v t e 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter Log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Quick guide Candidates: Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Personal voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Tryptofish Smallbones There'sNoTime Elonka Collect Boing! TParis Ealdgyth DeltaQuad Gerda Feminist Carrite Barkeep49 Guerillero

This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2018. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018.

Please endeavor to remain calm and respectful at all times, even when dealing with people you disagree with or candidates you do not support.

Fred wrote : "For example, suggestions such as "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." are unlikely to make women feel welcome."

I'm annoyed by this because people keep quoting it out of context. The specific post in question is this one from Eric Corbett towards Lightbreather and includes fair comment such as "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce .... incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me." which tends to get left out in favour of the bit with the "juicy word" in it. The wider discussion was about a Civility Board, following the shut down of Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance in 2012.

The fall out from this comment ultimately caused three arbitration cases : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. In retrospect, would it not have been easier to ignore the terse language and focus on the underlying point made in the post; namely that civility is too often in the eyes of the beholder, and hence trying to find a solution that keeps the project on track is very difficult?

Finally, Lightbreather did not quit Wikipedia because Eric used the word "cunt" (his comment is not directed at anyone so to say he called anyone that is factually incorrect), she left because she was banned by the Arbitration Committee. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

To be fair, I did once call Jimmy Wales a "dishonest cunt" on his talk page. But despite all of the bad press surrounding that word I used it very sparingly, never considered it to be a gender-based insult any more than "dick" is, and never used it to or to describe any woman. Obviously though the myth is more interesting than the facts. Eric Corbett 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

To be fair also, Fred's own comment here is unlikely to make women feel welcome in the conversation. He isn't calling anybody a cunt either, but I'm not sure using the word to make a remark more "colourful" (juicy?) or "memorable" is any better. As you can see, I still remember it after all these years. It was a bit off-putting. Laddish. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC). reply

I understand that you found it to be "laddish", but I don't agree that makes it so. Eric Corbett 22:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Eric Corbett: If you think yourself better placed than me to evaluate its chilling effect on women, that's fine. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC). reply

What conceit is it that leads you to believe that you speak for all women? Or even for most women? Eric Corbett 01:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that a woman is probably better placed to speak about how women feel about issues affecting women than a man would be. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Of course that comment could have a chilling effect. It was laddish and certainly boorish. I wasn't going to comment here, but reading it again I just couldn't ignore it. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, just don't expect me to share it. Eric Corbett 18:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I have to say that his response to my question about his spat on the questions page did not impress me. It failed to address the main concern (how he felt that any angry and insulting tirade against another user) was in keeping with the tone and attitudes an arbcom member must have (well I hope would have). In fact his response to me was faintly dismissive. This is a shame as I would like to see civility more strongly enforced (which was his stated aim), I am just not sure it can be done by someone who themselves seems to ignore our civility rules when tyhey feel it is justified (the very attitude I think we need to tackle with greater vehemency). Slatersteven ( talk) 11:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

And the latest bit of self serving abuses of admin privileges means I am not not sure he should even be an admin. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relating to the opening thread of this discussion, I saw this comment this evening, where Tony Robinson called Donald Trump a cunt, and there seem to be plenty of women supporting him, including one saying "Not a c*** as he is neither deep enough or warm enough. What he is is a strong and potent case for celibacy!!" I'm all for improved civility here, but bashing people over the head for "bad words" just does not work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Ritchie333, a discussion about laddishness isn't helped by posting more of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Laddishness? From Sir Tony Robinson? He said upfront that such language was usually unacceptable, but then posted an example of when he thought it wasn't and got a large endorsement (although admittedly from a rather loud echo chamber). Still, it proves that people are perfectly capable of throwing "c bombs" when the situation mandates it, irrespective of gender. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have to say although it's unlikely I would have voted since I haven't for quite a few cycles now, I actually feel quite strongly about civility and that our current extremely lax enforcement is putting off a lot of editors. If I was going solely from the statements, I would have put Fred Bauder near the top of my list. I barely recognise the name, so had no initial opinions, and it probably doesn't help that the only reason I'm here is because of the mess that blew up on ANI. But I suspect even if I were to completely put aside the circumstances surrounding the de-admining, and even if I were to completely put aside the personal stuff that lead to the end of their career as a lawyer, I would be voting a definite no once I read the question section. What I see is extreme evasiveness, a treatment of anyone who asks a question they don't like an an enemy etc. Maybe some of the questioners don't agree with your platform and views on civility, and maybe their questions are partly as a result of it. It doesn't mean you have to behave so poorly in response. And while it's perhaps a worse after the recent problems where I could understand emotions are now high, I think (I didn't check dates exactly for everything) it's bad enough if I restrict myself to before then. And I'm not happy about this, as I said, what was said in their statement was exactly what we need. I can only hope that this doesn't put future candidates running on a similar platform since it's something we desperately need. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

And to add to the above, an unwillingness to accept any real responsibility for what happened (a mild "I was not alone", as if the other parties were admins, and mainly about how he expected others to do it for him him, in effect it is everyone esles fault). As well as a extraordinary amount of doublespeak, going on about how he will stand up to incivility and aggressive tactics whilst being pretty damn aggressive and uncivil). In fact his responses indicate that if this were to happen again he would not act any differently (even bring in his real life, in a tone of "I have had to fight all my life injustice". As I said above, I agree we need tougher enforcement of civility, but not by people who have a "but not towards me" attitude, not by eds who are this tone deaf to their own failings. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I shall definitely be voting to oppose this Candidate. Totally unsuitable. Morphenniel ( talk) 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• I find this response by the candidate in a back-and-forth with Ceoil to be an entirely inappropriate threat: "I can see that you feel free to act as ugly as you wish here, an assessment which I believe is true. I would change that and enforce Civility. You, should you continue to engage in ugly behavior, would be subject to sanctions, and, if you are unable to control your behavior, which I suspect is true, would not be able to participate on Wikipedia. So, in a way, you are fighting for your life. I understand." Obviously, this candidacy is already sunk to the bottom of the deep blue sea but I would like to register my strong objection nonetheless. Carrite ( talk) 19:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• I don't know this candidate but I like his statement. I don't like the recent drama or that he unblocked himself. I especially don't like it since all the oversights make it hard to understand what he was edit-warring over. Can someone please clarify? Coretheapple ( talk) 22:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Coretheapple The candidate was edit-warring over the questions asked by Boing! said Zebedee, Winged Blades of Godric, and Softlavender, all of which currently appear on the questions page, rather than the questions talk page as was the candidate's aim. The oversighted material was related to the question asked by Eric Corbett, and dated to the 1990s. Snuge purveyor ( talk) 04:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Those questions don't seem very provocative, which makes this entire mess even stranger than I thought. Coretheapple ( talk) 04:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Fred was offering glib and evasive non-answers to questions, or answers that did not properly address the questions, so several people pushed him further on them. He wanted to move those further questions elsewhere under the claim that they were repetitive, were "negative comments" or involved "very strong feelings about me" - as you can see, the questions he was trying to hide were perfectly reasonable. I'm surprised that someone who apparently rejects the concept of probing into inadequately answered questions ever managed to make it as a lawyer. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• So can you please state accuretly and shortly the reasons why we should not elect user:Fred Bauder ? Alan347 ( talk) 12:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

You can essentially choose what to be offended by out of a list of things:

• Hostile and inconsiderate conduct on the candidate's question page.
• Removing questions from the candidate's question page.
• Edit warring to continue removing questions.
• Being blocked for removing questions and poor conduct.
• Unblocking himself repeatedly.
• Some real-life ethics violation as a lawyer.
• A remark about a female editor's sexual organs in 2006.

I don't claim this list to be conclusive, and with the last point I'm not expanding further because I don't want to get it wrong and it's a serious allegation. Not only does Bauder deserve not to be chosen for the Committee, he should break a record for the lowest support received. If he is actually chosen for the Committee then surely it would be untenable. I may add more to the list. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• I haven't looked into past editing or ArbCom contributions, but I have some issues from the above that haven't been refuted. I have withheld (stopped the process I began) !voting because these things concern me. I "just" found these things out so this must be taken into consideration that I do not know "the big picture", but candidate voting has a deadline.
  • 1)- Unacceptable words: Being from America the use of what has been referred to as the "C-bomb" is considered a horrible word. The article correctly states "unsuitable for normal public discourse". If it is used towards a woman it is demeaning no matter in what context and "should be" considered the most atrocious form of personal attack. If used against a male it would be the lowest form of of verbal placement, that somehow reflects that the victim is lower than a female, which leans to the inappropriate placement of a female in a discussion where involvement is not warranted. While it may be considered alright to sling a shock word at someone in some countries claiming it is just another word like "dick" it should be demanded that Wikipedia take a hard line on this. The ability to wikilawyer using words considered offensive to even one person, let alone a majority of a country, and defend it or attempt to downplay the incident, does not lessen the potential harm. Any attempts to define civility on Wikipedia would seem to dictate avoiding the use of derogatory words directed at anyone (directly or in some passing mention or reference), as an egregious personal attack. There are words to use when objecting to deemed verbosity that does not have to include vulgar references. Wikipedia does forbid the use of some words that have been declared an insult to certain classes. "Slinging" the "N-word" towards another, would bring harsh results. It would not matter if it was a white person in talk-page dialog with another white person with reference to one being "poor white trash". The above incident of uncivil word-bombing apparently happened in 2006 (I believe) but with the current push for recruiting more female editors, and certainly not running any off, this should be an admitted wrong choice of wording at best. There is a move in this country to remove statues and monuments to Confederate "heroes" because they owned slaves. Trump (sorry, not meaning to offend) made comments concerning if Mount Rushmore National Memorial would be a next target. Some things just don't "go away", can resurface, and should be dealt with when and if they do.
  • Plea: Please do not use or advance the acceptance of this word on Wikipedia! The word should be considered by all as "unsuitable for normal public discourse". The rights of others should be considered paramount concerning civility and I cannot see this as unreasonable.
  • 2)- Unblocking himself repeatedly: I don't know the circumstances, and haven't looked, but the mentioning of "self-unblocking" (among some of the other accusations mentioned above that hasn't received any responses) is disturbing. I don't care what the explanation; there is a presumed COI, as well as concerns of impropriety, and even questions of abuse of power. If this has happened, and is acceptable to other editors, Admins, or ArbCom members, even if deemed not some violation, I am flabbergasted. It would be too easy to follow what I "assumed" would be standard Wikipedia protocol, of an understandable need of recusal to perform such self-action, and just too easy to get someone else to do it for transparency. The fact that mention of this coincides with these proceedings and the below "Official statement" would make it seem, if this has happened, that the candidate should wish for quick resolution or withdraw pending resolution. If some of the above statements are unfounded then this should be brought to light as a personal attack.
  • 3)- Hiding questions: Someone can ask Hillary (sorry again) about "avoiding questions, trying to hide, or otherwise cover them up. At the VERY least, what might be considered an inappropriate question to the target person does not give reason to hide them in any form. It would be too easy to get agreement that such questions were in fact not relevant, or just some attack, and should be stricken through and comments to that effect supplied. From my understanding moving or hiding another editors comments is inappropriate and concerning questions in this case begs the question "why"? Questions of a "candidate" would be "fair game" and if more join in (several people pushed him further on them) that would be the definition of consensus building for answers and where else would be more appropriate?. This would be as long as there were no "group" cabal efforts to discredit the candidate. As I understand it we have processes to deal with that and it would back-fire.
• Admins nor ArbCom members should be seen as placing themselves "above the law" so I would like to see some action, either to explain, discredit, or sanctions against anyone wishing to harm Wikipedia. I would think allegations from 2006 would either need resolution for any continued trust, or the editor realizing that more than one other editor has exhibited disdain for certain actions. I feel, at the very least, acknowledgement should be offered especially if questions of incivility are offered concerning a candidate running on such a platform. Civility needs to be a core concern of Wikipedia as it is one of the Five pillars. If answering questions is too hard then I would wonder the trust that fairness could be extended as an ArbCom member? Why not be transparent and civil. This is an English Wikipedia so words that offend anyone, anywhere, should be considered inappropriate. Otr500 ( talk) 15:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Onetwothreeip and Otr500: You have both made suggestions that Fred has made unacceptable sexual comments/insults - Onetwothreeip, you spoke of "A remark about a female editor's sexual organs in 2006"; and Otr500, you suggest that Fred has used the "C-bomb". Do either of you have evidence to substantiate your accusations? If not, I think you should remove them. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Boing! said Zebedee, I suppose they were referring to my comment higher up on this page and the diff I posted there. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC). reply

• Ah, understood, thanks. I hadn't seen that. It's a very unpleasant thing to say, and especially chilling coming from a man who claims to be championing civility! Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I want to make clear that every point I made about Fred Bauder is something that I have seen for myself. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

It would have made it easier for those without the time/knowledge, that sees the above reasoning not to elect, to follow diffs and the person that has "personally seen them" would be more likely to know where they were without a lengthy investigation. Although I did "follow the link" I agree with @ Boing! said Zebedee: Otr500 ( talk) 15:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment Reading through his questions page as well as this page, I am in a bit of a shock. It appears that Fred has been provoked. I believe citing a real-life case that ruined his career was inappropriate. We are not supposed to even know his real name, are we? Also quoting his comment (clearly inappropriate) from 12 years ago, is also inappropriate. Who has never made a mistake? It does appear that some other questions were strange, such as referring to mailing lists most of us know nothing about. When I was active on Wikipedia, I thought Fred was always an model Wikipedia functionary, thoughtful and balanced. But his question page suggests he currently lacks a temperament to be an arbitrator, and running on the civility platform at that! BorisG ( talk) 17:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Firm Support I normally don't look at these arbcom things. This Fred guy discussion was interesting. I spent 3 hours trying to figure it out. The comment in question appears to be this comment from him in 2006. Then there is some really recent bumping into some bureaucrats related to people posting personal crap on his talk page from some shitty looking site called the 'encyclopedia dramatica'. Don't bother googling that garbage. I couldn't find anything else 'negative' about this Fred Bauder person. There were some accusations of various POV things but I couldn't find anything in his extensive and long edit history (I spent about 30 minutes going through chunks from each year back to 2014 and then 2010 and then his oldest edits). It just seems run-of-the-mill editing to me. No real theme. No real controversy.

There were lots of new accounts, banned accounts and old accounts that have lots of controversy going after this guy (Fred). That for me is a telling sign. Also many critical accounts of Fred were anonymous accounts or didn't have much information about who the wikipedians were.

If for some reason I had to make a quick judgment and ban all the accounts that were complaining about this Fred guy or ban this Fred guy, I would probably just ban all the other accounts. Long live the wikipedia. Jeff Carr ( talk) 09:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply

What a joke. The issue is his behaviour about answering questions, removing questions, and repeatedly unblocking himself (abusing admin powers), all at the very nomination process for Arbitration Committee election. I note there is no case made about him actually being an arbitrator, just a personal defence. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• VERY Firm Oppose: There are unanswered questions. At the very least the use/acceptance/allowance of words (specifically the one referenced above) should be stopped. I submit most of society has a disdain for, is totally against, or would be offended by use of such words against them. In this instance such a thing has reared it's ugly head concerning civility, requiring attention (it would be assumed) from the candidate (here on this page), and this has been avoided. All of us (editors) can have a bad day but maybe that would be the day to actually go fishing or do something else. The definition of civility is not impossible to define. Webster states: civilized conduct, courtesy, politeness, and defining this as well as abiding by it, since this is a global encyclopedia, should be part of our Five pillars. It is not impossible to define and therefore to enforce. "Incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP" needs to be continually watched and editors, admins, and especially ArbCom should take any allegations serious. If such allegations are unfounded then throw the boomerang. Why do we state we support not biting the newcomer, retaining and certainly not running off female editors, and presenting that this is an encyclopedia "anyone can edit", while directly or indirectly supporting incivility? If we allow that an otherwise outstanding editor (maybe with many edits) be allowed a pass on civility (take these things into account upon consideration), this provides ammunition for wikilawyering. This type of editor oftentimes can get away with being rude, throwing out "shock words", harassing, insulting, intimidating, or outright attacking another editor. This effectively allows those with the ability to game the system a free pass. 5P4 states never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The continued drama of what occurred over the "allowed continued use or even acceptance" of certain words that, without controversy, are considered disparaging terms and even seen as dehumanization, should be ended. I do not support gender specific policies and guidelines on harassment or incivility because it should not matter the race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability of someone being attacked. Do not harass or attack anyone or disrupt Wikipedia is too easy to understand, never ambiguous, and easy to enforce. Warnings, "official" or just in talk page comments, are meant to inform someone there is a problem. Blocks and bans are supposed to be used to stop or prevent ongoing problems. We should not give specific "good 'ole boy" allowances if any editor has been caught going fishing. If these are too hard to follow then there should be, regardless of the editing count or Wikipedia stature or status, concerns of intentions to build an encyclopedia. This would seem to be an easy to understand platform concerning civility. Wikipedia should not ever want to lose any good editor. We even provide "second chances" (but an editor has to own up to things) so we need to either be serious or take ignoring all the "rules" literally. We have "rules" for order and protection. Some editors may espouse chaos but the Wikipedia community as a whole does not. ArbCom is a community entrusted process and I would think we don't need to "send the wrong message". Bureaucracy sometimes can bog things down but maybe an "Unacceptable words" black list should be considered? Otr500 ( talk) 18:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The electoral commission has discussed the issue of Fred Bauder's nomination and agrees that he is to appear on the voting ballot. After discussing the the definition of being in good standing, the committee has opted to consider good standing as "to not be subjects of an active block". Fred's block was lifted before the nomination period was closed, thus his nomination has been restored. Fred Bauder is also reminded that unless the questions outright attack or out users, questions cannot be moved or removed from the candidate's questions page.— CYBERPOWER ( Around) 01:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Presumably this should be WP:OUTING instead. Philipwhiuk ( talk) 11:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, and fixed thanks. -- KTC ( talk) 21:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support: I totally support "It is essential that the Wikipedia community and the Arbitration Committee preserve and maintain the quality of Wikipedia" and a stance against incivility, disruption and undisclosed paid editing, which I think is a detriment to the encyclopedia. I also think "maintaining quality is more important than any expansion of the encyclopedia". Otr500 ( talk) 19:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support: Strong stance on necessary help over WP:UPE. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 13:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support based on answers to my last two questions to the candidate. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I am looking for certain qualities in an Arbitrator. Experience, skills and the right temperament are of course a must. Someone with a great sense of humour especially in stressful situations, yet has the ability to do the job without prejudgement are important qualities too. They must be strong enough to voice their opinions after examining a case thoroughly rather than resting on their laurels and just "going with the flow" or being influenced by other dominant Arbitrators. I need someone who can hold their own and is willing to stand up for what they believe in even if it defers from the majority view. Although the Doctor and I have disagreed on certain things in the past, I strongly believe the Doctor will make a brilliant Arbitrator and will be getting my vote. Tamsier ( talk) 18:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

What Tamsier said. Joefromrandb ( talk) 19:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I've moved the comment below by Fram from the questions page, along with Drmies's brief response. The questions pages are for questions for the candidates, in this case for Drmies. Comments on the candidates, by contrast, go here, on this page. This was a comment (a very aggressive one for a putatively collegial process), not a question in any sense, and the question mark in there does not make it so. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC). reply

Let's see. You have a "secret" sock which you use to edit articles you created with your main account (e.g. Schmerling Caves or Alexander Shunnarah), making a mockery of all claims you make about the necessary secrecy. Why you force your students to make DYKs (unless it is to get free reviews of their articles by other editors) is not really clear, quite a few have been pulled from preps or queues for problems, so it's not as if you are helping DYK in this regard either. You link in your defense to a DYK I hadn't seen before but should somehow know about. Template:Did you know nominations/Zu den heiligen Engeln has no indication that it was a QPQ, it was simply a review by you. In which you stated (about the AfD) " I shouldn't weigh in there as reviewer here", but you did so anyway. If you want evidence for my claims about your failed rehabilitation project, just ask. If I were you, I wouldn't go ahead with your "if he comes to my house I'll still offer him coffee", but you have shown to be a poor judge of character when you offered to unblock him in the first place. So, a sock which is secret if it please you, but not secret when that suits you as well. A track record as an Arb which gives no confidence. And an extreme case of ABF biteing because the username might indicate that it's a vandal. Perhaps you will now hardblock User:Sturmgewehr88, whose name is much more offensive and clearly indicative of neo-nazi sympathies, if one follows the same reasoning? "Like others, I don't have much of a platform to run on, though transparency is one of them". Except that you weren't transparent (or good) when an Arb, you weren't transparent when declaring your socks (or good at hiding them), and your adminning seems dubious as well. Any actual reasons why should become an Arb anyway? Fram ( talk) 19:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply

"free reviews of their articles" is hilarious. There wasn't really a question here, so have a nice day Fram. Drmies ( talk) 01:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Bishonen, no problem with the move, but there is little reason to be collegial about the re-election of a failed Arbcom member who defends the indefensible and makes the most ridiculous attacks to deflect the attention of his own misbehaviour (his edits at AN yesterday are exemplary, apparently it's dangerous for other admins to unblok someone I feel is unfairly blocked, because I urged for the reban of (Redacted) GdB, where Drmies had supported the unban, failed to either mention it (or his suppoed topic ban) to the community or monitor his edits, and still feels the editor is a good enough chap to invite over to his house for a coffee). Drmies is running on a platform of transparency, but in reality is running on a platform of lies and deceit. There is very little reason to be collegial in such a situation. Fram ( talk) 05:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

"I myself would have wished that some of the editors I respect the most, such as Iridescent, Tony Ballioni, Cullen, and Ritchie were standing too, to give the community a wider option from an outstanding base" - I can't speak for the others, but for me, I think Monty Brewster said it best. " I'll only make things worse - and that's a promise!" And MelanieN would rather drive flaming bamboo splints under her fingernails. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Ritchie333, your "worse" is absolutely welcome :D Do please put yourself up next time. <3 Lourdes 03:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support Candidant for launching this RfC. Lourdes appears willing to jump in to address long-term civility problems. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

While not surprised, I am rather disappointed in the non-answers provided to my questions and recommend anyone considering to vote for Lourdes to take that into consideration. An inability to answer difficult questions, tackle difficult problems, or handle potential invective from other people shows a lack of suitability for the role of arbitrator. If you won't answer those questions, then what else won't you do, Lourdes? Nihlus 23:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Candidates can choose whether or not to answer questions and editors can interpret that choice however they wish to. We all have a vote which will give you an opportunity, Nihlus, to vote on whether or not you think Lourdes should receive a seat on the Committee. Since you have a strong opinion on this, maybe you should put together a candidate guide for this election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Liz, I'm aware that candidates can choose whether or not to answer questions, just as they should be aware of how their actions can be interpreted. I don't have the time to write a full guide this year, but I may consider it in the future. Nihlus 04:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm experiencing unsurprising disappointment at your characteristic negativity, User:Nihlus. 66.193.132.1 ( talk) 01:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Remind me where we have interacted before. I don't recall. Nihlus 04:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

First, I’m disappointed that there isn’t some statement from each candidate. Most of their pages are empty right now. Are we supposed to look at their edit histories to get an idea of who they are or am I missing something? (This is the first time I’ve taken part in this) Second, I agree with @ Nihlus: if someone asks a question, even if you aren’t required to answer you don’t display much commitment if you don’t bother to respond -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 03:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

You can use this link for an overview of their statements and links to their Q&A's. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 06:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot, that’s what I was looking for. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 14:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I have to admit, I was thinking of not voting as I generally haven't in a few years. I'm now thinking of doing so this year, at least to vote in support of Lourdes mostly based on this silliness although I'm not sure if I will (since I will at least need to make sure that there is reason to vote for them besides this silliness). I can't help thinking I'm not the only one who's vote in support of Lourdes has been influenced by this. Think of that what you will. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Nil Einne, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that this was a vote on my nonexistent candidacy. Nihlus 04:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support DGG has the most well though-out answers of probably any editor I have encountered, certainly the best answers to Questions for the Candidate. He goes to Wiki events. His background as a librarian makes him an ideal editor. His commitment to remove promotional articles at WP:AfD is also commendable. And despite being aggressive at deleting promotional material, he has never taken another editor to WP:AN/I. Very impressive. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Agree with you fully great candidate has my support also. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 07:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

So, are you even serious about putting efforts into this committee? or are you just un-serious? Geraldshields11 ( talk) 19:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I believe this is a question, therefore belongs on her question page :) Bookgrrl ^holler/ lookee here 04:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Asking for a clarification on this talk page is not unreasonable but I think the candidate statement is self-explanatory of course Trump is considered a "fluke" so anything is possible. Otr500 ( talk) 19:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Without pie being discussed it can't be considered a serious run. QuiteUnusual ( talk) 23:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes. -— Isarra ༆ 17:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I shall be voting for this candidate because she’s been around long enough to know what’s what and is one of the few people with arbcom experience who has, to date, not made an idiot of herself. So better the devil you know! Giano (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support: The candidate statement is candid and shows that making mistakes can be a learning process and positive. I submit that if we breath air we are prone to mistakes. An issue begins with an inability to own up to mistakes or to correct them then or going forward. I would not see a benefit of an actual "uncontroversial" member of ArbCom. To me the purpose of ArbCom is to get to the bottom of an issue presented (not remedied by the normal process) and find a solution to the betterment of Wikipedia. "Sometimes" what may be considered controversial may actually be "a voice of reason" and I feel I have been on that boat before. I think diversity is important as well as a voice to "fight against the gender gap issue on Wikipedia". Being a "feminist" is her self-description but as a woman a goal of making "Wikipedia a welcoming and safe place for non-men to contribute" is a commendable purpose and goal. I saw an instance where the candidate used recuse, just because of a possible hint of COI, even when it likely would not have been contested. That shows sound judgement. Thank you for past service and a desire to continue. Otr500 ( talk) 19:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Suppport: Based on her answers to my questions 9 through 11, I see a real commitment to putting in the hard work of reviewing the literature and the diffs (rather than, say, relying on testimony of friendly editors one trusts) that is required to properly weigh the evidence at hand and make the most informed decision. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Doug Weller: At the moment your withdrawal statement ends We need Doug Weller  :) I totally agree! —— SerialNumber 54129 09:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I was quite disappointed to see that you had withdrawn. I wonder if you might reconsider? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• • @ Beyond My Ken: thanks very much for your support but I really do need a break, and I think 2 terms in a row is enough. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

    Doug Weller, not speaking on behalf of the committee here, but you are free to reinstate yourself anytime before the voting starts IMO. — CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 17:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply