Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Discussion

2019 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 06:19 (UTC), Sunday, 2 June 2024 ()

• Thank you for participating in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
• You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2019. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019.

Candidates

Gadfium

Support

Wikipedia Needs Some Power Users.. Stalin Sunny ^Talk2Me 07:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Richwales

Clear and obvious risk of no / low participation

300 actions in a year is way too low. We had a candidate last year who asserted participation in their ACE statement and, IIRC, did almost nothing. No promise of participation is honest - but not a risk to be taken when the attrition rate among active members is so high. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You're certainly right about the risk and I wouldn't fault anyone who opposes a candidate because of it. However, with our smoothing the way for snap elections I would suggest that the downsides aren't quite what they had been if some one steps aside (though this does nothing about someone who is inactive and doesn't step aside). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that this is insufficient basis for an assessment. Part of what makes wikipedia great is that anyone can participate and it might be time that the "occasional" user is also represented. Many users grew discouraged with the bias towards power-users and do not feel included making this a less diverse community when it was initially designed to be inclusive letting anyone participate. Instead, it creates an environment where edit-count is overly-rewarded in detriment or actual content creation or representing the values of Wikipedia, particularly the often forgotten WP:5P. Louk⟟nho^≟ 08:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned

Shoo-in

• I don't like shoo-ins, in principle. But WTT should be a shoo-in. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC).
  

Hawkeye7

Another attempted end run, disappointing but not unexpected

Sigh. In the last two years, Hawkeye7 has had 2 failed RFAs[1][2], a failed attempt to get one of those unilaterally overturned completely out-of-proces with completely bizarre rationale[3], and an attempt to get a 'crat to just do it anyway because reasons [4]. If a new user was trying this hard to end run WP:PERM to get rollback or whatever, we'd probably topic ban them from asking for more permissions.

Yet this is fairly typical of Hawkeye7, who apparently still wants to just not act like the desysop never happened and maybe people will forget about it, and expects to just get the tools back somehow, anyhow, including by inventing processes that don't exist or running for a position that would grant home far more permissions than the ones the community has already repeatedly told him they don't trust him with. This kind of utter lack of self-awareness or humility is a terrible quality for an arb. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, #1 above was almost four years ago, not within the past two years. --valereee (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't decided how to vote in the upcoming, but I don't have any problem with Hawkeye7 attempting an alternative means of being resysoped.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Technically speaking, becoming an Arb would not mean an automatic resysop. OS and CU would be granted to the user but not adminship; this was discussed during the CUOS nominations a few years ago when non-admins threw their hats into the ring, and I suspect the same would be true in this case. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Primefac. The state of policy was outlined in a WPO thread, I think by NewYorkBrad, indicating that someone elected Arb does not get automatic Administrative status (and tools), but must first take part in a regular RFA. Now, admittedly, chances are increased that they would pass in that scenario... Carrite (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

But he would have CU and OS, which require a high level of trust due to the real harm that can be caused by misuse. I'm actually bit hazy on one point here, if a non-admin gets OS, that obviously comes with the viewsuppressed user right. But does it also come with viewdeleted , or is it assumed (reasonably) that the user already has that user right in their toolkit? In other words, would they only be able to see suppressed revisions and not, for example, deleted articles? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Members of the checkuser and oversight groups have access to the deletedtext permission. See Wikipedia:User access levels for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox, this seems like a trait that isn't desirable for an arbitrator. It seems like Hawkeye might be trying to collect hats, which makes me think he might be inactive as an arbitrator, which is certainly not desirable. I will note that Beeblebrox is himself a candidate, so he might be trying to say this to make it more likely for himself to be elected. I wouldn't say that is a guarantee, or even likely for that matter, but it's still something to think about. Invalid^OS (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I hadn't yet decided to run when I made my initial post here, in fact, I was sure I wasn't going to, but as the nomination period progressed (and a few people not-so-subtlety suggested I should run) I changed my mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Invalid^OS (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf

Going to support

I don't like being called "disgusting" as much as anyone else, but I find the answers to the other questions (not just mine, but also Gerda's, 28byte's, Peacemaker67's and Rschen7754's) very strong. Emphasizing the fact that private evidence exists in the FRAM case, assuming that the WMF did act in what they felt was reasonable (meshes very well with WP:AGF), disapproving of Floquenbeam's revert because Floquenbeam didn't have access to the private evidence, etc - these all positions that mesh very well with my own. I grant that not everyone will agree with these positions, but I view that as a big part of the reason we have elections - to elect arbitrators whose views reflect the voter's own views. I'm going to support. Good luck! Banedon (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

My experience is that Thryduulf always makes his case with well-reasoned arguments presented in a polite manner after proper consideration, with full understanding of the relevant facts and the policies that apply; and as such, he has my respect even when our views disagree completely. Sideways713 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49

Support! Why? Working on very positive wiki pages that will help parents and teachers. Lmlmss44 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Strong Support I have ran into his edits before. He is very fair and by the rules. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Isarra

Unqualified support

Because I've recently been told I'm unqualified. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wait, if you're unqualified, then nobody's qualified. Which means... everyone's qualified. WHAAAAAt. -— Isarra ༆ 02:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned that nobody's brought up Isarra's on-wiki background yet, so here's my take on her for any passerby voters. Isarra loves to portray herself as a pie-obsessed goofball in her ArbCom candidacies, and most tend to oppose her on that fact alone. However, she is actually an incredibly astute volunteer developer that took a failed WMF project (mw:Winter) and managed to turn it around somewhat successfully (mw:Skin:Timeless) and, despite the silliness, actually knows what she’s doing and has the trust of Wikimedians who know about the work that she does.

  While it’s true that she is not an administrator on enwiki, she is trusted enough to be a global interface editor (which is a considerably high bar, in terms of trust to grant that flag). Her interactions both on Phabricator and regarding Timeless indicate to me that she knows when to joke and when to take a situation seriously, so I would trust her to take cases seriously, given her track record. I intend to support her (although I suspect it's most likely going to be a moral support). OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Echoing above, Isarra is an incredibly skilled and thoughtful Wikimedian, and would bring a unique and valuable perspective to ArbCom. I always appreciate the joke candidacy, but it would be nice to see a serious one someday too. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Maybe it will be a The Producers situation? Regards SoWhy 11:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I will support

From all reports competent and well-intentioned, and the jokiness of the self-nom doesn't bother me nearly as much as the prospect of having almost no women on the committee. --valereee (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised that I am in support

As I look more into Isarra, the more I begin to understand their satire. We're the joke. If you look past the veneer of "joke candidate" you'll see they're one of the best candidates in the field. The satire is that many people won't; voters will at best read Isarra's statement, think they're not serious, and oppose. I actually think I did that last year. But seriously, go read through their question page. Not only is it candid, the responses show a level of thoughtfulness which would be a boon for the committee. Their response to Piotrus's standard question shows an outstanding understanding of WP:VOLUNTEER and a willingness to apply it evenhandedly: Are you planning to pay the arbs? If not, then either get used to only ever having people without jobs/families/lives... or just accept that folks won't always be around. Why is that an issue? Isn't the whole point of having this many seats such that only a set number need to actually show up for any given thing, thus allowing everyone some amount of flexibility for something that is, ultimately, a hobby performed in their free time? Their response to Gerda's third question, while probably not what she was hoping for, shows how their work as a software maintainer will translate to the committee: It's like something that comes up a lot when maintaining open source software: you just ignore a task you're not prioritising until someone else submits a patch, and then you have to actually give it a proper review and figure out what to do with it. Maybe the patch is good, maybe it's not even the right approach at all, maybe it's the right idea but just needs fixes, but now that it's in front of you, you gotta deal with it - and in this case it was akin to the even worse situation where someone else entirely had even gone ahead and merged it without asking first. But it still needs review. Their answer to Carrite's questions are compelling. Their answer to the first question shows Isarra's commitment to transparent Committee deliberations and rpactices: the level of transparency where it's feasible, clear records, and community involvement in process for both the cases and the selection of the arbitrators themselves are all things I consider very important, and are the sort of good practices I like to point to as something other similar bodies throughout the movement should be learning from. The answer to the second question shows a resistance to hat collecting, a willingness to apply WP:IAR when it is sure to benefit the project, and a commitment to the wiki movement in meatspace. I'm honestly surprised at how competent this candidate seems and I encourage other editors to look past the gimmick and consider whether Isarra has the judgement and temperament to be a good arbitrator. I honestly think they do. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

In what way did suppressing the redirect when moving Draft:JujuB to Draft:Gildardo García improve Wikipedia? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The page for asking obscure questions of the candidate about pet issues is thataways. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I cannot view deleted content so there's really no way I can begin to answer that question besides WP:AGF without content being undeleted or Isarra answering that question themself. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: You never did answer my question the last time you brought this up. What all was the problem? Was it the action itself, or rather that I was the one to take the action? If the former, how does it help the project to leave a redirect when moving a nonsense title (I think they created the draft with the title being their username instead of the subject of the draft article, or some such?) to a real title when nothing is even linking to the original nonsense title to begin with, and realistically speaking, is unlikely to ever do so (especially given we don't really link to stuff in the Draft namespace anyway outside of discussing specific drafts)? If the latter, does that I now have local page mover rights mean that it would not be an issue to do the same in the future? Again, I would like to better understand what's expected here, but I need your help to do so. -— Isarra ༆ 19:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I will support

I'm very happy to be throwing my support behind Isarra. Having been acquainted with her for the better part of a decade, I can state assuredly that there's nobody whom I've encountered throughout my extensive time in the wikisphere with the skills necessary to perform the important tasks of an arbitrator in a professional manner that Isarra has. Unfortunately, the statement that Isarra has made for this election as well as those she have made the previous times she has run do not nearly do her justice in showing the skills and experience that she has accumulated over her time in the wikisphere, both on the various WMF projects and MediaWiki itself as well as the Uncyclomedia projects (which include the various Uncyclopedias and Illogicopedia). Myself being an administrator on the English Uncyclopedia, as well as having been a contributor there for over eight years, I can testify firsthand as to Isarra's proficiency as an individual in a position of power. Isarra is both firm in applying the rules and understanding of those who make mistakes: in my first year as an Uncyclopedia contributor, I was blocked permanently by Isarra for abusing multiple accounts. After nearly a year and a mea culpa, Isarra allowed me back into the community, after which I have become a long-term contributor and administrator. Isarra's experience with Uncyclomedia alone is enough to warrant her a position on the arbitration committee: in 2013, she facilitated Uncyclopedia's move to an independent server in a professional manner that reflected the desire of the community at the time. Isarra was nothing but kind and receptive to feedback during this time, and it is because of Isarra's leadership during the move and since then that Uncyclopedia has been able to thrive on its independent server and become the website it is today. Isarra has hosted the Uncyclomedia projects since then, and has always been able to be reached by users who encounter problems or bugs with the website. Over the course of the past two years, we have had to deal with issues regarding rogue admins as well as harassment originating within the highest ranks of the website, and Isarra's strong leadership and firm convictions helped us to make it through those times and ensure the safety of our users. In May 2019, users on another version of Uncyclopedia voted to merge with the version hosted by Isarra, and she graciously agreed to facilitate that merge. Despite the users of that community eventually deciding to move to their own server despite the outcome of that vote, Isarra was receptive to feedback and worked tirelessly to make the merge possible. She has been doing all of this work for Uncyclomedia thankfully and for free, without receiving a single lick of money other than donations. Ultimately, Isarra understands the importance of the community and consensus to wiki sites like this one, and her skills and experience would make her an excellent member of the arbitration committee. RAGentry (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it

With Isarra herself acknowledging that she has no idea how arbitration works, plus saying "But seriously, this is why absolutely nobody should vote for me", why would anyone support? Other points raised above are fine and all, but how do they trump these fundamental issues? Banedon (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm in the same situation. I'm sure Isarra is a wonderful friend and a hilarious person and a very proficient developer, and it would be incredible if she was elected, but she has openly admitted to not understanding the process of Arbcom. If this was a developer job, sure, but this is an arbitration committee... ~SlyCooperFan1 02:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

SlyCooperFan1 and Banedon, she is making jokes. Also does anyone really understand how arbcom works until they're actually on the committee? ----valereee (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, arbcom seems to makes about as much sense as the parser, or content models, or the skinning architecture, or how the codebase relates back to the RfCs directing it. Y'all really think we (devs) understand the what we're doing, either? Anyone who says they do is probably either lying or just has no clue how clueless they truly are. -— Isarra ༆ 19:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't the supreme court and it's not some magic place where the community is powerless. An arbitrator willing to show restraint and intellectual humility is for me a good thing; knowing everything isn't a criterion I have for any volunteer position. Their comment above is correct as is valereee's: we saw with the Fram situation that even our most well-read community members can flounder despite knowing arbpol inside and out. With Isarra, at the very least I'm sure of what I'm getting, someone who knows there are things they may not understand but who will recuse and take time to understand them rather than jumping in head first out of bravado or hubris and then messing things up. That is a quality I admire in any person trusted to make complex decisions, and because of it I do not believe their presence on the committee would be a negative. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and to add a bit to this, I wouldn't want a committee full of Isarras (or indeed of any one person or type of person), but I think one Isarra on a large committee would be a good thing. A variety of perspectives and experiences being reflected in ArbCom's work is a very good thing. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I DO really think devs understand what they're doing. Their work speaks for itself. Wug·, what leads you to believe that "wth Isarra, at the very least I'm sure of what I'm getting, someone who knows there are things they may not understand but who will recuse and take time to understand them rather than jumping in head first out of bravado or hubris and then messing things up"? If your past experience that brought you to that view, and you wouldn't mind sharing with us, I would be eager to know a few details or a link or whatever is least inconvenient for you to explain. (And if not, I understand, as it isn't your job to convince me who to vote for.) At the moment, I'm still just feeling confused, and of a similar view as what SlyCooperFan1 expressed. I'm a woman and would like a woman or three on ArbCom; also, I'm irreverent and a bit silly myself, so I know all about joking online. I remain uncertain if Isarra truly does want us to vote for her. Does she?--FeralOink (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@FeralOink: My experience is pretty much her statement and questions so I can't really link to much beyond what I've mentioned above. I liked her answer to my question as it shows serious circumspection and belief in bottom up rather than top down management along with a very nuanced opinion on codes of conduct which are a big issue in FOSS communities and soon to be an issue in the WikiMedia movement. As for whether she wants our votes, that would be a question you'd need to ask her. My assumption is that by standing she does, and in the (unlikely) event she gets a seat she is free to decline so I'm not too worried. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would vote this one for president

And it's because of the shark picture ~Zingus J. Rinkle (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Won't support

Call me crazy, but i think the Arbitration Committee elections are a serious matter and should be treated as such. There's a time and place for humor, and this ain't it. Terry77 (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie

I will support

I checked the voter guides of the users whose opinion I care about, and most of them are skeptical. I am probably not going to support 11 candidates, staying in the range 5-6, but here I have a strong opinion. Katie is coming straight from ArbCom which had a relatively difficult year. And while some other arbs were making political statements, going semi-active or completely inactive long-term, or even vanishing, she was just doing the job. Well, just wading through the piles of diffs, reading piles of statements, and slowly drafting the decisions. There are some decisions she signed I do not agree with, or I do not particularly like, but this is fine with me, I do not expect to get an ArbCom making decisions I 100% agree with. However, mostly I agree with them, and I thing they had a lot of clue. And I am clearly going to support.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I will support

...this thoughtful, experienced, trustworthy candidate. But even if I knew nothing at all about her other than that she was generally well-intentioned, I'd still support. As there is only one other woman currently on arbcom, we could literally end up with no women at all on the committee. That's not a great idea when the committee is going to be considering harassment issues. I don't mind having the committee be mostly men; WP is mostly men. But I don't think we can risk that arbcom might actually become all men, if for no other reason than I don't think other committee members want to be looking at such cases with zero input from a woman committee member. --valereee (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Xeno

Question

It's not really a question in the relevant sense that most of the questions on the question page for questions is. Will you be picking up your admin. bits if elected? (I would normally assume yes - but I'm always afraid to assume on wiki). Did I mention this was a question? — Ched (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m undecided. If elected I think I would seek opinions (including my own, after getting re-acquainted) as to whether the administrative privileges were necessary to my task as an arbitrator and if sufficiently convinced they were, I would request the tools be re-assigned. What are your thoughts on the necessity of the administrative toolset? Certainly if I was the only arbitrator that saw an urgent and actionable block or protection request, I’d be hobbled. –xeno^talk 16:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

My initial reaction is to say get your mop back, but that may be hasty. There have been plenty of people over the years who expressed a desire to see a non-sysop on the AC. Technically you could fill that role, although you are also capable of getting readmined at any time. Let me think on this and I'll get back to you. It is an intriguing concept. — Ched (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

xeno - after thinking about this for some time, you may not like my answer. If I am to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'm capable of giving good advice on this. What I'd probably do if I were in your shoes is wait until after the election, and if I was elected, then pose the question to some or all of the other arbs. (either publicly or privately on the mail list). I also give extra weight to those who have served the longest. Just what I think if I'm trying to be objective. — Ched (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that’s the likely plan. –xeno^talk 10:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

What makes you want to be on the Arbitration Committee? Don't you think it would be a lot easier and a little less over-ambitious of you to start out as an admin first? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello WikiWarrior9919, thank you for your question. I actually held administrative tools for over a decade, but personally requested their removal earlier this year. I’m offering to serve on the committee out of a sense of duty, hoping to help restore community confidence in the committee. –xeno^talk 12:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I see; that's very humble of you. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Endorse

I have old experience of Xeno's attention to detail, technical knowledge, and ethical judgement. I think he'd be good. Tony (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Completely agree with Tony1 - for me the 'selling point' is his ability to listen to all sides without prejudice, then act in a fair and objective manner. — Ched (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Tony1 and Ched,I cannot put it better than what they have written. Xeno will truly be a asset to the Arbcom team.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

I will support Xeno whether he decides to be an admin or not. I like his temperament. Terry77 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad

• Sorry, NYB has been on ArbCom for far too long. Not a plus. In particular, I don't think he's as skilled as he thinks he is at forming a balanced view from competing elements. Tony (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• It's true that NYB is not as head-and-shoulders above recent committees as he used to be. But that's at least mainly because the quality of committees has improved. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC).
  

The Rambling Man

Oppose -- No offense to TRM, but he hasn't shown himself to be the most unbiased of candidates, on the main talkpage, or elsewhere. I could see myself supporting him in the future if he could demonstrate that he has the capability of separating out his personal beliefs from what information Wikipedia should present. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Rockstone, what do you mean by biased? TRM has strong opinions, but that's not the same as bias. ----valereee (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

He repeatedly inserts his opinions on the main talk page about internal US politics; treating the talk-page as a page for general discussion instead of a page for improving the main page. It's ok to have strong opinions, it's not okay to discuss them when they have no relevance. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this speaks for itself. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose -- I'm highly uncomfortable with the idea of someone with such a block history being part of ArbCom. Purplebackpack89's questions aren't really relevant to whether or not TRM can do a good job (it's more about whether such editors should be disqualified, which is an entirely different discussion), but TRM's brief answers are not really helping matters. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with someone with such a history, not to mention two ongoing IBANs, being in the committee. ~SlyCooperFan1 01:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

In fairness there's likely some history between TRM and Purplebackpack89 which led to TRM interpreting the question as extremely loaded and therefore barely worth replying to - see e.g. [5]. That said, my experience with TRM post-Arbcom has not been good (see what I wrote in the 2017 elections. I am going to oppose as well. Banedon (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I expected as much, but it's still a reasonable question in the public view rather than a one-on-one interview. And I definitely agree with what you laid out in 2017; not a whole lot has appeared to change about his behavior since then, so I guess it wasn't much of a wake-up call. Well, there's plenty of other candidates to choose from. ~SlyCooperFan1 02:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'll propose looking at it from a different point of view: TRM has experience being an admin and a former admin. He has the experience of being under sanctions, and the experience of people trying to bait him/“gotcha” him because of it. I think this is a point of view worth including in a committee that is going to be dealing with people who could end up desysopped or sanctioned. We aren’t talking about a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation with TRM. He's not a vandal, he's not out to undermine Wikipedia. But his experience can offer a point of view that is perhaps different from those who have never experienced what he's experienced. My other comments on candidates are also about the value of diversity of point of view on the committee. We want a committee that has diversity of point of view; that's one of the reasons our committee is so large. We're talking one person on a committee of 15. ----valereee (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You want a committee that has diversity of point of view? I find that surprising: 1) I'd rather have a committee that does what I approve of (in fact I think this is the key issue in elections), and 2) if the committee has a diverse point of view, it could also be deadlocked and unable to make decisions. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No, what Arbcom most definitely does not need is hive mind. As for opposing me for advocating bringing new views, different approaches, shaking up the pure well-documented disconnect between Arbcom who are here to serve the community, not the other way around, that's of course just fine, sticking with the current approach of Arbcom is certainly an approach. After all, it's really worked well this year, hasn't it? I'm not sure why this page is being used by a couple of people to tell the world how they're going to vote, but there you go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This page is being used to discuss how you would handle being a member of arbcom, that's all. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No it is not. And if you wish to propose a question then do it in the proper place. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, that's literally what this page is about. I'm not asking you a question, I'm stating an opinion about your nomination, that's all. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Banedon, I think you're confusing diverse viewpoints with polarized viewpoints. Diverse doesn't mean half the people say toMAYto and the other half say toMAHto. It means some like fresh tomatoes, some only use canned, a couple ask for tomato juice, Isarra wants a Bloody Mary, and hopefully we end up with at least one person in the room who can describe the process of making ketchup at home from scratch. --valereee (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems incredible to me that an editor currently up for election to ArbCom, with the specific sanctions TRM has against him, would leave edit summaries like this one[6] during the election. Whether or not he is actually blocked for it, it's clearly worded to push the boundaries of his sanction. Why would you do that? Why act so childishly at a time when your conduct is under higher than usual scrutiny? ApLundell (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

Strong Support It has been years since Brox has addressed me directly, but I strongly and enthusiastically support Brox returning to his formerly held Arbcom post. I don't hold any ill will anymore, but I'm not afraid to admit, when I was a 12 year old kid, I had a huge grudge against this Wikipedian for instantly revoking my talk page access and not waiting for me to demonstrate competency after I had waited a year to get it back when I was blocked on Wikipedia on my childhood account for WP:CIR violations that no longer represent me now (the whole block/block evasion situation was forgiven by community consensus once I began my senior year of high school last year), but over time I understood why he didn't trust it enough to listen and that he was only trying to protect Wikipedia from disruption. That has been what Beeblebrox has done best on Wikipedia. He is one of Wikipedia's best administrators. He in my opinion also was amazing as a sitting arbitrator back in 2014 and handled everything to the best of his ability to maintain order on Wikipedia, and I loved it when he took his stand in protecting the interests of the Wikipedia community by voluntarily relinquishing his admin tools during the Fram fiasco. I'm glad he received them back when he was ready, and I'm proud of his bold move that stood with the community as a whole. With the year of 2019 being a huge pickle for the Arbcom, some veteran leadership needs to return to the Arbcom and lead by example to start the new decade. Beeblebrox can do just that. I appreciate you a lot, Brox. Even if I felt previously hurt by you, you have gained a very deep respect from me that results in me voting in your favor for an Arbcom seat. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think I'll oppose. Two reasons for this. First is Beeblebrox's response to Peacemaker67's question [7]. I interpret Peacemaker67's question as a legitimate one. Peacemaker67 wanted to know what Beeblebrox would have done if the case had been accepted, which is quite natural since he has strong feelings one way. His response to Beeblebrox's answer just indicates what he thinks, which also gives some indication how he's going to vote. It's quite natural then that he'll say the same thing to all candidates regardless of their response. Beeblebrox interpreted Peacemaker67's response in a much more hostile way, which I find rather disturbing because it's an accusation of bad faith which probably missed the mark (per Peacemaker67's response). I don't hold this too harshly against Beeblebrox because I have felt very aggrieved at similar things in the past, but after the explanation it should be time the drop the stick.
  

The other reason is Beeblebrox's position on the Fram case. He wrote in response to my question that "I think the committee erred in not just overturning the office decisions in the Fram case and requiring a traditional case, since supposedly the evidence was all on-wiki". This I think is a very dangerous position. As I understand the Fram case, the case arose because someone felt they were being harassed, and sufficiently so that they were not willing to use Wikipedia's DR process. From what I have seen this is quite understandable - it's practically guaranteed that someone filing a case against Fram will get comments that Fram's actions were completely correct and [person] should not have been offended. Who wants to use a DR process in which one will get bashed? Witness intimidation is not fun for the witness (or third parties for that matter), and forcing a traditional case effectively also forces the person - who's already feeling harassed - to experience more of the same in a very visible venue. I find this rather cruel. I would also guess that the natural response is for the person to decline to file a case and retire, which is not a solution.

This isn't anything against Beeblebrox's character as an editor or admin. I simply do not agree with his positions on topics that might come to arbitration. Therefore I think I will oppose. Some people might feel that Beeblebrox's positions are defensible or even desirable, but I am not one of them. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I just can't get down with secret trials and invisible evidence, where the accused is given no chance of rebuttal or appeal, for something like perceived harassment. We've been told that all of the "secret" evidence is actually still live on-wiki, and yet we aren't able to even know what it is and judge for ourselves. I asked myself how I would feel if I was told I was being blocked for secret reasons based on complaints whose origins I would not even be allowed to know, and it felt a lot like injustice to me. Office actions, until this incident, were limited to the very worst of the worst, pedophiles, stalkers, that sort of thing (and lest we all forget they've only even been doing that much for about five years). that is what the community expected of them and suddenly they changed the rules, and they let us know they'd changed the rules by banning an admin for a year, suggesting they felt free to just spring this on the community with no warning, and no explanation.

The community as a whole seems to have agreed that this was wrong of the office to do, and the office just today conceded the point. I of course do agree that harassment is awful, and we sometimes don't do enough to curb it, but it should be us, the community, dealing with things like that. The office should only be involving itself in cases that merit a full ban from all WMF projects, and they have also agreed to that as of today. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung

Nothing has changed in 4 years

Not quite the disaster of 2015 [8] but still the same peavishness in responses as if questions are intended to trip him up, accusations of PA [9], banning editors from his talk page [10], threats to throw toys out of the pram over a fairly trifling matter [11] and, as in 2015, statements of disinterest in the Arbcom election process [12]. And this is all in less than a week. Does not wish to answer any more questions from me. I am looking for consistency, accuracy, reasoning & resolve and the only thing I see is consistency in displaying a battleground attitude. Little has changed in 4 years here, I'm afraid. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose as well. I need to have some data to base a vote on, and Kudpung's answers are effectively not answers. His last response reads as though he thinks I'm asking him to re-litigate a specific case, but I believe I stressed any contentious vote is fine (because any data is better than none). He implies that "my overall experience and editing history" should tell me what I want to know, but I can't possibly search through all his 100k edits to see what matters to him. As it is, right now, it's either vote for him with no idea what he'll do if elected, or oppose. I am choosing the latter. Banedon (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

As am I. A loose necktie (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Despite the personal attacks and harassment masquerading as user questions (repeated again this year), the 2015 result was far from a disaster with Kudpung gaining over the minimum 50% for eligibility. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to stick to the statistical facts Kudpung, although you had 53.19% you did finish with the lowest NET (83 compared to the lowest successful candidate with 349 net +ve) of any of the candidates with a +ve Net[13]. And unlike your claim here that you finished second runner up [14], you were actually 4th runner up (if there is such a thing). So I suppose it all depends on how one chooses to interpret the statistics. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, You stick to the facts: Despite the personal attacks and harassment masquerading as user questions (repeated again this year), the 2015 result was far from a disaster. 53.19% is 53.19%, you can turn these figures over and over as much as you like. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Querying suitability

I have concerns about admin toxicity. I wasn't particularly impressed by his contributions to the Signpost. There seems to be a large sense of entitlement and little capacity for self-reflection. Tony (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You make no secret to your attitude towards all admins according to your user pages : This editor despises the toxic admin system and culture, and by default distrusts any admin unless convinced they are not unethical.'. Here's a list of my recent contributions to the newspaper :

Signpost articles by Kudpung

ACTRIAL wrap-up (Special report, March 2018) Death knell for The Signpost (Op-ed, March 2018.) ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide (Special report, April 2018) Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails? (Op-ed, May 2018. Pt 1 of a trilogy) NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement, or a marriage? (Special report, June 2018) What do admins actually do? (Op-ed, June 2018. Pt 2 of a trilogy) The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise (Op-ed, July 2018. Pt 3 of a trilogy) Wikimania 2018 (Special report, August 2018) Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia (From the Editor, August 2018) WMF hires a spam outfit (News and Notes, August 2018, investigations into WMF practices) NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers (Special report, October 2018) News from the WMF (December, 2018)

Let others read the nerwspaper and judge for themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment. My vote in this election may be influenced by this[15] thread. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC).

Now reflecting his enthusiasm to curtail questioning and participation in RfA, wishes to do the same at ACE2020. [16] Leaky caldron (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Xxanthippe, let's hope that potential voters really will visit that thread, and take note of the warnings you were issued by other admins and established users, and if they want the true background to it all after your cherry-picking, they are welcome to ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Diversity

Kudpung has a different understanding of the dynamics of Wikipedia than many in the community, based on long observation and in some cases statistical work of a few editors which is mostly forgotten. I'm sure I don't agree with everything Kudpung believes, but there are valuable insights that could be very useful on ArbCom. And if he is "peevish" I'm sure that's a pretty faint damn. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC).

Calidum

Concerns Compounding

I find it difficult to see how a candidate who hasn't responded to several valid concerns about their temperament in over a week but finds time to bicker with users with whom they have taken issue in the past would be qualified for this role. hewhoamareismyself 23:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Assumes bad faith happily

I don't see how a candidate who automatically assumes bad faith of regular contributors with unsubstantiated reasoning (seen at the bottom of this revision just moments ago, completely unapologetically: Old revision of Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items) could be trusted with reasonable arbitration. Just saying. I don't get into the bureaucracy votes much, but knowing Calidum was a candidate and seeing such a blatant "you gave no indication of bad intentions but I'm going to accuse you of it" attitude that was particularly unnecessary to the discussion made me feel the need to mention this. Kingsif (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

DGG

Strong Support Dealing with some personal issues, so I haven't been as active on Wikipedia in recent months but I'm happy to come back to support an editor I really respect. When I was struggling in creating my first page here, he helped out - a lot. For that, DGG has my eternal gratitude, appreciation and respect. Can't think of anyone more worthy of being voted in. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Withdrawn

• GeneralPoxter
• Fish and karate
• Lord Roem
• Laser brain