violating one of those overly complex 1RR type restrictions. There was agreement amongst admins that it was a pretty clear cut violation but because they basically thought that type of article restriction was stupid they wouldn't enforce it. Swarm came along an noted that, even if admins don't like this particular type of restriction that doesn't excuse a clear cut violation of it. While conversation was ongoing Awilley unilaterally removed the restriction from page, predictably, allowing Specifico to then say they can't be punished because the restriction has been vacated. Swarm was not happy with Awilley's unilateral move while discussion was ongoing. Awilley ended up giving Specifico a two week topic ban which seemed mainly a move to appease Swarm.

This is quite typical really. Lots of these bans are "you're perfectly correct but because it was you who did it rather than an admin we will ban you anyway"

[C&B]

What did he Say?

[Zoloft]

Fae dustup (including one free ScottyWong meltdown) over here: link
Post anything on that subject there, please.

[Beeblebrox]

Been looking at some of the voter guides, mostly for my own amusement since I voted on day one. I dislike the guides that are 100% based on each candidates answer to the guide writer's pet question. It reminds me of the folks who ask the exact same question at every single RFA, as if they've cracked the code and come up with a single question that can determine beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not someone is qualified for the role.
Particularly useless is the guide by Epiphyllumlover (T-C-L), who i don't believe I ever heard of before. They divide the candidates into two groups: those who answered their questions to their satisfaction, and those who did not. Tony Ballioni was the only one honored with being placed in the "no" group, the other 11 candidates are in the yes group. link. In most cases no explanation is given of what was good or bad about the replies, and frankly the questions themselves are pretty lame.
EDIT:
Wait... he didn't even ask the same questions to all the candidates. So in order to have any basis for understanding his reasoning, you have to go to each candidate and see what was asked and how they answered. If I gotta do that, what do I need your guide for?

Here are the questions he asked Tony:
"What do you think it will take to get the average age of wikipedia editors to go down instead of up?"
Tony did not answer that one at all. I don't think I would've either.
Next question: "Do you think ArbCom is like the House of Commons (or House of Representatives), and the WMF board is like the House of Lords (or Senate)?"
That one was answered with "It think this is a ridiculous question"

[Beeblebrox]

As for the election itself, it's sitting at 1,300 or so votes cast, with ten days to go. Last year's election saw 1,783 valid votes, so I'd say it's probably on track to meet or exceed that number, although it does look as though the 2019 turnout was a bit below average.

[Vigilant]

Question from TRM

Do you think it's acceptable for anyone to refer to another Wikipedian directly as a "prick", even if provoked and if you were so provoked, would you resort to tit-for-tat name-calling?

I've never referred to another Wikipedian (i.e. someone who actively contributes to Wikipedia) as a "prick". Outside of Wikipedia, I reserve the right to refer to people as I see fit. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 05:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It was a theoretical question which you seem to have taken personally. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That is some 'turn it up to 11' butthurt, my man.

You will make this the most ridiculous ARBCOM yet.

[Zoloft]

Question from TRM

Do you think it's acceptable for anyone to refer to another Wikipedian directly as a "prick", even if provoked and if you were so provoked, would you resort to tit-for-tat name-calling?

I've never referred to another Wikipedian (i.e. someone who actively contributes to Wikipedia) as a "prick". Outside of Wikipedia, I reserve the right to refer to people as I see fit. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 05:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It was a theoretical question which you seem to have taken personally. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That is some 'turn it up to 11' butthurt, my man.

You will make this the most ridiculous ARBCOM yet.

I voted 'Support' for ScottyWong and 'Oppose' for Tony Balloni. Always put in a vote for a joke candidate.

[AngelOne]

Wait... he didn't even ask the same questions to all the candidates.

Epiphyllumlover (T-C-L) asked this question of SMcCandlish:

In a content dispute over this past year, I applied BLP to a maternal article's coverage dealing with a particular fetus. I eventually "won" the argument but I wondered if the policies would back me up if it was brought to the authorities. Would you grant BLP to fetuses?

I don't think this kind of question is especially useful in choosing Arbcom candidates since it has nothing to do with dispute resolution. Then again, it looks like a pet cause, and we can learn a lot about candidates from the way they answer stupid questions and questions about an editor's pet cause.

SMcCandlish actually answered the question. The best part was:

Generally speaking, a policy doesn't apply to things that the policy doesn't cover, either in specifics or in really obvious spirit.

[Randy from Boise]

I voted for six, downvoted a few, including Tony Baloney.

t

[Beeblebrox]

I was able to bring myself to support seven, opposed all but one of the remainder.

[C&B]

I was able to bring myself to support seven, opposed all but one of the remainder.

I mean, literally?!

[Bezdomni]

In the "I'm not mad" vein...

[snip] I'm not running for ArbCom because I want to be on it [... snip]

diff

I think he must be alluding to ROPE: governors should be enthroned by community obLigature or not at all...

[Beeblebrox]

I was able to bring myself to support seven, opposed all but one of the remainder.

I mean, literally?!

Some of them I literally do oppose, the rest was tactical voting.

[Osborne]

In the "I'm not mad" vein...

[snip] I'm not running for ArbCom because I want to be on it [... snip]

Of course he just wants the hat.
Ever worried what it would be like if Bbb23 or Kudpung was chosen as arb? Now we will know.
Holding administrators accountable? Overreach!

[rhinoroars]

This is my guide for the 2020 Arbitration Committee Election.

Fuck off and do your own research on each candidate. Don't let a grumpy old bastard like me persuade you to vote for any one person.

link by :Nick (T-C-L)

[C&B]

Are Ye Pretending to be Nick

[Poetlister]

Are Ye Pretending to be Nick

No, he's just forgotten to put in the quote tags.

[Sophie]

Tony Ballioni has withdrawn: link

[C&B]

Did he deliberately withdraw On A Completely obscure talk page

Sometimes I think TB must Be an HTDer... there is No way he can honestly think there are seven better Candidates than him. But If he Did Want to Fuck the thing Right Up, he couldn't have done A Better job

[Osborne]

Serving on ArbCom is not anything I’ve ever wanted, and I ran this year out of a sense of dedication to the community

I hear the splash of community tear drops from miles away.

That being said kudos to his writing skills.

[Bezdomni]

Sometimes I think TB must Be an HTDer...

a HastenTheDay agent? really? a simpler theory would be that he's just got an inflated sense of entitlement? Not sure how best to assume good faith here. Perhaps by being "chill" and saying nothing. He did apologize for "any disruption this might cause".

(He never did the same for his time-consuming show trials, at least one of which wasted a lot of my time.)

[C&B]

Not sure how best to assume good faith here.

Quite

[Beeblebrox]

I'd be interested to see how our resident handicappers see the race in light of this unexpected development.

[Beeblebrox]

Did he deliberately withdraw On A Completely obscure talk page

Don't reach so hard. Pretty sure contacting the election coordinators on their talk page is exactly the right way to withdraw from the race.

[Randy from Boise]

I'd be interested to see how our resident handicappers see the race in light of this unexpected development.

I think Tony's chances of winning are distinctly lessened.

Not sure why he'd pull out at the 11th hour unless he thought he was gonna lose and decided to save face (and avoid angst) by quitting.

Captain Eek is not gonna win. Mr. McCandlish and Scotty W. are not gonna win. Haweye is not gonna win.

Who does that leave? Seven.

t

[Captain Occam]

Did he deliberately withdraw On A Completely obscure talk page

Sometimes I think TB must Be an HTDer... there is No way he can honestly think there are seven better Candidates than him. But If he Did Want to Fuck the thing Right Up, he couldn't have done A Better job

Every time someone withdraws from an ArbCom election (or resigns from ArbCom) while giving this sort of reason, I wonder what the reason actually was.

For example, did he realize that if he was elected he'd likely be serving on ArbCom alongside CaptainEek, and also that CaptainEek hasn't forgiven TB for misrepresenting his actions while trying to torpedo CaptainEek's RFA?

[C&B]

I agree with You, Captain. People who give reasons such as 'Me and My Barn' have, in realism, already thought about Their Families and Barns-for a Responsible Adult (And we are assuming that TB is such, I guess?!) to do otherwise would be Irresponsible.

Yet, you know, I also am finding it a Little hard to see Baloney in the role of Eek-fearer: the Latter is a noob and a Wuss, and again, Toni is Neither.

Baglioni would, I Think, crush Eek Like A Eggshell...?

[Captain Occam]

I agree with You, Captain. People who give reasons such as 'Me and My Barn' have, in realism, already thought about Their Families and Barns-for a Responsible Adult (And we are assuming that TB is such, I guess?!) to do otherwise would be Irresponsible.

Yet, you know, I also am finding it a Little hard to see Baloney in the role of Eek-fearer: the Latter is a noob and a Wuss, and again, Toni is Neither.

Baglioni would, I Think, crush Eek Like A Eggshell...?

If it was because of his actions in CaptainEek's RFA, I imagine the explanation wouldn't be that he's afraid of CaptainEek. It would just be that as a practical matter, when there's that sort of bad blood between two members of ArbCom, it becomes much more difficult for them to draft decisions together.

This potential reason is just a guess, anyway. But if someone did or said something specific that changed TB's mind, I can't think of what else it could've involved, unless someone has dug up some other embarrassing dirt about him recently.

[Moneytrees]

I really doubt that was the reason. As someone who actually knows and is friends with both Eek and Tony, they don’t have any bad blood over the rfa oppose; in fact, I’ve seen them have numerous friendly interactions since then. Most likely, Tony is telling the truth about withdrawing because arbcom is too time consuming and that better candidates ended up running.

[Vigilant]

Question from Grillofrances

Could you describe good rules of communication according to you, especially how a mediator can make two (or more) people being in a disagreement with each other to finally make a consensus?

I think this is already covered quite well at WP:RCD. In general, focus on the content dispute, not the editors involved in the dispute; keep things calm and collegial, etc. A good starting point is often to list things that everyone agrees on first, and then move on to the disagreement. The overall goal is to understand the locus of the disagreement, understand why each side thinks they're right, and understand the evidence that supports each side's argument. If you do each of those three steps meticulously, completely, and in order, then it's usually very easy to come to a conclusion about whose argument is more convincing. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 09:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Scott,

I hope at some point in the not too distant future, you can see just how poorly you've handled things.
Perhaps your shame, arrived at akin to 'discovered check', can eventually lead you to humility.

[Vigilant]

He's doing a bangup job as an admin, as well.

Dutchy85 unblock and reblock

I just reblocked Dutchy85 for copyright violations. The almost 10k edits they've made since the unblock will have to be added to their CCI (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dutchy85, which is just page one), making an already large one even bigger. This is exactly what I feared would happen when they were unblocked, and what I was trying to get at in my first question. I don't know what to say other than that I'm annoyed that I'll have to spend several more hours cleaning up a mess that could have been prevented. MoneytreesTalkHelp out at CCI! 05:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Dutcy85 has a Qworty level of mess associated with him.

His block log

Wait! What?!

04:31, 30 November 2020 Moneytrees talk contribs blocked Dutchy85 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Copyright violations- 4th block for this) Tag: Twinkle
18:15, 12 November 2019 Scottywong talk contribs changed block settings for Dutchy85 talk contribs with an expiration time of 00:00, 1 January 2020 (account creation blocked) (Copyright violations - reducing block length from indef to expire at the end of the year)
01:42, 11 November 2019 Scottywong talk contribs blocked Dutchy85 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Copyright violations)
03:25, 24 May 2018 Laser brain talk contribs unblocked Dutchy85 talk contribs (moving past the error, attempt to work with user)
13:45, 4 May 2018 Laser brain talk contribs blocked Dutchy85 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Copyright violations)
22:34, 19 July 2016 PhilKnight talk contribs unblocked Dutchy85 talk contribs (following request)
14:55, 8 July 2016 Laser brain talk contribs blocked Dutchy85 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)

Seems like a bad idea given the massive record of copyright violations...

Perhaps an investigation into Scott Weiser's admin tool use is in order?

[Moral Hazard]

The 2020 Arbcom Elections may represent an Era of Good Feelings.

[Jim]

The 2020 Arbcom Elections may represent an Era of Good Feelings.

How so?

[Moneytrees]

"Most likely" you are here tying to Distract The WO People from what they do Best: highlight the BS that especially admins create and Then Conceal.

You're right, that's why I didn't question Scottywong's unblock of Dutchy85 or lead the charge to get Rodhullandemu desysopped- (not that Scottywong and Rodhullandemu are comparable).

Speaking of Scottywong, I know you're active in this thread, so I'd like it if you helped out at the Dutchy85 CCI.

[Vigilant]

"Most likely" you are here tying to Distract The WO People from what they do Best: highlight the BS that especially admins create and Then Conceal.

You're right, that's why I didn't question Scottywong's unblock of Dutchy85 or lead the charge to get Rodhullandemu desysopped- (not that Scottywong and Rodhullandemu are comparable).

Speaking of Scottywong, I know you're active in this thread, so I'd like it if you helped out at the Dutchy85 CCI.

<derp>

[Jim]

Speaking of Scottywong, I know you're active in this thread, so I'd like it if you helped out at the Dutchy85 CCI.

Scott has a talk page. Would you rather not post on that for some reason?

You'll be getting us a bad name if you canvass here...

[Moneytrees]

Eh, I'm lazy.

[Beeblebrox]

As for the election itself, it's sitting at 1,300 or so votes cast, with ten days to go. Last year's election saw 1,783 valid votes, so I'd say it's probably on track to meet or exceed that number, although it does look as though the 2019 turnout was a bit below average.

Perhaps I spoke too soon, as of right now there are just shy of 1,500 valid votes cast, with 5 days to go.

[Vigilant]

As for the election itself, it's sitting at 1,300 or so votes cast, with ten days to go. Last year's election saw 1,783 valid votes, so I'd say it's probably on track to meet or exceed that number, although it does look as though the 2019 turnout was a bit below average.

Perhaps I spoke too soon, as of right now there are just shy of 1,500 valid votes cast, with 5 days to go.

Where's the vote count shown?

[Randy from Boise]

As for the election itself, it's sitting at 1,300 or so votes cast, with ten days to go. Last year's election saw 1,783 valid votes, so I'd say it's probably on track to meet or exceed that number, although it does look as though the 2019 turnout was a bit below average.

Perhaps I spoke too soon, as of right now there are just shy of 1,500 valid votes cast, with 5 days to go.

Where's the vote count shown?

It definitely seems harder to find the vote log this year.

Ah, here we go...

https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... l/list/808

Just shy of 1,500 voters this year.

tim

[Vigilant]

As for the election itself, it's sitting at 1,300 or so votes cast, with ten days to go. Last year's election saw 1,783 valid votes, so I'd say it's probably on track to meet or exceed that number, although it does look as though the 2019 turnout was a bit below average.

Perhaps I spoke too soon, as of right now there are just shy of 1,500 valid votes cast, with 5 days to go.

Where's the vote count shown?

It definitely seems harder to find the vote log this year.

Ah, here we go...

https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... l/list/808

Just shy of 1,500 voters this year.

tim

I'm guessing there aren't any preliminary totals per candidate.

[SMcCandlish]

ARBCOM procedures need to be changed to prevent this 11th hour candidacy bullshit.

That's effectively impossible. If we make the deadline sooner, that just creates a new 11th hour. From what I can tell, various people aren't sure they're going to run (given the amount of commitment involved), but get alarmed when in the final few hours are there nearly no candidates. So they grit their teeth and throw their names in.

I don't buy the theory along the lines of "while they'll still have a bunch of questions to answer, at least there's a shorter window for them". That actually prejudices voters against late-arriving candidates: A large percentage of the voting seems to get done as soon as the polls open, so candidates with unanswered questions, or with poorly answered ones due to less research time, are at a disadvantage. There really is no upside to declaring late (other than being damned sure you want to sign up for this thankless job, heh).

If we did something weird like have a deadline for declaration of candidacy at all, then another deadline for setting up the candidate statement, etc., all that would do is give people lead time to write voter guides, but ones that are not actually responsive to what the forthcoming candidate statements are going to say.

In short, a deadline is a deadline. There's not really any [practical] such thing as a pre-kinda-sorta-deadline.

[Randy from Boise]

Everyone knows the first candidates get asked the most questions and are subjected to a higher level of investigation and scrutiny.

The way to fix the 11th hour problem would be to have a 5 day period for nominations, followed by a couple days off, followed by a 7 day period of questioning, followed by a 7 day period of voting.

As it is now, as soon as a person declares, the questions roll in. Anyone that jumps in before the last couple hours hasn't been paying attention.

t

[Jim]

Just shy of 1,500 voters this year.

Does that include "duplicate", superseded votes? For instance, I "voted" three times, because I thought I might have screwed up checking the little radio (option) buttons, so did it again to reassure myself that I hadn't.

I won't be the only person who did that. I glanced and I'm in the list three times, with the first two correctly "greyed out" as superseded by my final vote.

Only my last vote counts, obviously, but am I three of that 1500 count, or just one?