Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Discussion

2021 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 05:15 (UTC), Sunday, 2 June 2024 ()

• Thank you for participating in the 2021 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 2021. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021.

Candidates

Worm That Turned

Consistent and Correct

I am very pleased to see WTT making a bid to stay on the Committee. After all these years WTT is one of the very few Arbitrators to carry the institutional memory so essential to the tasks. His impartial and just treatment without favouritism or discrimination has made him a role model for adminship and Arbcom. I've known and collaborated with WTT since long before he was an admin and my comment here still stands true over 10 years later. WTT has continued to take his involvement on Wikipedia very seriously. He is a forward thinker and actively participates on all major discussions - if indeed he hasn’t actually launched them himself. A first class knowledge of policies, he knows he’s good at what he does but is no power seeker. He does not feel forced to vote with the mainstream, instead he reflects solidly before commenting, and just gets on with the job. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 9 November 2021

Thank you @Kudpung:, I appreciate the kind words Worm^TT(talk) 08:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A very welcome candidacy

My feeling is that WTT, if re-elected, will continue to be an important and beneficial member of the committee from both a community and ArbCom clerk perspective. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 02:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Dreamy Jazz, I've always relied on the clerks as an arbitrator, so I'm glad that I'm not just considered a burden! Worm^TT(talk) 08:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Also I support WTT. My experience is that they can remain calm and focused and just also in for some tense situations and I believe they should be allowed to give their opinion to some more cases.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gets my support

WTT is one of the best arbitrators ever. I can talk to him one-on-one on controversial decisions and subjects, and come away thinking he's listened properly and explained why Arbcom took the actions they did. He's also gone out of his way to break down the perception that Arbcom are "us" and the rest of the community is "them" - Arbcom are not "the enemy", they are just volunteers doing a seriously difficult and demanding job. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional - this is an old, but good example of WTT having incredible patience and tolerance far beyond the call of duty : User talk:WormTT/Adopt/Since 10.28.2010. I'd have blocked the adoptee as WP:NOTHERE and moved on, myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words @Ritchie333, though that's probably not the best example, since I did end up blocking him for NOTHERE! Worm^TT(talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You did, but before that you tried to see if you could get him out of the hole he dug. I wouldn't even have had the patience to go that far and just blocked from the outset. (I can't remember how I found that adoption page, but it's like an Ed Wood movie or a juicy drama-filled ANI thread, you shouldn't look, but somehow you do anyway....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Holy wow. This is the patience I aspire to live out with my kids and rarely achieve. Retswerb (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It's true, I have a lot of patience. I like to look beyond the pressing issue to see a root cause, which in theory should solve the problem better than treating the symptom. However, in recent years, my patience has worn thinner, and especially on Arbcom, I do end up drawing the line under individuals that I would like to have been able to spend more time rehabilitating, if my time and energy was infinite. So, I'm not sure my work from 10 years ago has that much relevance here and worry it may give a different impression of what I actually do these days. Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Also I support WTT. My experience is that they have the ability to remain calm and focused and I believe they should be allowed to lend their expertise to some more disputes.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Careful and thoughtful answers to questions

...including mine, which I now realize were hard to answer without detailed context. Has my support. NightHeron (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @NightHeron. Worm^TT(talk) 14:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Tossing in my support for Worm That Turned

As what have been observed through bad community governance in the Chinese Wikipedia, I do once again strive for the importance of self-management and the idea of resolving problems instead of applying barriers in the process. It is apparent through, from past examples and answers to my questions, that Worm That Turned is definitely a yes for this vote.--1233 ( T / C） 03:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @1233. I do hope I can keep en.wp from falling down such a rabbit hole. Worm^TT(talk) 10:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Strong Oppose

I oppose it. I'm so tired (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Any particular reason, Tonton Bernardo? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Yes, Peter,

since November 2020 his constribution are User talk:Worm That Turned' or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/  :

***11:11, 17 February 2021 diff hist  +10‎  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions ‎ →‎Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case: adding
***11:11, 17 February 2021 diff hist  +265‎  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions ‎ →‎Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case: good idea
***08:50, 15 February 2021 diff hist  +517‎  User talk:Worm That Turned ‎ →‎Contact info: Replying to AlaChuckthebuck (using reply-link)

You may check it out: Contributions: Worm That Turned Out of his last 1000 edits (1 year) 99% turned around Wikipedia Aribtration Committee' or his User page.

Ah, yes, there were 3 great edits in highly qualitative articles: *BLT and on 10 November 2020 (yes: last year, one year ago) even 3: Crempog, Welsh rarebit and Laverbread.

Well, with this 4 high quality edits he certainly merrits to be the super-duper Arbitration Committee admistrator of wikipedia.

So, now please, Peter, it's your turn: We should he/she merrit to be a member of the Arbitration Committee or even Admin ??? Any reason for this? Are you his friend ??? Do you like him/her???

I suggest that you look also at the other candidates: 80% are junk edits. I only had the time for 3 candidates..... but this is the worst case.

I wonder, always when i oppose somebody,k I have to explain myself. Why are all those Yes-Great-whow-tellers freed of it, but opponents have to explain themselves ? There is something very wrong here in this place.

regards

(PS: I edited the subject: from oppose to strong oppose

I'm so tired (talk ) 02:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Tonton Bernardo. Thanks for the feedback. You are right, of course, I have not made nearly as many edits to article space as I'd like, it has been over a year since I found myself with the time to sit down and actually work on articles. I also can't guarantee that I will be able to in the short to medium term. I will say, I doubt I would be working on articles even if I had taken a break this year, or if I do not get elected. Writing articles for me requires a solid block of time, say, a few days, to sit down, research the topic, summarise the sources, and copyedit my text. I'm not the fastest at doing it by any means and my free time for Wikipedia is more sporadic. Happily, I can find time to manage Arbcom business, the day to day load is manageable, and the larger items like cases can be managed over weeks, where I can find the time.
I will ask though, do you believe that qualitative edits are the only area that a person can be useful to the encyclopedia? If your argument is that I'm not spending enough time on the "shop floor" and therefore I'm not familiar with policies or community thinking, then I invite you to challenge me on areas that you feel I might be lacking on that with questions at my question page. If, however, you believe that my time on the committee is something that is simply a plaudit, then I invite you to look a little more into the workload associated with being on the committee - This is a good summary by a current committee member.
So, yes, the vast majority of my edits are to pages starting with Wikipedia:Arbitration Commitee because I believe my work on those pages helps to break through disputes in some of the most controversial areas of Wikipedia. If i didn't feel that work as valuable, I wouldn't be spending my time doing it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit count is often a poor metric of performance. Some people do a huge amount if work behind the scenes, especially the best Arbitrators. Anyone who has 3 FAs, 30 GAs, and 54 DYKs under their belt, mentored over 35 users, and been an Arbitrator for several years, has no need whatsoever to justify what might on the surface happen to look like a lack of recent activity. Yes, there's definitely something very wrong here in this place... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User has an active history as a moderator. Their contributions to other articles are irrelevant. Simply contributing a lot to articles doesn't guarantee someone will make a good administrator. Arbitrary expansion of articles has never been Wikipedia's focus, and curators are needed more than contributors at this stage. Especially consider that if someone is making beneficial and consistent expansion to articles, why distract them with additional duties? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks, "Arbitrary expansion of articles has never been Wikipedia's focus, and curators are needed more than contributors at this stage" -I disagree entirely with that statement. For example, today I looked at Pink Floyd bootleg recordings and it is still largely unsourced unverifiable fancruft, despite me complaining about it nine years ago, I also noticed Meddle Tour has one citation to setlist.fm - there's a non-trivial chance that would be speedy deleted if created today, and List of Blind Faith concerts hasn't had any of the citation requests I asked for over two years ago. I think my comments at Talk:Farfisa#Problems with this article speak for themselves, and we currently have over 1,600 unreferenced BLPs, any or all of which could contain libel? It's not really got anything to do with being an arb, except maybe as a suggestion they should always focus on content improvement as the main priority. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I think WTT's calm and considered response to Tonton Bernardo (who has already been blocked and topic banned for personally attacking editors) is another reason why I am happy to have voted for his re-election. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

':@Ritchie333 '

No usefull contributions of this User on Wikipedia since. Reference: [Special:Contributions/Worm_That_Turned&offset=&limit=500&target=Worm+That+Turned] Do you still "support" him? Or did you just wanted to push another fake member ? Where have you got the informations from, that I have been banned ? [Special:CentralAuth?target=Tonton+Bernardo] I'm not banned here. Is it another fake ? Just at fr & german wikipedia on "my own request". What's your roll in this ?

Are you lucky now, with your vote ? I still had no reply, why it's always me to has to legitimate my 'against' votes, but not those 'Admins' and similar, that wave thru fake accounts. Any reply on this ? Maybe I don't have the right, submissive spirit for wikipedia. Regards I'm so tired (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tonton Bernardo. The election is over, and has been for a few months. As you can see from the results, the majority of the community don't agree with your point of view. I fully accept the criticism that I should spend more time on the "shop floor", and I would love to have some more time to write articles - however, describing me as a "fake member" and stating that my contributions so far this year are not useful are simply insulting comments.

Regarding @Ritchie333's comment that you have been blocked for personally attacking editors - you were blocked by @Diannaa for personal attacks, see block log. Going back a bit further, you are currently topic banned from RfAs and RfBs - see this notification after this discussion. Whatever your views on what people "should" be doing on Wikipedia, the language you are using is not conducive to the collaborative nature of the project.

You've had your say and I do take your general point on board, but coming to this page months after the election, to make insulting comments - well, I see no benefit to you doing it, and only down sides. If you're looking to get get yourself blocked again, I'm sure you're going the right way about it. Worm^TT(talk) 08:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Worm TT - I'm not personally attacking anybody. For me you are unsuitable for that function, and I said it.

What's your problem with free speech ?

Would you like to see me "blocked" , are you unhappy about it? Jesus, two weeks I did not notice it. Why is there no link on wikipedia start page to that "Block page"??? Certainly I am astonished how well you know internal pages. Why don't you know the public pages???

You'd better do some profitable edits (not just one or two alibi-edits per year). But now you got it: he's a 'Arbitration Committee Elections' member and can kick useful Wikipedia members out. What for ??? You'll better stop looking every day into the 'Arbitration Committee Elections' pages, and try to do useful things or edits in your life. But some people don't simply care. Or there will remain only 'Arbitration Committee Elections member' and no useful editors anymore.

Cheers I'm so tired (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tonton Bernardo - you might want to re-read your statement this morning, where your state that I have no useful contributions since December, and called me a fake account. Both of which are specific personal attacks against my conduct as a Wikipedian. You are absolutely welcome to believe I am not suitable to act as an arbitrator, you're not the only person who feels that way, I'm not everyone's cup of tea and I fully respect your right to put forward that opinion. You simply need to do so in a manner that does not insult or denigrate.

I would not like to see you blocked, if I did, I would be raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard. I am trying to help you realise that your manner is not helpful, and whilst you have a reasonable underlying point, they way you are expressing it is going to lead to it being ignored.

As for why I've seen this, well, I have this page on my watchlist - unsurprisingly, as it is the page people use to deliver comments about me. That's how watchlists work - not that I've been opening the page each day to see what's going on.

Finally, to your underlying point - there is more going on in this encyclopedia than content creation. The area that I'm making a difference is "dispute resolution", because sometimes editors and groups of editors disagree. Without a way to resolve those disputes, the content will not be created. That role is useful and necessary. It also says nothing to the work I do behind the scenes, protecting the encyclopedia from rogue admins, helping those with mental health issues and generally helping the smooth running of the encyclopedia. There's more going on than simple editing of article space. Worm^TT(talk) 10:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

'@Worm That Turned' You don't want to contribute to the wikipedia, but you want to be in the 'Arbitration Committee' ? So, why are you here?

Aha, you state, that I am offending you: no, I am just telling the facts ! There's a rather quite difference.

Come on, you guys want to be everything but not contribute. Why don't you so exclude me - I will really appreciate. I won't mind. Because I do not like at all this manner here that I always have to justify my vote, when I vote negative on a special' client. That's a way that democracy doesn't work. Why do I have to justify my vote ??? Did anybody ask those 500x accounts who supported you (fake accounts ??) why they supported you. I stay with it: strong oppose. Regards I'm so tired (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tonton Bernardo No one is asking you to "justify" your vote, your oppose has been accepted, along with 242 other individuals who also voted to oppose me. What I am asking you to stop doing is minimising the contribution of myself and many other contributors who don't add to the encyclopedia in exactly the manner you wish. Or more simply, replying here - I don't intend to reply further. Worm^TT(talk) 11:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not? strong 3 edits..... that's your effort in Wikipedia ???? That's why you need to be an 'arbitration committee member'.

What's wrong with you, I made 3 edits today, why don't you make it??? Why do you see yourself of such importance to be an arbitration committee member' ???

Yes, Wikipedia is going nuts, I admit it !*

regards

I'm so tired (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Worm that cut, what happend.

No articles created, no articles edited but:

1 April 2022

• 10:30, 1 April 2022 diff hist +1,014‎ Talk:Welsh rarebit ‎ →‎AKA Mousetrap / Merge with Cheese on Toast?: Reply current Tags: Reply Source

31 March 2022

• 16:01, 31 March 2022 diff hist +198‎ User talk:Doug Weller ‎ →‎Surgery went well yesterday: Reply Tags: Reply Source

30 March 2022

• 13:40, 30 March 2022 diff hist +246‎ User talk:Doug Weller ‎ →‎Best of luck!: Reply Tags: Reply Source
• 09:26, 30 March 2022 diff hist +332‎ Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements ‎ →‎25 - 31 March: Reply Tags: Reply Source

28 March 2022

• 13:53, 28 March 2022 diff hist +574‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/0>: Reply Tags: Reply Source
• 08:25, 28 March 2022 diff hist +1,208‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/0>: Reply Tags: Reply Source

27 March 2022

• 19:09, 27 March 2022 diff hist +291‎ User talk:Worm That Turned ‎ →‎Resigning: Reply current Tags: Reply Source
• 18:56, 27 March 2022 diff hist +66‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: update and resign for ping
• 18:55, 27 March 2022 diff hist +502‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: +
• 07:38, 27 March 2022 diff hist +507‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WPTC Discord off-wiki canvassing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: +

What's going on, are you on intellectuel strike ???? Is there nothing.?? Help, wikipedia needs editiors, not "somebody that edits arbritratioin/request/cases... Arrgh, merge with cheese and toast is the hammer.

I created 29 articles last 15 days, and edited a hundred others... I wonder why you are in strike and refuse to the same. Is there a reason?.. Are you a Russian backward post ?.? CIA agent,??? or the like?? What are you dojing here and who are your friends that waved you thru???

regards I'm so tired (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tonton Bernardo As I've said, I'm not discussing further at this location. If you wish to complain about my behaviour, please do raise issues at my talk page or at WP:AN. I will also point out that I offer a recall process, for all my user-rights, detailed at User:Worm That Turned/Recall process. Worm^TT(talk) 12:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Worm As I've said, I'm not discussing further at this location.ù

Ah yes, you don't want to discuss anymore ?? Why this .?? You have nothing to legitimate yourself ?? Yes, that's a real problmem, but it's yours. I propose that you'll turn down all mandates and posts at wikipedia, and we will not talk about it anymore. Otherwise: who did you bring here, as a 'edit noob"??? CIA, KGB, or another secret service??? What for, are you here ??? Just to manipuliate wikipedia pages ??? I will not obey you. You're to be fired, in my opinion, and the quicker or sooner, the better it will be. Regards I'm so tired (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

"Worst committee ever"

I want to counteract a well-worn trope, and say, in contrast to it, that I agree with Beeblebrox that the current committee has been better than some of the previous ones. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Mature and experienced

The current Committee (bar one early hiccup) with its intake of new blood has indeed probably been somewhat better than previous line ups. However, there hasn't exactly been a plethora of prominent cases this year to demonstrate a trend.

Beeblebrox doesn't stand on ceremony and doesn't suffer fools gladly, which in some peoples' perception makes him occasionally controversial, but he has never been unfair or discriminatory and knows where to recuse himself if he must. These qualities together with his long and solid participation on Arbcom and other noticeboards that matter, are therefore exactly what the Committee needs. What he has to say off-Wiki in another place is no concern of ours as long as when it concerns named Wikipedians it reflects the maturity and discretion he exercises on-Wiki. Beeblebrox is a respected known quantity and it would be a shame and a net loss for his seat to be claimed by someone less experienced, principled, reliable, and trustworthy, whether a new candidate or one who might be seeking re-election. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

I'm sadly unsurprised that Beeblebrox has the gall to say: That being said, in the last two years of social isolation,working from home, etc, I have realized that to a certain extent [Wikipediocracy] replaced actual socializing for me, and the community made it very clear that some of what I was discussing there was not material they wanted a sitting arbitrator to be discussing off-wiki. I have taken that criticism on board and endeavored to keep it in mind when posting there in the time since.

I do believe that they are genuine in their comments that they attempted to keep feedback in mind. Additionally, I don't dispute that Wikipediocracy participants can be reasonable, or that criticism of Wikipedia is important (I post many scathing criticisms of Wikipedia myself, onwiki). However, a person with access to highly sensitive information who realizes that they are oversharing and overstepping on a forum frequented by multiple people who pose a threat to the safety of individual Wikipedians should not give themselves the chance to step over the line again. Someone with good judgement would step away from the website entirely, as continued participation can bring much harm, to little benefit. Beeblebrox's continued comments on Wikipediocracy in full knowledge of the concerns of the community and their own personal reflections are unbecoming of an OS, CU and ArbCom member.

The justification for frequenting the website is that there are quite often, perfectly valid, well researched criticisms of Wikipedia editors or content. Now, I don't think there is a problem with reading comments there (as I do), or taking actions based on them in some cases. However, part of the problem is that this "well researched" obsessive investigation into Wikipedians is the same drive behind doxxing, and Wikipediocracy certainly does not care what WP:OUTING says (though a sitting arb should). Downplaying the worst of Wikipediocracy as boneheaded conspiracy theories or saying that critics consider some participants "bad people" is hugely insulting to those of us who have experienced harassment as a result of our volunteering (and I would have thought any ArbCom member would be well aware of the risks of volunteering). It undermines the community as the people in question have generally been blocked and/or banned for serious reasons.

I do not believe I have ever commented on an ArbCom candidate on an election page before, despite having been eligible to vote since 2014. Nor have I ever otherwise made a mental note to oppose somebody's candidacy in case they chose to run, as I did earlier this year. I am aware that Beeblebrox is not the only person who is overstepping the line with their comments on Wikipediocracy (though you should always consider if it's a joe job when someone claims to be User X offwiki), but I believe this is the most serious case. — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel like what you are saying (some others have said it as well) is that I should "know better" than to discuss anything at all there, even things that can be discussed openly here. I just don't see the logic in that. There are people there that go to far, and there are some people there I go out of my way to not talk to, but I could say exactly the same thing about Wikipedia itself. I've been harassed myself (watch my talk page for a while, I have some recurring trolls that just stop by once in a while to hurl all sorts of nasty insults at me), and in fact there is another, far more horrible criticism site that has like 15 threads just about me and what a terrible person I am at any given time. I don't see how that means I shouldn't even speak to anyone there, a decent number of whom are also very active here as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that you shouldn't even speak to anyone there. What bothers me, for example, are on-wiki comments like these at ANI earlier this month [1] [2] followed by this on WO [3]. I find that to be unbecoming of an arbitrator, even if it's a case you would recuse from. I don't see how you're helping anything by posting that comment on WO (or the ones at ANI for that matter). Levivich 05:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, a number of people have very directly told me that I should not comment on anything, ever, there. They don't seem to hold several other arbs and advanced permission holders to the same standard. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

...which may be an indication that your WO posts are somehow different from the WO posts of other arbs and advanced permission holders. 🤔 Levivich 18:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems more to stem from the belief that it is a "hate site" with no redeeming qualities. Admittedly, I do comment there more often than other arbs, and it has gotten me in hot water once or twice, but the comments I'm talking about are basically shock that I would say anything at all, about anything, in any tone, over there because I might be talking to someone who is banned from Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself but my problem is the content of your postings and not the forum. I don't have a problem with NYB or anyone else posting there because they show appropriate discretion in the content of the their postings. (Or at least the ones I've read.) Levivich 19:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the specific ones you've highlighted about ARS, I actually don't see a problem there. I'm blunt. Sometimes I use humor to make a point. Sometimes I use foul language (very rarely on-wiki, moreso off-wiki where things are more relaxed, of course never in an actual arbcom setting) . That was who i was before I was elected to the committee, people seemed ok enough with it to elect me anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not humor or foul language I have a problem with. I don't think you understand why I think those three comments are unbecoming of an arbitrator so I will explain it in some detail:

• In an ANI discussion wherein editors are discussing whether to handle something at ANI or bring it to Arbcom, a sitting Arb should not say "This very much looks like something for ArbCom. I doubt any admin will even want to close this monster of a discussion. I certainly won't be reading the whole damn thing. Arbcom cases have word limits to stop this sort of insanely long debate." Because Arbs shouldn't discourage the community from trying to handle something on its own and avoid Arbcom. Arbs should stay out of it at that stage.
• Unsurprisingly there was an arbcom case request shortly thereafter and you recused from the case request, which was a totally empty move because you had already said in public at ANI "This very much looks like something for ArbCom", and an Arb saying something looks like a case for Arbcom is the opposite of an Arb recusing from a case request, even if the Arb doesn't log an official vote. The recusal in that context seems disingenuous since "recusal" means not just "don't vote" but also "stay out of it", i.e. don't comment. That's "Recusal 101" IMO and I'd expect an Arb to know that.
• Arbcom declined the case request and I think it was unanimous or almost so. So you were wrong about this being a case for arbcom.
• After calling it a "monster of a discussion" and "insanely long" that you weren't going to read and doubted any admin would want to close, you then lengthened the discussion by creating a new joke subsection. This is exacerbating the very problem you complained about. In your next edit IIRC. Clearly you didn't actually care about the length and you weren't trying to help keep it short.
• Admin actually closed the discussion, so you were wrong about that too.
• You then went to WO and linked to your own ANI subsection that you had just created, effectively advertising the discussion, while also criticizing it, and the people who were being discussed. Again, this is the opposite of an Arb recusing himself. You were making the discussion longer, bringing attention to it on WO, and taking sides in the underlying dispute, while making predictions that it had to go to arbcom which turned out to be incorrect. It's almost like you were trying to make it harder for ANI to handle it because you wanted it to go to Arbcom. Almost like an Arb putting his thumb on the scale of a community discussion to get it to turn out a certain way. And while that may not have been your intent, that's the optics to me, and I actually agree with you on the substance! I can only imagine what the optics would be for the users who were sanctioned. Or how fairly they will feel the process is if and when they get to arbcom.

The above lengthy explanation is just of the three links I posted, which isn't the only problematic example, but the most recent. Levivich 20:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I obviously don't agree with most of that analysis, but to reply specifically to the point abut the case being declined, I said at the time that while I got why they wanted to let it go for the moment, I firmly believe it will come back around and a case is a near-inevitability. [4]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent interactions

Not my experience today and yesterday to my questions in the election page and now on his talk page. His immediate response to me was an accusation of loading a question, "This is kind of a loaded question, in that the way you phrased makes it impossible to answer directly without admitting to wrongdoing. If you'd care to rephrase it in a less leading manner I might be inclined to provide an actual reply.", which accelerated to an assumption of bad faith when he accused me of playing games. [5] This is pretty shocking and not what I expected from a sitting arb.Littleolive oil (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my reply to you, all you needed to do to get an answer was to rephrase the question. Instead you've rambled on and on for several paragraphs without doing so, and when I didn't go for that you started posting on my talk page, and when I made it abundantly clear I wasn't interested, you posted to my talk page again. I really don't think I'm the problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You are running for arbitration and are a sitting arb. You have made multiple bad faith accusations to a good faith editor. I have serious concern about the arbitration process; I know of several people who have experienced trauma from it and so I would like to see changes. I am looking for arbs who have the ability to make changes, to see the problems and who are not stuck on some superficial level of what an arbitration means. None of this was directed at anyone specifically but on a process that may have outgrown it's usefulness. Your response was to see the question as a personal affront and you then went on to accuse me of game playing. My so called rambling questions pertain to the complexity of the arb process and are not easily explained. You didn't even attempt to answer but when on in the accusatory way you began. (I moved this to its own section because I don't want to label anyone.)Littleolive oil (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The way you seem to see this issue.

the way I see it.

I didn't take it personally, not sure where you're getting that. My only objection was to the way you phrased your actual question. None of your subsequent replies actually contain a question at all. You're trying to make this into a complicated thing when it's actually quite simple: "How do you reconcile ignoring the simplest path with "all other reasonable means have failed"" was the question. It is not possible to answer that question directly without accepting the premise that the committee "ignored the simplest path". That is why it is a loaded question. You are free to refuse to rephrase it, and I am equally free to refuse to answer it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• See comment here [6]. Done.

In the future, you might want to consider responding to what people actually say, as opposed to what you imagine they've said. That would probably make things easier for everyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What's in a candidate?

By way of reiterating my post which was the first one to address this candidate's suitability for the Committee, contenders should be judged on what they do and have done on Wikipedia. It is important to assess or evaluate contributions, actions, decisions, they have made on Wiki, as well as their behaviour and character on Wikipedia or off it at organised Wikipedia events. Those who know them personally may well recognise that some editors are very different in real life from the way they come across on Wiki - so much is shown also in these discussions about the various candidates.

What they do off Wiki is no concern of mine. There are some really nasty and hated arbitrators and admins who frequent other forums or who bloat their egos in their own blogs or other Internet venues, but there are some really nice ones. I support those who have demonstrated intelligence, maturity, and fairness on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox is a far more qualified candidate than many if the others is the running. There aren't many candidates to choose from for the available 11 seats - let's hope the community gets it right for once. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox is not a fair arbiter on the project

I have never commented on an Arbitration Committee candidate before. Beeblebrox is very biased based on the recent Halloween Purge thread. Beeblebrox is so biased that they started a thread within the thread just to mock the four accused editors. Also, sadly their participation off wiki on a forum with exiles gossiping and pillorying WP editors means they should not be trusted with sensitive information, as Bilorv has stated above. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what the "Halloween Purge" is or was, so I'm a bit lost as to what you are referring to. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Here Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Giving it an overly-dramatic name like that is a perfect example of exactly what is wrong woth the ARS. I'll also note that you say I am not a fair arbitrator, but your comments are entirely about an ANI thread. When it went to the committee I recused myself. So if this is just about my views on ARS you can rest assured that I would do the same in the future and would not be involved as an arbitrator in any ArbCom proceeding dealing with ARS. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find what you are referring to either Lightburst - I don't follow ANI anyway and it's archiving system us a challenge to anyone - but I'm sure you are probably referring to something isolated that possibly affected you directly and is not part of a pattern of his work on the Committee. As regards his participation on forums off Wiki , it has no more to do with his trustworthiness on Wikipedia than what he gets up to in the wilds of Alaska that you don't know about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There is more than just their disdain for the four content creators who were stockaded and ridiculed - There is also the gossipping offwiki that several above have referenced - IMO not a fair arbiter. FYI: I recently improved an article that they wanted removed: Bilingual pun. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#Counter_proposal This is the monster thread at ANI . Note that it ended with Lightburst topic banned, among other things.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Funny that you mention the bilingual pun article, as I fully acknowledged when nominating it that it was entirely possible that it was a notable topic, but the actual article we had was not an encyclopedia article at all, just a mostly undourced list of examples. Did you see me making a fuss when instead of deletion you removed basically the entire article and started over? Of course not, why would I? I wanted a crap article removed, and it was. It was fine result as far as I'm concerned. This is what the ARS gets so very wrong with all the overblown hyperbole about deltionist hordes destroying the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I mentioned it because you stated: Bilingual Pun...ARS thread, they got wind of it and block voted, with some objecting to the utter garbage that this was before being removed. FTR I was the one who questioned blanking the majority of the article in the middle of a process. But you have shown even with that comment that you act in a manner which is incongruent to basic Administrator standards. You claim there was a block ivote of ARS? The ivoters that followed me were. Dronebogus? indy Beatle? Avilich? Two ARS ivoters were in there (me and Dream Focus)- apparently that did not fit your narrative when you were jostling with the fellas on the gossip site. A good administrator would acknowledge the improvement. Now I have said quite enough here and will comment no further. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Beeblebrox mocked me one time, therefore I dislike him, which inherently means he isn't appropriate for Arbcom, this is an unbiased opinion, honest" is what this reads like pure axe grinding. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Man does anyone have a good wine recipe for all these sour grapes?Valeince (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Axe grinding is what brings people who have been justifiably cautioned or sanctioned by an admin to come out of the woodwork to pile on at Arbcom cases and other discussions. It forms the basis of some of the questions I have asked various candidates for this election. If an editor has made a quarter of a million postings on talk pages or discussions, do 5 isolated issues spread over several years demonstrate a clear pattern of very poor behaviour? Nobody, absolutely nobody, is perfect Lightburst. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The user made four comments on the AN from the link you posted, and none of them seem to be problematic. I'm more concerned by your apparent attitude and following the user across Wikipedia, seemingly just because they commented on a noticeboard discussion. On the other hand, the user does seem to be unnecessarily snarky. Breaking out visual aids for a meaningless retort that could easily be said is always in poor taste. Still, I'm not sure bad manners would make them a bad moderator. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Having just discovered the Lourdes situation, I feel moved to comment as she'd been most helpful to the Colonel & myself, and I always liked seeing her around. Can't help but feel she was badly mistreated by the community. The original mention of Lourdes RL identify seems only a minor mistake at worst, she had technically self disclosed. Though not unreasonable for her to feel differently about that. Same with summarising the gist of an email exchange (which would only be majorly problematic if it would be embarrassing or majorly harmful to other party.) But when Lourdes asked for Beeblebrox not to discuss her emails on the Arb noticeboard, then even accepting that Lourdes wording may have unfairly implied wrongdoing on the part of Beeblebrox, & that it was one of several related threads she'd started, I see it as a major omission that Beelbrox didn't say something conciliatory. Summarising the emails was mostly harmless, but not totally, it did very slightly reflect badly on Lourdes. If she felt that as a violation of her privacy, that's something that should be respected. Just because some of us are quite comfortable with transparency, we shouldn't expect every editor to be like that. By staying silent on the thread (until making a defensive post), Beeblebrox let his forceful friends & others essentially tear in Lourdes in a way she didn't deserve. No wonder she's made very few edits since.

That said, at the risk of making myself unpopular with my wiki friends, Im still voting for Beeblebrox. He has unfortunate opinions on the rescue squad & especially on some legendary former members, but theres no way he'd fail to recuse if the ARS was ever up before the committee. Much as I normally tend towards leniency, I see it as essential to have Arbs willing to support severe sanctions against popular editors when needed. Without that, there's ultimately going to be much more distress and loss of good editors. Beeblebrox may have been slightly heavy handed on occasion, but overall he makes firm but fair decisions and also support sanction free resolution when it's sensible to do so. Overall, IMO Beeblebrox as an Arb provides an extremely valuable service to the community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not "a minor mistake at worst" to dig up extremely sensitive information about a prolific contributor to share with violent and unstable banned editors on a forum known for participating in harassment of Wikipedians. It is not normal to expect every one of your tens of thousands of edits across several years to be dug up at any moment and spread widely. If a person does not disclose their identity on their userpage, user talk page or otherwise discuss it regularly then it is at least common courtesy not to bring it up unless it is actually relevant (e.g. COI). — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware of this, but these "unstable banned editors" you speak of are also able to at least read Wikipedia for themselves, so where the comments were made is hardly a defining factor. You making these vitriolic comments because a long-term member of the ARS has suggested that maybe I'm not an inhuman monster after all won't change any of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've no idea what ARS has to do with anything—I am more or less uninvolved in that dispute. My comment is specifically a counterargument to the already-posed argument that the information was public, so your restatement of this truism shows a fundamental lack of engagement with what I actually said. — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not like these edits revealing her identity were deeply buried, they were right at the beginning of her edit history (now since removed from the logs, even though they had previously been declined to be oversighted). A users edit history is public information, pretending like it is private is absurd and sets a bad precedent. None of this was brought up onwiki until Lourdes made a fuss about it, and the thread where her identity was discussed was later moved to a members-only section. Offwiki forums do not count for outing purposes. The only editor who posted on Wikipediocracy that I could reasonably describe as a "violent and unstable banned editor" is MMAR/Crows Nest/Brian K Horton/Attackthemoonnow etc, who is now banned from Wikipediocracy precisely because he is an asshole. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of violating WP:OUTING and surely you can see how the edits being towards the start of Lourdes' tenure is a point in favour of my argument about reasonable expectations (why would you expect someone to bring up an edit several years later in a place where it poses a threat to your safety? This isn't normal conduct on other websites where your comments are still technically public indefinitely). There are multiple Wikipediocracy users I had in mind when writing "violent and unstable banned editor" but getting into the weeds there is rather a tangent. — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you bring up any actual incident of Lourdes actually being harassed either on Wiki or in real life as a result of people discussing her identity on Wikipediocracy, or is this just hypothetical? Lourdes was very upset at RexxS getting desysopped, so you can't see her actions as ones merely a reaction to the Wikipediocracy discussion of her identity, but also as a desire to get back at Beeblebrox for his role in the RexxS desysop. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemi, what are you saying? Is that really where you'd draw the line, at actual harassment? Until someone's actually harassed, it doesn't count? Levivich 22:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Writing about specific Wikipedia users outside of Wikipedia is not harassment if it is not specifically intended for the subject to read it. If they happen to read it and react negatively, who cares? Crows Nest/Brian K Horton writes extremely negative things about me on Wikipedia Sucks. Is that harassment? No. He's entitled to write as negatively about me has he likes, if I read it and find it hurtful I just need to grow a thicker skin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I'd never discuss your RL identity off-wiki, and if anyone discussed my RL identity off-wiki, I'd feel harassed, even if there was some clue somewhere in my contribs history, and if I had to put up with that to contribute here, I would not contribute here. Levivich 23:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There is explicitly not a reasonable expectation that anyone's edits will ever be considered private. It's right there at the bottom of the page every single time you make an edit: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." That being said, had I been aware of the prior denied request for suppression I wouldn't have made that particular comment. I've said as much to Lourdes and I'm fairly certain she accepted that I was being honest about it. You act as if I had some malicious intent to harm when I made my remarks, but I know what I was actually doing, which was trying in a light-hearted way to suggest that that particular thread was going in a stupid direction that shouldn't be pursued. There was no ill intent, despite your insinuations that it was some sort of viscous attack, solely because of where I said it. I also don't think making a specatacle about this now does her any favors, as it will only encourage people to try and figure out what we're talking about. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you ever feel like you're in too deep? I'm very confused why #1 editors are talking like everyone who reads this page is already intimately familiar with this situation #2 why you're participating in websites off Wikipedia about Wikipedia. Can you really not get enough Wikipedia? #3 why you're so nonchalant about doxing someone? Maybe there's details in there that I missed that might make that more understandable. #4 Just because someone's information is under a shareable copyright license doesn't mean it's ethical for you to reshare that information. Defense of that mistake seems highly inappropriate. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

On #2 , Id have the opposite concern. If someone isn't interested enough in our community to talk about it off-wiki, then it would be a worry if they wished to be an Arb. As theyd be signing up for much unpaid work theyd likely find boring. On #3 & 4, it's not unreasonable to defend yourself from an overstatement of your mistake. It looks to me that a clear majority of editors at the time saw the mistake as much more minor than doxing. Id agree though that the Beeblebrox defence was too robust, or maybe a better way of putting it is that too few defended Lourdes's position. I could be wrong, but I think thats why she sadly mostly stopped editing after the event. I made the OP as I wanted to address that, albeit in an inadequate and possibly unwise way. As you say there are likely details being missed, but at this stage Id think it would do more harm than good to thoroughly re-examine the situation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a number of concerns with people using other websites to discuss Wikipedia. For one thing, it increases the chance of conspiracy when we can't monitor all the ways in which users are interacting. It intensifies the potential for cliques. Users create off-website drama that bleeds over to Wikipedia, as evidenced in this case. Also, I'm not concerned that the user wasn't being defended here. This isn't a trial, it's an informal discussion of the attitudes behind that incident. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to dignify half-baked loaded questions not posted on the question page with answers post-election. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You do seem to struggle with the concept of a dignified response. I didn't ask you those questions with the intent of eliciting a predetermined answer. They were mostly rhetorical and I hoped you'd examine your behavior on Wikipedia. If you note I defended you in the section above this, it seems odd that you'd accuse me of bias against you here. I don't even know who you are beyond this comments section. And I'm very sorry to see that, it sounds like from this response, your concern for what the public thinks is limited to election season. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Banedon

No cat pics :(

Hey, Banedon, if I vote for both the idealist (you) and the pragmatist (WTT), what kind of an idiot does that make me? BTW, for years I keep clicking on your username in hopes of cat pics. Should I just keep trying? I'm gonna just keep trying. Thanks! El_C 13:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think if you vote for both me and WTT, it would indicate you value diversity of opinion in the committee. It would make changes more difficult to implement though. As for cat pictures, I suggest nudging Opabinia regalis =) Banedon (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I am actually more puzzled that the page User:Banedon does not exist. I really don't mind if it exists, is protected, and say next to nothing, maybe simply date of first contribution to Wikipedia.(or even re-direct to talk page). But better than seeing the list of previous deletions which makes one feel there was a hidden history there (my checking seemed to show there wasn't and likely put there by someone else). But in the end there's no requirement not to have a user page, it just looks odd. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to this. Just got my first notice on my talk page that I am invited to vote. I can't help but agree with Djm-leighpark about the lack of userpage. If it's not required, as they say above, then it's not required. I just find people's talk pages kind of nice to glance at as a way to get to know that user (though some are just left blank or near-blank). Not a make or break thing as far as my vote, though. Best of luck to you! YellowAries2010 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory statements?

Banedon does not have a user page that tells us at least a bit about himself or even where he comes from (admittedly, admins can take a peek at the page he asked to be deleted in July last year, but that would not be fair to the rest of the voters). His selective pruning of his talk page without leaving archives also makes examining his interaction with others rather difficult. He is not an admin and appears to have little or no experience as an editor of the kind that would secure a pass at RfA. Banedon is campaigning solely on a platform of reform of Arbcom, apparently wishing for it to be modeled more on a court of law and the points he makes about Arbcom are - or have been - relatively accurate. However, his claim that 'Cases should only be filed by someone with Standing (law) (or someone authorized by a person with standing' seems to be at odds with his action here, but it was a few years ago and everyone can change their opinions. That said, he could do a lot more to bring about the changes he would like to see from a position outside the Committee rather than from within it as a member of it and I heartily encourage him to do so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Meh, Moneytrees has put Banedon's candidacy out of its misery. Nothing more to see here... just like the user page  :) ——Serial 11:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Kudpung I'm not going to comment on most of what you've written - if anyone wants to know ask in the questions page - but the claim that I didn't have standing when filing the TRM case is demonstrably wrong, as you can see from this section. I was banned from TRM's talk page at the time, which should give some indication about what had happened between him and me. Banedon (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Not yet

Merits of the justice first approach aside, the committee may benefit from having an arb or two who approach disputes that way. But I think Banedon has a way to go in familiarising themselves with policies, guidelines and norms. The high-profile public cases we see on-wiki are only a small part of what arbcom does.

Banedon has not disclosed the exact nature and extent of their relationship with TCEC which, apart from showing that they are not familiar with our COI guidelines (or at least norms for editors seeking positions of trust), makes it difficult to evaluate a lot of their recent contributions in context. Their TCEC contributions which are substantial but extremely lacking in sourcing might have benefited from extra scrutiny such a disclosure might have brought. TCEC Season 21, for example, is full of original analysis like this one, where they later added this image as citation for one of the claims[7]. This is by no means an isolated occurrence, as here as well, they had added original analysis and synthesis, and seemed to think a random straw poll would be WP:DUE. Their BLP editing could be better too[8][9]. Here, they present their own analysis about an LP's public image cited to an April Fool's piece. And they reinstated it as is last year[10] after it had been challenged (though quite poorly), despite the joke having become largely stale by then.

They are one of a handful of editors who can and do regularly give uninvolved and dispassionate perspectives in arbcom proceedings. And I think we would continue to benefit from more of the same. But, at least for now, I think, outside the committee is where they can do the most good from. Regards! -- Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not

I like idealism. But I don't like absolutism. The "only parties with standing may bring a case" is a insta-no for me. This is a collaborative project. When two users, or groups, (A - B) are in conflict, and there is a third party or group (C) that finds it disruptive to the editing process - whether involved or not - the third party (C) should be able to seek resolution to the disruption. Being involved in the disruption should not be a prerequisite. That's a hard no.--v/r - TP 13:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting views, dubious elsewhere

So I would definitely like a "justice first" supporter in ARBCOM, as I have a strong accused rights bent, especially with unclear UCOC enforcement pending publication.

But. A couple of areas concern me.

One is the standing issue noted above - standing itself causes problems in an actual legal setting, and would be far worse in a project like ours.

I also am not sure that Banedon's knowledge of policy is at the very high level expected of an arb.

I do share concerns about lack of archiving and so on (I'm not so fussed about deleting their userpage) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User page

You're the first (to my memory) Arb candidate, who doesn't have a userpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment

Banedon makes excellent points, especially concerning the Arbitration Committee as a quasi-judicial body. Given the importance of Wikipedia, I think it is incumbent for Arbcom to adhere to rules of fairness and his suggestions are very good. Coretheapple (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes

Arbiter

I have not participated in discussions regarding arb candidates before. I was impressed that the candidate would take on the recent Halloween thread. However I was unimpressed that the candidate repeated in summary, every accusation uttered by antagonists in that thread. I said as much to the candidate and was dismissed. We are all volunteering our time for the benefit of the project, and it should be helpful to remind the candidate of that. Not sure how I will ivote. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Experience as admin needed?

Wugapodes' run for ACE comes very hard on the heels of his successful bid for the mop only a year and 10 months ago and has only been really actively editing since May 2019. In his candidate statement, he claims: I can provide a unique perspective to the committee, but leaves one to guess what that special perspective might be. There's nothing to dislike about Wugapodes or his work so far, but not much to demonstrate how he might perform as an arbitrator. If this were a request at ORCP (which of course it isn't), my boilerplate suggestion would be: 'Keep up the good work and come back in a year when we have something to measure.' And indeed, there will almost certainly be an ACE in 2022 (time passes very quickly), unless the community votes for a radically different system to replace Arbcom - which might not be a bad idea ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This is reasonable, but I did think it worth noting for comparison @Kudpung: I thought I'd note that Barkeep49 was only an admin for about 16 months before his successful election, and I don't think many (though I don't know about you) view him as an unsuccessful arb. Having some "younger" (experientially) opinions on the committee to go along with the need for institutional history a la WTT, are both beneficial imo. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Barkeep49 has been unsuccessful as an Arb. Quite to the contrary in fact, Nosebagbear, and that's why I was enthusiastic about him running for a seat despite the fact that as I accurately predicted, NPR would fall apart without his leadership. Barkeep49 was never one of my 'collectibles' but I had a great respect for what he did there; it was a pleasure to work with him and he left an enduring impression. He's that kind of 'get up and go' person - one who sees a task and without waiting to be begged to help out, he just goes for it like he has with his monumental attempt at RfA reform and he has at least another year left to continue making his mark on Arbcom.

As I said above, there's nothing not to like about Wugapodes, but for me he's a bit of a dark horse and I don't see that level of energy. Fortunately he's certainly not a governance obsessive and he doesn't throw his weight about which are huge plus points for eating at the high table. Without saying who I have voted for, he might not be a front runner but he nevertheless ranks high in my preferences and I would far sooner see him on the committee than some of the other candidates. Anyway, the voter guides are written, the initial stampede to vote is over and people have stopped jostling to get into the polling station, so it's all rather moot now. We just need to sit back and wait for the results and perhaps look forward to what that 'unique perspective' actually is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Donald Albury

Florida pages

I've seen DA's work around the Florida pages over the years. Good, productive work with many positive contributions. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mature and and experienced editor

Voting is now open. Donald is probably not a household name, but ACE is not a popularity contest. Donald Albury would be an asset to the Committee and is clearly among the few truly suitable candidates. There are not many candidates running for the 8 seats, and (depending on reaching the qualifying threshold) possibly only three of them won't be elected. Let's hope the community gets it right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Albury shows maturity and a willingness to assist and instruct colleagues who do not possess his expertise in certain fields. He would make a welcome addition to the Arbitration Committee. Nihil novi (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis

Big mouth and very big fairness

I didn't run for arbcom in order to retroactively validate past bad decisions with new bad decisions. – Opabinia regalis (2016)
Opabinia, master (or should I say 'mistress') of the pithy comment is one of those people from whom one look could kill you stone dead but the next day she would buy you a beer. Metaphorically of course, because sadly I've never had the pleasure (or danger) of meeting her in RL. She has those excellent qualities of not being vindictive or grudge-bearing nor advocating the harshest of remedies on Arbcom cases just because she could if she so wanted. She was certainly an asset to the Committee during her two previous terms, and it didn't leave her jaded. It would be interesting to know how she would have voted were she on the Committee these two years past when Arbcom was lining admins up like plastic ducks in a shooting gallery. She is going to be absolutely furious if she actually wins a seat at the high table, but she knows what she will be letting herself in for and will do a good job. A force to be reckoned with, but extraordinarily fair and forgiving. Now if every Committee member had such attributes...

@Kudpung: I think you forgot to sign your comment. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I did (copied and pasted from the offline draft). Can happen to anyone. Thank you Colonestarrice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome and yes, it can happen to anyone indeed. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung! I first saw this on my phone and only saw the "big mouth" part, I figured it'd be about my bad habit of writing excessively long posts (I'll try to stop, I swear!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your detailed, but clearly expressed, to the point, and umambiguous answers that always correctly interpreted the questions are much appreciated. Thank you again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Guerillero

-->

Arbitration Committee deserves better

Arbitration Committee is the highest forum of Wikipedia for dispute resolution and it needs more mature people to be there. You have been quite many times accused of bias as an admin and your behaviour and attitude too have been not fair and on many instances you have taunted other editors because you were an admin. Arbitration Committee deserves better and I hope whoever will be elected will uphold the core values of this great encyclopedia the human history has ever witnessed! USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Interested reader should take a look at this AE thread -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah and this discussion from last year's election as well. People should read it to get to know about the attitudes that are making people unsatisfied with some admins on Wikipedia and why ArbCom deserves better... USaamo ^(t@lk) 06:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

USaamo's comments could possibly be retaliation for the cited thread, but nevertheless might not be entirely without merit when viewed as part of an overall picture. However, with well over 50% of votes already cast, they probably come too late to be of consequence for the voting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Izno

• I will be AFK from about now until sometime Sunday. I will try to answer further questions then. Thanks! --Izno (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Great social interactions

I only expect Izno to get this

Hello, I am not too active compared to all you legends, I tend to have these tiny spikes of a few hundred edits than go back to hiding. When I do come out of my shell, a consistent positive face is Izno. Off wiki, specifically on the Wikipedia discord, Izno is constantly cracking jokes and engaging with passion at all times of day. The light heartedness they uses when talking, although unorthodox, never fails to bring a smile to my face, and I genuinely think they will do great things on arb com. I am hesitant to come to a conclusion about their on wiki behavior, for better or for worse our paths have not crossed much, but from the random rabbit hole I went down it was also positive. Rock on, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 02:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur. Izno is really the only person that I can remember interacting with in the last 8 months--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thryduulf

Gets my vote

Strong oppose - Booked the pub for the 2019 Manchester Meetup for the wrong date, causing me and a non-Wikipedian friend to scurry round finding an alternative pub, and got "you're a wally" shouted at him from about ten people as a consequence .... nah, just kidding. Chris is one of the good guys on Wikipedia and somebody I consider a real-life friend and would happily sit in a pub chatting with for hours on end. What's not to like? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a good job that arbcom is not a cabal that meets in the back room of pubs! Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fram´s view

Not that it will really bother you, but the sheer arrogance of your reply here coupled with the tonedeafness in the linked discussion (in both cases not realising or caring how you come across, nor imagining for a second that your position may be less infallible than you pretend it to be) would be enough for me to oppose you as an Arb: the completely wrong approach to recusal in your reply to other questions only makes it clear that it isn´t just an issue where you oppose me that causes concern, but your position or opinions in general. Whether you believe that you would fairly consider a case in which a friend is a party, or whether that friend believes so, both have no bearing on whether you should recuse or not. That you believe otherwise makes you unfit to be an Arb. Fram (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for giving yet another reason to oppose. This reply[11] is terrible for any admin or arbcom member. If one finds out that blocked or banned user X is editing again, one shouldn't have to do the legwork again of finding evidence of sufficient disruption to warrant a new block, just proving that they are a sock should be more than sufficient. Your approach would create an immense timesink and only encourages socks to try creating new accounts again and again, and discourages their victims (in the case of harassers, attackers, ...) or the ones that researched and described their previous disruption (in the case of copyright violators, POV pushers, BLP problem creators, ...). Disruption that leads to a block often isn't one or two incidents plus swift block, but may well be a process over years. Starting that process all over again when such an editor then socks is just completely off. Let me just give Eostrix as an example... Fram (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You've mostly misunderstood my reply I think. In all cases below "evidence" means the combination of behaviour and/or technical evidence.

• Scenario 1: The user is disrupting the encyclopaedia (in any way, doesn't have to be blockworthy in itself)
  • If the evidence is clear they are a sock of a banned user, then block them as a sock.
  • If the evidence is clear they are not a sock, do not block them as a sock.
  • If the evidence is unclear, treat them as if they are not a sock but keep an eye on them as it may become clear in the future.
• Scenario 2: The user is not disrupting the encyclopaedia in any way. Why does it matter whether they are a sock? If they disrupt the encyclopaedia in the future then scenario 1 applies at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the misunderstanding seems to go both ways. Some of these socks are among the most productive editors, and were only blocked (sockmaster) after it turned out that their innocuous or productive looking edits were actually problematic, but in sneaky ways. It can take multiple, lengthy ANI discussions or an exhausting ArbCom case to finally get to the bottom and convince others that yes, there really is a fundamental and continuing problem. It should then be more than sufficient to find that they are socking to get them blocked, without the need to go through their new contributions again and find enough evidence of disruption to convince people that this incarnation is disruptive as well. We do the exact same thing with e.g. topic bans: a topic banned editor doesn't get to use the excuse "but the edits I am amking now are not disruptive", a topic ban is a topic ban and the editor should simply stay away from that topic. What you are proposing is that completely blocked or banned editors get more leniency than topic banned ones, despite their issues having been deemed more serious at the time of the sanction. That makes no sense. A restraining order is not "you are not allowed to come near and make trouble", it's "you are not allowed to come near" full stop. Everything else only encourages editors to sock. I can imagine the user pages under your regime: "Hi, I'm banned under account X (and Y and Z?), but because this account isn't disruptive, you are not allowed to block me". Really a strong message you are sending there to people who have been the victim of some of these editors, or who have spent a massive amount of time cleaning up their mess (say, someone is blocked for massive copyvios: not only will there be people busy with the CCI, but they will now also need to keep an eye on the editor to check if they again post copyvio's: meanwhile, the blocked editor is free to edit to their heart's delight?). Fram (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Evasive?

Occasionally found among those who have a predilection for populating disciplinary venues and talk pages with their comments, a few isolated examples of arrogance might not necessary establish a troubling pattern, but Thryduulf nevertheless appears to be quite the hardliner. Such a strongly didactic temperament is however certainly out of character for the personal profile most people would expect in a candidate for higher office. I also perceive some of his other answers to the questions (as they were in 2019) as lacking a direct answer, or even simply winging it, but perhaps not deliberately so. If he can uphold his claims to fairness, he could be an asset to the Committee but he would also serve the community well by eschewing such fora and venues, but with his 'musings' appears to have great difficulty in staying away from drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose

Per the descriptions by other users above and my previous encounter with them on RSN, where they exhibited an ambivalent attitude regarding AGF and an excessively tolerant view toward well-known Chinese propaganda outlets. I believe that taken together, these are indicators of poor performance as a future member of ARBCOM. Normchou ^💬 23:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A more accurate summary of my comments in those discussions is (paraphrased) "state controlled media is a reliable source for the position of the controlling state" and "[Chinese state controlled-media] should be usable, with attribution, for facts in some circumstances where there is no CCP propaganda value, and for reporting the views of the CCP where those are relevant and DUE". Now it's entirely reasonable to have a different opinion, especially on the latter point, but holding them does not equate to assuming bad faith of those who do disagree, nor does it justify the stronger accusations of bad faith levelled at myself and others expressing similar views in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet labeling my different opinion as a bad faith attempt to obstruct consensus was precisely what Thryduulf did during that encounter[12]. I still can't believe one holding this kind of attitude would be associated with a fair and effective arbitrator of the community. Normchou ^💬 07:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Except you will see from the context that this was not what I said., the full quote is trying to re-litigate the reliability of the whole publication (which there is no evidence has changed since the recent discussion) is at best pointless and at worst a bad faith attempt to obstruct consensus.. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutral oppose

I think there is some good in Thryduulf. A man generally doesn't put his name forward for this kind of position if he doesn't genuinely care about or have some competence for the work. However, the lack of understanding of arbitration that Thryduulf has demonstrated is problematic and means that I can't support his candidacy. You the man(converse) 12:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey

Note on delay

Will be a tad busy IRL so I might not be writing any answers to questions until the 18th (in UTC). I'll still be keeping up with the page. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)