WP Sado-Masochism Festival — It's 2018 Arbcom Election Time!

[Dysklyver]

Correct, you need to get back into that guide and get some "allegedlies" in there.

No because, although in 1994 the issue was that of "allegations".


In 1997 the issue was of judgment by default.

He failed to answer the formal complaint filed in this case and the hearing board entered a default against him. The allegations of fact contained in the complaint were therefore deemed admitted.

In 1999 the Supreme Court ruled against him.

The respondent vigorously denied that he had engaged in such a conversation with either of the women, or that he had solicited or attempted to solicit sex from either of them. Nevertheless, the hearing board found the women's testimony more credible than the respondent's testimony.

The hearing board concluded that the respondent's conduct during the telephone call violated section 18-7-202(1)(a), 8B C.R.S. (1986), which prohibits soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, and makes solicitation a class 3 misdemeanor, see § 18-7-202(2), 8A C.R.S. (1986). The foregoing conduct violated Colo. RPC 1.7(b) (representing a client when the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's own interests); Colo. RPC 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects); as well as C.R.C.P. 241.6(3) (misconduct involving any act or omission violating the highest standards of honesty, justice or morality); and C.R.C.P. 241.6(5) (violating the criminal laws of a state or of the United States).

Since then, there is no doubt that in the eyes of the law, this is cold hard fact. No caveats need be applied.

[WhoReallyCares]

The three black women were indeed referred to as computers, while "proper computers" were called "IBMs".

Yes, until computing machines becanme widely available, the word "computer" meant "a person who computes". Interestingly, from about 1890 the Royal Observatory at Greenwich employed female computers, probably because they could be paid less than men. I doubt that many, if any, were not white.

Yep, just did some more reading and found a pretty good article about human computers on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer

A few quotes ........

1. Other innovations in human computing included the work done by a group of boys who worked in the Octagon Room of the Royal Greenwich Observatory

2. In the 1870s, the United States Signal Corps created a new way of organizing human computing to track weather patterns

3. By 1880, all of the computers working at the Harvard Observatory were women

4. Many of the women astronomers from this era were computers

EDIT ALERT!

The Wiki article has this:

In 1893, Frances Galton created the Committee for Conducting Statistical Inquiries into the Measurable Characteristics of Plants and Animals which reported the Royal Society

Someone ought to make that: reported TO the Royal Society

[Jim]

Every year they cock up the talkpage notifications. One year they accidentally messaged shitloads of people who had been inactive for years, which was not the agreed target audience, leading to a mad panic that such undesirable 'zombie' voters might vote for the 'wrong' candidates. Amidst the panic there were even suggestions the election result should be annulled (no, I'm not kidding). In the end, it had little effect, and wider participation was generally hailed as a good thing. Another year they spent so long trying to create scripts to notify the exact list approved in the election RfC that they almost ended up notifying nobody.

This year, to maintain the tradition, they have apparently notified 10,000 people twice: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination#Duplicated distribution. Now they are discussing whether it's worth spamming another 10,000 edits to remove the extra messages. Just for fun, someone ought to propose that, as recompense for the inconvenience of being thus spammed, these people should be allowed to vote twice...

* edited to add link...

[No Ledge]

... there is no doubt that in the eyes of the law, this is cold hard fact. No caveats need be applied.

You can either say

allegedly blah blah blah

or

the hearing board found blah blah blah

But just leaving "blah blah blah" naked is not good.

Sometimes court or hearing board opinions are reversed, for example when new evidence surfaces.

[Kumioko]

Every year they cock up the talkpage notifications. One year they accidentally messaged shitloads of people who had been inactive for years, which was not the agreed target audience, leading to a mad panic that such undesirable 'zombie' voters might vote for the 'wrong' candidates. Amidst the panic there were even suggestions the election result should be annulled (no, I'm not kidding). In the end, it had little effect, and wider participation was generally hailed as a good thing. Another year they spent so long trying to create scripts to notify the exact list approved in the election RfC that they almost ended up notifying nobody.

This year, to maintain the tradition, they have apparently notified 10,000 people twice: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination#Duplicated distribution. Now they are discussing whether it's worth spamming another 10,000 edits to remove the extra messages. Just for fun, someone ought to propose that, as recompense for the inconvenience of being thus spammed, these people should be allowed to vote twice...

* edited to add link...

Yeah it's not surprising at all. They wonder why people call them incompetent and yet they cant even send out a simple talk page notification without screwing it up.

The fact they even go to the effort of a talk page notification for something that will already be announced as a broadcast message, is being talking about on and off wiki and happens at this same time every year is a whole separate problem.

[WhoReallyCares]

I made a guide; https://thewikicabal.com/2018/11/19/201 ... ter-guide/

I've noticed a few guys have commented on this, so I'll chime in. Did you write it? It's not the kind of stuff you usually write. It's remarkably childish.

RE: Fred Bauder
This: "Fred was a lawyer, unfortunately he [...] decided to pay one of the parties for sex. He was caught in the act."

He didn't pay anyone, nor was he caught doing so. This is a very lame and frankly immature interpretation of what's known. He ALLEGEDLY intimated he was prepared to pay for a bit of ooh la la. There was no commitment to pay, however, since the woman [or women] declined the offer. No cash changed hands, so obviously he wasn't "caught in the act" of paying for sexual services.

RE: Drmies
This: "This Dutchman is great. Everything he does is just amazing. Vote for the one and only Drmies! His Wikipedia work is so impressive he used it to get tenure for a real academic job"

I assume this is sarcasm.

[Dysklyver]

RE: Drmies
This: "This Dutchman is great. Everything he does is just amazing. Vote for the one and only Drmies! His Wikipedia work is so impressive he used it to get tenure for a real academic job"

I assume this is sarcasm.

Well he did use his Wikipedia work to get a tenure. But to be honest Drmies is highly preferable to some of the others, I don't trust these people I don't know the names of. I know who Drmies is, and what he looks like, and where he works, and where he lives, and what he does with his free time. This is a reliable choice of arb when compared to some anonymous basement dweller. Therefore for this fact alone he gains much credibility in my way of ranking Wikipedians.

[Dysklyver]

Sometimes court or hearing board opinions are reversed, for example when new evidence surfaces.

And other times people wait until way after the statute of limitations or appeal time limitation makes any appeal irrelevant or impossible and get sore about it twenty years later when people point it out to a potential employer.

I could put some legalese in there to describe the situation more precisely, but I was aiming for super-simple quick and easy read. I don't feel the need to restate the court documents.

[WhoReallyCares]

RE: Drmies
This: "This Dutchman is great. Everything he does is just amazing. Vote for the one and only Drmies! His Wikipedia work is so impressive he used it to get tenure for a real academic job"

I assume this is sarcasm.

Well he did use his Wikipedia work to get a tenure. But to be honest Drmies is highly preferable to some of the others, I don't trust these people I don't know the names of. I know who Drmies is, and what he looks like, and where he works, and where he lives, and what he does with his free time. This is a reliable choice of arb when compared to some anonymous basement dweller. Therefore for this fact alone he gains much credibility in my way of ranking Wikipedians.

So that childish crap about Drmies wasn't sarcasm? Wow. Go and talk to CrowsNest on WikiSucks. Send a PM and ask him to guide you down the Path to Wisdom.

IMO, you'd do well to put a fair bit of distance between yourself and all this Wiki nonsense. Focus more on your homework, school work or college work.

RE: "I don't trust these people I don't know the names of"
You don't need to trust no one, and at your age you certainly don't need to give a fuck about any of this shit.

[Bezdomni]

WRC: let's not be agist and claim wikiwatching is just the province of old geezers, just because we're oldish geezers. (like Drmies, soon)

Being young is a !crime, though it's true that as we age, we progressively learn to lie (still) better.

[Dysklyver]

So that childish crap about Drmies wasn't sarcasm? Wow. Go and talk to CrowsNest on WikiSucks. Send a PM and ask him to guide you down the Path to Wisdom.

Since when has Drmies being an arb shown to be a bad thing?

IMO, you'd do well to put a fair bit of distance between yourself and all this Wiki nonsense. Focus more on your homework, school work or college work.

But it's fun!

RE: "I don't trust these people I don't know the names of"
You don't need to trust no one, and at your age you certainly don't need to give a fuck about any of this shit.

O'rly.

I don't know about others here, but I find it hard to support some unknown faceless people for the leadership positions of the Wikipedia community.

Of course they could be Russian agents, or maybe sockpuppets, former criminals, stooges of the mafia, or smelly hobos living in the basement, seriously think about it, what are they hiding?

Nope, no unknowns are getting a recommendation here.

[Poetlister]

We're so lucky to have Eric here. Whatever the topic, he knows more about it than anyone else.

[Kumioko]

We're so lucky to have Eric here. Whatever the topic, he knows more about it than anyone else.

Did I miss something? I don't see Eric posting anything for quite a while on this thread.

[Eric Corbett]

We're so lucky to have Eric here. Whatever the topic, he knows more about it than anyone else.

Did I miss something? I don't see Eric posting anything for quite a while on this thread.

Obviously Poetlister fantasises about me.

[Bezdomni]

What's the opposite of irony?

wrinkly

[Kumioko]

What's the opposite of irony?

wrinkly

Woody?

[Jim]

I was disappointed to get as few as 242 google results for "steely irony", which I now quite like as a term; "steely dan irony" only gives 103, and I don't lose that number even when I do it again...

[Kingsindian]

We're so lucky to have Eric here. Whatever the topic, he knows more about it than anyone else.

Did I miss something? I don't see Eric posting anything for quite a while on this thread.

I believe Poetlister is talking about this post and this reply by Dysklyver.

IANAL and have no idea of what the law says.

[Midsize Jake]

So that childish crap about Drmies wasn't sarcasm? Wow. Go and talk to CrowsNest on WikiSucks. Send a PM and ask him to guide you down the Path to Wisdom.

Since when has Drmies being an arb shown to be a bad thing?

Does that mean you don't want to ask Mr. CrowsNest about him? Mr. Cares is right, CN's the most anti-Drmies guy out there, and I would assume he has a proportionate amount of oppo research on him. I'm surprised he hasn't written a book already!

That said, Drmies wasn't an arb (and therefore didn't participate) in the two or three most contentious cases of the last 3-4 years, namely Gamergate, GGTF, and (arguably) Lightbreather. So as far as recent Arbcom cases go, the "sample size" is probably too small. Still, he was the one Arbcom member who didn't want to ban Wikicology, an open-and-shut case if there ever was one (sock-puppets, WP:AUTO, and WP:NLT violations just for starters), and I've always suspected it was because the situation was brought to the committee's attention by a well-known WP critic (and Wikipediocracy member), namely Peter Damian. I think it's fair to say that Drmies gets a special thrill out of pissing off WP critics (which he clearly equates with admin critics) whenever possible.

Meanwhile, in the Gamaliel case - just from what I saw, at least - I thought he came off as rather ineffectual and, quite frankly, mealy-mouthed. But somewhere in there he did write this:

I ran for ArbCom in part because I think that difficult cases should be handled with deliberation, not with immediate desysopping.

So that, at least, is evidence of Drmies as an Arb being a bad thing, since any decent person would want to desysop as many WP admins as possible without hesitation.

[Volunteer Marek]

I'm basing my votes on the response to K.e.coffman's question. Partly because I think it's a relevant and important question, but also because it's the kind of unorthodox question which is good at revealing the character of the responder. So:

*Fred Bauder - don't see the question there. But I'm gonna say "nay" for other reasons (and because "nay" is my default)
*Robert McClenon - the response is clumsily written but the substance ... well, first there actually IS substance (see below) which is something, and that substance basically gets its right. Had no idea who he was, now will be voting "ay" (only concern is he's a little bullish on discretionary sanctions which have been a mixed blessing at best (basically it depends on who's taking the discretion to sanction))
*Courcelles - no answer, so default to "nay"
*Kelapstick - no question... will wait...
*SilkTork - total weasel answer. Definitive "nay"
*AGK - surprisingly (to me, I was gonna go with "nay") he makes an honest attempt at an answer. He made me go do whole bunch of work though, and read another page though (BMK's) and then another (recent AE) and him answer wasn't fully articulated... mmmm.... I'll be neutral for now.
*Mkdw - mostly a weasel answer. Maybe I'd be more generous in my interpretation of his statement, but I'm actually voting against all presently sitting members of the committee cuz those fuckers deserve it (for reasons which I may or may not spell out later), so it's moot. Nay.
*Drmies - decent answer, would like to see more constructive ideas for going forward. But it's a Aye.
*Lourdes - no answer, so default to "nay"
*Joe Roe - decent answer though a bit short. Aye.
*DGG - as awful of an answer as you'd expect. Yes, we know, Wikipedia has a policy called WP:NPOV. Thank you for informing us. Total weasel. Also, present member of the committee, so a double Nay.
*Isarra - horrible, inane, lazy answer. Nay nay nay.
*GorrillaWarfare - best answer to this question. Aye.

There you have it. Now all my nemesisises...ses, go and vote opposite.

[C&B]

Vote for no admins but Lourdes, and remember to transfer all the remaining neutral votes to opposes.

[Kingsindian]

I'm basing my votes on the response to K.e.coffman's question. Partly because I think it's a relevant and important question, but also because it's the kind of unorthodox question which is good at revealing the character of the responder. So:

*Fred Bauder - don't see the question there. But I'm gonna say "nay" for other reasons (and because "nay" is my default)
*Robert McClenon - the response is clumsily written but the substance ... well, first there actually IS substance (see below) which is something, and that substance basically gets its right. Had no idea who he was, now will be voting "ay" (only concern is he's a little bullish on discretionary sanctions which have been a mixed blessing at best (basically it depends on who's taking the discretion to sanction))
*Courcelles - no answer, so default to "nay"
*Kelapstick - no question... will wait...
*SilkTork - total weasel answer. Definitive "nay"
*AGK - surprisingly (to me, I was gonna go with "nay") he makes an honest attempt at an answer. He made me go do whole bunch of work though, and read another page though (BMK's) and then another (recent AE) and him answer wasn't fully articulated... mmmm.... I'll be neutral for now.
*Mkdw - mostly a weasel answer. Maybe I'd be more generous in my interpretation of his statement, but I'm actually voting against all presently sitting members of the committee cuz those fuckers deserve it (for reasons which I may or may not spell out later), so it's moot. Nay.
*Drmies - decent answer, would like to see more constructive ideas for going forward. But it's a Aye.
*Lourdes - no answer, so default to "nay"
*Joe Roe - decent answer though a bit short. Aye.
*DGG - as awful of an answer as you'd expect. Yes, we know, Wikipedia has a policy called WP:NPOV. Thank you for informing us. Total weasel. Also, present member of the committee, so a double Nay.
*Isarra - horrible, inane, lazy answer. Nay nay nay.
*GorrillaWarfare - best answer to this question. Aye.

There you have it. Now all my nemesisises...ses, go and vote opposite.

What exactly are you looking for an ArbCom candidate (and eventually Arb), to do about it?

It's rather funny to me that you read GorillaWarfare's answer and Isarra's answer to be polar opposites when, to me, they say virtually the same thing. Namely:

• All kinds of POV-pushers exist on Wikipedia.
• ArbCom isn't going to do much about it, except enforce whatever provisions are already there.

I guess that's politics: how one says things matters a lot as compared to what one actually says.

[Kumioko]

Vote for no admins but Lourdes, and remember to transfer all the remaining neutral votes to opposes.

Personally I am going to vote for Fred just because I think it would be amusing for him to get elected as a non admin and then be in the middle of a case. Not that I think he has even the slightest chance, but I have several accounts that are poised to help get him elected.

I'm also planning on voting for Kelapstick and Lourdes but that's about it. Everyone else will be opposes.

[C&B]

Personally I am going to vote for Fred just because I think it would be amusing for him to get elected as a non admin and then be in the middle of a case.

Brilliantly Kafka!

[Randy from Boise]

As the election plods along, TParis (T-C-L) is up with a Voters' Guide. He puts Drmies in Fred Bauderland with a strong oppose, other than that, pure milquetoast...

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TPar ... _ACE_Guide[/link]

==========

Tryptofish (T-C-L) points out that I made a mistake quoting his Voters' Guide above; Mkdw is in his top four, not Lourdes.

My bad.

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tryptofish/ACE2018[/link]

RfB

[WhoReallyCares]

So that childish crap about Drmies wasn't sarcasm? Wow. Go and talk to CrowsNest on WikiSucks. Send a PM and ask him to guide you down the Path to Wisdom.

Since when has Drmies being an arb shown to be a bad thing?

As I said, talk to CrowsNest.

Admittedly he's no longer Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the World [an honor that now belongs to the "Oracle from Oregon"], but he'll explain all.

Allow me to get you started:

1. Drmies gained tenure by telling his employers some ridiculous twaddle about Wikipedia's so-called peer review processes. I assume he discussed FA and perhaps GA.

2. These processes are pure shit. They don't work and any reasonably competent individual can spot this quickly.

3. Go to the FAC section and look at the talk page.

4. Notice how a few days ago a Wikipedian called Tony1 was involved in an incident.

5. The cliques [who routinely engage in tit-for-tat supports] objected to Tony. A pile-on ensued.

6. The incident was subsequently deleted, but you'll find it in the recent history.

7. Tony then discussed things further on his own talk page.

Read all of this. Familiarize yourself with things. Ask Eric Corbett why he began doing FAC reviews and then quit. Ask him too about the GA review for Cary Grant.

I could tell you loads more, but ultimately my point is simple: any fuckwit can see FA and GA are jokes, and yet Drmies presented this woeful trash to his employers as valid, academic processes. The guy's incompetence is staggering. He's actually even more useless than most people realize.

Final points. I joined Wikipedia after learning about Featured Articles. I thought they were an excellent idea. My plan was to write five from scratch. After getting a couple of FAs / TFAs I basically gave up. I realized the site is little more than an online mental hospital; I saw too that Wikipedia's lame attempt at academia is worthless.

Trust me -- the FAC section is a joke. I saw it, ditto Tony1 and Eric, ditto numerous others. As for Drmies, I doubt that prick even knows what day of the week it is.

[Eric Corbett]

I'd forgotten about that Cary Grant GA review, but it's certainly true that I was far from happy with it. I've been a great fan of GA over the years, but it does suffer from an escalation of the principle that "anyone can edit" to "anyone can review", which is patently absurd.

[Poetlister]

Vote for no admins but Lourdes, and remember to transfer all the remaining neutral votes to opposes.

Is it OK to vote for non-admins?

[Poetlister]

it does suffer from an escalation of the principle that "anyone can edit" to "anyone can review", which is patently absurd.

Isn't "anyone can edit" patently absurd?

[Bezdomni]

I assume I can vote. Apparently some people are getting special invitations to do so from the election committee. It took a while to get that poor brinjal into the ballot box, but when I finished I did get a cryptic recipe back in PGP. Does anyone here speak PGP?

edit: Mispelled the name of a founding member of the Eggplant Cabal more than once...

[Dysklyver]

I assume I can vote. Apparently some people are getting special invitations to do so from the election committee. It took a while to get that poor banjul into the ballot box, but when I finished I did get a cryptic recipe back in PGP. Does anyone here speak PGP?

You need the key or access to the NSA to view it. Generally PGP thing decrypt automatically or on request, client dependent.

[Bezdomni]

Decidedly I can't get this word right: brinjal, not banjul.

[Eric Corbett]

it does suffer from an escalation of the principle that "anyone can edit" to "anyone can review", which is patently absurd.

Isn't "anyone can edit" patently absurd?

I've said so many times.

[Dysklyver]

Drmies [...] ridiculous twaddle [...] pure shit. They don't work and any reasonably competent individual can spot this quickly.
[...] The cliques [...] A pile-on [...] subsequently deleted [...] any fuckwit can see FA and GA are jokes, and yet Drmies presented this woeful trash to his employers as valid, academic processes. The guy's incompetence is staggering. He's actually even more useless than most people realize. [...] the site is little more than an online mental hospital; I saw too that Wikipedia's lame attempt at academia is worthless. Trust me -- the FAC section is a joke. [...] As for Drmies, I doubt that prick even knows what day of the week it is.

The whole job of an arb is to talk twaddle and run the most inane "last resort" process on the project, while dealing with an endless stream of sycophants and angry mobs, and trying to appear professional, respectable, and above board (normally with success as far as the causal observer is concerned.)

Arbcom itself is a process where the very words themselves have been fully detached from reality (there is no semblance of arbitration in arbcom). Where the process is modeled on a utopian academics idea of a court, yet has suffered the removal of any recognisable procedure, workable law, or precedent.

I can't think of a more fitting candidate than the guy who successfully convinced the directors of a university that FA/GA was akin to an academic peer review process. He is perfect, and probably in the right frame of mind to enjoy it, which is essential. Look at Alex for example, giving up after only a year, Drmies will at least do the distance.

[WhoReallyCares]

I can't think of a more fitting candidate than the guy who successfully convinced the directors of a university that FA/GA was akin to an academic peer review process. He is perfect ...

Jeez, you really are besotted. I bet you've even got a photo of him on your bedroom wall. I can imagine your ultimate fantasy .......

You'd come home from a long day at work, turn on your computer and check out Wikipediocracy. Suddenly you'd see an alert informing you of a PM you'd just received. You'd click the link and, amazingly, would notice the PM is from Drmies. The message would say:

Hi Arthur. I'm Drmies. Pleased to meet you. Just wanted to say I've been following you for a few months and am impressed with what I've seen. I want you back over on the Pedia. I'm gonna revert your block and start an RFA for you. I'll manage all the necessary support, and we'll make sure you become an Admin just a few weeks from now. After that, I need you to be my personal assistant. I really trust you Arthur, and believe you've got what it takes to become a Senior Wikipedian. I'm convinced you and I will make a winning team.

Admit it -- if you were to receive a PM like that from Drmies it would be the best day of your life.

[Kingsindian]

As the election plods along, TParis (T-C-L) is up with a Voters' Guide. He puts Drmies in Fred Bauderland with a strong oppose, other than that, pure milquetoast...

It seems that TParis is basing his complaint on the "MisterWiki" case, where Salvidrim was desysopped. There's a WO thread here.

See this ArbCom talk page section. TParis seems to be fighting an uphill battle here: it was pretty likely that Salvidrim would be desysopped comfortably regardless. Indeed, Tim predicted the outcome in the thread.

[Volunteer Marek]

I'm basing my votes on the response to K.e.coffman's question. Partly because I think it's a relevant and important question, but also because it's the kind of unorthodox question which is good at revealing the character of the responder. So:

*Fred Bauder - don't see the question there. But I'm gonna say "nay" for other reasons (and because "nay" is my default)
*Robert McClenon - the response is clumsily written but the substance ... well, first there actually IS substance (see below) which is something, and that substance basically gets its right. Had no idea who he was, now will be voting "ay" (only concern is he's a little bullish on discretionary sanctions which have been a mixed blessing at best (basically it depends on who's taking the discretion to sanction))
*Courcelles - no answer, so default to "nay"
*Kelapstick - no question... will wait...
*SilkTork - total weasel answer. Definitive "nay"
*AGK - surprisingly (to me, I was gonna go with "nay") he makes an honest attempt at an answer. He made me go do whole bunch of work though, and read another page though (BMK's) and then another (recent AE) and him answer wasn't fully articulated... mmmm.... I'll be neutral for now.
*Mkdw - mostly a weasel answer. Maybe I'd be more generous in my interpretation of his statement, but I'm actually voting against all presently sitting members of the committee cuz those fuckers deserve it (for reasons which I may or may not spell out later), so it's moot. Nay.
*Drmies - decent answer, would like to see more constructive ideas for going forward. But it's a Aye.
*Lourdes - no answer, so default to "nay"
*Joe Roe - decent answer though a bit short. Aye.
*DGG - as awful of an answer as you'd expect. Yes, we know, Wikipedia has a policy called WP:NPOV. Thank you for informing us. Total weasel. Also, present member of the committee, so a double Nay.
*Isarra - horrible, inane, lazy answer. Nay nay nay.
*GorrillaWarfare - best answer to this question. Aye.

There you have it. Now all my nemesisises...ses, go and vote opposite.

What exactly are you looking for an ArbCom candidate (and eventually Arb), to do about it?

It's rather funny to me that you read GorillaWarfare's answer and Isarra's answer to be polar opposites when, to me, they say virtually the same thing. Namely:

• All kinds of POV-pushers exist on Wikipedia.
• ArbCom isn't going to do much about it, except enforce whatever provisions are already there.

I guess that's politics: how one says things matters a lot as compared to what one actually says.

Isarra's answer is dismissive and inane. GorrillaWarfare tries to address it though yes, she does offer "more of the same" (discretionary sanctions).

This part of Isarra's answer really bugged me: "But at that point it's still not apt to be the content that's the issue, rather how people are handling it."

This is that whole myth that there are "content disputes" and "behavioral issues". Nonsense. Behavioral issues ARE content disputes and vice versa. If somebody's being an ass (and by that I don't mean "incivil", but the usual definition of being an ass) 9 times out of 10 it's because they wanna put some sketchy ass content into an article.

This is also the whole reason why the biggest problem in this topic area (and maybe in Wikipedia as a whole) is CRUSH - civil POV pushing. Basically what admins/arbs like Isarra are saying, whether they admit it or not, is "hey, it's okay if you put in neo Nazi stuff (or anti-vaxxer stuff, or flat earth stuff, or country-X-uber-alles stuff or whatever nutzoid agenda is popular at a particular moment) into Wikipedia articles as long as you act nice while doing it and kiss a lot of ass"

[Bezdomni]

If somebody's being an ass (and by that I don't mean "incivil", but the usual definition of being an ass) 9 times out of 10 it's because they wanna put some sketchy ass content into an article.

Looking through my diffoscope from the Group W bench (see A.G. here) in the preceding 500 days, I seem to remember having seen people engaged in such behavior to keep sketchy entries and to keep stuff out of entries, too.

But sometimes it's just gratuitous. I remember Drmies saying "Screw you" to me once in a friendlyish manner on his meta-tok pisin page. Apparently it's a thing in the Bacon Cabal not to police your speech: §

Is Drmies really just a bedevilled egg?

[LargelyRecyclable]

I'm basing my votes on the response to K.e.coffman's question. Partly because I think it's a relevant and important question, but also because it's the kind of unorthodox question which is good at revealing the character of the responder.

Ahaha.

Hahahahahahaha.

wheeez

Coffman's question is a plant, fool.

[Kingsindian]

I'm basing my votes on the response to K.e.coffman's question. Partly because I think it's a relevant and important question, but also because it's the kind of unorthodox question which is good at revealing the character of the responder. So:

*Fred Bauder - don't see the question there. But I'm gonna say "nay" for other reasons (and because "nay" is my default)
*Robert McClenon - the response is clumsily written but the substance ... well, first there actually IS substance (see below) which is something, and that substance basically gets its right. Had no idea who he was, now will be voting "ay" (only concern is he's a little bullish on discretionary sanctions which have been a mixed blessing at best (basically it depends on who's taking the discretion to sanction))
*Courcelles - no answer, so default to "nay"
*Kelapstick - no question... will wait...
*SilkTork - total weasel answer. Definitive "nay"
*AGK - surprisingly (to me, I was gonna go with "nay") he makes an honest attempt at an answer. He made me go do whole bunch of work though, and read another page though (BMK's) and then another (recent AE) and him answer wasn't fully articulated... mmmm.... I'll be neutral for now.
*Mkdw - mostly a weasel answer. Maybe I'd be more generous in my interpretation of his statement, but I'm actually voting against all presently sitting members of the committee cuz those fuckers deserve it (for reasons which I may or may not spell out later), so it's moot. Nay.
*Drmies - decent answer, would like to see more constructive ideas for going forward. But it's a Aye.
*Lourdes - no answer, so default to "nay"
*Joe Roe - decent answer though a bit short. Aye.
*DGG - as awful of an answer as you'd expect. Yes, we know, Wikipedia has a policy called WP:NPOV. Thank you for informing us. Total weasel. Also, present member of the committee, so a double Nay.
*Isarra - horrible, inane, lazy answer. Nay nay nay.
*GorrillaWarfare - best answer to this question. Aye.

There you have it. Now all my nemesisises...ses, go and vote opposite.

What exactly are you looking for an ArbCom candidate (and eventually Arb), to do about it?

It's rather funny to me that you read GorillaWarfare's answer and Isarra's answer to be polar opposites when, to me, they say virtually the same thing. Namely:

• All kinds of POV-pushers exist on Wikipedia.
• ArbCom isn't going to do much about it, except enforce whatever provisions are already there.

I guess that's politics: how one says things matters a lot as compared to what one actually says.

Isarra's answer is dismissive and inane. GorrillaWarfare tries to address it though yes, she does offer "more of the same" (discretionary sanctions).

This part of Isarra's answer really bugged me: "But at that point it's still not apt to be the content that's the issue, rather how people are handling it."

This is that whole myth that there are "content disputes" and "behavioral issues". Nonsense. Behavioral issues ARE content disputes and vice versa. If somebody's being an ass (and by that I don't mean "incivil", but the usual definition of being an ass) 9 times out of 10 it's because they wanna put some sketchy ass content into an article.

This is also the whole reason why the biggest problem in this topic area (and maybe in Wikipedia as a whole) is CRUSH - civil POV pushing. Basically what admins/arbs like Isarra are saying, whether they admit it or not, is "hey, it's okay if you put in neo Nazi stuff (or anti-vaxxer stuff, or flat earth stuff, or country-X-uber-alles stuff or whatever nutzoid agenda is popular at a particular moment) into Wikipedia articles as long as you act nice while doing it and kiss a lot of ass"

No, she's saying that being nice is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. Or, to put it another way, one can get sanctioned for being an ass even if one is right. This interpretation is confirmed by the very next question (posed by Hijiri88), which is precisely about "civil POV pushing".

How polite someone is really should not matter if their behaviour is otherwise disruptive and they do not stop doing this disruptive behaviour even after being specifically asked to stop. Disruptive is disruptive.

That said, yes, absolutely - special care should be taken to avoid being... too taken in by a person's manner, rather than the content of what they are actually doing. It is possible to become biased toward someone who is being more polite over others who are being much less so even when the otherwise polite person's other behaviour is ultimately the heart of the problem, and having done this myself I will say that that is a trap that feels very, very silly to have fallen into in retrospect. But it's also not something that should necessarily be assumed, either - sometimes face value is correct as well.

Being nice or having Wikifriends (in this case, one often doesn't even need to be nice) has always given one a leg up in content disputes on Wikipedia. There's nothing special here.

There's another point about the "civil POV pushing", which is worth keeping in mind. Neo-nazi, anti-vaxxer and flat-earth stuff isn't popular on Wikipedia (for good reason). That is why people who are sympathetic to these things (or some aspect thereof) engage in "civil POV-pushing" -- if it were otherwise, they could simply engage in blatant POV-pushing. To quote Mill in On Liberty:

In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them.

The full passage in On Liberty on the equivalent of "civility" is also worth reading:

Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent. But this, though an important consideration in a practical point of view, merges in a more fundamental objection. Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct. With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatise those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feel much interest in seeing justice done them; but this weapon is, from the nature of the case, denied to those who attack a prevailing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor, if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own cause. In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them. For the interest, therefore, of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain this employment of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity, than on religion. It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry, or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own: and giving merited honour to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favour. This is the real morality of public discussion; and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it.

[Captain Occam]

...and TDA has posted his tripartite guide which gives: 1) TDA's prefered panel 2) an HTD panel, 3) the WikiReal panel.

Mr. Advocate (who writes about Wikipedia for Breitbart.com) says his choices were "generally informed" (though "not always") by how the candidates answered the question posed by User:K.e.coffman (T-C-L) about how ArbCom should respond to an unwanted increase in far-right editing activity. You've got to admire that about him - Mr. Advocate is nothing if not consistent.

Now we just need a Voter's Guide from Mr. Proabivouac in which candidates are inversely ranked solely on the basis of how likely it is that they identify as a gender different from the one they were originally born with, and the voters will be all set!

I think TDA's viewpoint about this is more reasonable than he's getting credit for, although he didn't do a good job explaining the basis for it. Here's the issue: while far-right trolls (Mikemikev socks, etc.) do exist on Wikipedia, based on my observations they don't generally cause much damage in the long term, because their edits tend to be such obvious NPOV violations that they're reverted in a matter of seconds.

On the other hand, something that I think has been causing more harm to the project is the McCarthy-esque paranoia that some users have shown about sniffing out editors who might possibly have a far-right point or view. This issue was previously discussed here in the case of MjolnirPants, who applied the term "Nazi" to editors with an extremely broad range of viewpoints and tried to get all such editors blocked. This ended up extending to editors such as Obsidi (T-C-L), who appeared to only be motivated by a genuine concern that BLP policy wasn't being followed in an article about a right-wing figure.

If an ArbCom candidate takes the position "far-right editors must be stopped at all costs", or some variant of that, I think there's a danger they're going to make this second problem worse. An attitude that's less likely to exacerbate the problem is to just say that these editors should be dealt with the same way as any other type of POV pusher, along the lines of DGG's answer.

[Dysklyver]

Hi Arthur. I'm Drmies. Pleased to meet you. Just wanted to say I've been following you for a few months and am impressed with what I've seen. I want you back over on the Pedia. I'm gonna revert your block and start an RFA for you. I'll manage all the necessary support, and we'll make sure you become an Admin just a few weeks from now. After that, I need you to be my personal assistant. I really trust you Arthur, and believe you've got what it takes to become a Senior Wikipedian. I'm convinced you and I will make a winning team.

Admit it -- if you were to receive a PM like that from Drmies it would be the best day of your life.

Hell yeah that would be great.

Still, somewhat unlikely. I will just settle for Drmies doing his normal thing, and I will watch, and chuckle. And try and figure out what his unnamed sock/alt accounts are. And criticise all the times he contradicts himself or uses the wrong policy or template.

And maybe in a thousand years time the stewards will answer my email asking to be unlocked and I get to stop block evading. Maybe also hell will freeze over and Allah will come down with his angels and make the world great and bountiful.

[WhoReallyCares]

Hi Arthur. I'm Drmies. Pleased to meet you. Just wanted to say I've been following you for a few months and am impressed with what I've seen. I want you back over on the Pedia. I'm gonna revert your block and start an RFA for you. I'll manage all the necessary support, and we'll make sure you become an Admin just a few weeks from now. After that, I need you to be my personal assistant. I really trust you Arthur, and believe you've got what it takes to become a Senior Wikipedian. I'm convinced you and I will make a winning team.

Admit it -- if you were to receive a PM like that from Drmies it would be the best day of your life.

Hell yeah that would be great.

Still, somewhat unlikely. I will just settle for Drmies doing his normal thing, and I will watch, and chuckle. And try and figure out what his unnamed sock/alt accounts are. And criticise all the times he contradicts himself or uses the wrong policy or template.

And maybe in a thousand years time the stewards will answer my email asking to be unlocked and I get to stop block evading. Maybe also hell will freeze over and Allah will come down with his angels and make the world great and bountiful.

RE: And maybe in a thousand years time the stewards will answer my email asking to be unlocked

Kumioko says the same kind of thing. They never reply. I think your chances of being unblocked are about the same as his.

If you can convince them you want to contribute positively and write great articles they might leave you alone for a while, but eventually some shit-faced autistic will come along and re-block you. It's pointless.

If you can produce great articles, why not do so commercially? I think I've told you already this is what I now do. It's only a sideline , but it's something I like. And unlike the dogshit on Wikipedia, commercial clients will thank you for your endeavors and encourage you to stick at it.

[Kumioko]

Yeah the Stewards are basically worthless. They are there to support the in house POV and push the WMF's agenda, not to write an encyclopedia or to improve the editing environment on the projects to ensure their success in the long term. They only cadre about what benefits them, right now, today. Have you ever seen pictures of them as a group? Nearly all of them look like they had roles on the Revenge of the Nerds and most do almost nothing of benefit to the projects other than grace them with their presence.

Case in point is the unban problem and I am going to use myself as an example merely because I am most familiar with my own case. A lot of complaints have been said about me, some true and some not but one thing that I do not believe I have ever heard anyone say about me regarding the projects was that I don't care about their success or that I didn't do a hell of a lot of work to improve them. In fact most of what has been said about me are attempts to minimize the amount of work I did to justify to enough people who don't know any better that having me out is better than in. Of course that only benefits the POV of a smal group of Wikipedia editors, but that doesn't matter.

In the case of the Stewards and my ban, a couple had an active hand in getting me out and keeping me out because I was vocally opposed to the admin double standard and that disturbs both the house POV and their control (stewards are also admins). It is a human natural instinct that if you are in power, you want to keep it. I was disturbing that dynamic and so it's natural that the Stewards and the WMF would want to get me out rather than fix the actual problems with abusive admins that are actively dragging the projects down.

[Ajraddatz]

The usual with speculation as to why stewards don't answer their email.

I can only speak for myself, but for my first couple of years as a steward I answered quite a number of unlock requests from people that "the community" would consider unsavory. I did this because I never saw much difference between the LTAs and some established members of the community, in terms of toxicity and general unpleasantness to work with. The defining factor as to whether they were blocked was always how many friends they had to defend themselves when they were blocked or dragged to a noticeboard.

I stopped entertaining requests for unlock because I came to regret the decision almost every time. Turns out that even if the locked people were no more toxic than some established community members, they were still toxic and couldn't play nice with others. The locks were almost always reinstated by someone else after a couple of months, and I got more than one slap on the wrist from other stewards. Without any benefit to me or positive results, I stopped doing it.

I've said this to people in private before, but I'll give my grand advice for how to evade your Wikimedia/Wikipedia block here: make a sock and be a completely reasonable person with it. Don't do the things that got you blocked/locked in the first place. Nobody will ever check your account or care. And if you do get caught years down the line after being a totally decent person, then let me know and I'd be happy to defend you.

[Randy from Boise]

The usual with speculation as to why stewards don't answer their email.

I can only speak for myself, but for my first couple of years as a steward I answered quite a number of unlock requests from people that "the community" would consider unsavory. I did this because I never saw much difference between the LTAs and some established members of the community, in terms of toxicity and general unpleasantness to work with. The defining factor as to whether they were blocked was always how many friends they had to defend themselves when they were blocked or dragged to a noticeboard.

I stopped entertaining requests for unlock because I came to regret the decision almost every time. Turns out that even if the locked people were no more toxic than some established community members, they were still toxic and couldn't play nice with others. The locks were almost always reinstated by someone else after a couple of months, and I got more than one slap on the wrist from other stewards. Without any benefit to me or positive results, I stopped doing it.

I've said this to people in private before, but I'll give my grand advice for how to evade your Wikimedia/Wikipedia block here: make a sock and be a completely reasonable person with it. Don't do the things that got you blocked/locked in the first place. Nobody will ever check your account or care. And if you do get caught years down the line after being a totally decent person, then let me know and I'd be happy to defend you.

Sage advice, made with candor.

RfB

[turnedworm]

The usual with speculation as to why stewards don't answer their email.

I can only speak for myself, but for my first couple of years as a steward I answered quite a number of unlock requests from people that "the community" would consider unsavory. I did this because I never saw much difference between the LTAs and some established members of the community, in terms of toxicity and general unpleasantness to work with. The defining factor as to whether they were blocked was always how many friends they had to defend themselves when they were blocked or dragged to a noticeboard.

I stopped entertaining requests for unlock because I came to regret the decision almost every time. Turns out that even if the locked people were no more toxic than some established community members, they were still toxic and couldn't play nice with others. The locks were almost always reinstated by someone else after a couple of months, and I got more than one slap on the wrist from other stewards. Without any benefit to me or positive results, I stopped doing it.

I've said this to people in private before, but I'll give my grand advice for how to evade your Wikimedia/Wikipedia block here: make a sock and be a completely reasonable person with it. Don't do the things that got you blocked/locked in the first place. Nobody will ever check your account or care. And if you do get caught years down the line after being a totally decent person, then let me know and I'd be happy to defend you.

Could not have said it better.

[Dysklyver]

They never reply. I think your chances of being unblocked are about the same as his.

probable.

[...] contribute positively and write great articles they might leave you alone for a while

Worked for five months.

If you can produce great articles, why not do so commercially? I think I've told you already this is what I now do. It's only a sideline , but it's something I like. And unlike the dogshit on Wikipedia, commercial clients will thank you for your endeavors and encourage you to stick at it.

Hard to find the clients.

[Dysklyver]

The usual with speculation as to why stewards don't answer their email.

I can only speak for myself, but for my first couple of years as a steward I answered quite a number of unlock requests from people that "the community" would consider unsavory. I did this because I never saw much difference between the LTAs and some established members of the community, in terms of toxicity and general unpleasantness to work with. The defining factor as to whether they were blocked was always how many friends they had to defend themselves when they were blocked or dragged to a noticeboard.

I stopped entertaining requests for unlock because I came to regret the decision almost every time. Turns out that even if the locked people were no more toxic than some established community members, they were still toxic and couldn't play nice with others. The locks were almost always reinstated by someone else after a couple of months, and I got more than one slap on the wrist from other stewards. Without any benefit to me or positive results, I stopped doing it.

I've said this to people in private before, but I'll give my grand advice for how to evade your Wikimedia/Wikipedia block here: make a sock and be a completely reasonable person with it. Don't do the things that got you blocked/locked in the first place. Nobody will ever check your account or care. And if you do get caught years down the line after being a totally decent person, then let me know and I'd be happy to defend you.

Sage advice, made with candor.

RfB

I see what you did there.

[Kumioko]

The usual with speculation as to why stewards don't answer their email.

I can only speak for myself, but for my first couple of years as a steward I answered quite a number of unlock requests from people that "the community" would consider unsavory. I did this because I never saw much difference between the LTAs and some established members of the community, in terms of toxicity and general unpleasantness to work with. The defining factor as to whether they were blocked was always how many friends they had to defend themselves when they were blocked or dragged to a noticeboard.

I stopped entertaining requests for unlock because I came to regret the decision almost every time. Turns out that even if the locked people were no more toxic than some established community members, they were still toxic and couldn't play nice with others. The locks were almost always reinstated by someone else after a couple of months, and I got more than one slap on the wrist from other stewards. Without any benefit to me or positive results, I stopped doing it.

I've said this to people in private before, but I'll give my grand advice for how to evade your Wikimedia/Wikipedia block here: make a sock and be a completely reasonable person with it. Don't do the things that got you blocked/locked in the first place. Nobody will ever check your account or care. And if you do get caught years down the line after being a totally decent person, then let me know and I'd be happy to defend you.

Could not have said it better.

Well the whole create a new account thing is just horseshit. I have created many, many accounts and in many of them I bothered no one, I made no comments, I made no drama. I edited stuff and not only were those accounts blocked, sometimes as other sockmasters like the Dog and Rapper vandal, the edits were deleted including restoring vandalism I reverted.

The problem here is that you have been admins and exempt from the IP blocks for so long you have no idea that it's difficult these days to even find an IP that isn't blocked. Admins frequently make wild accusations of socking to new editors and you all do absolutely nothing about it. It is largely due to this that I have gone to the effort of spoofing the WMF IP range on some accounts because it appears to be exempt from the IP Block exemption and doesn't seem to engage the CU tool.