This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2017. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017.

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

Candidates Information

Strong oppose

I wonder if the candidate stands by his choice of words here? -- John ( talk) 19:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ John: John, with all due respect, I personally wouldn't issue ultimatum to another editor and starts counting down as I speak, even if I was being libelously attacked. There are two things I thought I was fairly clear in that comment, 1) The comment was about the situation 2) The intention was to seek opinion. I don't like to use the expression "I stand by my words/comments/decision", as I am always open to criticism, but I hope you can read my comment from my perspective, thanks. Alex Shih ( talk) 19:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

So even bearing in mind WP:ASPERSIONS, and that what we were talking about an unevidenced allegation at AN/I that I had made a "clearly-bad block, part of a long-term pattern of bullying and bad blocks", you think I was being inflammatory to ask for evidence within 24 hours? Did you make any comment or request to the editor making that baseless allegation? Which is worse, a slander or the victim of the slander asking for a retraction? I too stand utterly by my actions from that episode, and I recall that Drmies hatted that part of the discussion and agreed with my (pretty uncontroversial) point that proper evidence needs to be provided for such a claim. It never was. Another point; was closing the same discussion you had taken such a biased part in a good idea, do you reckon? Do you make a habit of such closes? -- John ( talk) 19:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ John: John, if you are unwilling to read/accept what I wrote above (such as the comment was about the situation and my explicit distaste for the expression "stand by"), I am not sure what else to say. I expressed my perspective, and you can disagree with it. About your second point, the answer is in the my closing rationale you have linked to. Thank you. Alex Shih ( talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I am willing to read it, and I have done so. If you were not referring to my actions in that talk page discussion, but to the general situation, what were you referring to? You didn't comment on the other editor's actions, did you? Did you even look at them? That speaks to bias. Closing a discussion you had taken a non-neutral part in and mentioning WP:IAR in your close, and using the edit summary slightly controversial closing; that's something you would stand by too? -- John ( talk) 20:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

John, I remember seeing that and Alex, it wasn't perfectly clear to me either what you meant, but in that thread John was being called some bad words, unjustly. Drmies ( talk) 00:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Alex Shih and Drmies. I cannot support an arbitrator who thinks this is acceptable behaviour. -- John ( talk) 13:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Frivolous reports on ANI

Hi, I think I will vote against that particular candidate, as their frivolous report on the ANI has left me a poor impression of their editorial misjudgement. The frivolous report which Rob13 has filled against me on ANI, can be found and read here: User:SilentResident reported by User:BU Rob13 (Result: Protected). It is obvious that the Arbitration Committee should be manned only by people who take the job very seriously and pay attention to things, such as distinguishing real WP:3RRs. For the record, the particular candidate has yet to apologize for this filling against me, which although not obligatory, could be a good sign of responsibility and trustiness that befits those aspiring to become Arbitation Commitee members. I have nothing against Rob, but the filling of frivolous reports and the lack of any apology thereafter, concerning such smaller cases, makes me concerned about whenether the candidate is really suitable for such a great responsibility. Just my opinion based on my poor experience with that candidate. --❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 22:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ SilentResident: In hindsight (a rather extreme hindsight, as this is from two years ago when I had just joined the site), this should have been taken to WP:RFPP, not AN3. Both parties were edit-warring rather than only one individual, which typically results in protection. I wouldn't personally view that report as "frivolous", given that WP:3RR was most definitely violated, but there was a better location to take it. I apologize if my report gave the impression I was solely placing any wrongdoing on you. I did also note that the administrator responding to the report should deal with the IP range that represented the other side of the edit war. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 23:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ BU Rob13: hmmm. I wasn't aware that you were new in Wikipedia back then, but in that case, I couldn't bite you. That could be unfair especially since we all were newbies when we came to this project. If you were really young member back then, then consider this matter closed and forgotten. --❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 23:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ SilentResident: Newbie or not, I do apologize for my part in things. Nowadays, with much more experience, I'd have encouraged both parties to focus on the discussion on the talk page. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 23:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ BU Rob13: I am glad this misunderstanding has been cleared out. I appreciate your positive response, and you have my support for your cadidancy for membership in the ArbCom. Wishing you best luck. --❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 10:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

My vote because keeping unbiased cool in the face of extreme Middle East political emotions

I just took the liberty to vote for KrakatoaKatie, because as someone active in Middle East politics articles and used to the often extreme political emotions involved, I remember her well as one of those cherished admins who always kept their cool and an unbiased line in the face of aggressive political propaganda narratives and campaigns. Good luck for her and every other candidate who reject the idea of silencing the Wikipedia for the convenience of autocrats and nationalist or religious fanatics. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 22:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Oppose

Candidate's English and/or care and attention to detail are lacking. If they cannot achieve perfection or near perfection in a candidate statement, we can expect a pretty continuous flow of sloppiness down the road. Sorry, I think we need the best running WP. sirlanz 23:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to. Is it the use of ellipsis, or did I miss something more substantial in reading the statement? Thomas Craven ( talk) 20:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Are you able to point to examples? SaulPerdomo ( talk) 18:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

"I am here since", "which I had" means "have", "as I should been", "Everyone's worried what's", "you have abuse(d)", entire sentence "I keep close ..." Six instances enough? sirlanz 01:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Female candidate

I am pleased to vote for this female candidate, as part of my efforts to encourage female editors and create or improve biographical articles about women.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 20:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Since when did sex become a merit? The vote should be due to that you think Opabinia regalis will do a good job and contribute to the project. BP OMowe ( talk) 22:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

It is not a merit, but if the committee, or a wider scope, lacks in women, the above is a legit argument. Tomdo08 ( talk) 21:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but this really does smack of tokenism. I'm also voting for O.r., despite being a candidate in competition, and it's because of competence not gender.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Tentative support

The fact that this candidate has professional real-world mediation experience intrigues me. The most amazing RfC closure I ever saw was from someone who'd done professional conciliation work. (I had not participated in the RfC, just happened to see the closure.) Darkfrog24 ( talk) 18:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Content vs. Conduct

Thank you for volunteering your time for ArbCom. You are clearly an experienced contributor to Wikipedia.
You write in your candidate statement: "I have noticed that of the past few Arbcom cases, I would have to say most were conduct issues and not content issues.".
The Arbitration Policy describes the scope of the Committee as "primarily for serious conduct disputes" (emphasis mine)( Scope_and_responsibilities), and further states: "The Committee does not rule on content..." ( #Policy_and_precedent)
Your statement gives me the impression that you are not familiar with this basic tenet of the ArbCom, which is of concern in evaluating your suitability for this important role. Your reference to the "past few" cases makes me wonder if the "past few" that you read are also the "only few" that you've reviewed. -- Evilphoenix ^Talk 03:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

You'd be very wrong with your impression. Most of the Arbcom DS issues are content issues, such as gun control, American politics, Israel-Palestinian issues, India-Pakistan. These are areas where there is conduct issues, but it's primarily a content issue where no past method of resolving content issues worked, such as DR or 3O and we then have longstanding edit-wars or just not getting anywhere. As such, DS is put in place and we have 1RR or consensus required before edits, etc. Which is not the same as edits in the general area where we have major civility issues. You might also want to look at Arbcom archives, in cases, in procedings and amendment requests to see that I've participated in many Arbcom discussions and I'm not someone who is just jumping in to this without knowing a little bit of what Arbcom does. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

And to clarify a bit further, even when we have conduct issues with regards to the topics I mentioned, those are conduct issues inside a topic. And as such, DS applies to those topics and conduct issues can be dealt with Arbcom remedies. What I think we as a community needs to focus on is general incivility in the whole editing arena. Being told to "f-off" is not a good thing. The most recent cases that I recall, were oftentimes conduct issues within general Wiki, or admins not treating "civilians" with respect, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply. The sentence I questioned you on might read entirely differently to folks more current on AC proceedings than I am. I'll go look for your edits in the AC archives. Evilphoenix ^Talk 04:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I made a slight clarification. And I do hope you will see that my comments are often how we need to enforce civility and admins need to be held accountable when questioned on actions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question: Should the above section be moved to the Questions page? – it wasn't expressed as a direct question, but was clearly a challenge to the candidate that called for, and received, a reply : Noyster (talk), 12:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't believe so. I didnt really want to place it as a question, it was more of a commentary on his wording in his statement than anything. Also, placing it here would give anyone, not just the candidate, the chance to tell me if I was wrong. Evilphoenix ^Talk 00:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I think so. I'm not that familiar with how this all works but I'm trying to review the Statements, Questions, and Discussion for each candidate, and this kind of exchange is generally on the Questions page. I find the Statement and Questions help me evaluate whether I have an opinion on a candidate's views, and then the Discussion page is usually either blank or tells me if they're about to get banned or have a slew of endorsements. The tone of the question therefore has more weight here, and I think the response is perhaps less likely to be seen? Thomas Craven ( talk) 19:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Removal of Question

After removing this question and his answer [ [1]] I think this candidate should consider withdrawing from the election. The purpose of the questions is for the entire community to review the answers when deciding which candidates to vote for. Answering the question and then removing that answer and the question without discussion is not acceptable or civil behavior during a community election (and has been opposed by the editor who posted the question.) Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 22:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I answered his question. It's not a place for conversations which is why I reverted his discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

One thing you removed was the link to the discussion where you say I am trying to AGF but it's hard to not think that there is a bias among people who are opposing the mention on the front page. - this happened on June 14 2017. It is also not an isolated incident - I don't think anyone who has to recuse themselves from ARBPIA should be an Arbiter, since this is one of the areas that we most need uninvolved and trustworthy editors to monitor and vote on proposals and set editing restrictions. In your answer to the question you say If I said your editing was biased, then it most likely was, at least according to me. Like Stormy clouds I find this answer largely unsatisfactory. The question was about an In the News posting proposal, not editing, and the accusation of bias was not just against Stormy clouds but all the editors who disagreed with you and opposed posting (at least nine editors). Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 01:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Question has been reinstated and will remain so unless the co-ordinators, @ Ritchie333:, @ Yunshui:, @ DoRD:, decide to reverse said decision. Stormy clouds ( talk) 21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Non-admin arbitrators

@ Beyond My Ken and SMcCandlish: With respect to Beyond My Ken's question, I believe the most recent RfC regarding whether non-admin arbitrators receive admin tools was at Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC (I remember it because I closed the discussion). There was actually a consensus there against granting administrator tools to non-administrators upon appointment to the Arbitration Committee. However, an ArbCom election is, per this WMF statement, considered an "RFA-like process" and therefore makes you legally eligible to view deleted revisions, the rights for which are actually included as part of the checkuser and oversight groups, which a non-admin arbitrator would be eligible to receive. In other words, although you wouldn't have administrator tools, you would have checkuser and/or oversight, which do allow you the ability to view deleted revisions. Mz7 ( talk) 07:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much for that clarification, I'll do my best to remember it when the question comes up again next year. <g> Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Yep. That sounds right to me, and I can't find anything newer about it. I was conflating in my memory the WMF statement about an RfA-equivalent process for legal purposes, with the actual-tools discussion on en.wp.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Beyond My Ken and SMcCandlish: I posted at BN asking for 'crats to give their opinion on the topic. The reading by Nihonjoe and Xaosflux seems to confirm that they view the situation as described above: [2]. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  @ TonyBallioni: Thanks for looking into that. The answer is certainly consistent with what I would have expected.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Strong support

• Highly capable all-rounder. Brilliant campaign statement. sirlanz 23:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• I know SMcCandlish as a talented, rational, and knowledgeable contributor to Wikipedia, who is willing to think outside the box. With his fine skills and personality, he will provide a great service to the Wikipedia community as an arbitration committee member. gidonb ( talk) 01:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Strong Oppose

• I just had the dubious pleasure of re-reading the circular and at times frustrating discussion between myself and this editor at Godsy's RfA. It reminded me that he is wildly unqualified for any position of power, least of all at ArbCom. I have serious concerns that the candidate may misuse his role to settle personal grievances, and for that reason, he has my strong opposition. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 08:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  How would that be possible, when Arbs are required to recuse when they have a conflict of interest, and any such CoI would be immediately pointed out if one did not recuse?  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  PS: Please see also related answer at the "Questions for candidate" page.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• My recent interation with him leads me to have doubts about his suitability in this area. In a "To-do list" on his home page he had written "RM The Open Championship to Open Championship (golf) after Talk:The Players Championship#Requested move 23 November 2017 concludes (same with The Amateur Championship)" leading me to think that he prejudged the result of the requested move. This seems to be exactly the opposite of the attributes that someone involved with arbitration needs. Furthermore, the underhand way that he modified Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters during the requested move process, to strengthen his position, leads to think that he is generally unsuitable for such positions. Nigej ( talk) 10:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  Obviously, if the first such RM does not conclude in a direction compatible with the latter two, then the latter would not proceed. I've never seen a need to write in great long-form detail for others in a compressed reminder list for myself about maintenance stuff to eventually get around to if the line-item in question is still applicable (some things in that list won't be, and I'll remove them when I find that out). PS, on the MOS:CAPS matter: Our guidelines should not contain disputed material that was added by someone without consensus; at bare minimum it should be flagged for discussion, which it is in this case. I.e., someone who disagrees with the guideline should not modify it to strengthen their "I want an exception" position, and can expected to be challenged or WP:BRDed on it if they do so.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  Update: RM closed in favor of retaining the leading "The" despite WP:THE, so I've struck that to-do item as moot.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I spent a day recently improving 1954 World Professional Match-play Championship (the World Championship) which was in a very poor state, with several matches not even mentioned. Now, I'm not expecting thanks for it but I now find that SMcCandlish has removed a perfectly innocuous map with the remark "Rm. unencyclopedic map. This is not helpful in any way. No one needs to get there, no one needs to compare distances or latitudes, it not important where one is in N–S or E–W relation to the other, etc., etc.". This is just a rant. What about something like "Thanks for what you've done but personally I'm not keen on the map"? Left me quite demotivated with the thought that he'd taken it out on me because of my opposition to the RM noted above. Nigej ( talk) 08:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

    It's unclear to me why you would prefer a subjective opinion about whether I like something, rather than a clear rationale for why it is not encyclopedic and should not be included. I think most editors would expect the opposite of what you expected, in any WP:BRD revert's edit summary, regardless of the topic.

    If you'd prefer a full-on BRD discussion, I've opened one at Talk:1954 World Professional Match-play Championship#Map, giving the rationales in less clipped form, since it's not limited to the shorter-than-a-Tweet length of an edit summary. Please consider that any edit summary can seem curt or insufficiently explanatory; we're advised to avoid WP:REVTALK and take it to a full talk-page discussion if one is thought necessary.
     —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

    You've missed my point. It's not important to me whether there's a map on this page; I would prefer one but it's not a big deal. Would I "prefer a full-on BRD discussion" - I don't even know what it means. My point is that are many many times in life where it's best to bite your lip, especially where the issue is quite unimportant (like this one). My worry is that, by your over-zealous pursuit of this self-written bureaucracy, you are driving well-meaning editors away from Wikipedia. See WP:DONTKILLTHEGOOSETHATLAYSTHEGOLDENEGG. Nigej ( talk) 09:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

    Sorry you feel that way, but I had nothing to do with the writing of WP:BRD, and most editors do not consider it bureacracy, but standard and best practice.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• This users refactors talk pages, and moves articles around against consensus names. He is very pushy. Re Nigej's "you are driving well-meaning editors away from Wikipedia" - yes. He and Dicklyon supported by some others run through pages to get their way through, claiming things that are not true.
  1. Talk:Northeast_India#Requested_move_7_November_2017
  2. Talk:Harbin_railway_station#Requested_move_9_November_2017
  3. Talk:Dzau_District#Requested_move_11_November_2017 [3] - no districts outside India are named "X district", user ignores that
  4. Talk:Imam_Khomeini_station#Requested_move_13_November_2017
  5. Talk:IRT_Lexington_Avenue_Line#Requested_move_17_November_2017
  6. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Russian_railway_line_article_titles - search for "untrue" in that section, including the parts hidden behind boxes having names starting with "Collapsing". 92.231.183.209 ( talk) 05:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard&diff=814529094&oldid=814527200 - libel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.85.102 ( talk) 07:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  This anon is a WP:SOCKing disruptive editor, headed for a block; see here for a summary of the details. An RfC about the titles of the articles in question is a total WP:SNOWBALL against the anon's position. [4].  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Very Worrisome

This candidate applying for the arbitration committee is quite worrisome to me, and I would oppose unless convinced otherwise. I'm not sure he's suited to the tasks that will befall him. In 2013 I awoke to find I had been brought to Arbitration by editor SMcCandlish for no reason whatsoever. None. I had replied to one item on a talk page and bam! he brought me up for administrative punishment. The link is at the following archive. I felt I was being intimidated and bullied by this editor. He finally withdrew the arbitration but not before damage was done. The panel exonerated me as it was a frivolous case and boomeranged it back on editor SMcCandlish for a 1 month topic ban. He appealed it and it was denied. I worry about his judgement if he is granted this position. Now it was back in 2013 and perhaps he has learned since then, but at the end of the arbitration he said things such as "since no one thinks the recent evidence is actionable, and the other evidence is seen as too old to be useful", and "I have rescinded this request because the AE admin respondents have concluded that the case is weak", and "Happening to be on the "losing" side of an AE request is not grounds for punitive sanctioning." Those types of statements are not ones that express sorrow for making a gigantic blunder against me. He still didn't think he was completely wrong, just that the evidence wasn't quite strong enough. That was shown to be incorrect with the boomerang ban imposed on him.

I really haven't had any problems with him since, so he may very well have changed his ways since then. Others could better judge that than I can. I've seen him responding to some of the same RfC's as I have where we sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, and I would work with him as an editor with no qualms at all. But this is a serious upgrade to wikipedia privileges that he's vying for, and I saw his judgement firsthand from 4 years ago. If I could ask one question of editor SMcCandlish it would be, if you were judging that same frivolous arbitration today, what type of punishment would you give yourself? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The boomerang received appears to have been effective; I did in fact radically change my approach to you, and to the topical locus of the dispute, and to AE, all at once, as a result of that AE. For reasonable editors, short-term topic bans usually are effective; if it requires an escalating series of blocks, then there's a problem that is likely not going to be rectified, though there have been some exceptions.

The purpose of AE (and ANI, and other noticeboards) is to raise concerns and see if they're shared and should be addressed. If they're not, it can reflect badly on the reporter (especially at AE), and that was the case that time. But editors should not fear to use our dispute resolution mechanisms because another party might still be angry about it over four years later, even after a retraction and an apology. I'm not sure we'd be able to resolve any disputes at all if that were the usual case. I had thought User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 6#An apology had resolved the issues between us (and recall none since then); I'm sad it doesn't seem to be so. I am sorry that I misjudged what you were posting and its intent; if reiterating this periodically helps, then I'm glad to do so.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Actually I accepted your apology if I recall, and I have no issues with you today. But I have to vote on whether your judgement in a situation like that warrants your ascension to Arbitration Committee. Like my local politician who I call to try and fix my streetlight or traffic issues... I work with them with no problems, but I wouldn't vote for them because of other judgement issues I don't agree with. The same thing here. The only big issue we had was a very bad experience, and I have no way of knowing whether you've had any big issues since then, and if corrections have been made. I will strike through my oppose but I am conflicted and still worried of what happens if you face something similar. I hmmed and hawed about whether to post anything here, but for all I knew there were dozens of others with the same experience that were afraid to say something. Maybe all Arbitration members have that type of thing in their past... it was 4 years ago but I just couldn't in good conscience sit back and be mute when you could be handed the reins to impose binding solutions in disputes between editors, to impose site bans, topic bans, and editing restrictions. I'm not sure what I'll do in the voting dept here... Fyunck(click) ( talk) 01:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I completely understand. And we do have many fine candidates. :-) The good thing about ArbCom is it doesn't do anything based on a single person's views.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• User:Fyunck(click) - thanks for your texts here. No, I don't think he changed much. He is very pushy and uses increasingly aggressive means to get his point through. Moscow Metro lines have been named "X Line" since 2005, despite that he moves articles containing the line name " Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line", whilst knowing that the moves are controversial. [5]. 92.231.183.209 ( talk) 05:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  As noted above: this anon is a WP:SOCKing disruptive editor, headed for a block; see here for a summary of the details. The RfC about the titles of the articles in question is a total WP:SNOWBALL against the anon's position. [6].  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Voting against

I filed the arbitration case that led to TRM resigning his tools. After the case I was hopeful that things would take a turn for the better. I was willing to reset our relationship and said so as well (could not post directly to his talk page since I was banned there, and still am). Unfortunately it didn't work. Speaking generally, there was improvement, but within a couple of months TRM lapsed back into the kind of behaviour that led to the Arbcom case in the first place (see enforcement log). None of the behaviour that got TRM suspended was directed at me, which is especially bad, since it means it's possible he's offended more people and I simply didn't see it. On a more personal level his behaviour has been less than appealing as well. After a disagreement in which he clearly said he doesn't care about me, I told him I'd stop responding to him, which he welcomed, except he felt he still had to respond to me a few weeks later. I find this kind of behaviour provocative and ludicrous, especially after he said during the arbitration case that he "will address [my approach and tone and correspondance style]".

Further, TRM has had severe disagreements in the past with some of the current arbitrators, such as Newyorkbrad ( [7], see second paragraph of NYB's answer) and Opabina Regalis [8]. Forcing the three of them to work together hardly seems like a good idea. Sure, TRM says in that he'll act professionally with individuals he doesn't get along with, but he's accrued more than one suspension after the arbitration case while interacting with individuals he doesn't get along with. If he's unable to act professionally to those individuals, what evidence is there that he will be able to act professionally with NYB & OR? I find this claim difficult to believe, just like his claim that he "will address [my approach and tone and correspondance style]".

It's hard for me to understand why some editors are enthusiastically supporting TRM as a candidate. Sure, his content work is great, but Arbcom's purpose is to resolve conduct disputes. I can't trust an editor who has demonstrated severe conduct issues to resolve other people's conduct disputes. I will vote to oppose, and if there were an option to strongly oppose, I'd tick that box too. Banedon ( talk) 05:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Many ways people might choose to reply to this. Here's a pithy answer: Groupthink is bad. If you think the last few Arbcoms have done a splendid job, keep electing people who are like them. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree Groupthink is bad, but I don't see how it is relevant here. If you are interested in discussing this privately (I am) then we can do this via email. Banedon ( talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

You decided to air your views on the candidate publicly. If you choose to do that, be prepared for people to disagree with you publicly. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Of course. I simply asked if you wanted to discuss this privately. If the answer is no, that's fine too. Banedon ( talk) 23:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll elaborate a bit more since (and this is often the case when I see you commenting on TRM's behaviour) I don't understand what you are saying. You've said "Many ways people might choose to reply to this". Agree. You said "Here's a pithy answer: Groupthink is bad." I agree Groupthink is bad too. You said "If you think the last few Arbcoms have done a splendid job, keep electing people who are like them." Absolutely. "You decided to air your views on the candidate publicly." Yup, I decided to do that. "If you choose to do that, be prepared for people to disagree with you publicly." Undoubtedly.

In other words, you've written five sentences all of which I agree with, and yet you give the impression that you are disagreeing with me. I don't understand that. What exactly are you disagreeing with? Again if you want to discuss this privately, I'm in. If you want to do this publicly (are you actually interested in discussing it?), then don't expect me to say everything I'm thinking about, because it's public. Banedon ( talk) 23:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry you can't follow my arguments. I don't have time to write longer ones. I was responding to "It's hard for me to understand why some editors are enthusiastically supporting TRM as a candidate". If you can't understand my reply, maybe you'd like to read the voter guides to find more reasons why people think he'd make an absolutely excellent voice on a committee and hopefully help them improve the way they do things. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I've already done that. You don't seem very interested in serious discussion, so I consider this conversation over. Banedon ( talk) 19:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I came here to say the same thing. TRM does lots of great content work, but his behavior is frequently a problem. He repeatedly violates WP:CIVIL (as shown in the relevant Arbcom cases), and he doesn't seem to understand what is wrong with the way he interacts with other users, which makes him wholly unfit for resolving conduct disputes. -- irn ( talk) 18:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thanks to User:Banedon for continuing to represent the Arbcom cases he has convened.  I posted at a 2013 case with diffs to show a time when TRM has viewed talk page discussion as play and entertainment.  It is my understanding that TRM is currently under Arbcom sanctions diff dated September 2017.  It is one thing to hope that an ex-Bureaucrat might represent a counter-culture influence, but my experience is that TRM's interaction and empathy skills fall short.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I see even Alex Shih approves of TRM. RenZut ^ↂ 10:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Renzut: For what it's worth, I didn't think my response to Banedon was an approval of TRM. If that's what it appeared to be, then that's something I need to reflect on. I suppose my main point was that TRM represents a voice in the community that probably shouldn't be thoroughly dismissed, in my opinion. Alex Shih ( talk) 19:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Regardless of whether TRM lacks civility or is downright rude, I don’t think one can deny he is well placed to understand and appreciate the arbcom process and where it may be failing. From my albeit limited experience he appears to treat editors equally whether they have years or weeks of experience which I have to say is refreshing. Mramoeba ( talk) 23:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators don't just have to understand and appreciate where the arbcom process might be failing, they also have to solve conduct disputes. I find it implausible that someone whose behavior is as controversial as TRM's will be able to solve conduct disputes. Banedon ( talk) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Strong support

He has helped me in the past, and I know he can do this job.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn/disqualified Information

Right flags of Dysklyver

The candidate is New Page Reviewer. But the rights log shows only one entry, of him being "automatically updated from (none) to extended confirmed user." Could someone please explain? Thanks, —usernamekiran (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you're looking at the wrong page ‑  Iridescent 22:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I clicked on the link given at that page, it was the right log page but it had automatically filed in candidate's name as the performer. I had overlooked that. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Knowledge of Wikipedia

Things like this have me concerned about knowledge about how things work and how to interact with others here. [9] Natureium ( talk) 21:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Discussion at AN

Probably worth a mention: there is a discussion over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mentoring and removal of permissions needed which may add some insight into this candidate.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

It appears the outcome of this discussion was an indef block. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

We'd be better off with this guy on ArbCom than with admins who complain that a lawyer writes too much. He's not the only guy in that thread that needs mentoring. 198.189.140.11 ( talk) 22:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

As that discussion has been archived, it can be directly reached at archive 294 here. - Etoile ✩ ( talk) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

If there are any questions regarding his neutrality

Some of you might have questions about how this individual might deal with matters related to Freemasonry and related topics. Frankly, that morass would try the patience of a saint, given the multiple internal and external sources of extremely dubious reliability on it. I have had contact with him regarding that issue for several years and can honestly say that I (a Catholic, and as such presumably one of Freemasonry's most ardent opponents) have never had any reason in my eyes to question his being able to deal with the topic fairly. In fact, I can even specifically remember an instance or two when he actively criticized other Freemasons here for indicating that their masonic oaths took priority over our policies and guidelines. Honestly, and anyone who knows me knows how freakish it is for me to say this, given a choice between trusting him and his judgment of content and the sources of that content, I think he has demonstrated to me more than once that one this topic I should probably trust him and his judgment more than my own. John Carter ( talk) 16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

v t e 2017 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. Gerda Arendt Smallbones J947 SilkTork Tazerdadog Collect Carrite TParis power~enwiki Elonka RegentsPark Ealdgyth Patient Zero Yngvadottir Stormy clouds The owner of all Tryptofish QEDK