Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 7 December 2015 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 38) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Arb Election Part Deux

Thanks to Kudpung for the link discussing the mass mailing here. Worth looking at if anyone missed it. The entire outside world must be laughing hysterically at how this place is run, making us look as if we couldn't find our own arse if we looked with both hands. The election seems obviously compromised but I fully expect nothing will be done, nothing will be publicly admitted, and nothing will really change anyway. Fortunately, none of this really matters for the reader. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent makes some good points, particularly:

... well-intentioned but unfamiliar with Wikipedia culture noobs (of the type who nominate themselves at RFA after two weeks) are precisely the people most likely to be flattered at receiving a talkpage message and thus feel they ought to do their bit, whereas the old sweats who've been here long enough to have a healthy contempt for arbcom will just ignore or delete the message. Consequently, I suspect this will lead to a statistically significant number of voters who really have no idea what they're voting for ...

SarahSV (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might cancel out a bunch of folks with axes to grind or pushing something...who knows. At this stage looks like we're all going white water rafting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion on Mdann52's page about how it happened. It seems that it was Kevin's proposal (he's a candidate and probably shouldn't have done that), then Errant took his proposal further and, in closing, lost Kevin's "editors active in the previous three months."
Cas, it could cancel out the grinding axes or cancel them in. The new Arbs will effectively have been chosen at random. SarahSV (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very apt description Casliber, we may end up in calm water at the end, or dashed upon the rocks, both are possible but for now, we simply do not know. To be mid-election and have this level of uncertainty about the process itself makes it unacceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe the contempt for average editors that this quote displays. People say that ArbCom is out-of-touch but what is with this attitude that "noobs", meaning editors not making thousands of edits a year, are going to make terrible, stupid decisions that all of the elite corps will have to live with? I mean, could this sentiment be any more condescending? As if only those editors with a "healthy contempt for arbcom" are the ones worthy to cast a vote but, surprise, surprise!, they aren't voting this year or are voting all oppose. So, it appears that many of these "noobs" value their vote more than some of the top 3000 very active editors.
That's democracy, folks. Everyone who meets the minimal voting requirements is entitled to vote. If you don't like this situation, change the voting requirements so it only applies to certain classes of editors you deem worthy...assuming that they will choose to vote. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the problems is that the successful candidates won't really have a mandate, so it will undermine the winners, and the others may feel they might have won had it not been for this. Should we consider re-starting it? Doing that won't make much difference time-wise. Pinging Kudpung too. SarahSV (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is Wikipedia, remember, so it would take a 30 day RFC to decide if we should restart, and, well, you know it won't happen. Only Jimbo could force it, but he won't. Too much potential fallout. I think you nailed it on Mdann's page, the results will likely be random selection of Arbs. Then again, if you wanted to vote fraudulently and get away with it (100 man sock army sitting on a university IP, canvassing, etc), this would have been a great year, as the there is no way the volunteers that are sorting the votes will be able to properly vet them. The bar will be very low, literally touching the ground. I have no idea what is really going on or will happen but we can't put this toothpaste back in the tube: Whatever happens, I think we we will just have to live with it because people will flip out if we seriously talk about restarting the vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That thread is probably more important than most of us here even realise. Every post Iridescent made in that thread hit every nail squarely on the head. Even I with my famous talent for cynical prose couldn't have said it better. Ched makes a valid point above. I don't think it will be possible to overturn the election, but it's what should be done. Even my anecdotal suggestion for an election system might have better results. One of the problems is getting a decent selection of nominees. Perhaps there should be a run up to the election where users can nominate and second candidates, then let the candidate decide if s/he wants to run in the election along with the self-noms Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May as well wait - technically it is more "democratic" to have a load of folks voting - remember, eligible is eligible. I suspect many inactive accounts that got notified are not actually eligible...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, Kevin proposed that eligible voters active in the previous three months be informed. In closing the RfC, ErrantX may have misunderstood the proposal and changed it to all eligible voters. There was no consensus for that. On top of which, the RfC wasn't properly formatted, properly worded, it was closed prematurely, it wasn't advertised on CENT, and I'm not even sure the RfC bot distributed it. This isn't the fault of any individual, but it has left us with an election in which the stakeholders – the people who will be affected by the outcome – have been vastly outnumbered. SarahSV (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand that you guys are all concerned about how the turnout this year has turned what we've come to expect of elections on its head and made the results unpredictable - I certainly agree that it's probably anybody's game at this point, precisely because the vote is going to be affected by more than just the super-duper-insiders' opinions - I have to say that I'm rather concerned to see discussion among a group of highly influential editors (including some of the arbcom candidates!) of invalidating the whole election because people who are eligible to vote are, you know, voting. They're eligible to vote, by the rules the community itself decided on. They have standing to vote. They have as much of a voice as any of us in community decisions. There is no basis for disqualifying their votes (assuming they're not, like, a 2000-person sock army of doom, and I don't think they are) just because people hoped to - were used to - slipping the election by without them noticing. We have a reputation as a website that is cold and unwelcoming to those who aren't insiders, and this conversation strikes me as symptomatic of why people think that way about us: here we have a group of highly-active administrators openly discussing how to go the extra mile to retroactively disenfranchise people whose opinions those people apparently feel don't - and shouldn't be allowed to - matter, because that's how the insiders are used to it working and by god, they like it that way. If you're concerned that less-active editors are less engaged in and informed about the community, the way to fix that is not by going out of our way to make sure they know for sure they're not welcome in big community decision-making processes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fluffernutter, I don't want to point to examples, but I've randomly looked at a few, and they are people who aren't at all active. During local elections where you live, you probably wouldn't be happy if all the occasional tourists were invited to vote too.
The point is that the RfC close didn't follow Kevin's proposal. It extended it. So we have an arguably contentious proposal, not advertised properly, closed prematurely, and extended by the closing admin to become a different proposal. If you're arguing for a more democratic process, this really isn't it. SarahSV (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really arguing for any process, SlimVirgin. I think there are arguments to be made in all directions as far as whether talk page notifications are a good idea, and I understand that the process of the notifications this year ended up being wonky. But the people who were notified, even if there were more of them than intended, were eligible voters. So what I'm saying is that, eligible voters having been notified now, it looks really bad for people to be sitting here trying to come up with ways to erase the votes of those people because influential editors deem them to be nevertheless "not informed enough" or "not active enough". The community sets arbcom voting criteria, and if it wanted to have a criterion of "...and also, voters must be felt to be 'well-informed' by power users", it would have that. It doesn't. The criteria the community set are objective, and state that anyone who passes them is eligible. If you object to less-active editors being eligible (oh lord, I've now typed "eligible" so many times that it's stopped having meaning and I started to type "edible" instead...that would be a bad typo to make), the way to fix that is to start a proposal to change the voting eligibility criteria for the next election; it's not to look at an election half-done and go "...well, but we didn't actually want 'eligible' to mean 'eligible', let's disenfranchise the people we don't feel are up to snuff, despite the fact that they are eligible to vote under current policy and after they were specifically told they could vote this year!" That way lies madness and yet more negative news articles talking about how insular Wikipedia is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea I think most people have is that voters will see there's an election happening because they are part of the community. The community has set the bar low so that even new editors can vote.
But if you notify people on their talk pages, and if the notification system emails them, you have extended the electorate to people who really aren't involved at all in Wikipedia.
I take your point about the community having chosen the criteria. But they chose them before knowing about this mass messaging and emailing. At each point throughout this process, things happened without the left hand knowing what the right hand would do next, so no one was evaluating the consequences of each step. The result is that we are basically choosing the committee randomly. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all - I can only post a brief comment currently, heading home from the holidays and leaching off a friend's wifi right before we're headed out. I will be back for-real tomorrow. I made my original proposal at WP:AN before I had decided to declare myself as a candidate; both due to my own feelings and direct recusal requests from a number of people, I decided to step back from the proposal once I had declared my candidacy. I asked Mdann52 to take over the proposal which he graciously did (eventually on the behalf of the whole EC.) I did intend for only eligible voters who had made an edit in the last three months to be notified, but this got lost in the steps between proposal and implementation. I don't think that my original proposal was a poorly formed RfC; WP:AN is the ordinary board where the appropriateness of use of the admin tools is evaluated. I viewed my original proposal as an (ex ante, rather than ex post facto) review of the appropriateness of me using +massmessage (part of the admin toolset) to notify all recently eligible voters of their eligibility, and not an RfC on how to conduct the election itself. The idea initially came up after we came across a content editor with over 50k edits who was unaware they could vote for arbcom. Besides bans, ibans, etc, arbcom also has active discretionary sanctions that can be applied to a huge portion of all Wikipedia topics (I mean, everything to do with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India had DS on it last I checked, as well as US politics post-1932 just as a couple examples - that's a lot of stuff.) Combined with the fact that arbcom has the ability to (and very well may) block/ban/otherwise censure content creators who may have quite significant roles in major content areas, I think the average recently active eligible voter has an active interest in knowing, at a bare minimum, that they are able to vote. It was fairly well advertised, though I don't have a full list of locations where it was advertised (and could make one later, but running low on time.) I feel the consensus established at WP:AN pretty strongly established that using the admin toolset in the way I proposed was appropriate - although the fact that *all* eligible voters were messaged does make me wonder what the results be like. Although I know this is an awful lot of massmessages, the consensus established at WP:AN that the proposed use of the admin toolset was appropriate was quite strong for review of any admin action at WP:AN. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin, it should have been formatted as an RfC, distributed by the RfC bot, and advertised on CENT for proper input. But that's not the key point. It's that your proposal, which had a minimum recent-activity level and had gained consensus, was changed. SarahSV (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mobile reply, excuse any formatting errors please. It was actually on cent, although iirc I didn't put it there myself and probably would've chosen a different title. Since it was an ex ante review of proposed admin actions doable with normal toolset, I don't actually agree that it needed to be an rfc - ex ante reviews of admin tooluse rarely are, so I think it's format was perfectly legitimate especially with the turnout it got. That said I do see the big issue with expanding three months eligible to all eligible voters ever... I'm just not really sure to say or do about it atm. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I opposed the mailing from the git-go; we have an election RFC specifically to work things out in a systematic manner. That said, what's done is done, and there is no solution moving forward from today except to accept whatever outcomes may occur. Since I'm now in the self-promotion business, I'll note I'm actually really good at two things: ignoring nonsense, and having a decent sense of how big picture consensus items will unfold: per the latter, there is essentially zero chance sufficient support will build to ex post facto invalidate voters or have a "do-over" election.

  • Fluffernutter, your points are well-taken, but hoped to - were used to - slipping the election by without them noticing is too much. That's not what folks are saying here; ace watchlist notices have been standard for years. The concern is inducing voters who were aware, but previously not sufficiently motivated to participate, to vote, may skew the results in manner detrimental to the project. While I disagree with that point of view, that's no reason to disparage the motivations of the editors promoting it.
  • SarahSV, The community has set the bar low so that even new editors can vote. Using "low" is fairly offensive, and inconsistent with an editor has expressed legitimate concerns about making Wikipedia more inclusive. NE Ent 23:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NE Ent, you quoted me out of context, so I'd like to clarify that I wasn't arguing against new editors being given the vote. I'm arguing that accounts with just 150 mainspace edits since 2001, who may not have logged in for years, ought not to be invited to vote by email; or, if the community wants that, we ought to have had a proper RfC to decide it. SarahSV (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the mass notification should have been considered part of the election procedure and so not something that could be added after the RFC had closed. I also agree that it's unreasonable to try to overturn the current election, simply because previously unlikely voters participated. For better or worse, the eligibility criteria were agreed upon, and did not contain any threshold of community involvement. isaacl (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isaac: my advertised ex ante review request of my proposed behavior at WP:AN actually had more participation than the entire ACE2015 rfc. The question of why that was is one we should study, but it's pretty well-established that a strong consensus established in a reasonable place takes precedence over weaker previously attempted consensus efforts. I could understand the point if it had been a proposal one day before the election took place or something, but it wasn't - and if it had been it wouldn't have reached a fairly strong consensus. It's a pretty big principle that WP:Consensus can change, so even if it would be ideal to get election procedures all set at once, the fact that they weren't doesn't invalidate a later proposal with a stronger consensus than anything at the ACE2015RfC had. This is ignoring of course eligible voters active within three months vs all eligible voters ever, which isn't an issue I know how to begin to address, let alone on mobile. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I've already read your previous statements on this. The problem is there was no ability to revisit the election procedures with respect to how they may be affected by a mass mailing, because the RfC was closed. isaacl (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Significant concerns about them could've been brought up and handled in the course of the discussion, and either resolved (since there was time left till voting started,) or been significant enough to make the ex ante review find the proposed tool use inappropriate, in which case no mass messaging would've occurred. This is again ignoring the difference between three months and all ever eligible, just because I'm not sure how to address it even if I wasn't mobile, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I highly doubt a change in eligibility criteria, for example, would be entertained after the close of the RfC. By design these matters are locked down at specific dates so voter expectations can be set well in advance, as well as any lead time required for setting up the vote. isaacl (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it had been brought up by enough people as a concern, they certainly would've been revisited or my ex ante review killed. There was plenty of lead time to set up SecurePoll and all of the technical aspects of voting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Part of your reasoning for implementing a notification mechanism was to follow general practices in real world elections. By the same token, the procedures for real world elections are fixed at a specific date, so everyone can understand the ground rules and make appropriate plans. It is poor practice to advertise a date where the procedures will be fixed, allowing interested parties to allocate their time accordingly, and then subsequently change the procedures. To inspire confidence in all participants, those running an election need to clearly lay out what will be done, and then follow through on the plan. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also just to make a clear though mobile statement: I made the proposal not intending to consider running, while I was trying to attract more candidates. It started looking hard to recruit enough potential candidates that I decided to declare as a candidate myself. At that point, I asked someone else to take over implementation of the mechanics if it passed, though offering any technical assistance necessary (which was none.) So while I definitely didn't intend to massmessage 108k people, I also made the initial suggestion strongly thinking I wouldn't run, and stepped from implementation/discussion for the most part (like my participation here) once I declared. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see or participate in the RFC, but due to the shortness of it, the close, and you then running, there is one problem: if you win, some people are going to ask questions. How many, I can't say, depending on how the vote count goes, may or may not be a big deal. I would imagine you already know this. It is just one more wrinkle in this whole election. Depending on how "plausible" the ratios are compared to previous years, innocent people may get swept up into some serious drama. And who is to say what is plausible? Of course, we won't know until the count is in, and it may all be fine, but there is real potential for drama looming. As we know, appearances are often as important as reality around here, so innocence isn't insurance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I saw it, either. Is the CENT thing reliable? Eg: pinging sometimes fails, for reasons unknown to me. Or perhaps it is just that I wasn't active during the dates in question - will have to check my contribution history. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis, the candidates who lose will wonder whether they would have been elected by more active editors. And those who win a seat will be open to the claim that they don't have a real mandate because the vote was opened up too much. It's not an ideal situation for the candidates, no matter the outcome. SarahSV (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but Kevin's involvement in that process may (or may not) make him the target for an extra ration of vitriol. I'm not saying how fair that is, but the potential is certainly there, and better that he is prepared for that possibility. Not every discussion is going to be as calm and drama-free as this one. I've never seen an election with so many variables, so you hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, certainly recognized. I don't expect to win anyway because most guides opposed me for one reason or another - although ironically some of the health-based ones are a bit backwards due to personal details I have chosen not to reveal; for the next two years I'm actually likely to be active and healthy, but have nothing approaching a fulltime committment to anything else, so I'd be a highly active arb. To be honest, with the current candidate pool, there mere fact that health meant I did miss most of 2015 as an editor would be enough to win an oppose or neutral in most reasonable guides. There's always the chance that people are directly reading candidate questions etc and thus voted me in, but I'd be a bit surprised if that happened. Since SV notes below that emails are not sent by talk-page notices, the implementation of this could also be not that different than what I suggested overall - if SV is correct (I haven't checked,) it would suggest that the extra votes are primarily coming in from people who meet the eligible guidelines AND were actively logged in to their Wikipedia accounts in the process. Though I don't expect to win, and fully expect more shit than average if I do win, I think I'll be comfortable enough putting it off: the ex ante tool review was started by me, but had 41 !support votes that were primarily from people I didn't know, had stronger rationales than the fewer opposes, and was closed by an admin I'm not sure I've spoken to. That said, I do regret that the situation I contributed to (I don't think the proposal if stuck entirely to three months of eligible voters would have the backlash it is now,) is going to put the next arbcom under a hell of a lot of fire. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Requesting that an email notification be sent when a post is made to your talk page is an optional setting, so emails would be sent if you have configured your settings accordingly. isaacl (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the election isn't restarted before the count begins – and it seems clear that there wouldn't be consensus for that – we'll have to respect the results. Anyone objecting to the election after the fact will be accused of sour grapes. SarahSV (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be true, it would depend on the results. We already see anomalies in average experience in the voter. Likely, this means more total "support" votes and less "oppose" votes (which knocks the wind out of my sails, but I didn't expect much anyway). If everyone candidate receives over 50% of the vote, for instance, that is going to be really, really weird. I don't think that would be sour grapes to complain. I don't see any possibility of a "do over" happening here. Too many people are already invested, no one is going to fall on their own sword (that is clear), and at least a large minority probably think the more voters, the better, confusing it with Western Democracy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of parts to this, which is why it's no one's fault. Another issue I think I have to correct myself on is that the accounts were emailed. I've just checked the default, and emails are not sent by default for a talk-page notice. If that's correct, it's perhaps not as bad as I first thought. SarahSV (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very fact this conversation exists is pretty strong evidence that the notification wasn't a good idea. The RFC stays open for a long time, and is open to all editors, rather than on an administrator noticeboard. (The argument that, because administrator tools are involved in implementation, AN is a suitable venue for policy is ridiculous; every policy may eventually require admins tools for enforcement.) The fact there were few comments in this year's RFC doesn't mean there wasn't a strong consensus, because election procedures have been worked out via years of RFCs. Due to voluntary response bias, when people are generally satisfied with something, they're less likely to participate. The lesson learned should be to include in the 2016 RFC an explicit prohibition against changing the conduct of the election after the RFC close. NE Ent 02:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every policy may eventually require admin tools for enforcement, but changes to policies like WP:RS don't require admin tools to make them, and this wasn't a suggested policy change, but literally a use of my toolset. The thread on AN got a significant number of uninvolved opinions including from non admins (especially since it was on cent) than the 2015 ACE RFC did - and I would point out that given many threads elsewhere over the last year have made it clear people aren't happy with issues that could've been brought up in the 2015 ACE RFC, the lack of feedback and proposals in that RFC comes pretty close to invalidating it. That's not voluntary response bias, it's a RFC conglomerate that most people weren't aware of and those who were generally failed to understand the kind of feedback and proposals that could be accepted on it. I'd invite you to point to any precedent in the recent history of ENWP where except for a handful of arbcom ordered binding RFCs, the principle that consensus can change has been explicitly blocked. And I can't really imagine arbcom making ACERFC2016 a binding RFC going over stunningly. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Like I've said elsewhere, I'm not interested in blame because I don't think anyone intentionally tried to do harm. I do think there were mistakes made and we need to focus on not repeating them. And we have no choice but to move forward and live with the results, and just HOPE that the already busy team that filters through the votes isn't overwhelmed and that bad votes get through. I've already been said all this. I disagree that this discussion is disenfranchising someone or making Wikipedia look bad. Our mistakes did that, and they are our mistakes because we all have to live with them, we share in them. Whether it was the close, the execution, the delays, we will sort that out later. And to be clear, my talk page is always open for peaceful debate on contentious topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about the worries some folks have expressed about sock armies. I was under the impression that the software screened for 500 edits and one month of editing; am I wrong? Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this thread; people say that more people voting in an election decreases its legitimacy, and while the WMF tries to find new ways of attracting and retaining editors, vested contributors angrily complain that "the rabble" might mess up their attempts to sway an election and say their opinion isn't worth jack. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it kind of odd too - and found the opposes to my original ex ante review odd as well. Many of them seemed to actively suggest that arbcom should only be elected by a small educated cabal, despite the fact that 2014's voter turnout was godawful and most people didn't exactly seem to think that the 2014 session involved the highest quality arbitration we've seen. I didn't intend to have quite this effect (limiting it to a three month notification I think would've assuaged most worries that we were contacting people simply too out of touch with Wikipedia,) but I don't understand people who want us to have as a whole lower turnout. Even if this was not implemented in a way that will be pretty and wasn't what I had intended, we should be taking all reasonable measures we can think of to increase arbcom voter turnout, especially since almost all cases before arbcom involve issues that seriously effect editor retention. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David and Kevin, I can't see the need for the personal attacks and talk of power users, cabals, etc. Kevin, ideally ArbCom would be elected by an educated electorate as far as possible. Not a cabal, not small, but educated. What this did was create an electorate that has little idea of who the candidates are. I'm puzzled as to why anyone would think this a good idea.
A strong argument could be made for drawing up a long list of good candidates, then randomizing who is actually chosen. And perhaps doing this quite frequently so that we have faster turnover. But that needs to be put to the community to decide. This has effectively introduced randomization by accident. SarahSV (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend any of my comments as a personal attack, but a couple of responses to my proposal literally suggested that a larger educated electorate was a bad idea, and that's a viewpoint that just confuses the bejesus out of me. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although you're right this would have to be done elsehwere, I actually kind of like this idea. Set minimum standards including block log/sanction standards, reasonable tenure, voting on a large pool of candidates and then alternating between them every few months, while perhaps making NYB permanent chancellor for the institutional knowledge and general wisdom :p This might also decrease the general hesitancy people have to run for arbcom and decrease arb burnout - and would probably speed up the process of deciding cases. But, as you said, that's an idea that would need to be fleshed out and discussed elsewhere. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Kevin, your idea of notifying eligible voters who'd been active in the last three months was quite sensible. It's the loss of the three months recent activity that has caused the unease. Errant has explained elsewhere why this happened, and it's clear that it was just one of those things, nobody's fault. He thought you were going to do the messaging, so when he closed he didn't think he needed to spell out the proposal. But then you decided to stand, so Matt did the messaging instead. He simply followed Errant's close, and the three months got lost. SarahSV (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you think it was a decent idea :). And yeah, I think the idea as initially proposed was solid and would've helped - especially after we got fewer than 600 voters last year. It makes me nervous to see *arbitrators* elected with 273 votes, when we've had RFA's as high as 218 votes. I really wish the current situation hadn't occurred and regret the mess that it has caused. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I agree that the previous low turnout was a problem; or rather it was symptomatic of the problem, which is that the community feels disenfranchised. No matter how they vote, the committee seems not to work, so people are disillusioned. I hope when the election is over we can open a central page and start brainstorming about root-and-branch reform, including maintaining permanent long lists of good candidates, with "juries" chosen from that list at random, either for particular cases, or for short periods of time. SarahSV (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin: There's no personal attack, but bald statement of facts: people here are suggesting that disenfranchising voters is the best way forward. Fewer voters does enable rigged elections more easily. And you're following up by suggesting you'd get rid of direct elections entirely. That's not an improvement. As for the assertion that the resulting electorate is essentially picking candidates at random—citation needed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are oversimplifying it, David. My take on it is a bit different than most here, but if we have people voting who haven't been active here in a few years (not in mass, but it will happen) then that is outside what the community clearly asked for. I think most people are fine with Kevin's original plan, to notify people who have been active in the last 3 months. That makes sense, they DO have a horse in this race and it makes sense to notify them. That isn't what happened. What is most appalling to me is how we are this top 10 website and we can't pull off the only annual election we have, using new notification rules that the community agreed to beforehand in an RFC. Dismissing the failure isn't conducive to ensuring it doesn't happen again. If you want to notify everyone who has edited in the last year, or even allow anonymous editors to vote, fine, start an RFC, the community can decide. This year, the community clearly said the cut off was 3 months to notify. What damage will be cause (if any), I have no idea, but to suggest that wanting the process to follow consensus is the same wanting to disenfranchising people seems a bit of hyperbole. Whether it randomizes the outcome, I'm not sure, but neither are you. When you instantly and radically change the dynamics of an election (with or without consensus), you open up several possibilities, including a few that you and I hadn't thought of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nabla mentioned randomness during the original discussion and seemed to know what he was talking about, so perhaps he can explain more here. If we're going to send out mass messages in future, we should agree in an RfC, make sure the entry point is sensible, build in a recent-activity criterion, and alert voters much earlier so they have time to do research. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What "RFC" are you referencing? The WP:AN discussion was not an RFC. NE Ent 21:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV, I am using simple mathematical reasoning (which might be wrong, if it is I would very much like to know why. Really :-) I have been around for years but I am not too active. I know a few of the candidates because I had already multiple interactions with them or at least I have read their contributions to several discussions quite a few times. Then I may read a few statements, a few questions, and so on. So I base my votes on a few tens of individual inputs about each candidate, and I can read a few things in between the lines for the less known ones, I "average" it out in my mind, and there I go, "Nay" or "Yea" for each. Some users spend lots more time in here (e.g., you :-), so their vote is based on maybe hundreds of those smallish inputs that build up to form a strong impression if the candidates are to their liking or not. Much less active user will base their vote on very little knowledge, maybe only "that guy voted to (keep|delete) <that> article", or similar. If you base your decision on little information, you may, by chance, to have a first bad impression of someone you would like if you knew them better, or a first good impression of someone you would dislike if you knew them better. (see: Type I and type II errors if statistics ain't too frightening, or I could tell you about two guys at my work :-).
In short, less informed users (with smaller data sample about the candidates) are more likely to vote against *their own* beliefs by mistake. So this votes are more prone to error (the votes are not random, off course - ... I hope ... - but the events leading to them are). In the end all votes carry the same weight, although they do not carry the same information. So, there is some chance that we get the "wrong" outcome - that is not the same outcome we'd have if everyone is well informed. That said, note that if we have really many many many of those less informed votes, we eventually have a "collective brain" that has "all" the information. So there may be a breaking point, where having a few "random voters" randomizes the result (that is bad), but a *lot* of "random voters" actually work out well. I wonder if there is some study about it somewhere.
All in all, I'd say, it is ill advised to poke everybody about the ACE. Nothing against the right for everyone to vote, as long as they fit the criteria. But I think there is a implicit criterion we shouldn't change: if you are not here long enough to know you can vote for the ArbCom, them probably you are not ready to be a full citizen from this 'nation' yet.
I am sure I could have been clearer, I hope it makes some sense. - Nabla (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree with Fluffernutter's statements above, but a few more things to consider:

  • 1. Most regulars seem pretty unhappy with the current ArbCom, so trying to limit the electorate to pretty much the same people who voted the last time might not be the ideal way to improve that.
  • 2. People with older accounts may have stopped editing because of dissatisfaction with the management, so their participation might help improve things.
  • 3. SV and others above seem to imply that these voters "won't know what's going on", and so we're going to have an arbcom "selected at random". Frankly that's rather insulting to the old hands, who I presume would read the candidate statements, Q&A pages, and/or some of the voter guides. The objection that they "should know the candidates already" really does reduce this it to a popularity contest.
  • 4. If the notifications have been stopped mid-way (as seems to be the case, or perhaps someone managed to take me off the list), it should be restarted. Silly to jump off in the middle of it, when nobody knows what the results are anyway.

Anyway, imagine how the "press" will come down if WP dismisses the elections because the turnout was too high. That might be just as effective as "opposing all" as a way to begin sweeping away the volunteer management if the WMF is embarrassed enough. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 14:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this post. (If you weren't notified, there's also a good chance your name was parsed incorrectly, since the list received apparently had formatting errors that were hard to automatically correct. However, I'm not honestly sure if all notifications went out.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well obviously not a big deal for me since I knew about the election ;-). I see a bot delivering messages again on my watchlist now, so perhaps I just haven't come up in the cue yet (or it could be that when I made the account the underscore was in the username, but that doesn't appear in my login screen). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To address all of the above, it isn't about increased voter turn out, which is a good thing, it is about how it was executed. The close of the RFC did not match the discussion, the execution did not match the consensus, and there are some odd trends in the voting. Turning this into a "well you are saying more voters is bad, you are part of the cabal" is pure ad hominem and has no place in a rational discussion. Arguably, Kevin's original idea to notify those that have been active in the last 3 months would be an interesting and relatively safe way to boost participation. It was supported by a consensus, after all. This is not what happened. Instead, we have a situation with a lot of unknown consequences, and instead of increasing the credibility of the election, the very opposite may be true. If you think the only people that are concerned are speaking on this talk page, you are mistaken. If you believe that Wikipedia is a democracy simply because we have ONE election in our entire system of governance, you are also wrong. Perhaps we should stick with the merits of the arguments rather than call each other cabalists and otherwise assume bad faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do worry, quite a bit, about how this was actually executed, and if the unknown consequences end up being unexpected, dread for the sanity of the next committee members. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We all share that, let us all remember that. We have different ideas about how we got here and they are worth discussing, we all (myself included) just need to keep a calm demeanor. These informal discussions are better than dragging to a board at this point, because we don't really know the impact, and we really can't do much until after the vote has been counted anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like pointless graphs, it's the engineer in me. So here we go. As of about ten minutes ago end of day 3 Dec, we had 2185 2457 unique voters. The chart attached shows when they cast their first vote (duplicates have been removed).
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
23 Nov
24 Nov
25 Nov
26 Nov
27 Nov
28 Nov
29 Nov
30 Nov
1 Dec
2 Dec
3 Dec
Yeah, I'm one of those who makes up their mind at the end of the voting period. A lot can happen over two weeks to sway ones opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kelapstick, your competition has thrown down the graph-gauntlet. User_talk:Opabinia_regalis#Click_here_for_graphs_and_stuff -- are you gonna let her get away with that? Better pull out your fanciest protractor, or whatever it is folks use to make these pretty pictures nowadays.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
75, Opabinia is not my competition, as I am nowhere in her league, both as a candidate, or graph generator. Truthfully, I don't consider this election a competition. Those who get elected will get elected, and I wish all candidates the best of luck in their endeavor. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between scientists and engineers right here ;) Scientist: multiple overly complicated graphs with long explanations. Engineer: one graph, easy to read, makes the point. Oh, and Kelapstick even used the chart function instead of making everyone click through images. Smart guy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you didn't think I was attacking you or anyone else, Dennis. My reductio ad absurdum was intended to convince, not belittle (and by the way, the section title was to help alert other people who have your page watched about the topic under discussion, since "break" isn't particularly informative (though otoh I suppose my section title was a bit snarky)).
Two things that I'm not getting here. First, I don't understand how a larger electorate correlates to random selection. Second, if (as you've said on a few occasions) we should always be focused on the reader rather than the editor, it strikes me that a poll of all users with x number of edits since 2001 (or however far back that the database can be grepped) is more likely to resemble the "community of interested readers" than smaller alternative samples of "people who check their watchlists often" or "people who have edited in the past 3 months". --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offense was taken and all viewpoints are welcome. Sometimes I have to wrangle a bit, but being the host, that's my duty. I completely understand why you and many others feel that more people, including more people who aren't really involved, is better. I really do, and if it made up 10% of the vote, it wouldn't bother me. In fact, I might say it was a good thing because it might bring them back. And what if we went to 6 months back or a year? All valid discussions to have before the election. But when a mistake overwhelms the normal number of voters in the system, there is a possibility it can disrupt the election because new voters outnumber the normal turnout, you have the potential for chaos and unpredictable results that might not reflect the consensus of those that are here every day, or every month, or at least a few times a year. What people are forgetting is how many people READ Wikipedia while logged in but haven't edited in a while. They voted too, which again is fine. The problem isn't any individual that voted, it was that possible more people voted who aren't familiar with with they are voting FOR, than really understood what they were voting for. Not saying that is a given, only that it is possible. And that is a problem as the result may be more random than you think. Or maybe not, but we don't know. We do know mistakes were made, and casting blame aside, we need to make sure they don't happen again. Basically, this was a lousy time to inject this much uncertainty about the process, considering how uncertainty we already have about Arb in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether lousy timing or perfect timing, it's certainly interesting timing, and a cat well out of the bag. Informing all the enfranchised of their status may be one of the most spectacular examples of unintentional BOLDness we've seen in a long time. There's a horticultural technique called "kill or cure" that comes to mind. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sending the 100k notifications will NOT have much impact, in practice. Surprisingly enough. Opabinia_regalis is also a sucker for graphs, like Kelapstick, and has been doing some good analysis-work over at her usertalk, see User_talk:Opabinia_regalis#Click_here_for_graphs_and_stuff as well as points further up that usertalk. In particular, by her calculations (as I understand them), of the ~2200 unique bangvotes cast so far, there are 163 of them who would NOT have been notified under the must-be-active-in-the-past-three-months qualifier. In other words, although 100k mass-messages were sent out, in *practice* only people recently active showed up to actually vote, plus a smidge more. That additional 163 bangvotes won't statistically screw up the election, because they aren't acting in concert, and they don't overwhelm the rest of the electorate.
  On an unrelated matter, that worried me plenty more than the mass-message, Opabinia *also* did a check of how many usernames were created during 2015, and found only 87, which is a good indication that there is not a lot of unsophisticated socking happening during this election, either. In short, everything is probably gonna be fine. Those calling for a recount, and demanding the hanging chad question be solved... there might not even BE such problems, as fears of the unknown can sometimes generate. This arbcom election is going decently, and is being done in the wikipedia way: by amateurs, who don't know what we're doing, but end up with a reasonably high-quality outcome anyways, at the end of the day.  :-)     I can only repeat the great philosopher Adams, who sayeth, don't WP:PANIC please. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting take and I'm hoping you are right. My biggest frustration is how this all happened, and how quickly some are to dismiss it. Regardless of outcome, this is a giant breach of community trust, and that counts for something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still doing my own off-wiki number crunching.  :-)     So I'm not completely WP:DGAF. But I was -- note past tense -- seriously worried at first, that we would have a turnout of 15k+ low-info-voters, and that didn't happen. There was an AN discussion (kinda like an RfC), which got approved, and somebody dropped the ball on the way from the approved-plan to a seemingly-dramatically-different plan... but in the end, the fear of dramatic difference did not come to pass. If you averaged the voterguides of worm, ealdgyth, elonka, carrite, tryptofish, and harry in 2014 you could see who was going to win, and roughly the ordering. 2015 will be different, because there was a mass-message to 100k eligible rather than to ~~10k eligible && active ... but in the event, a very small portion of those ~~90k eligible yet inactive bothered to actually vote. Anyways, I see clumsy ball-dropping (which as you point out is not worth playing the blame-game over), but I don't see the Giant Breach... clumsy can be fixed next year, without horse-already-bolted-talk of overturning *this* election, right? So if there *is* some kind of Giant Britches Of Flame, besides the accidentally-wider-than-intended mass message during the first attempted trial run of this election-alert scheme, please clue me in. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of quick comments on the above: to be consistent with the rest of the data on my talk page, I looked only at the same 1901 votes (=1811 unique voters) from Nov 23-26 that I used for the earlier graphs. So it's 162/1811 = 9% who miss the cutoff, and 87/1811 = 5% who registered in 2015. It's still true that the distribution of voter edit counts is very different from prior elections, with many more low-edit-count voters, and this is not easily explained by expected variation in wiki-life-cycle over time. I agree with 75's conclusion though: everything's probably going to work out fine. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one thing that could be tried in this instance is a serious effort at, say, the beginning of the year, to really try to reform the committee. A Few ideas I would like to see:

Expand the number of arbs to maybe 2 or 3 times current requirements. The highest votegetters would be the ones in the "basic" arbitration panel, with the others as reserves.
Make AE discussions ones which can only be closed by arbs, and clerks be elected arbs, with these two functions being given primarily to those getting less votes, or, alternately, allow for separate sections of the election page. This might be particularly useful regarding the current potential Eric Corbett situation.
Open up primaries, about a month or two before the next real election, in which all active editors can nominate anyone meeting predetermined basic eligibility criteria, with the highest votegetters being the ones included in the final ballot.
Try to persuade Casliber or others to develop some sort of Myers–Briggs Type Indicator type test for potential arbitrators, maybe on the variables of relative importance of content amount relative to other factors, content quality relative to other factors, editors relative to other factors, and public opinion of the project relative to other factors, or something like that. Having such indicators available might well be preferable to the sometimes less useful or problematic questions candidates sometimes see today.
Maybe have, somehow, some designated individual (NYB preferably) be the "chief justice," in a position to encourage certain arbs to take part in certain cases or discourage others in other cases.

Granted, it ain't likely, but I'd like to see it anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We couldn't fill the slots. I'm more thinking we need to reduce their workload, thus the need for as many as we have. Move BASC to the community, they already moved some sensitive things to Legal and maybe more more. Fix ANI by allowing a breakoff page for more complicated cases so maybe we don't need to go to Arb as often, then we don't need as many Arbs as we currently have. Then they can work on the issues they actually have done well over the years, which is complicated issues that are part content and part behavior, where the community can't figure out where to draw the line. They are dealing with one of those now with Catflap08 and Hijiri88. I looked the other day, and the case almost made sense. I thought I was looking at an archive for a minute.... ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we probably would be able to get enough. Remember, this might include an open nomination period, in which theoretically virtually anyone could be nominated, and most of the elected arbs would only take part in any real arb cases if there aren't enough "basic" arbs to fill the jury box. So most of them wouldn't really be "more arbs," but "backup emergency" arbs. And it would also make AE a bit easier regarding the proposed Eric Corbett injunction that only arbs can impose sanctions there. And, I suppose, creating some sort of "ANI transfer to ArbCom" rule like you propose that might well be done more easily and quickly with such a setup. Also, I think it might be a way to basically in a way impose something like the admin term limit idea that others have proposed elsewhere. But, particularly regarding hard ANI discussions transferred to the expanded committee, statement lengths would probably be limited (really useful in cases of the type you mentioned) and the possibility of canvassing for !votes might be basically eliminated. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ever see a Keystone Cops movie? What makes you think that if we had twice as many cops, we could catch the bad guys? ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, steward elections are advertised at the top of every page for every logged in user, and while we got our share of clueless voters, they usually turned out okay, quite impressive considering the diversity of wikis and languages involved. --Rschen7754 23:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 72 hrs only recommendation

I approve of your 72hrs only proposal, concerning AE blocks. However, IMHO it should extend to all sanctioned editors & not just EC :) GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • For simple civility breaches, I would agree. Most of the time, no block is needed, just discussion. I didn't run for admin to be the politically correct police, you have to be tolerant of heated discussion sometimes and use words instead of block buttons when you can. Too many admins simply block because it is easier, and they can walk away, go play a video game or whatever, and let others deal with the aftermath. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't I know it. Due to having little or no support, my two trips to AE, resulted in a 1-week vacation & then a 1-month vacation. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is why it is important to have clear, liberal policies, and good judgement by admin. I don't know the particulars of your case (and to be honest, I lack the time to investigate) but cases like Eric's should serve to reset the bar a bit for all editors. Blocks ARE cheap, that doesn't mean they are always the best tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of judgment is frequently underplayed. Talk first, block only if necessary. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

For this. You can count me as another woman who feels that the GGTF doesn't begin to speak for me .. but I haven't wanted to get tarred and feathered because I don't toe the party line. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen you around 100 times or more even though we haven't really interacted much. It's hard to not notice someone with that many FAs, after all, yet I don't think I knew you were a woman. Some people might call me an insensitive clod, but the first question I have about someone isn't whether they wear a frock or trousers; I ask about what they work on, the articles, GAs, FAs and the like. Gender doesn't define us as editors, our work does. We need to knock heads when someone really does act sexist, but we don't need to call every woman a victim by virtue of simply being a woman. That strikes me as kind of demeaning to women. If I were a woman, it would kind of piss me off to be patronized and played off that way, but I'm a man, so what do I know? ;) I do know that we need to talk about our genders less, and about our articles more. And of course, you are welcome. Anything for a fellow Wikipedian. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an excellent point of view Dennis. It sounds also as if Ealdgyth would not be worried too much about male admins who prefer to keep our articles clean rather than to lead the demo down the streets for women's rights. Not being an active supporter doesn't mean we are all misogynists and don't deserve to be admins or Arbcom members. In fact, to be honest, I think there is generally too much use of the back pages of Wikipedia as platforms for socio-political issues. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should start a movement to end it, Kudpung. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had my real name on my user page for ages, but almost everyone sees the "gyth" at the end of the username and assumes male. (Of course, if you knew Anglo-Saxon history you'd assume female...). Sometime during the whole GGTF kerfluffle (i.e. in the last two years or so) I made the mistake of saying somewhere on wikipedia (I can't seem to find the discussion now) that I was a woman and that I worked in computer gaming and that workforce I worked with (for an online gaming company - a small one but an older one) was about half female. Not only that, but that I'd never really dealt with anything terribly sexist (the occasional crude discussion - but hey, the women I work with are perfectly capable of discussing crude things back at the men) and hadn't had problems with the men I work with. My experience was basically dismissed ... couldn't have happened/be true/whatever. Wish I could find it... but whatever. I've always gotten along with EC well - but generally I get along with people fine all around. Probably helps that I've worked online for so long as well as being a horseperson - I'm used to REALLY crude (discuss castration techniques at the breakfast table in a hotel? Check, been there, done that...). I don't see the need for "women's rights" to be pushed on wiki that much. I'd rather we worried about real sexism - women not being able to drive in Saudi Arabian, FGM, honor killings, child marriages, etc. I refuse to be pigeon holed into only editing certain subjects on wikipedia either - along with many other women, I found this discussion rather patronizing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just....Wow. I've been around horses a little, so have a clue what you mean; no time for petty shit when there is work to be done, and there is always work to be done. The real destructive sexism (and racism) has nothing to do with using "he" in the generic, it is subtle, almost silent, and is often dressed up like someone taking your side. I think someone is bucking for admin, but I don't see it happening. As for other countries and women's rights, I'm ex-military and reasonably traveled, and when I'm not here following the required admin protocol, I'm more than a little outspoken on certain countries and their women's right's records. Yes, there is a lot of violence against women in the world, real stuff that actually matters, real lives. Many here have lived too privileged a life, have been exposed to too little of the real world, and simply lack perspective. Wikipedia's problems should be monitored, but pale in comparison. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good close?

I generally avoid drawn out discussions, like in the DrChrissy case. But it does seem like you gave it a thoughtful, good close. That is nice. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Let me speak. Eric has become sort of whipping boy - and it's not fair. I know -life isn't fair. I know that I've lost all respect because I spoke to Salvio in the familiar. Here's the thing Dennis - IT. IS. Wrong. User talk:Salvio giuliano has abused his position, and pushed forward an agenda. It is wrong. I know there's no redress available ... it's a website. Has Eric been snotty at times? Yea. But here's the rub ... he has constantly been subjected to ridicule, harassment, and lies. Anyone who supports Eric is subjected to harassment - and make no mistake - it is verifiable in Arbcom rulings.

What is put forward is concept that those who want to get rid of Eric are subjected to harassment. Let me say this: the people who deride Eric? ... How much content can be shown from them? — Ched :  ?  20:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Where are the sanctions on people who harass our quality content editors? — Ched :  ?  21:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

butting in - Ched, it is the likes of you and I who will be sanctioned/blocked for not following the "group think" of the WMF groupies, none of whom are capable of producing any content. Wikipedia has lost its way and sadly is little more than a politically motivated social network. Content is of no importance to these POV pushers. They endorse the ongoing harassment of Eric but turn a blind eye to the actual harassers. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ched. Sadly, it seems to be considered civil to toss around terms like "anti-admin brigade" and any of the assortment of things used to label those who are seen to support Eric. Accountability here is a one-way street, and will likely become more so if some of the folks running for Arb are either elected or re-elected. Intothatdarkness 21:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The situation has not gone unnoticed by many of us gnoming proles. Irondome (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is WMF groupies even supposed to mean? There are a small number of individuals who have worked for the WMF but few of them actively edit while they work at WMF.
A groupie is, according to Wiktionary, a fan, especially a young female fan of a male singer or rock group; a person who seeks intimacy (most often physical, sometimes emotional) with a celebrity, usually a rock 'n' roll artist or band member. I don't think there are many editors who aspire to "seek intimacy" with the WMF. I don't even know what it means to seek intimacy with an nonprofit organization. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where were you when CMDC called me a "Manchester gangbanger"? Eric Corbett 21:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) And this is why one doesn't take content from any user-generated project (let alone one which thinks "targetted" is a word) at face value without actually checking the citations. A person associated with or on the periphery of a core group of famous people, if you want the OED definition; 22 Dec 1958 Life 116/2 "The clan [of film stars] also includes what Director Billy Wilder calls ‘groupies’, knots of acceptable nonsquares who are welcomed to its larger convocations and camp meetings", which pretty much sums up the User talk:Jimbo Wales clique of wannabees, weirdos and sycophants perfectly. ‑ Iridescent 21:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a terrible comment to make, Eric, I think that remark is out of line. And Iridescent, I can understand what is meant by "Jimbo Wales' groupies" (although I doubt that they exist these days) but not WMF groupies. I don't many editors who even have any contact with the WMF besides checking the Meta website once in a while. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After several edit conflicts - Liz: grow up, gain some integrity (oh, wow, I think I've told you this before ... ) WMF groupies was a term I believe was coined (correctly) by Sitush. You have no comprehension of content creation and epitomise all that is wrong with Wikipedia. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Eric asking where someone was when he was called a nasty name a "terrible comment" and out of line? Can no one ask why certain things were overlooked? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Love you, too, Phil. I know you have a funny way of showing it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase long predates Sitush—I can't be fagged to dig through archives to find the original use, but here's an example from 2011. ‑ Iridescent 22:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After several edit conflicts - Liz, you are truly pathetic. Perhaps one day you might learn how to produce content although it is doubtful. You are simply a POV social network wannabe. I've told you to stay away from me and stop your pathetic blatant attacks. Grow up. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Dennis, I'm sorry this is playing out on your talk page but I've had enough of these POV pushers ...[reply]
POV social network wannabe...Every editor has a POV as every human being has a POV. If you believe that I am pushing some sort of political or social agenda, then be specific and raise your complaint on the appropriate noticeboard. I believe I have been gracious to you, despite your continuous incivility towards me so I don't know about these "attacks". I've simply asked that you cease being rude to me and let's just edit in our own little areas and be kind to each other when we cross paths on talk pages. That seems like a reasonable request, not an attack. Let's live and let live, alright? Peace. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are an insidious POV "editor" - I use quotation marks as personally I consider you very far from a competent content editor. Get a live, learn some integrity and as far as I'm concerned move on. You are not worth the dirt on my shoes ... take a hike ... do I need to make my thoughts about you any clearer? SagaciousPhil - Chat 00:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I think Liz can take care of herself, that's about enough out of you Phil. Any more personal attacks like you've displayed here, and this is going to ANI. And Dennis, it is sub-optimal behavior by you to allow these kinds of personal attacks to continue on your Talk page. And if you were a true mediator, like you've claimed on the Arb case page, you wouldn't have allowed this to escalate to this point. For the obtuse, Liz was stating that the comment DIRECTED at Eric was "a terrible comment to make", and "out of line", not Eric's mentioning of it. Dave Dial (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dave, I never called myself anything on the Arb page, and please note that I don't watch this page in real time. Holding me responsible for what is said while I'm talking on the phone or doing something else here is akin to people holding Eric responsible for how others reacted to his block. We are each responsible for our own actions, and my duty isn't to police every comment around the clock. I would agree that Phil has probably sufficiently made hisher point, but your misdirected anger at me isn't exactly setting an example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • She, although I can understand the potential confusion. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, my apologies, and corrected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • After numerous edit conflicts - yes, I am FEMALE and have never made any secret of it. Dave or whatever your name is, if you want to take me to AN/I, just carry on - it will be a new experience for me. I have always done my best but evidently "editors" like yourself and the exalted Liz feel that is not good enough so on you go. I do not give a shit. SagaciousPhil - Chat 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • The gender mixup was mine, I don't usually think about the gender of someone as much as what they do. ANI is a bad idea simple because it would turn a small spat on a relatively safe talk page into a drama fest. Liz poked a little Sagaciousphil poked a lot, Liz is an admin with plenty of experience to handle it, etc. etc. We all need to dial it down a bit. The facts are more important than the personalities. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't give a damn about admin status, and Liz has no substantial experience where it matters and therefore no experience of why this shit matters. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My point being admin are expected to be capable of handling heat, so protection isn't necessary. Again, I'm trying to dial it down a notch. The merits matter, how we feel about each other....not as much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


People too often forget that Eric is a real, living human being. For that matter, they forget that behind each signature, each of us is a living person who lives, loves, laughs, cries and is no better or worse than anyone else. It is easy to be harsh to someone you can't see, someone who isn't "real" because they can be reduced to a signature and an edit history. A block log can simply be tallied and measured against other blocks logs without regard to the context. A comment can be taken out of context when it suits the end goal, and as long as it is a plausible explanation, you can't say the accuser acted in bad faith without risking sanction yourself. We have a bad habit of treating each other like shit at Wikipedia. We all do it sometimes. All of us.

In our struggle to promote equality, we have instead bred intolerance into the system. We have divided ourselves into "us and them", and replaced discussion with body counts and voting in discussions on matters like the gender gap and sexism. I don't care how many new articles we add, as a community, we are less than we once were. All these politics don't belong here, all this debate over gaps is pointless because we don't even really know the problem because no one has ever paid to get a real, objective and profession analysis of the situation here. You can't crowd source everything, and this is a prime example. There is too much agenda, too much desire to win by attrition, too much focus on using Wikipedia as a source of sociopolitical change. There is too little focus on the most important Wikipedian of them all: The reader.

The fact is, we can debate, argue, have RFCs and tie ourselves into bureaucratic knots but the only reason we exist, the only reason the WMF employees get paid, the only reasons I'm here talking is because of the reader. Without readers, Wikipedia would be an entry in some other online encyclopedia, in the history section, and nothing more. Everything we do should be directly or indirectly for the reader, everything else is a waste of time. Tolerance doesn't mean agreeing with someone, it means simply enduring your differences. We need more tolerance here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going to see that tolerance any time soon. The reason is because the socio-political activists are making a game of things to suit their ends. Yes, some of them may not even realise that they are in the game and, yes, there have always been problems of a socio-political POV-pushing nature here. Nonetheless, this civility = gender = anti-Eric has become a snowball and it will continue to grow even if Eric were SanFranBanned. It will engulf some of the most productive people we have and, frankly, it will ultimately be detrimental because rational debate will turn into polarised argument. That will be so because the purpose has changed and increasingly has little to do with being an encyclopaedia in any recognised sense of the word.
The WMF is at the centre of it and I seriously query whether or not their charitable status might be called into question. They're trying to play arm's-length and simultaneously deploying the groupies to act in a supposedly "non-official" capacity to achieve their end. You can actually track career paths for a lot of the burgeoning WMF payroll, and it starts with things like writing for The Signpost. No-one will convince me that it is possible to split official from personal, whether it is the work of the WMF or, say, MPs in the UK who say that by declaring their conflict of interest they suddenly have none. The project will live on, of course, but the quality ... oh, the quality: forget about it. Thousands of gnomes and lawyers buggering about and fuck all useful material. That's you, Liz, and many others. Less an encyclopaedia of merit and more a campaign sheet. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a gnome I do not "bugger about" Sitush. I have improved hundreds of articles and I believe I am actually an assistant content creator. I have good articles planned. It actually takes balls to write a piece of fine quality. Too many do not grasp that fact. I need to learn the craft far more, and I do that by observation of the great content creators here. I assume you mean incompetent dabblers with relatively low edit counts and short tenure. Irondome (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't diss every gnome ;) As for your planning and learning, well, Eric helped Dennis along very nicely in a situation that probably has similarities. Of course, Eric won't be around to help you, nor indeed to help the likes of me as has been his wont at various GAs, FAs and just general encyclopaedic stuff over the years. I am a poor substitute but feel free to ask as and when. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, Eric worked with me on my two GAs and FA/TFA. Before that I had less than 20 articles created, all rather small. Before that, he opposed me at RFA, which I think is kind of funny, now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. And I take comfort from Dennis's recollection above. Actually, this evening I was going to drop a line on Eric's T/P (a first) for advice. I find article creation a daunting prospect. The standard is staggeringly high in many cases. I'm scared of making a damn fool of myself and I doubt my abilities. But there is so much more to create. How can an encyclopedia which some advocate to be basically finished, not even have an article covering Melon boat, that staple starter of any self-respecting Berni Inn meal of the 70's?. We still have much to do. I deeply appreciate your offer Sitush. Simon Irondome (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Election - Polls are closed

Let the speculation begin. I think I may have accidentally voted for Buchanan. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me a LOL. Irondome (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&oldid=694098195"