Headlines:
- Gorilla Warfare returns stronger than ever
- Drmies beaten badly
Arguably humiliated
- DGG ousted, his militancy narrowly rejected
- Only one rookie elected this year (a franchise low)
- No numerical change in gender diversity (but some trickery ups the percentage)
- No reason to hope this election changes anything
Drmies despondent Drmies has sadly failed in his bid for a second term on ArbCom, finishing in eighth with 69.39%. Ironically he has suffered from Wikipedia's efforts to prevent unsuitable candidates being elected, by reducing the number of seats available by two, and the percentages needed, since eighth would have got a seat under the old system. He couldn't even muster the 70% required for a full two year term in the new system, in the unlikely event two of the people who beat him are disqualified before taking their seats.
Drmies can't even claim he was narrowly beaten, DGG was the candidate who just missed out by 0.84%, finishing in seventh. Drmies was a whopping 3.03% off in his eighth place, which compares very badly to the spread from first to sixth - only 3.56% He literally came second last of the actually viable candidates standing, and the person who came last, Kelapstick, appears to have suffered from simply not being known well enough, and rather stupidly not offering any kind of platform, or reason to vote for them at all.
What doesn't workThere's no other reason why Kelpastick would do far worse than Drmies, their answers to questions revealed they are very similar in outlook - which might explain why, of the few who did have an opinion, more than a third said no thanks. Both Drmies and Kelapstick should probably have a think about who they are and what they do, since they have lost 3% and 4% of their support base since they were elected for their first terms, in 2015.
They should look to what Gorilla Warfare does, her stance on incivility and harassment (bad), The Unblockables (blockable), and the role of the Committee (genuine leadership), since in the same period she has gained 6.92%. The number of people willing to vote for her has more than doubled since she first stood in 2013. Drmies by contrast, has lost 196 supporters since he first stood. He claims to admire her, but clearly he is not emulating her. Most likely because his admiration is not genuine.
Drmies should be frankly embarrassed that he lost out in a year when the community seems quite happy to have voted in only one rookie as their token piece of fresh meat in a return of an otherwise Who's Who of former Arbitrators. And he was soundly beaten by that rookie (Joe Roe), who is of course a rookie Administrator too. Drmies was a whopping 4.05% off catching Joe, who has been an Administrator for barely over a year, compared to Drmies' seven years as a mall cop.
What does workThe real story is in the breakdown of numbers of course. Both GorillaWarfare and Drmies saw a vote registered for them from every person deemed a valid voter (2,114), be that support, oppose, or neutral. Both were the most divisive candidates, if measured by receiving the least number of neutrals. Whereas GW got a massive amount of support, Drmies was far more divisive. He is close to having persuaded one in three people to say no thanks. That compares very badly to GW, who, even though 200 more people had a definitive opinion on her suitability than Drmies, was far closer to persuading 3 in 4 voters to support her.
Reflecting their divisiveness, both DGG and Drmies came second and third respectively in terms of simple weight of support, but they were still behind Gorilla Warfare, far behind with 198 more supporters than DGG, even though many laughingly claim she is far more controversial than either of those two supposed fonts of wiki-wisdom.
Perhaps the terrible two should reflect on whether they really do have the wide support their egos seem to make them think they have. Although tbf I think DGG knows fine well he is a militant, and is perfectly happy to only appeal to his base. Drmies, whether through self-delusion or outright deception, tries to claim he has wide support. Computer says no.
HAVE A NICE DAY, Drmies.
Dickhead.
Not much change. No hope.That was the eye catching stuff. As for the rest of the election analysis, well, it seems not a lot is going to change due to this new intake. Despite having a clear agenda and renewed fire in her belly, Gorilla Warfare is still in a philosophical minority, so she will struggle to take the rest with her on anything but the most obvious of decisions. And by that, I mean obvious to Wikipedians.
Despite being unanimous in their displeasure with how Jytdog was conducting himself, even from his natural ally and spirit guide DGG, in contrast to the mixed opinions of the proletariat, the committee still let him walk away, with zero judgement rendered. His indefinite block is in essence, procedural. A form of wiki-bail. With no trial to progress, they still could not bring themselves to send a message to the community as far was what isn't acceptable and what policies need to be revisited if people are still genuinely confused as to just how far you can reasonably take your passion for what is just a fucking shitty little hobby in execution, if not impact.
There's nothing from the rest of the intake to believe there is a wind of change in the air. The rookie most likely succeeded in part because he had no specific platform, no stated agenda. Nothing to scare the large number of Wikipedians who think everything is just fine as it is, that all that should be in the committee's future, is a managed run-down.
Of the other winners not named Gorilla Warfare, here are their underwhelming promises of what is to come.....
AGK
I will work for you to ensure that I (and the committee) work transparently, deal fairly with people, encourage contributor retention, and provide an effective process.
Mkdw
There have been some reforms that are mid-process or being discussed that I would like to see completed, such as a better process and set of requirements for functionary activity. .....
Transparency has been a defining issue for the Arbitration Committee. It has been tremendously challenging to deal with matters that require strict confidentiality while also preserving the trust of the community. While it is not always possible to disclose information about those situations, despite inquiries from the community, it is unquestionably important that the community trusts in the individuals with whom they have appointed to make these decisions. As such, any appointment process largely benefits from having a broad selection of candidates to best represent the community with whom they elect. I am here to stand as one of those options.
Courcelles
What's an Arbcom statement supposed to say, anyhow? This is my third, and I still don't know. I promise to give each decision my full attention, to read everything submitted, and to try and make the best decisions I can. Wikipedia is in a bit of a crisis when it comes to both recruiting and retaining editors, and I'll do my best to focus Arbcom on doing what it can on these areas. WE need to do what we can to keep editors happy, as our motivation for doing anything here has to come from within. I'm offering my learned experience, and the mistakes I've learned from while on the committee in the past, for service again, I hope that's enough.
SilkTork
As time has gone by, we have needed the Committee less and less, showing that we are growing and developing as a community. This is good. We may one day be able to disband ArbCom, but for now we still need it as a backstop. So these days the main function of the Committee is in deciding when to accept or reject a case. Send a complex case back to the community, and we can end up with prolonged disruption and frustration with perhaps the wrong people leaving the project. Take on an easy case, and we weaken our community's resolve and confidence, allowing the community to rely too much on the backstop rather than finding solutions ourselves - something we are actually very good at doing. Once ArbCom take on a case the Committee needs to work together with the community to find a water-tight solution. While resolving the case quickly is helpful to all concerned, finding a decent solution is more of a priority than speed.
Not a lot to get the blood pumping, is there? Only one specific promise, if it can even be called that, an increased transparency. That of course has been promised before, and never seems to come to pass. So don't expect it to happen now.
I guess the inattentive could read into these claims of working hard to recruit and retain editors etc, as promises to clamp down on hostile behaviour, from the everyday background noise of rudeness right up to the sort of creepyness Jytdog was engaged in. Sending messages, as per Silk Tork.
In truth however, there was nothing in these candidate's answers to questions, or indeed for this four's past records, that suggests a transformative shift is on the horizon. The only message Silk Tork seems intent on sending, is appeasement. As per all previous Committees.
Some people don't mind plain speaking, others do. Some people don't respond well to polite speech, feeling it perhaps lacks weight. It's all cats and dogs. Cain and Abel. We are not all the same, but we do tend to have points of interest. When we find our points of interest, we stop fighting: Christmas truce.
The half of the committee they are joining, is still very much of the view that people like The Rambling Man are the ones who need to be kept happy, who need to be retained, and the people who have literally said, I cannot work with this douchebag and Wikipedia is worse off because it means I can't (won't) do X, Y or Z, are to be paid yet more lip service.
Gender diversityGorilla Warfare is of course still a minority quite literally as well, given she is just one woman replacing another woman (although depend on on your views of trans-feminism, that may be a +1), in an otherwise entirely male shuffling of the deck.
Even with the removal of two seats this year for the aforementioned reasons, there are still only four women on a committee of thirteen, which is bad even before you realise there is at least one and perhaps more gender traitors in the three she is joning. That little bit of chair shuffling trickery will have increased the women's percentage share of power however, so bear that in mind if you hear anyone claiming Wikipedia is making progress on diversity. They will cite the percentage, not the net change.
Predictably predictable, the rot has set inThe (non)-impact of this election was of course pretty much set once the list of candidates was finalised. Just as happened last year. There is no reason to think next year will be any different. Who would stand next year, who didn't, couldn't or wouldn't this year?
There was a side issue where some big bullies made a big show of making sure one candidacy was torpedoed, but in truth they didn't stand a chance anyway. Not because the candidate stood on the platform that the commitment to civility needs to be redoubled (although that was undoubtedly why they got set upon), but because they were simply not a very credible candidate, having little to no experience, certainly no recent experience, with which to woo voters.
I've struggled to understand why that little gang of hardened Wikipedia Administrator bullies went in so hard on this non-threat. Stomping on their head repeatedly, only expressing remorse as he bled out, and it dawned on them they might have gone a little too far, even by Wikipedia standards (with all aggressors largely cleared by the current Committee, they needn't have worried).
It has come to me now. That little show was not about this election or that candidate at all. It was for the benefit of anyone who might stand in 2019, on a similar platform, but with slightly more credibility. It was a message. It was a warning.
ConclusionThis election was simply yet more proof that Wikipedia is seriously broken and totally irreformable. They are as deaf to external criticism and societal norms as they always have been. The community certainly gets no credit for not rewarding Drmies with return to a seat at the top table. He shouldn't even be in a position where he can stand, let alone come relatively close to winning.
There is only one sensible way to view it all.
Hasten The Day.
