ArbCom election 2018
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:16 am
Barely even worth having a thread on this, it's become so irrelevant. My fears that the hopelessly compromised 2017 committee would continue the efforts to toxify Wikipedia and further distance it from the real world proved true, albeit in a very small way. Much of that effort has been continued out in the main arena by the usual forces of evil and assholery, with the 2017 committee being called on to do virtually nothing important.
In reality, ArbCom was too much of a threat to the rotten core of Wikipedia's desire to never change, to have been allowed to continue for much longer. So they weakened it, compromised it, ignored it, undermined it, until we got to this farcical state today, where they have had to actually reduce the size of the Committee by two, so that people might not notice what was already obvious in last year's election - it's not an election if you only end up with eight viable candidates for eight seats, it's a coronation of the willing.
To avoid the possibility that they came so close to seeing in 2017, namely a wholly unsuitable candidate being elected, specifically the Trumpian candidate The Rambling Man, they have tweaked the threshold required, and introduced a two tier system where less popular winners only get a one year term. They laughingly claim they will leave seats vacant if the minimum threshold of 50% for that one year term is not met. We shall see.
As has become normal, many of the candidates in 2017 ran on a reform ticket, and of course all their promises went unfulfilled, for all the usual reasons. We got this usual cowardice from the biggest reformer Alex Shih deciding to betray those who voted for him by resigning barely halfway into his term, without giving a reason (which was quite obviously that he had not had the first clue what he as getting himself in for).
Elected reformers never succeed because reform is not what the community wants. At least not reform that would be good for Wikipedia. Assuming they don't fail for reasons of naivety like Alex, they fail because there are never enough of them in the Committee at any one time to outvote the incumbents, the people who have overseen the gradual decline of the Committee, through a series of bad decisions which merely reflect what the vociferous but thoroughly toxic heart of the community wants.
Reformers are often counterbalanced by the presence of even worse candidates, who get elected because they are the chosen ones of the toxic core, people like Drmies and Opabina Regalis, sent to make sure they reflect their wishes (fuck civility, fuck the outside world, fuck the WMF, and most importantly, fuck you if you ever dare to disagree with their idea of how you build an encyclopedia).
With candidates needing only ~600 people supporting them to reach even the 60% threshold, it is very easy for people who really don't represent the majority of even the whole corpus of highly active editors (100 edits a month) to get elected, never mind people who don't represent humanity as a whole. And it being what it is, the dark heart of Wikipedia has always had more people willing to stand to look out for their interests.
Much like the effect of the Tea Party and now the alt-right has had on the establishment, the effect of their toxic emissaries being sent to the Committee is not seen in the voting record of the handful of cases that the Committee oversaw this term. It is seen in how they have influenced what cases are accepted, when they are accepted, and how they have influenced what decisions are put on the table for voting when they do. It has definitively ensured those who try to use the Committee as it is intended to be used, are punished as a deterrent to those who would dare to do such a thing in future. consequences
Presumably through fear of the consequences, the very least of which is the prospect of losing your seat at the next election (if you are even wanting to keep it), the worst of which is the sort of harassment and intimidation from your own nominal peers, for doing nothing more than your appointed role or, shock horror, speaking your mind, that has become a commonplace aspect of the Wikipedia experience - ask Gorilla Warfare - the way the incumbents act is now disproportionately influenced by the emissaries of Wikipedia's dark heart. If the toxic elements of the community sees one of them go after you, then they will see that as a green light to go after you too. All very Trumpian, not that he even invented this form of control.
This is where the traditional code of silence helps the forces of evil. It's been a long time since the Committee felt strong enough to clean house itself, presumably in fear of being lynched by the very people who sent the person that needs to be ejected from the Committee for basic and obvious code violations, to serve on it. A rogue but powerful Administrator can block an Arbitrator, for sure, these are not meant as, or received as, empty threats.
Not that long ago, it would have been inconceivable that an Administrator like Salvidrim would not have faced a site ban for the astounding breach of trust he was guilty of. He escaped that because of the Super Mario problem, and this is one of the features the toxic core rather likes about their dysfunctional community, since it helps the corrupt, and harms the idealists and consensus builders.
The time limited non-vengeful site ban of Joefromranb seems to have worked quite well, as is predicted by Wikipedia governance theory. But of course, because of the toxic emmissaries, the community had to endure months more of the same old failed approach, before they had the brilliant idea of actually following Wikipedia policy and letting the Arbitration Committee perform the role it is meant to perform. Which they did so, most begrudgingly, largely because Joe wasn't taking the hint and helping them to help him, for and on behalf of his real friends, the Committee within the Committee.
It is unlikely that the Philip Cross or German War cases would have gone much differently for the accused in years past, there have always been limitations on how far the Committee is willing to enforce policy when to do so would destroy Wikipedia completely. But they are noteworthy in how little attention was paid to the accused, rather than their accusers. That's the influence of the toxic emmisaries, for it is they who enthusiastically sign up to the idea that if you can't escape the consequences of your actions, you can damn well take down the person who ratted you out. Revenge and intimidation.
In previous years, the Committee has taken the view that what matters more is that justice is seen to be done and screw the mob, that no artificial and self-defeating barriers are put in place to prevent that eventuality, to the point there was a time they even accepted merititious cases being filed by obvious sock-puppets.
That would not happen now, you can't even properly contribute as an IP because of the threat whistleblowers pose to the established order of corruption. Unless the accused was an enemy of the Tea Party of course, in which case their principles would fly right out of the window. Sound familiar? The irony is, these people claim to be anti-Trump. These are the people who, if the chance arose, would happily add "It's OK to punch a national socialist" to the Wikipedia case law.
And of course, there has been the familiar eroding of the Arbitration Enforcement system, except where it can be usefully used to benefit the causes of the Tea Party candidates (which in Wikipedia's case means doing battle with the forces of the right, moderate and extreme lumped together as one, since they would see Wikipedia do a horrible thing like be neutral).
To look over the culture of Wikipedia today, you wouldn't even know the likes of concept former and current Administrators Black Kite and The Rambling Man are under active Arbitration remedies or warnings. Their confidence to flaunt their defiance comes not only from the fact the toxic elements of the community through their representative Administrators will ensure nothing is done about it, these toxic emissaries ensure even the current Committee is unable to do anything about it.
Sandstein remains the only Administrator prepared to act on behalf of the previous incarnations of the Committee's judgements by enforcing the wikilaw without fear of favour, and he is being harassed in the worst possible terms for it, including by former one term Tea Party Arbitrator Drmies. Nothing is being done about that. Literally nothing. A clearer sign of the hollowing out of what was once meant to be a body of leadership and a protector of values, you will not see.
The analogy with the Tea Party falls down because there has not been a similar rise of militancy on the opposite side of the aisle. In the 2017 election, the two women candidates who had previously stood on a platform that Wikipedia needs to stop being institutionally sexist and misogynistic, of course stood down in frustration, diplomatically finding other excuses for their decisions.
Putting aside the thorny issue of trans-feminism, there was no net change in the number of cisgender women in the Committee in 2017-18, and no reason to think those who came in are more motivated or capable of effecting change than those who left, indeed quite the reverse since Opabina Regalis became the ranking member. Suffice to say, this year's election is unlikely to improve things, unless of course the previous two women can be guilt tripped into standing again. It seems unlikely.
If this election even runs to a satisfactory conclusion, namely six suitable candidates earning 60% support to earn a two year term, it will only be because six of the seven incumbents standing down, the people to blame for the Committee not doing it's job this year, or the year before that, stood for re-election at the last minute. This was the only thing that stopped the Trumpian candidate or any of the other unsuitable ones from getting in last year. Crucially, it didn't stop the toxic emissaries from getting elected, so you can expect more to stand this year.
The tired incumbents won't want to do it, they always have this fanciful notion that Wikipedia is a place where the call to the highest service always has many willing to answer it, that the Committee will be refreshed by new blood, but that is no longer true, and hasn't been for years. Everyone now appreciates the thankless task that being an Arbitrator for the right reasons really is, frustrated and even attacked from without and within. It means that the only people who stand now, for the right reasons, are those who feel forced to do, to try and prevent or at least minimise the effect of the sort of candidate that very much does want the role, for the wrong reasons.
The whole farce gives the lie to these recent claims that Wikipedia is somehow unaffected by the forces that are ripping civilisation apart. They are being undermined by apathy and extremism as much as any real world legislature. The extremism is simply of the Antifa variety, albeit a distorted variant which minimises special justice and replaces it with the home grown doctrine of Wikipedia for the Wikipedians.
It is barely even worth identifying the specific scandals the Committee has been a party to this year, such as their looking the other way when presented with the evidence Sagecandor was Cirt, an editor under sanction by a prior Committee for offences that today would not even generate a case because an Administrator making biased edits isn't an example of them "abusing their tools".
This pathetic idea that the only way an Administrator can be a bad Administrator is if they abuse the tools, being another favourite mantra of the dark heart of Wikipedia, something which also enables corruption and stimies the idealists and consensus builders. These things never effect the outcome of the election, because candidates who want to stop it, either do not stand, or can seemingly never do something about it if they do.
For all these reasons, it is a near certainly that next year will see the first of what is likely to become an annual event - a community proposal to eliminate ArbCom, which is defeated on some vain hope it can be revived, or the realisation that as farcical as the situation has become, what could happen if you let the community replace it, is terrifying. The Wikipedia Tea Party may even start to insist it is kept, seeing its practical uses for their cause.
At time of writing, nominations have been open for almost thirty six hours, and not one person has announced they are running, least of all incumbents. Get used to it. This is what the crumbling decline of Wikipedia looks like.
Correction, we have one person standing......
In reality, ArbCom was too much of a threat to the rotten core of Wikipedia's desire to never change, to have been allowed to continue for much longer. So they weakened it, compromised it, ignored it, undermined it, until we got to this farcical state today, where they have had to actually reduce the size of the Committee by two, so that people might not notice what was already obvious in last year's election - it's not an election if you only end up with eight viable candidates for eight seats, it's a coronation of the willing.
To avoid the possibility that they came so close to seeing in 2017, namely a wholly unsuitable candidate being elected, specifically the Trumpian candidate The Rambling Man, they have tweaked the threshold required, and introduced a two tier system where less popular winners only get a one year term. They laughingly claim they will leave seats vacant if the minimum threshold of 50% for that one year term is not met. We shall see.
As has become normal, many of the candidates in 2017 ran on a reform ticket, and of course all their promises went unfulfilled, for all the usual reasons. We got this usual cowardice from the biggest reformer Alex Shih deciding to betray those who voted for him by resigning barely halfway into his term, without giving a reason (which was quite obviously that he had not had the first clue what he as getting himself in for).
Elected reformers never succeed because reform is not what the community wants. At least not reform that would be good for Wikipedia. Assuming they don't fail for reasons of naivety like Alex, they fail because there are never enough of them in the Committee at any one time to outvote the incumbents, the people who have overseen the gradual decline of the Committee, through a series of bad decisions which merely reflect what the vociferous but thoroughly toxic heart of the community wants.
Reformers are often counterbalanced by the presence of even worse candidates, who get elected because they are the chosen ones of the toxic core, people like Drmies and Opabina Regalis, sent to make sure they reflect their wishes (fuck civility, fuck the outside world, fuck the WMF, and most importantly, fuck you if you ever dare to disagree with their idea of how you build an encyclopedia).
With candidates needing only ~600 people supporting them to reach even the 60% threshold, it is very easy for people who really don't represent the majority of even the whole corpus of highly active editors (100 edits a month) to get elected, never mind people who don't represent humanity as a whole. And it being what it is, the dark heart of Wikipedia has always had more people willing to stand to look out for their interests.
Much like the effect of the Tea Party and now the alt-right has had on the establishment, the effect of their toxic emissaries being sent to the Committee is not seen in the voting record of the handful of cases that the Committee oversaw this term. It is seen in how they have influenced what cases are accepted, when they are accepted, and how they have influenced what decisions are put on the table for voting when they do. It has definitively ensured those who try to use the Committee as it is intended to be used, are punished as a deterrent to those who would dare to do such a thing in future. consequences
Presumably through fear of the consequences, the very least of which is the prospect of losing your seat at the next election (if you are even wanting to keep it), the worst of which is the sort of harassment and intimidation from your own nominal peers, for doing nothing more than your appointed role or, shock horror, speaking your mind, that has become a commonplace aspect of the Wikipedia experience - ask Gorilla Warfare - the way the incumbents act is now disproportionately influenced by the emissaries of Wikipedia's dark heart. If the toxic elements of the community sees one of them go after you, then they will see that as a green light to go after you too. All very Trumpian, not that he even invented this form of control.
This is where the traditional code of silence helps the forces of evil. It's been a long time since the Committee felt strong enough to clean house itself, presumably in fear of being lynched by the very people who sent the person that needs to be ejected from the Committee for basic and obvious code violations, to serve on it. A rogue but powerful Administrator can block an Arbitrator, for sure, these are not meant as, or received as, empty threats.
Not that long ago, it would have been inconceivable that an Administrator like Salvidrim would not have faced a site ban for the astounding breach of trust he was guilty of. He escaped that because of the Super Mario problem, and this is one of the features the toxic core rather likes about their dysfunctional community, since it helps the corrupt, and harms the idealists and consensus builders.
The time limited non-vengeful site ban of Joefromranb seems to have worked quite well, as is predicted by Wikipedia governance theory. But of course, because of the toxic emmissaries, the community had to endure months more of the same old failed approach, before they had the brilliant idea of actually following Wikipedia policy and letting the Arbitration Committee perform the role it is meant to perform. Which they did so, most begrudgingly, largely because Joe wasn't taking the hint and helping them to help him, for and on behalf of his real friends, the Committee within the Committee.
It is unlikely that the Philip Cross or German War cases would have gone much differently for the accused in years past, there have always been limitations on how far the Committee is willing to enforce policy when to do so would destroy Wikipedia completely. But they are noteworthy in how little attention was paid to the accused, rather than their accusers. That's the influence of the toxic emmisaries, for it is they who enthusiastically sign up to the idea that if you can't escape the consequences of your actions, you can damn well take down the person who ratted you out. Revenge and intimidation.
In previous years, the Committee has taken the view that what matters more is that justice is seen to be done and screw the mob, that no artificial and self-defeating barriers are put in place to prevent that eventuality, to the point there was a time they even accepted merititious cases being filed by obvious sock-puppets.
That would not happen now, you can't even properly contribute as an IP because of the threat whistleblowers pose to the established order of corruption. Unless the accused was an enemy of the Tea Party of course, in which case their principles would fly right out of the window. Sound familiar? The irony is, these people claim to be anti-Trump. These are the people who, if the chance arose, would happily add "It's OK to punch a national socialist" to the Wikipedia case law.
And of course, there has been the familiar eroding of the Arbitration Enforcement system, except where it can be usefully used to benefit the causes of the Tea Party candidates (which in Wikipedia's case means doing battle with the forces of the right, moderate and extreme lumped together as one, since they would see Wikipedia do a horrible thing like be neutral).
To look over the culture of Wikipedia today, you wouldn't even know the likes of concept former and current Administrators Black Kite and The Rambling Man are under active Arbitration remedies or warnings. Their confidence to flaunt their defiance comes not only from the fact the toxic elements of the community through their representative Administrators will ensure nothing is done about it, these toxic emissaries ensure even the current Committee is unable to do anything about it.
Sandstein remains the only Administrator prepared to act on behalf of the previous incarnations of the Committee's judgements by enforcing the wikilaw without fear of favour, and he is being harassed in the worst possible terms for it, including by former one term Tea Party Arbitrator Drmies. Nothing is being done about that. Literally nothing. A clearer sign of the hollowing out of what was once meant to be a body of leadership and a protector of values, you will not see.
The analogy with the Tea Party falls down because there has not been a similar rise of militancy on the opposite side of the aisle. In the 2017 election, the two women candidates who had previously stood on a platform that Wikipedia needs to stop being institutionally sexist and misogynistic, of course stood down in frustration, diplomatically finding other excuses for their decisions.
Putting aside the thorny issue of trans-feminism, there was no net change in the number of cisgender women in the Committee in 2017-18, and no reason to think those who came in are more motivated or capable of effecting change than those who left, indeed quite the reverse since Opabina Regalis became the ranking member. Suffice to say, this year's election is unlikely to improve things, unless of course the previous two women can be guilt tripped into standing again. It seems unlikely.
If this election even runs to a satisfactory conclusion, namely six suitable candidates earning 60% support to earn a two year term, it will only be because six of the seven incumbents standing down, the people to blame for the Committee not doing it's job this year, or the year before that, stood for re-election at the last minute. This was the only thing that stopped the Trumpian candidate or any of the other unsuitable ones from getting in last year. Crucially, it didn't stop the toxic emissaries from getting elected, so you can expect more to stand this year.
The tired incumbents won't want to do it, they always have this fanciful notion that Wikipedia is a place where the call to the highest service always has many willing to answer it, that the Committee will be refreshed by new blood, but that is no longer true, and hasn't been for years. Everyone now appreciates the thankless task that being an Arbitrator for the right reasons really is, frustrated and even attacked from without and within. It means that the only people who stand now, for the right reasons, are those who feel forced to do, to try and prevent or at least minimise the effect of the sort of candidate that very much does want the role, for the wrong reasons.
The whole farce gives the lie to these recent claims that Wikipedia is somehow unaffected by the forces that are ripping civilisation apart. They are being undermined by apathy and extremism as much as any real world legislature. The extremism is simply of the Antifa variety, albeit a distorted variant which minimises special justice and replaces it with the home grown doctrine of Wikipedia for the Wikipedians.
It is barely even worth identifying the specific scandals the Committee has been a party to this year, such as their looking the other way when presented with the evidence Sagecandor was Cirt, an editor under sanction by a prior Committee for offences that today would not even generate a case because an Administrator making biased edits isn't an example of them "abusing their tools".
This pathetic idea that the only way an Administrator can be a bad Administrator is if they abuse the tools, being another favourite mantra of the dark heart of Wikipedia, something which also enables corruption and stimies the idealists and consensus builders. These things never effect the outcome of the election, because candidates who want to stop it, either do not stand, or can seemingly never do something about it if they do.
For all these reasons, it is a near certainly that next year will see the first of what is likely to become an annual event - a community proposal to eliminate ArbCom, which is defeated on some vain hope it can be revived, or the realisation that as farcical as the situation has become, what could happen if you let the community replace it, is terrifying. The Wikipedia Tea Party may even start to insist it is kept, seeing its practical uses for their cause.
At time of writing, nominations have been open for almost thirty six hours, and not one person has announced they are running, least of all incumbents. Get used to it. This is what the crumbling decline of Wikipedia looks like.
Correction, we have one person standing......
He doesn't stand a chance. If this guy is the saviour of Wikipedia, it is already dead.Fred Bauder
I would like to return to the Arbitration Committee. I took part in the original discussions that resulted in creation of the committee. In large part that discussion revolved around civility, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. My history as an arbitrator is complicated, I served for several years... As an arbitrator now, I would emphasize re-establishing civility as a central policy. I don't have the time or energy I had 10 years ago, but I think I could effectively contribute to the work of the Committee.
