ArbCom 2017 election

Discussion about the yearly Arbitration Committee elections.
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: ArbCom 2017 election

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:55 pm

Election is over and results are up. I will say there is not a lot unexpected in terms of who won. Alex Shih appears to have edged out former Arb Mailer diablo due to the latter's more significant activity gap. As I thought, PMC performed better. One thing I have done during every election is check the voter guides and tabulate opposes and supports to get an idea of the outcome. Usually, the results closely mirror the general consensus of the guides and this year was no different. The guides predicted Katie being the top vote-getter with 16 supporting her candidacy and only one opposing as well as Shih edging out diablo. Everyone who had guide support in the double digits won a seat.

The real shocker here is McCandlish's support, though it is consistent with the guides. For a non-admin with a history of sanctions he performed astonishingly well. Not only was he just shy of a former Arb in the outcome, if you check the different factors then he had strong support overall. Going by just the amount of support he received, McCandlish was fifth overall. Even if you look at Net support he even managed to beat Alex Shih and diablo. Where he lost the chance at a seat was on the percentages alone. The percentage margin between him and Shih would account for 32 oppose votes. Had just that number or more broken Neutral, McCandlish could have been the first non-admin Arbitrator. Worm That Turned doesn't count due both to the fact he resigned his duties uncontroversially and the fact he openly promised to request them back if elected, which he did even before results were announced.

User avatar
The Joy
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:08 am

Re: ArbCom 2017 election

Post by The Joy » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:31 am

I can't say I'm enamored with any of them. All "blah" candidates to me. At least they'll have a boring, typical Arbcom. When I was younger, I always yearned for new and exciting political candidates. Now I yearn for boring ones.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Really, what we want now, is not laws against crime, but a law against insanity. That is where the true evil lies." -Mark Twain

Proabivouac
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: ArbCom 2017 election

Post by Proabivouac » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:48 am

The Joy wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:31 am
I can't say I'm enamored with any of them. All "blah" candidates to me. At least they'll have a boring, typical Arbcom. When I was younger, I always yearned for new and exciting political candidates. Now I yearn for boring ones.
They're all terrible. And this site hasn't "outed" even one of them. Trying to stop them is against the rules. Meanwhile the wikipedocrats are busy fawning over them and other Wikiland "administrators." It's 24/7 wikicriticism fail, and it will be tomorrow, and so on and so on.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: ArbCom 2017 election

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:48 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:48 am
They're all terrible. And this site hasn't "outed" even one of them. Trying to stop them is against the rules. Meanwhile the wikipedocrats are busy fawning over them and other Wikiland "administrators." It's 24/7 wikicriticism fail, and it will be tomorrow, and so on and so on.
I don't see how outing them is going to stop them. Several of them openly identify themselves and that has not stopped them. Only way outing could "stop" any of them is if it exposed some sort of misdeed that could only be exposed by outing that person. Unlikely you are going to find anything like that with all or even most of them, if any of them.

Proabivouac
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: ArbCom 2017 election

Post by Proabivouac » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:45 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:48 pm
Proabivouac wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:48 am
They're all terrible. And this site hasn't "outed" even one of them. Trying to stop them is against the rules. Meanwhile the wikipedocrats are busy fawning over them and other Wikiland "administrators." It's 24/7 wikicriticism fail, and it will be tomorrow, and so on and so on.
I don't see how outing them is going to stop them. Several of them openly identify themselves and that has not stopped them. Only way outing could "stop" any of them is if it exposed some sort of misdeed that could only be exposed by outing that person.
There are lots of anonymous arbs now, more than there used to be. But that's partly because the identification train was derailed by faux-critic sysops who were more concerned with their own anonymity and undiscosed wiki accounts. After the exposure of Essjay, there was lots of talk about reform but the pseuds won. A few years later, they won on the criticism side, too. Probably the majority of participants by now have something to hide.
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:48 pm
Unlikely you are going to find anything like that with all or even most of them, if any of them.
To the contrary, my experience is that about a third to half of outed accounts have something controversial that they're hiding. Back in the day when there was an ongoing process, it was nothing but drama.

Let me just state for the record that I'll guess this to be true of you as well. There just isn't any other good reason why someone would write for major media outlets but be afraid to claim the credit. There's no way for us to know what the reason is – maybe you're a GOP operative, maybe you're a Neo-Nazi leader, who knows? All we know is that there's no way for us to know because you don't want us to.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: ArbCom 2017 election

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:34 pm

I honestly don't know why you can't think a person is just concerned about harassment. Nothing I have done or said on Wikipedia, criticism sites, or Breitbart, is something I would be ashamed of having attached to my real name. There is nothing my real name would reveal that would have relevance to anything I have done on Wikipedia. By all accounts I am an unremarkable nobody in the real word. You obviously don't have to trust that any of this is true, but it is simply true. Precisely because I am an unremarkable nobody with no real means to speak of is why I prefer to keep my identity a secret. Many people have been outed on Wikipedia and there are many cases where it revealed exactly nothing anyone should care about. You yourself concede it is quite possible the vast majority have nothing to hide and the idea "if you have nothing to hide then you have no reason to be concerned" is how countless people justify abuses, but the reality is the more exposed you are the more at risk you are of being harmed by others in one way or another and for that reason alone it will always make sense for people to have their privacy and for it to be respected.

Proabivouac
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: ArbCom 2017 election

Post by Proabivouac » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:54 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:34 pm
You obviously don't have to trust that any of this is true, but it is simply true.
It is an established principle of jurisprudence that if someone could easily have produced better evidence but deliberately didn't, his or her testimony is to be evaluated in this light.

Same goes for what you've said about the purportedly conflicted Wikipedia administrator who got you banned. In both instances you want us to believe something, but refuse to provide the information needed to arrive at a well-informed judgment.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: ArbCom 2017 election

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:01 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:54 am
It is an established principle of jurisprudence that if someone could easily have produced better evidence but deliberately didn't, his or her testimony is to be evaluated in this light.

Same goes for what you've said about the purportedly conflicted Wikipedia administrator who got you banned. In both instances you want us to believe something, but refuse to provide the information needed to arrive at a well-informed judgment.
This is not a court of law and I am not under subpoena. If you are going to make legal references then obviously we have to consider "innocent until proven guilty" as well. You really want to make snooping into people's personal lives and publicizing their information without establishing relevance seem heroic or something, but it isn't and in no way is it necessary to "stop" them. Many arbitrators have been unseated or voted out for bad behavior that did not require anyone knowing their real name. Usually, outing them did nothing whatsoever to their reputation. Only time I know when a form of "outing" occurred that was decisive in stopping someone from joining ArbCom after the election it was 28bytes and it wasn't outing his real name that made the difference, but outing his pseudonymous Wikipediocracy account. That revelation would have likely sunk him without anyone needing to know about his real name or his light dabbling in COI editing.

John86045
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: ArbCom 2017 election

Post by John86045 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:59 am

thanks

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest