Arbcom Elections 2021

[Smiley]

I disagree with the decision and the way it was handled.

That's fine. Mr Matetsky may appeal my decision. We are a very forgiving bunch as you know.

[Scottywong]

I thought it was procedure. I recall a bit of an argy-bargy on User:Eric Corbett (T-H-L) over whether his user page should be blanked; in the event, it was left with the block notice at the top. However, there's this essay Wikipedia:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing (T-H-L) which has been around for ten years and suggests otherwise.

I hadn't read any of this thread so my decision (plus revert) wasn't influenced by it at all. It was seeing the thread on AN which Johnuniq (T-C-L) and Serial Number 54129 (T-C-L) had a mild tussle over and thought "maybe I'll just do this so everyone can have a quiet life".

I was actually the one that restored Eric Corbett's user page (with the required block notice at the top) over the wishes of the functionaries who decided to blank the page, which was ironic because Eric and I rarely got along, and I was probably viewed by some as one of the (many) straws on the camel's back that lead to Eric's ultimate demise. Blanking the page had caused yet another uproar amongst the cult of Eric, and I decided that restoring his user page was such an easy solution to pour water on the fire. It was also a nice way to commemorate the contributions of someone who, admittedly, had contributed significantly to the project. Blanking the user page of a banned prolific editor just seems kinda cold, as if to say, "yeah, thanks for everything, but you're dead to us now, and we're gonna pretend that you never existed."

In the case of Darkness Shines, I don't see a big fire that needs water thrown on it. Unless I'm missing something (and I admittedly haven't looked that hard), no one is really coming to the defense of Darkness Shines, either on WP or even here. Nevertheless, restoring someone's user page really doesn't hurt anyone, so I'd be happy to restore it (with the required tags at the top) if there was a minimal level of support for it.

I'd also be happy to unblock Darkness Shines if he could clearly explain why he should be unblocked. But, I think I'd almost certainly need CU access to have the full picture, and I don't have that. That's the tricky thing with sock blocks. Either way, it looks like Yamla is open to considering new evidence and double-checking the accuracy of the block: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1055666489

[Vigilant]

So, you're using the WO toolset to further your en.wp fight?

Isn't that the kind of shit we call out the lowlifes on en.wp for doing?

[Smiley]

So, you're using the WO toolset to further your en.wp fight?

I'm doing this to give a craven coward like Newyorkbrad an extremely diluted taste of his own medicine, and more importantly, to clear Darkness of any wrongdoing and to clarify that he has no association with me.

Fut.Perf has been heavily criticized by this site, but I sincerely thank him for stepping in here:

Hi Yamla, would you mind changing the "sockpuppeter" link at User:Dark Clouds of Joy from User:Darkness Shines to User:Hillbillyholiday? Apparently a person who claims to be Hillbillyholiday has taken responsibility for that sock on an external site, and that identification seems to be entirely plausible in terms of language, tone and mode of operation – much more so than an identification with Darkness Shines. I'm no friend of DS, but I'm pretty sure that sock wasn't him, behaviorally. (Of course I don't know anything about CU evidence, which is why I'll defer to you.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

[Black Kite]

Still no help for Darkness Shines.


Imma be startin' decimation proceedings if this is ain't put right soon.

I'd vote for anyone who ran on a platform of unblocking DS.

[Scottywong]

Haha!

Now they're deleting all my scrupulously researched and well-written articles because that is the most logical response.

Looks like these deletions are largely being reverted after a small uproar on SuperMarioMan's talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... oMan#Query

[Beeblebrox]

link

Are we happy now, is the tantrum over?

[Smiley]

Haha!

Now they're deleting all my scrupulously researched and well-written articles because that is the most logical response.

Looks like these deletions are largely being reverted after a small uproar on SuperMarioMan's talk page.

Well, they need to delete them all again because many of the references were generated by TalkToTransformer.

[Smiley]

link

Are we happy now, is the tantrum over?

Not quite.

Darkness Shines' userpage needs to be restored to its previous state.


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =891886202

[Moral Hazard]

So, you're using the WO toolset to further your en.wp fight?

Isn't that the kind of shit we call out the lowlifes on en.wp for doing?

Please, Mr. Smiley!

This is Kiefer.Wolfowitz.

I am calling on you to make a full public apology and to state that you shall not repeat this behavior.
If you do not agree to this demand, I shall have to serve you with a legal document.

[Hemiauchenia]

Power doesn't always corrupt. Power always reveals. When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you see what the guy always wanted to do.

[Jim]

I'd vote for anyone who ran on a platform of unblocking DS.

Me too, but I might not be eligible to vote because I've hardly edited WP at all since last year.

[iii]

Probably should also fix up the link between Darkness Shines & DarknessShines2 (T-C-L), an account which is listed as a sockpuppet, despite preceding him by several months.

Well, that isn't confusing or anything. I was alarmed by later support in this thread for Darkness Shines. Felt a bit weird that they were supporting Marknutley (T-C-L) who was one of the worst global warming deniers WP had known. But names are not names when names are not names. Right?

[iii]

So, you're using the WO toolset to further your en.wp fight?

I'm doing this to give a craven coward like Newyorkbrad an extremely diluted taste of his own medicine, and more importantly, to clear Darkness of any wrongdoing and to clarify that he has no association with me.

On the one hand, this is all just shit stirring which you seem to enjoy. On the other, you surely must realize this spells the end of your mod career here at this board. What's the point?

[Beeblebrox]

I'd vote for anyone who ran on a platform of unblocking DS.

Me too, but I might not be eligible to vote because I've hardly edited WP at all since last year.

You appear to have made eleven edits in the twelve months preceding the election. The bar is ten edits.

That's not a lot, but I'll tell you this: it's way, way more effort than DS put into their appeals to the committee.

[Beeblebrox]

On the one hand, this is all just shit stirring which you seem to enjoy. On the other, you surely must realize this spells the end of your mod career here at this board. What's the point?

Because trolls gotta troll I guess....

This is exactly the kind of stupid shit people are talking about when they grill me about why I comment here. I'm not at all sure I want to continue to do so with such a vindictive shithead acting as a moderator.

[iii]

This is exactly the kind of stupid shit people are talking about when they grill me about why I comment here. I'm not at all sure I want to continue to do so with such a vindictive shithead acting as a moderator.

Well, we're all peas in the same pod. There are plenty of vindictive shitheads acting as "moderators" at Wikipedia as well.

[Jim]

You appear to have made eleven edits in the twelve months preceding the election. The bar is ten edits.

Ah, ok - I might vote then, if I can - all I've done there this last year is remove some crap from my talk page, restore an image that was butchered by the non-free reduction bot, and correct a couple of glaring errors in articles that I happened to read which annoyed me so much I couldn't leave them. I only really stay logged in because I prefer viewing the site with the personal JS and CSS on my account...

[Smiley]

I'm not at all sure I want to continue to do so with such a vindictive shithead acting as a moderator.

And what do you think would happen if I called you a vindictive shithead on Wikipedia?





I doubt you'd respond with a Jazzy Jeff gif...

[iii]

And what do you think would happen if I called you a vindictive shithead on Wikipedia?

Well, seeing as how you're banninated on WP, I imagine the block-happy admins would just play wack-a-mole without a thought if they knew it was you.

[Hemiauchenia]

I agree Smiley/Hillbillyholiday should be desysopped after this. This episode has damaged the credibility of WIkipediocracy as a venue for serious Wikipedia criticism, and will permanently do so unless he is promptly removed. I do not consent to the new Wikipediocracy story that I authored being published until he is desysopped. Where are Zoloft, Jake and Tarantino?

[Moral Hazard]

I might not be eligible to vote because I've hardly edited WP at all since last year.

You appear to have made eleven edits in the twelve months preceding the election.
The bar is ten edits.

The quality of mercy is not strained.

[Jim]

Felt a bit weird that they were supporting Marknutley (T-C-L) who was one of the worst global warming deniers WP had known. But names are not names when names are not names. Right?

I never really saw any of the climate change stuff. What I did see in the end was a user who generally appeared to be at least trying to do the right thing community banned for losing his temper under pressure. That's not something I enjoy. If anything he probably deserved a 3 or 6 month ordinary block. Having said that he could probably have got that if he'd been willing to make all the right noises again, rather than throwing his hands up and saying "fuck it."

[iii]

I agree Smiley/Hillbillyholiday should be desysopped after this. This episode has damaged the credibility of WIkipediocracy as a venue for serious Wikipedia criticism, and will permanently do so unless he is promptly removed. I do not consent to the new Wikipediocracy story that I authored being published until he is desysopped. Where are Zoloft, Jake and Tarantino?

This is just a throwback to old-fashioned Wikipedia Review drama. Personally, I think that "serious criticism" of Wikipedia really isn't possible.

[Ryuichi]

I never really saw any of the climate change stuff. What I did see in the end was a user who generally appeared to be at least trying to do the right thing community banned for losing his temper under pressure. That's not something I enjoy. If anything he probably deserved a 3 or 6 month ordinary block. Having said that he could probably have got that if he'd been willing to make all the right noises again, rather than throwing his hands up and saying "fuck it."

Now I'm confused. Do you mean DarknessShines2 (T-C-L) or Darkness Shines (T-C-L) ? I don't remember the former, but the description, "community banned for losing his temper under pressure", aligns with my recollection of the latter.

[Hemiauchenia]

I agree Smiley/Hillbillyholiday should be desysopped after this. This episode has damaged the credibility of WIkipediocracy as a venue for serious Wikipedia criticism, and will permanently do so unless he is promptly removed. I do not consent to the new Wikipediocracy story that I authored being published until he is desysopped. Where are Zoloft, Jake and Tarantino?

This is just a throwback to old-fashioned Wikipedia Review drama. Personally, I think that "serious criticism" of Wikipedia really isn't possible.

I suppose, but not having mods that flippantly ban people for stupid reasons is a good start.

[Scottywong]

I suppose, but not having mods that flippantly ban people for stupid reasons is a good start.

I think this place would benefit from more flippant banning, to be honest.

Moderator's note: User was banned for 24 hours for this post -- :-)

[Midsize Jake]

Where are Zoloft, Jake and Tarantino?

At our annual retreat on Bora Bora, of course — didn't we announce that we'd be away for a couple of days?

Anyway, y'all are taking this waaaaay too seriously. A "performative stunt ban" from this site is really no big deal, especially for someone like NewYorkBrad whose reputation on WP is practically unassailable — and hey, check it out, they actually did fix the problem! Would that have happened without the silly shit-stirring from last night?

Meanwhile, I'm afraid I had to disagree with Mr. Smiley about the restoration of the DarknessShines (T-C-L) user page being some sort of prerequisite for undoing his (admittedly rather impetuous) action/stunt/whatever — and so I've unbanned Mr. Brad.

And on a personal level, let me just say this: People on WP just have to understand that accusing other people of being you in order to ban them is one of the most crucial "third rails" there are in dealing with people they want to get rid of. (Maybe the most crucial - "It's me you want, leave the girl alone" isn't a Hollywood cliché for no reason.) Sure, if someone is being really, really, really obnoxious, or threatening, or pedophilic by any objective standard, and then you want to link them to someone else who is also really, really, really obnoxious, or threatening, or pedophilic by any objective standard, then fine, go ahead and do that. But that wasn't the case here; what happened here was grossly inappropriate and unnecessary.

And if you need evidence of what can happen when Wikipedians do things like that, regardless of where they do it, just look at me. Pretty much the exact same thing happened to me 16 years ago, and here I am still, after at least 15,000 posts on two different criticism sites, waiting for an apology that I know will never come — from people too cowardly, self-obsessed and arrogant to admit what they did, or even admit that they made a somewhat-forgivable mistake.

An online encyclopedia can be a lot of things, and I'll even admit that some of those things are good — but should it be used as a means or a justification to needlessly piss people off, for no good reason whatsoever? Ehh, I don't think so.

[Jim]

I never really saw any of the climate change stuff. What I did see in the end was a user who generally appeared to be at least trying to do the right thing community banned for losing his temper under pressure. That's not something I enjoy. If anything he probably deserved a 3 or 6 month ordinary block. Having said that he could probably have got that if he'd been willing to make all the right noises again, rather than throwing his hands up and saying "fuck it."

Now I'm confused. Do you mean Marknutley/DarknessShines2 (T-C-L) or Darkness Shines (T-C-L) ? The description, "community banned for losing his temper under pressure", aligns with my recollection of the latter.

The latter, yes. I never really saw any of the other stuff, so can't comment on it. I was responding to iii's comment about "confusion" by explaining why I hadn't been similarly confused, but in the process I confused you...

[Hemiauchenia]

and hey, check it out, they actually did fix the problem! Would that have happened without the silly shit-stirring from last night?

The problem was entirely the result of Smiley in the first place by his decision to detonate his semi-dormant sock account into the Arbcom election for the lulz, then shit-stirring to get his sock correctly identified as his rather than as someone else's. And for what exactly?

[iii]

Anyway, y'all are taking this waaaaay too seriously. A "performative stunt ban" from this site is really no big deal, especially for someone like NewYorkBrad whose reputation on WP is practically unassailable — and hey, check it out, they actually did fix the problem! Would that have happened without the silly shit-stirring from last night?

If Smiley had written a WPO blogpost about this drama including receipts (and I know he has the chops to do that), it would have done a whole lot more damage/good, in my opinion, and would have been nobler. Arguably even better outcomes!

[Smiley]

If Smiley had written a WPO blogpost about this drama including receipts (and I know he has the chops to do that), it would have done a whole lot more damage/good, in my opinion, and would have been nobler. Arguably even better outcomes!

Someone beat me to it...

"Wikipediocracy bans New York Brad"

[Midsize Jake]

If Smiley had written a WPO blogpost about this drama including receipts (and I know he has the chops to do that), it would have done a whole lot more damage/good, in my opinion, and would have been nobler. Arguably even better outcomes!

Okay, that's a valid point, and we do need more blog posts... I guess my concern there is that it's ultimately a PvP incident, and we've been so lax about the blog, we might end up having a post about a PvP incident up there for months before we finally manage to post another one. And let's face it, casual readers aren't usually all that interested in sock-puppet stories...

There's also the question of whether it's more effective to stir up shit immediately in a case like this, or stir it up more slowly over time. Obviously the quality of the stirring is what's most important, but timing is a factor nevertheless.

[Midsize Jake]

"Wikipediocracy bans New York Brad"

Well, there you go. All's well that ends well!

[Smiley]

And nothing of value was lost nor learnt!


I will voluntarily refrain from imposing further kamikaze Arb blocks for the time being.

[Newyorkbrad]

Since Smiley was upset that I didn't comment here last night, I'll do so now. I'll try to keep this as brief as I can, but I've been scolded for not explaining myself earlier, so I'm going to get my points in.

1. Yes, I was following this thread yesterday. When Smiley said there had been a sock-identification mistake, I didn't rush to fix it. Why not? Two reasons. First, it wasn't obvious at first that Smiley himself was behind the socking, meaning he wasn't just speculating that there had been a mistake, but he actually knew it. And second, as some of you know, I don't do much sock-hunting and I am not an experienced checkuser. (I'll be giving up CU when I leave ArbCom again in a few weeks, just as I did at the end of 2014 and 2018.) There are others with far more experience and expertise in these areas.

2. Nonetheless, after a few hours, it occurred to me that Smiley's increasingly strong pleas for review might possibly fall through the cracks, because obviously not all the CUs and arbs read here, while some of the others who might ordinarily help are candidates in the same election that was being trolled. Once I realized this, I signed on here intending to post that I'd make sure someone took a look at the issue. Ironically, it was at that moment that I learned I'd been banned, so I couldn't post a damn thing.

3. I don't recommend that the mods here use this tactic again, but my initial annoyance at Smiley has dissipated. Clearly he felt a sense of urgency, not only because someone had been mistakenly accused of socking on WP, but because the issue arose from a chain of events that began with his actions, so he wanted to make sure it got fixed PDQ. Fine. A day of no posting on Wikipediocracy need not be a day without sunshine.

4. At the time, Smiley posted that if I wanted to, I could appeal the ban. The private message I saw when I tried to log on said I should give him a reason to let me back. But as far as I could see, the interface wouldn't allow me to do either. The board software doesn't allow a banned user to communicate with anyone in any way, or if it does, it certainly isn't obvious how. Even on Wikipedia, blocked or banned users have various means of reaching someone.

5. Sometimes we ask, when a person is blocked or banned on Wikipedia, why don't they accept it and find something else to do. Given the ubiquitousness of Wikipedia, the reasons people have trouble walking away are sometimes understandable. On this site they are less understandable, and for awhile at least, I am going to take Smiley's hint. All of you be well.

[Moral Hazard]

Glad that you are taking this as well as you did, and especially for considering Smiley's motives, which were to take responsibility for his own actions and protect an innocent party who was being blamed (with credible real-world consequences).

In my experience, if there is an emergency, I just have to send a message here to 1--2 administrators, and somebody'll fix it in 1-2 days at most.

It is not difficult to guess which administrators can be trusted to honor their offices from en:WP whilst quietly fixing a problem.

[Smiley]

Thank you Ira, that's very gracious of you.

My annoyance stems from the fact that you, more than most, know just how bad things are on that godforsaken website. You're highly respected, others follow your lead, and if I were in your shoes, I'd be screaming bloody murder from the rooftops. But we can't all be firebrands, I guess.

Now unblock Darkness Shines before I ban you again. You've got five minutes.

[Beeblebrox]

<tire screeching noises>
Perhaps we can steer this thread back onto something resembling the actual topic?

For your persusal, the candidates for the 2021 ArbCom Election:

Worm That Turned (T-C-L)
Beeblebrox (T-C-L)
Banedon (T-C-L)
Wugapodes (T-C-L)
Donald Albury (T-C-L)
Opabinia regalis (T-C-L)
Cabayi (T-C-L)
Guerillero (T-C-L)
Izno (T-C-L)
Thryduulf (T-C-L)
Enterprisey (T-C-L)

Eleven candidates, eight open seats.

I'm not 100% sure but I believe Opabinia regalis is the only woman running.

[Midsize Jake]

Hmmm... Back on topic... Not sure I can cope... must... try...

For your persusal, the candidates for the 2021 ArbCom Election...

Is it just me, or are most of the newer, non-perennial candidates unusually "gnomish" this time around? Maybe that's good, but either way it almost looks like a potential changing-of-the-guard type of situation.

I mean, users like Izno and Cabayi seem mostly non-objectionable, and maybe that's the point, but if they haven't involved themselves in various drama-generating incidents during the relatively short time they've been admins, how are people going to know how they'd handle a controversial Arbcom case? (Not that most of the cases are particularly controversial.)

Meanwhile, this "Banedon" guy doesn't even have a user page — that seems a bit off for an Arbcom candidate. OTOH, based on a cursory look-see he's a lot less gnomish than the others, and more of a "content person"... but he's also not an Admin, so he'll probably get rejected.

I almost never get involved in these Arbcom election threads, but in for a penny, in for a pound, I guess!

[TNT]

Well WPO, this thread gives AN/I a run for its money... maybe I'll have to visit more often!

unless I get banned by power tripping mods!

[Zoloft]

I had to take care of a sick relative, in case anyone wonders why I didn't wade into this and make everything worse.

Now apparently, back to the normal, lower level of chaos behind the scenes.

[ZettaComposer]

Banedon was (still is? been a few years since I've visited) a frequent contributor to In the news/candidates (ITN/C), but I don't really consider them part of the ITN/C cabal. This person is not afraid to vote against the developing consensus while offering decent reasons for doing so. Also tends to get into a lot of heated arguments with The Rambling Man there, as many people do throughout Wikipedia.

[AndyTheGrump]

Regardless of Banedon's contribution history on Wikipedia, their suggestion that 'justice' on Wikipedia can be achieved by ArbCom going even further down the 'pretending to be a court of law' route and labelling participants as 'Filing parties' and 'Defendants' is so utterly clueless that they are clearly unfit to serve. Were this ludicrous suggestion ever enacted, I'd advise anyone named as a 'defendant' to refuse to participate in such facile role-playing games, and to instead ask that the matter be settled by dispute resolution procedures that the project Terms of Use states are available.

[Jim]

[Vigilant]

Regardless of Banedon's contribution history on Wikipedia, their suggestion that 'justice' on Wikipedia can be achieved by ArbCom going even further down the 'pretending to be a court of law' route and labelling participants as 'Filing parties' and 'Defendants' is so utterly clueless that they are clearly unfit to serve.

Worse than that, his answers to wbm1058 show that he doesn't understand what he's proposing.

[Jim]

Worse than that, his answers to wbm1058 show that he doesn't understand what he's proposing.

Say it ain't so. A wikipedian caught out talking crap to big themself up in some kind of "election"?

What next?



???

[Vigilant]

Worse than that, his answers to wbm1058 show that he doesn't understand what he's proposing.

Say it ain't so. A wikipedian caught out talking crap to big themself up in some kind of "election"?

It's the fact that it's the primary plank in his run that makes me cringe.

Dunning-Kruger doesn't even begin to cover this guy.

[Jim]

It's the fact that it's the primary plank in his run that makes me cringe.
Dunning-Kruger doesn't even begin to cover this guy.

Well yeah.

Talking of Dunning-Kruger, he's properly upset The Rambling Man (T-C-L)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Man/Arbcom

A few run-ins with this user, nothing positive to say about them in any sense. Highly limited encyclopedic contributions, no indication of any experience or capability in the role of arbitration. And the "Justice comes first" mantra is deeply disturbing. This is a volunteer project, not the European Court of Human Rights. Completely off-putting.

Imagine that?

[Vigilant]

Can we sew these two in a bag and dump them in a river?