2013 ArbCom candidates

[Triptych]

This candidate "GregJackP" is action! Formerly sanctioned and indeffed, he blazed back he says with a "Triple Crown" for three featured articles. He also says he has an undisclosed account used for "personal safety reasons," but he did say Arbcom knows about it, so is not running afoul of the rule Floquenbeam ought to be disqualified for.

Here's Greg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... #GregJackP.

He's strictly a content editor, not an admin (and hopefully not a Baseballbugs or Nomoskedasticity-style "administrative participant" at the drama boards, I've never noticed him there really). GregJackP sounds like cool beans, but more research is needed.

[enwikibadscience]

This candidate "GregJackP" is action! Formerly sanctioned and indeffed, he blazed back he says with a "Triple Crown" for three featured articles. He also says he has an undisclosed account used for "personal safety reasons," but he did say Arbcom knows about it, so is not running afoul of the rule Floquenbeam ought to be disqualified for.

Here's Greg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... #GregJackP.

He's strictly a content editor, not an admin (and hopefully not a Baseballbugs or Nomoskedasticity-style "administrative participant" at the drama boards, I've never noticed him there really). GregJackP sounds like cool beans, but more research is needed.

\Hmmmm, just started an article on PINAC, FAed Ex Parte Crow Dog (which annoyed me by not wikilinking something fundamental, but was not obviously problematic, and an article I was able to just read). Married for 25 years user box. Not an admin. I'm sure he'll suck, he's a Wikipedia editor, but he's looking really good. PINAC. Wow.

[Vigilant]

One candidate for arbcom is the same as any other candidate. If you think this oneis worse than any of the others then don't vote for the arsehole.

Any of them actually edit content? It does not look like it, from a quick glance. Considering the state of the content on en.Wikipedia, I don't know if this is a good or bad thing.

Ideally arbitrators would have some experience in conflict resolution, litigation, or even arbitration. Problems is that it's been a loooooong time since such people could have passed an RFA.

New York Brad is perfect — he's a lawyer.

Need more lawyers.

RfB

Is this your own version of The Onion?
I'm having trouble telling whether you're serious or not.

[neved]

It could be a good time to disclose what arbitrator tried to hack wikipediocracy. Why should he be protected anyway?

[Zoloft]

It could be a good time to disclose what arbitrator tried to hack wikipediocracy. Why should he be protected anyway?

That was probably an accident, and it's in our rear view mirror. We've moved on.

[The Devil's Advocate]

LOL!

The Arbitration Committee's intemperate decisions, inability to acknowledge gross errors, abuse of powers (including oversight) to suppress criticism of their decisions, attempts to provoke the Wikimedia Foundation to confrontation and regulatory capture by trolls has led to palpable fear in its checkusers and oversighters, dismay and disgust from Foundation staff, and unwillingness of everyday editors to deal with them in any manner.

[Vigilant]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Statement

David Gerard

I have been in and around Wikipedia and Wikimedia since 2004. I was on the Arbitration Committee in 2005, and I know the awful things the arbcom has to deal with. I have represented Wikipedia and Wikimedia (WMF, WMUK and the movement in general) as a volunteer press contact since 2005. I know this place, I know what it's for and I've represented it to the world for the past nine years.

I worry about the reputation of English Wikipedia in the wider world, with the strange and disturbing decisions of the Arbitration Committee in the past few years, and particularly in the last year.

We see the reputation of the English Wikipedia dragged through the mud by bad Arbitration Committee decisions. We are the number six website in the world, with huge social power and responsibility. Remember that these people's actions do in fact speak for the encyclopedia, and for you.

The Arbitration Committee's intemperate decisions, inability to acknowledge gross errors, abuse of powers (including oversight) to suppress criticism of their decisions, attempts to provoke the Wikimedia Foundation to confrontation and regulatory capture by trolls has led to palpable fear in its checkusers and oversighters, dismay and disgust from Foundation staff, and unwillingness of everyday editors to deal with them in any manner.

I aim to start on remedying this, to welcome reviews of past terrible decisions and to try to restore the reputation of English Wikipedia and of the Committee itself. No-one running for re-election should get your vote.

I hope you will look at those rerunning, contemplate their decisions over the past year and vote accordingly.

Alternate account: User:Querulous, an example account I created in 2005.

Translation:
I was almost desysoped for using my tools while involved in a drama diva case.
You should totally vote for me cause I'm a giant douchebag.

[dogbiscuit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Statement

David Gerard

I have been in and around Wikipedia and Wikimedia since 2004. I was on the Arbitration Committee in 2005, and I know the awful things the arbcom has to deal with. I have represented Wikipedia and Wikimedia (WMF, WMUK and the movement in general) as a volunteer press contact since 2005. I know this place, I know what it's for and I've represented it to the world for the past nine years.

I worry about the reputation of English Wikipedia in the wider world, with the strange and disturbing decisions of the Arbitration Committee in the past few years, and particularly in the last year.

We see the reputation of the English Wikipedia dragged through the mud by bad Arbitration Committee decisions. We are the number six website in the world, with huge social power and responsibility. Remember that these people's actions do in fact speak for the encyclopedia, and for you.

The Arbitration Committee's intemperate decisions, inability to acknowledge gross errors, abuse of powers (including oversight) to suppress criticism of their decisions, attempts to provoke the Wikimedia Foundation to confrontation and regulatory capture by trolls has led to palpable fear in its checkusers and oversighters, dismay and disgust from Foundation staff, and unwillingness of everyday editors to deal with them in any manner.

I aim to start on remedying this, to welcome reviews of past terrible decisions and to try to restore the reputation of English Wikipedia and of the Committee itself. No-one running for re-election should get your vote.

I hope you will look at those rerunning, contemplate their decisions over the past year and vote accordingly.

Alternate account: User:Querulous, an example account I created in 2005.

Translation:
I was almost desysoped for using my tools while involved in a drama diva case.
You should totally vote for me cause I'm a giant douchebag.

A real "Hasten the Day!" candidate - I am sure we can make it clear to all and sundry that we support him for ArbCom and why.

In terms of administrative ability, perhaps WMUK Mk I would be a useful example of how well he and his partner/wife/girlfriend/whatever were able to manage a piffling little organisation that was.

Gerard for TrollCom! Vote early and vote often - your sockmaster needs you!

[Vigilant]

What are the requirements for voting in an ARBCOM election?

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

attempts to provoke the Wikimedia Foundation to confrontation

Is Gerard referring to Arbcom's contemplation of banning WMF community liaison Oliver Keyes / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) / Ironholds (T-C-L)?

[EricBarbour]

What are the requirements for voting in an ARBCOM election?

No one knows, except maybe the arbitrators themselves. As far as I know, the only "official" requirement is "Voting is open to any editor who had 150 mainspace (article) edits" and isn't blocked.

They put it to a "votey vote" in 2011, a big messy mess. Otherwise your guess is as good as anyone's. No matter what the "rules" are, people abuse them anyway.

If you need a real laugh, read the 2009 proposal to bring back "secret voting".

This is why Gerard's candidacy is so very, very funny. He was partly responsible for building this mess, and now he claims he can "fix" it.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

BWilkins announced a candidacy to stop ... [David Gerard] from being elected.

BWilkins has made mistakes and may not be optimized for Arbcom, but my feeling is that he tries to be honest and has some recognition of complexity, so he deserves to represent the law-and-order concerns of editors.
(My 2013 Arbcom Election guide suggested BWilkins and also Fram, for similar reasons.)

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates&diff=582291525:

== Banned candidates ==

Phil Sandifer is considering running. Can someone post his statement for him, or is there an already set-out procedure? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates&diff=582294135&oldid=582293439:

:: I recall Lir ran ... there's also got to be something about last-second hellbans JUST BEFORE nominations open - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
:: If he's ludicrously implausible, there's no reason not to let him run. But if he's even slightly plausble, then really ... you have to let him - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This election is turning into a big joke.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Hi. I'm Isarra, I like pie

Got my vote!

[The Joy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates&diff=582291525:

== Banned candidates ==

Phil Sandifer is considering running. Can someone post his statement for him, or is there an already set-out procedure? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates&diff=582294135&oldid=582293439:

:: I recall Lir ran ... there's also got to be something about last-second hellbans JUST BEFORE nominations open - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
:: If he's ludicrously implausible, there's no reason not to let him run. But if he's even slightly plausble, then really ... you have to let him - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This election is turning into a big joke.

[Randy from Boise]

One candidate for arbcom is the same as any other candidate. If you think this oneis worse than any of the others then don't vote for the arsehole.

Any of them actually edit content? It does not look like it, from a quick glance. Considering the state of the content on en.Wikipedia, I don't know if this is a good or bad thing.

Ideally arbitrators would have some experience in conflict resolution, litigation, or even arbitration. Problems is that it's been a loooooong time since such people could have passed an RFA.

New York Brad is perfect — he's a lawyer.

Need more lawyers.

RfB

Is this your own version of The Onion?
I'm having trouble telling whether you're serious or not.

I am very serious, although I see how you could read that like I'm being a sarcastic fuck here...

NYB is money as an Arb. There are moments of lucidity from a few of the others (Salvio is good, too, actually)... On the whole the current ArbCom is sort of like a bunch of drunks with shotguns on roller skates...

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

[/quote]

Comrade Debs!!!


RfB

[Triptych]

I tell you this GregJackP guys brings the excitement! I noticed him answering a candidate question where he says he was fired for complications from what Wikipedia calls "outing" and then he did a lawsuit!

I had been outed by a previously banned editor, defamed by a number of off-wiki individuals, and suffered consequences at work resulting in my termination. As a consequence, I filed a defamation lawsuit which included an active editor and was appropriately blocked for the duration of the case.

He's also casting a critical eye on his own past actions ("I was disruptive, battleground, cherrypicking sources") which is appealing to those who value that sort of self-appraisal, in fact it's almost to an extent where he's beating himself up about it.

[Triptych]

Kraxler seems potentially awesome, he's a mammoth content creator. He says he's a grandpa (which is not to say senior, a lot of guys are grandpas by 45 or 49). He's originally from Germany and now living in New York state. We have to keep him in the "developing" category for now though, because he hasn't answered any questions.

Kraxler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... es#Kraxler.

[Poetlister]

People survive scandals. Grover Cleveland was elected despite a huge fuss about an illegitimate child.

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/David_Gerard&diff=582435029&oldid=582434567:

David's competent and dedicated, and has the right kind of drive to change the character of ArbCom in exactly the way it needs. [[User:Eithin|Eithin]] ([[User talk:Eithin|talk]]) 21:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. "Competence and dedication" aren't the reasons Eithin is supporting Gerard. Eithin is supporting Gerard out of self-interest and personal bias. They're on the same side; that's the only reason he or she is supporting Gerard. Eithin never interacted with Gerard on-wiki, yet Eithin is expecting us to believe that he or she is an expert on Gerard's "competence and dedication".

[EricBarbour]

Bullshit. "Competence and dedication" aren't the reasons Eithin is supporting Gerard. Eithin is supporting Gerard out of self-interest and personal bias. They're on the same side; that's the only reason he or she is supporting Gerard. Eithin never interacted with Gerard on-wiki, yet Eithin is expecting us to believe that he or she is an expert on Gerard's "competence and dedication".

I was going to call Eithin a sock, and he might still be a sock. Supposedly he's this guy, but that site disappeared a few years ago and there's no way to verify his identity.

[Michaeldsuarez]

I was going to call Eithin a sock, and he might still be a sock. Supposedly he's this guy, but that site disappeared a few years ago and there's no way to verify his identity.

No, only that webpage ("bio.html") disappeared; the website itself (eithin.co.uk) is still publicly accessible.

[tarantino]

I was going to call Eithin a sock, and he might still be a sock. Supposedly he's this guy, but that site disappeared a few years ago and there's no way to verify his identity.

https://twitter.com/Eithin

Somhairle Kelly
@Eithin
East London artist, jeweller, designer-maker. Anthropomorphic raven. Queer, disabled, trans*, leftish.

http://www.eithin.com/biography/
http://www.etsy.com/people/Eithin
http://www.flickr.com/people/ravenmagic/

Somhairle? I guess Sam is Eithin's slave name.

[everyking]

Unlike some of the people here, I actually believe in Wikipedia, and it would be a disaster for the project if someone like Gerard were to be elected. He was one of the main people responsible for making the atmosphere on Wikipedia so cliquish and poisonous and utterly unencylopedic, running off countless contributors and causing the project's rapid growth to nosedive. We have made a little progress in recent years, and someone like this would try to drag us kicking and screaming back to the bad old days.

[EricBarbour]

Somhairle Kelly
@Eithin
East London artist, jeweller, designer-maker. Anthropomorphic raven. Queer, disabled, trans*, leftish.

I will bet you any amount of money that "Sam" knows Gerard from the London goth scene.

And EK is right, putting Gerard back on Arbcom will be a disaster. Although I personally think it's too damn late anyway.

[dogbiscuit]

Unlike some of the people here, I actually believe in Wikipedia, and it would be a disaster for the project if someone like Gerard were to be elected. He was one of the main people responsible for making the atmosphere on Wikipedia so cliquish and poisonous and utterly unencylopedic, running off countless contributors and causing the project's rapid growth to nosedive. We have made a little progress in recent years, and someone like this would try to drag us kicking and screaming back to the bad old days.

Agreed. It is worth remembering that the issue that has Gerard so indignant is not about the smooth running of the encyclopedia on every day issues, but his concern about not being able to manipulate the contents of the encyclopedia to suit his own beliefs, where Sue Gardner inappropriately interfered after many years of inappropriately avoiding interfering.

[tarantino]

Somhairle Kelly
@Eithin
East London artist, jeweller, designer-maker. Anthropomorphic raven. Queer, disabled, trans*, leftish.

I will bet you any amount of money that "Sam" knows Gerard from the London goth scene.

And EK is right, putting Gerard back on Arbcom will be a disaster. Although I personally think it's too damn late anyway.

"reddragdiva" "eithin"|"mirrorshard"
About 1,610 results

[Michaeldsuarez]

"reddragdiva" "eithin"|"mirrorshard"
About 1,610 results

So Gerard / Reddragdiva and Eithin / Mirrorshard are friends?

There's something strange about Gerard's and Eithin's contributions on August 22nd, 2013:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Eithin&year=2013&month=11

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20130823000000&contribs=user&target=David_Gerard

Eithin revised every article but the Chelsea Manning article, while Gerard restricted himself to only the Chelsea Manning article and its talk page. Both of them cite "MOS:IDENTITY":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning&diff=569722727

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Eithin&year=2013&month=11

Yet, how did Eithin learn about "MOS:IDENTITY"? He's a relatively inexperienced user, and there's a giant gap in his contributions between September 2010 and August 2013.

A conspiracy theorist would claim that they were working together, perhaps to make Gerard appear more neutral by having him do less.

[Vigilant]

I was going to call Eithin a sock, and he might still be a sock. Supposedly he's this guy, but that site disappeared a few years ago and there's no way to verify his identity.

https://twitter.com/Eithin

Somhairle Kelly
@Eithin
East London artist, jeweller, designer-maker. Anthropomorphic raven. Queer, disabled, trans*, leftish.

http://www.eithin.com/biography/
http://www.etsy.com/people/Eithin
http://www.flickr.com/people/ravenmagic/

Somhairle? I guess Sam is Eithin's slave name.

Just a different type of hat collector.

[Captain Occam]

I had been hoping Roger Davies wasn’t going to run for re-election this year. He is the arbitrator I was referring to in my initial post in this thread, and what I was referring to specifically is that he’s the arbitrator who prevented the rest of them from doing anything about Mathsci for more than a year. He also is the arbitrator who drafted the first one-way interaction bans preventing other editors from criticizing Mathsci, against SightWatcher (T-C-L) and TrevelyanL85A2 (T-C-L). Until at least the end of last year, he refused to take responsibility for the problems his actions in this area had caused. (See this comment.) He knows Mathsci in real life, so what this looks like it was is an example of arbitrator cronyism.

I know that in the past few months he eventually changed his mind about this, when it was clear that all of the other arbitrators felt some action about Mathsci was required, but he is responsible for all of the harm that was caused by delaying this for a year. If he had allowed this issue issue to be resolved when it first came to ArbCom in July 2012, instead of persuading the other arbitrators to not do anything about it until October 2013, all of the following things could’ve been avoided: TrevelyanL85A2’s interaction ban being gamed until he was blocked in September 2012, Deltahedron being driven off Wikipedia in May 2013, and probably also Cla68 having where he lives and works first publicized in October 2013. Any arbitrator whose actions have led to this much of a problem needs to be held to account for it, just like the U.S. Congress members who caused the government shutdown will be held to account for that in the next congressional election.

[enwikibadscience]

I had been hoping Roger Davies wasn’t going to run for re-election this year. He is the arbitrator I was referring to in my initial post in this thread, and what I was referring to specifically is that he’s the arbitrator who prevented the rest of them from doing anything about Mathsci for more than a year. He also is the arbitrator who drafted the first one-way interaction bans preventing other editors from criticizing Mathsci, against SightWatcher (T-C-L) and TrevelyanL85A2 (T-C-L). Until at least the end of last year, he refused to take responsibility for the problems his actions in this area had caused. (See this comment.) He knows Mathsci in real life, so what this looks like it was is an example of arbitrator cronyism.

I know that in the past few months he eventually changed his mind about this, when it was clear that all of the other arbitrators felt some action about Mathsci was required, but he is responsible for all of the harm that was caused by delaying this for a year. If he had allowed this issue issue to be resolved when it first came to ArbCom in July 2012, instead of persuading the other arbitrators to not do anything about it until October 2013, all of the following things could’ve been avoided: TrevelyanL85A2’s interaction ban being gamed until he was blocked in September 2012, Deltahedron being driven off Wikipedia in May 2013, and probably also Cla68 having where he lives and works first publicized in October 2013. Any arbitrator whose actions have led to this much of a problem needs to be held to account for it, just like the U.S. Congress members who caused the government shutdown will be held to account for that in the next congressional election.

Who ever took responsibility for anything on en.Wikipedia?

I rewrote the CrossFit article when I started removing copyvios, just following the directions on the template, and the only reason the en.Wikipedia article vomit wasn't replaced with the rewrite is because the administrator, Darkwind (T-C-L), who bragged of his prowess in handling copyright violations, was too lazy and incompetent to look at the template and see the rewrite, and because the CrossFit crew spotted a sucker child administrator when they saw one, and, instead of going through channels, appealed to him personally.

MathSci was never stupid; he knew that, unlike the supposed intent of the stupid cease and desist letter demanding the WikiPR obey community consensus, that community consensus is meaningless, and, you are only expected to follow consensus when someone with more power than you demands it of you.

Wikipedia peabrains like Roger Davis and Darkwind live by this lack of rules and policies being applied for them, and they favor their friends and paid COI editors who appeal to them; and, because it's en.Wikipedia, no one is responsible for the mistakes. The CrossFit article is now a full blown flyer for CrossFit, courtesy of Darkwind, the expert on copyright violations who doesn't understand how the template works. MathSci was allowed to poison en.Wikipedia for much longer than necessary because of Roger Davis, apparently. (Actually, math articles on en.Wikipedia are incomprehensible and meaningless due largely to MathSci.) Par for the course.

[IRWolfie-]

I've stopped editing wikipedia now, but I will comment anyway:

Seraphimblade seems to be by far the most competent in the list. I've interacted with him at AE; he's an admin that actually takes the time to look at the evidence presented and isn't legalistic in the way Sandstein is (which can be beneficial in its own way, just not for ArbCom) .

AGK seems to be generally an inoffensive candidate as far as I can see, although he was in favour of making arbcom more opaque with regards to the votes surrounding unblocking people (i.e against giving straw poll information)

Kww would serve an extremely useful role in weeding out the pseudoscience proponents although he does seem to exude a "don't fuck with me" attitude (personally I think this style is beneficial in moderation).

28bytes I've seen competently patrolling ANEW a good bit, but I've no idea what he/she would be like in more involved cases.

Arthur Rubin is good on some fringe topics, but he's also a climate change denier, like GregJackP and was involved in pushing an American conservative POV during the time of the last US election (and was involved in the ensuing drama). During Josh's unblock request GregJackP couldn't bury the hatchet and go away. The sort of person who holds grudges against people for years should be unelectable. He's also a climate change denialist. Would you want someone like that in the highest position of authority in an encyclopedia?

LFaraone only became active again very recently after several years of absence, and was extremely rusty. He made some strange AfD closure decisions, and made OTRS actions very opaquely (see the history at Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur) (T-H-L) where he made an edit on behalf of a fringe proponent, then afterwards reverted another editor claiming it was OTRS, etc).

Bwilkins can't control his temper and was personally rebuked by Jimbo for it, I don't think that's a compatible personality for an Arb.

Kevin Gorman is an adamant feminist seemingly with the world view that entails. Trying to discuss things with him was like discussing with a wall.

The other candidates I don't know in sufficient detail to say anything one way or the other.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

I've stopped editing wikipedia now, but I will comment anyway:

Seraphimblade seems to be by far the most competent in the list. I've interacted with him at AE; he's an admin that actually takes the time to look at the evidence presented and isn't legalistic in the way Sandstein is (which can be beneficial in its own way, just not for ArbCom) .

AGK seems to be generally an inoffensive candidate as far as I can see, although he was in favour of making arbcom more opaque with regards to the votes surrounding unblocking people (i.e against giving straw poll information)

Kww would serve an extremely useful role in weeding out the pseudoscience proponents although he does seem to exude a "don't fuck with me" attitude (personally I think this style is beneficial in moderation).

28bytes I've seen competently patrolling ANEW a good bit, but I've no idea what he/she would be like in more involved cases.

Arthur Rubin is good on some fringe topics, but he's also a climate change denier, like GregJackP and was involved in pushing an American conservative POV during the time of the last US election (and was involved in the ensuing drama). During Josh's unblock request GregJackP couldn't bury the hatchet and go away. The sort of person who holds grudges against people for years should be unelectable. He's also a climate change denialist. Would you want someone like that in the highest position of authority in an encyclopedia?

LFaraone only became active again very recently after several years of absence, and was extremely rusty. He made some strange AfD closure decisions, and made OTRS actions very opaquely (see the history at Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur) (T-H-L) where he made an edit on behalf of a fringe proponent, then afterwards reverted another editor claiming it was OTRS, etc).

Bwilkins can't control his temper and was personally rebuked by Jimbo for it, I don't think that's a compatible personality for an Arb.

Kevin Gorman is an adamant feminist seemingly with the world view that entails. Trying to discuss things with him was like discussing with a wall.

The other candidates I don't know in sufficient detail to say anything one way or the other.

AGK is dangerous as an arbitrator, but he does seem to be able to behave with the appearance of a reasonable person almost all the time, so given the terrible candidates this year, he might be worth supporting.

I would rather support GeorgeWilliamHerbert, who is more intelligent and who tries to practice dispute resolution by discussion (at times) rather than only using threats and policy quotations. Herbert is weak on reminding administrators like Bishonen of WP:Civility---or perhaps he realizes the futility of such reminders.

As an arbitrator, Kww would be even more likely to block writers even in the midst of ANI discussions and would be less likely to be overturned by other administrators. (He does have some good qualities.)

28Bytes is good-hearted but risk averse, at least compared to Floquenbeam.

Courcelles recused himself from the Ironholds arbitration case only after I noted that he was chatting amiably (under another name, although he was addressed as "Courcelles") by Ironholds or Fluffernutter (if my memory be correct). This strikes me as dishonest; c.f., less involved, sane arbitrators like Nuclear Warfare and Newyorkbrad recusing for trivial reasons.

Kevin Gorman hangs out at IRC too much. He is the one who collects the bizarre (often sexual) quotes from Ironholds et alia on Wikimedia Foundation, so his maturity has been nearly junior-high level; perhaps now he is reaching high-school maturity? In my experience, Kevin has been decent as an administrator, but his writings about gender and philosophy seem to promote feminist mediocrities, while ignoring e.g. the weak biography of Susan Haack. However, he seems to be working with the WMF, and should be opposed on that alone. (It is usual for staffpersons to capture non-profits subtly and with moderation, but the WMF staff has been making unseemly power grabs lately, and should be slapped back before its dependents over-run volunteers.)

Is Arthur Rubin a denialist or does he worry about jumping to conclusions prematurely? Until 2008, most global models assumed that temperature data was spatially independent---which obviously screws up the statistical conclusions. Most of us shifted to the climate-change believer side before 2008.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Arthur Rubin is good on some fringe topics, but he's also a climate change denier, like GregJackP and was involved in pushing an American conservative POV during the time of the last US election (and was involved in the ensuing drama). During Josh's unblock request GregJackP couldn't bury the hatchet and go away. The sort of person who holds grudges against people for years should be unelectable. He's also a climate change denialist. Would you want someone like that in the highest position of authority in an encyclopedia?

In my opinion, Arthur Rubin ties with David Gerard as the worse candidates running. There's some scary stuff in Arthur Rubin's candidacy statement:

I think some of the members of ArbCom have lost sight of the concept that the purpose of Wikipedia is to add and maintain content, and that those who discourage the addition of content, whether or not otherwise meeting the guidelines, are not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. These include both POV-pushers and those who insult other Wikipedians, whether or not the insult is deserved.

My only exception to that is that, if an editor is blocked, I am willing to see that his or her edits do not make it into Wikipedia, even if otherwise good.

Arbitrator NuclearWarfare says the following about Arthur Rubin:

Subject to an active sanction in ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement]]'' (2013) which I think was deserved. There was also a problem in ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking]]'' (2009) and was appropriately admonished by ArbCom. </small>(Unsure if there is any connection between him and [[User:CalendarWatcher]], which I believed at one point but am not sure of.)</small> But the bigger issue with Arthur Rubin's editing is not that ArbCom remedies have been passed against him multiple times, but rather that his editing was repeatedly problematic. I cannot trust him to adequately judge and sanction POV pushers and other disruptive editors.

[Volunteer Marek]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volu ... epositions

[Zoloft]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volu ... epositions

I always pay attention to your positions. You are a good judge of personalities.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volu ... epositions

Excellent work!

Nonetheless Floquenbeam (T-C-L) and 28Bytes (T-C-L) deserve more support.

In suggesting blocking my access to my talk page to stop criticism of himself, Richwales (T-C-L) was only openly practicing authoritarianism as an apprentice --- "the shark bites with his teeth, dear, scarlet billows start to spread".AGK (T-C-L) (journeyman) and Roger Davies (T-C-L) (master) banned me for 12 months also to stop my criticism of themselves --- "fancy gloves wears [Arbcom], so there is never a trace of red". The brash stupidity of Beeblebrox (T-C-L) makes him one of the worst candidates, much worse than some of the other candidates who wish to make example of Eric Corbett (T-C-L) (e.g., Kww (T-C-L), Arthur Rubin (T-C-L), etc.).

Dumber than even Kurtis (T-C-L) (formerly Master&Servant (T-C-L)) and at the level of Pink&Ampersand (T-C-L) or (Mattise (T-C-L) sock) Matthew Townshend (T-C-L)....

[Anroth]

You dont need to make an example of Eric, he has managed to do that himself for years....

[enwikibadscience]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volu ... epositions

Excellent work!

Nonetheless Floquenbeam (T-C-L) and 28Bytes (T-C-L) deserve more support.

In suggesting blocking my access to my talk page to stop criticism of himself, Richwales (T-C-L) was only openly practicing authoritarianism as an apprentice --- "the shark bites with his teeth, dear, scarlet billows start to spread".AGK (T-C-L) (journeyman) and Roger Davies (T-C-L) (master) banned me for 12 months also to stop my criticism of themselves --- "fancy gloves wears [Arbcom], so there is never a trace of red". The brash stupidity of Beeblebrox (T-C-L) makes him one of the worst candidates, much worse than some of the other candidates who wish to make example of Eric Corbett (T-C-L) (e.g., Kww (T-C-L), Arthur Rubin (T-C-L), etc.).

Dumber than even Kurtis (T-C-L) (formerly Master&Servant (T-C-L)) and at the level of Pink&Ampersand (T-C-L) or (Mattise (T-C-L) sock) Matthew Townshend (T-C-L)....

Thanks, Mack!

[Poetlister]

Seraphimblade is a nasty piece of work and I shall certainly oppose him. If Eric wants details in confidence, happy to oblige.

[Newyorkbrad]

c.f., less involved, sane arbitrators like ... Newyorkbrad recusing for trivial reasons.

I don't think it would be useful to rehash your case at any length, but since you've mentioned me and we can't discuss the point on-wiki, I'll respond here. After I initially recused on your case because of our prior interactions, you posted that you didn't think I needed to recuse. Based on that, I was considering the possibility of treating my recusal as waived ... and then, the day after you suggested I should participate in the case as an active arbitrator, you requested that I be added as a party to the case. It was at that point that I dropped any consideration of "unrecusing," because it's obviously inconsistent that I could be both an active arbitrator in a case and a party to the case.

[EricBarbour]

Seraphimblade is a nasty piece of work and I shall certainly oppose him. If Eric wants details in confidence, happy to oblige.

Are you serious, or are you just pissed off because SB went around chasing your sockpuppets?

And isn't it a little silly to vote against him three times in his second RFA, using socks? Hmm?

[The Adversary]

Seraphimblade is a nasty piece of work and I shall certainly oppose him. If Eric wants details in confidence, happy to oblige.

Are you serious, or are you just pissed off because SB went around chasing your sockpuppets?

And isn't it a little silly to vote against him three times in his second RFA, using socks? Hmm?

On another note; Georgewilliamherbert (T-C-L) just earned himself a big NO from me, thanks to this.

Here we have an editor, who spreads lies and falsehoods in the Israel/Palestine arena, and Georgewilliamherbert refuse to sanction her, saying "Indivdual POV is not a crime." Apparently there is no rule agains inserting plain falsehoods into "The encyclopedia".

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

c.f., less involved, sane arbitrators like ... Newyorkbrad recusing for trivial reasons.

I don't think it would be useful to rehash your case at any length, but since you've mentioned me and we can't discuss the point on-wiki, I'll respond here. After I initially recused on your case because of our prior interactions, you posted that you didn't think I needed to recuse. Based on that, I was considering the possibility of treating my recusal as waived ... and then, the day after you suggested I should participate in the case as an active arbitrator, you requested that I be added as a party to the case. It was at that point that I dropped any consideration of "unrecusing," because it's obviously inconsistent that I could be both an active arbitrator in a case and a party to the case.

Thanks for the further explanation.

In the days of 2013 Arbcom, it quickly came to pass that I was not allowed to add parties to the case, particularly not Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned.

[Poetlister]

Seraphimblade is a nasty piece of work and I shall certainly oppose him. If Eric wants details in confidence, happy to oblige.

Are you serious?

I thought that you were trying to get information on candidates; if you don't want to, that's OK with me.

[EricBarbour]

Seraphimblade is a nasty piece of work and I shall certainly oppose him. If Eric wants details in confidence, happy to oblige.

Are you serious?

I thought that you were trying to get information on candidates; if you don't want to, that's OK with me.

Okay, let's see what you have. SB has not been the focus of any major arbitrations or other messes, but there could be things I'm missing.

[enwikibadscience]

Seraphimblade is a nasty piece of work and I shall certainly oppose him. If Eric wants details in confidence, happy to oblige.

Are you serious, or are you just pissed off because SB went around chasing your sockpuppets?

And isn't it a little silly to vote against him three times in his second RFA, using socks? Hmm?

On another note; Georgewilliamherbert (T-C-L) just earned himself a big NO from me, thanks to this.

Here we have an editor, who spreads lies and falsehoods in the Israel/Palestine arena, and Georgewilliamherbert refuse to sanction her, saying "Indivdual POV is not a crime." Apparently there is no rule agains inserting plain falsehoods into "The encyclopedia".

Well editors are making up science to win the WikiCup, with the full knowledge and blessing of the en.Wikipedia community, so what if there is not only no rule against inserting falsehoods, but they also go on the main page.

[SB_Johnny]

Seraphimblade is a nasty piece of work and I shall certainly oppose him. If Eric wants details in confidence, happy to oblige.

Are you serious?

I thought that you were trying to get information on candidates; if you don't want to, that's OK with me.

Okay, let's see what you have. SB has not been the focus of any major arbitrations or other messes, but there could be things I'm missing.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're witnessing the flirtation of two people who have a habit of trying to bring it to a 1 on 1 correspondence to prove that they're perfectly sane, nice guys. This mating ritual may never have been seen by the public before.

(For the record, I think they're both nice guys, if perhaps a bit loopy.)

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elonka/ACE2013

Code: Select all

# {{usercheck|Beeblebrox}} <small>• [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions|questions]] </small>
#: <font color="red">'''Weak oppose.'''</font> Has administrator and oversight access. I opposed him last year due to lack of experience in dispute resolution, and insufficient content work (no FA or GAs). Has a few DYKs. He's done a lot of good work on the project, but also appears to be somewhat controversial. I looked a bit into the situation where [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeeblebrox he was blocked on Meta] and do have to admit concern with some of his statements there.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=3473569] He seems to have an interesting combination of both qualities that would make a great arb, and qualities that give me concern.

Elonka, I'm not sure how much you know about what happened at Meta, but do you understand that the persons responsible for the block, WizardOfOz and Nemo bis, were awful sysops and neither of them should have blocked Beeblebrox? WizardOfOz couldn't handle criticism over the block, so he or she had his or her account temporarily globally locked during a temper tantrum. WizardOfOz failed to have his or her former sysop rights restored to him or her, and Nemo bis lost his or her sysop rights a year later.

In addition, Nemo bis was clearly baiting Beeblebrox in that diff that you provided, and Beeblebrox had fair reason to be upset after all the grief and abuse Nemo bis and others gave him or her.

People should admire, or at least appreciate, what Beeblebrox did at Meta. He or she was a stranger in a land that was somewhat hostile to strangers, especially strangers from enwiki, yet he or she wasn't afraid to speak his or her mind, make comments about right and wrong, and stand up to abuse and injustice.