Arbcom Elections 2021

[Smiley]

I have a number of concerns with people using other websites to discuss Wikipedia. For one thing, it increases the chance of conspiracy when we can't monitor all the ways in which users are interacting. It intensifies the potential for cliques. Users create off-website drama that bleeds over to Wikipedia, as evidenced in this case.

IronMaidenRocks (T-C-L), 15:01, 8 December 2021

Quite right. It's a major problem. Besides monitoring every website on the planet, the WMF needs to start snooping on user emails for evidence of canvassing and other nefarious schemes.

Happily for the WMF, UCoC apparently gives them free rein to sanction any user who discusses Wikipedia offwiki.

[Wikimedia-l]
Re: Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
27 Nov 2021

There are various unanswered queries on the UCoC talk pages.[1][2] I wonder
if you or someone else involved in drafting the UCoC could comment.

Several of these queries concern the wording of the Harassment section, in
particular the "Disclosure of personal data (Doxing)" subsection included
therein.[3] This subsection currently reads as follows (my emphasis):

Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, *or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects*.

1. As written, this literally means that Wikimedians will not be allowed to
share "information concerning [other contributors'] Wikimedia activity
outside the projects". While this may not be the intended meaning, it is
the literal meaning – and reminiscent of Fight Club: "The first rule of
Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club."

Could you comment? Do you really mean to say that contributors are not
allowed to communicate with any outside person about what happens on the
projects?

How would this affect bloggers like the following:

https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/

https://thewikipedian.net/

https://wikipediocracy.com/2021/11/22/w ... tolen-art/

Or is this a case of the wording having gone awry?

2. The subsection mentions "place of employment". There are pages on
Wikipedia, in project space and article space, that discuss contributors'
place of employment. Examples are:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangemoody_editing_of_Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia

Wikipedia editors and arbitrators have in the past commented on such cases
to the media. Will this be forbidden under the new Universal Code of
Conduct rules?

3. What about cases like the ones listed below? From the perspective of the
UCoC, were any of the protagonists in these cases ("David r from Meth
Productions", "Wifione", "Qworty") victims of harassment as a
result of their activities being discussed on-wiki or elsewhere?

newstatesman.com/politics/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted

salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school

4. Another contributor has asked on the talk pages whether, according to
the terms of the UCoC, they will be deemed guilty of harassment in the
Wikimediaverse if they sue another contributor for libel and discuss their
complaint in court. Another worries about contributors' ability to report
child protection issues to the authorities.

Indeed, the WMF itself has at times alerted the authorities to suspicious
activities on its sites and shared contributors' personal details (I recall
a case where it appeared from postings on Wikipedia that a troubled
teenager was contemplating a school shooting). Is the Universal Code of
Conduct intended to put an end to such reports?

I would be grateful for a clarification of the impact the Universal Code of
Conduct is intended to have on the above issues.

[Beeblebrox]

Results are in.



Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) 906 421 243 663 78.85% Two-year term
Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) 794 536 240 554 76.79% Two-year term
Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 679 617 274 405 71.25% Two-year term
Enterprisey (talk · contribs) 658 639 273 385 70.68% Two-year term
Donald Albury (talk · contribs) 610 703 257 353 70.36% Two-year term
Izno (talk · contribs) 573 709 288 285 66.55% Two-year term
Cabayi (talk · contribs) 554 725 291 263 65.56% Two-year term
Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) 679 534 357 322 65.54% Two-year term
Guerillero (talk · contribs) 551 688 331 220 62.47%
Thryduulf (talk · contribs) 569 623 378 191 60.08%
Banedon (talk · contribs) 321 554 695 -374 31.59%

first number is support, second is neutral, third is opposes, fourth is net, fifth is percentage.
Pretty much what I expected, I knew I'd draw a lot of opposes. My net is actually marginally higher (+17 votes) than in 2019.

[Moral Hazard]

Obviously voters were less forgiving of Thryduulf's old business than I have been.

I am surprised that three former arbs, especially Guerillero, received fewer than 2/3 of the votes, but having received 60% is still a good achievement.

Perhaps Wikipedia is enjoying an Era of Good Feelings?

How did Tim / Carrite do with his forecasting this year?

[Vigilant]

Perhaps this instantiation of ARBCOM can strive to be less shitty and more professional than those that came before.

[orangepi]

I would like to complain, but as the 5 candidates I endorsed on-wiki were the top 5 finishers, I'm not sure I can.

It does appear that Cabayi's participation in l'affaire Sandifer did not affect the results.

EDIT: also Cap'n Kudpung's take on this is worth repeating here: "The results did not match my prediction 100%. However, they matched exactly my preferred result from the available candidates - which is not to say that I favoured all those who were elected. I voted for Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis, and Beeblebrox. I opposed all the others (no neutral votes)."

[Moral Hazard]

The Era of Good Feelings

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them.

Isaiah 11:6

[el84]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

[Vigilant]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

If he can Tonya Harding someone, he gets in!

[Guerillero]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

2021, 2020, and 2013

I was third reserve in 2012

[Beeblebrox]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

2021, 2020, and 2013

I was third reserve in 2012

We're already neck deep in trying to clear our backlog of appeals before the new year while we onboard new arbs at the same time if that makes it sting a little less.

Hooboy, that 2012 election was rough. I'm the last one to even have net positive votes.

[Jans Hammer]

I would like to complain, but as the 5 candidates I endorsed on-wiki were the top 5 finishers, I'm not sure I can.

It does appear that Cabayi's participation in l'affaire Sandifer did not affect the results.

EDIT: also Cap'n Kudpung's take on this is worth repeating here: "The results did not match my prediction 100%. However, they matched exactly my preferred result from the available candidates - which is not to say that I favoured all those who were elected. I voted for Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis, and Beeblebrox. I opposed all the others (no neutral votes)."

Is there a self-aggrandizement user box we can put on his user page?

[MrErnie]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

Glad to see that he didn’t make it. His participation at a few recent AE cases can be described, at best, as clueless.

[Moral Hazard]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

If he can Tonya Harding someone, he gets in!

Somebody shall quit or crack.

Stay limber, Guerillero.

[Beeblebrox]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

If he can Tonya Harding someone, he gets in!

Somebody shall quit or crack.

Stay limber, Guerillero.

I'm assuming this is in jest, as that is totally not how this works.

[Moral Hazard]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

Glad to see that he didn’t make it. His participation at a few recent AE cases can be described, at best, as clueless.

Would you please remind us what he did?

[Bezdomni]

1570 voters.

[Beeblebrox]

Yeah, only one number counts for the actual results, but there's a lot to digest there. Of course if you're in you're in, all arbs get exactly one vote, but it's still interesting to look at, to me anyway.

I actually tied with third-place finisher Wugapodes for supports, but they got 83 more neutral votes, whereas I got 83 more opposes.

Guerillero beat Cabayi in supports by 3 votes, but had 37 fewer neutrals and 40 more opposes.

Three elected arbs had over 700 neutrals.

Interestingly, if we went by raw net support numbers instead of percentage the only thing different would be my finishing position, the same people would still be elected.

Worm is the only candidate that has less than 1/3 of the electorate going neutral. The net support gap between him and last-place finisher Banedon 1,037.

[Guerillero]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

If he can Tonya Harding someone, he gets in!

Somebody shall quit or crack.

Stay limber, Guerillero.

I'm assuming this is in jest, as that is totally not how this works.

Just be Xeno and wait till right after the new year to quit!

[Moral Hazard]

I'm sure that Guerillero has been first reserve more than once before.

If he can Tonya Harding someone, he gets in!

Somebody shall quit or crack.

Stay limber, Guerillero.

I'm assuming this is in jest, as that is totally not how this works.

Never attribute to humor what can be attributed to ignorance and sloth.

[Alex Shih]

Yeah, only one number counts for the actual results, but there's a lot to digest there. Of course if you're in you're in, all arbs get exactly one vote, but it's still interesting to look at, to me anyway.

I actually tied with third-place finisher Wugapodes for supports, but they got 83 more neutral votes, whereas I got 83 more opposes.

Guerillero beat Cabayi in supports by 3 votes, but had 37 fewer neutrals and 40 more opposes.

Three elected arbs had over 700 neutrals.

Interestingly, if we went by raw net support numbers instead of percentage the only thing different would be my finishing position, the same people would still be elected.

Worm is the only candidate that has less than 1/3 of the electorate going neutral. The net support gap between him and last-place finisher Banedon 1,037.

All arbs get one vote is true by definition, but some votes are by nature going to outweigh others. From Wug to Izno, these four strikes to me as likely to just follow along with "I agree" with minimal meaningful input. Hopefully that won't be the case