This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2010. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010.

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

Current and intending candidates may find it useful to read an FAQ written for them by Arbitrator Risker.

Easy access to information about Committee decisions[edit]

I'd like to know whether anyone else finds it crazily difficult to find what the current status of sanctioned parties is. There seems to be no one-stop shop from the ArbCom page, where an admin can easily look up the remedies that apply to a particular user, and the subsequent amendments of those sanctions. The candidate has experience as an arb, and I wonder whether he can suggest whether and if so what type of action might be taken to provide up-to-date information to the community with as few clicks as possible. Tony (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that some reworking/reorganizing/updating around this page -- Wikipedia:List of banned users -- maybe convert to "list of banned and sanctioned users"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see the talk on your talkpage --> Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. I'll answer there and agree the page needs tending... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this shouldn't be done with a list. It should be done with the database. Probably best off talking to the developers. Not sure this is the best place to have the discussion, but I agree with Tony's sentiment - there are a lot of things which really aren't up to Web 2.0 on Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 00:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was impressed when you previously served on Arbcom[edit]

Overall I remember you being one of the Arbs most likely to answer questions and try to deescalate the drama du jour surrounding Arbcom. While I don't particularly remember any casework of yours, I do remember thinking well of your Accept/Decline decisions. I remember thinking that you were more thoughtful than the average bear. I was disappointed when you placed yourself in such an untenable position as the one that led to your resignation. I am glad to see you running for re-election. Remember what Shakespeare said, "To thine ownself be true. And surely as the night follows the day, thou canst be false to any man."BirgitteSB 23:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(prepares self to answer another tricky question) ...well, uh no question...ok thanks. I'm I'll try my best. I only drafted one case (which was this one, though it does not say as such anywhere....) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not immediately clear is it? If you look in the history, it becomes clear that Casliber did indeed draft that case. The clue is that his votes, although indented, are the first ones there (this indicates in most cases who drafted the case). Voting was in progress when Casliber resigned. The version immediately before his votes were indented is here. The important point is that this case does serve as an example of a case he drafted, for those looking for something to give an idea of how he would handle that part of the role. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I should have thought of that. Thx Carch. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the copyright question[edit]

Just to clarify that this is not a loaded question - I haven't looked at your past contribs at this point and have no cause of concern. My question is purely hypothetical. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Jehochman's question[edit]

I think that bureaucrats should require that any well known editor who renames should create a doppleganger account for the old username to prevent vandals from usurping the name and using it for silly games. Sure, a vandal can register any name the like, but a username that is well-known and respected is more valuable than one that nobody has every heard of before. Many users could be temporarily fooled while subtle vandalism and trolling could be committed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, but I think there are a few problems in the implementation. When I first changed my username, I wasn't very well known or particularly experienced - so potentially it'd need to be expanded to anyone who wished to change their username. We'd need to define 'well known' as a starting point. It also raises the problem of what to do with usernames like - to take HawkerTyphoon for an example - Hawkertyphoon, Hawkértyphoon, Hawkertypboon, Hawker Typhoon etc. Do we doppelgang these aswell? If so, where do we draw the line on similar usernames? Is there the potential of running out of accounts, or of encouraging vandals to come up with even more inventive usernames? It's a good idea, but I think there may be easier ways of preventing this from happening. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points. My concern is that when you say your former account was HawkerTyphoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and somebody casually clicks on your block log link, it looks like you're a sock of a banned user, when in fact, you are not! Good luck with the election. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can sort out a template or the like for it: that might be the easiest way to go. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note to the block log of that sock account to clarify that it is not in any way related to you. This parallels what was done for the usurped Messedrocker account. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jehochman :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I'll be at GLAM-WIKI tomorrow and Saturday, and won't have much day for questions. I believe I have one outstanding, which I'll get to ASAP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block log[edit]

A look at this candidate's admin blocks [1] shows that in the last 2 years he has blocked a small handful of IPs/vandalism only accounts but the one time he tried to stray outside of this simple vandal blocking he blocked both Roux and Malleus with a fairly silly 1 hour block. If this had been one isolated incident amongst other good intelligent blocks then that would be fine but it was his one attempt to sort out a dispute using his admin tools. I think this indicates a candidate unsuitable for the complexity of arb decisions. Both lacking in experience and good judgement. Surely potential arbs should have a better track record than this. Polargeo (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that most good dispute resolution doesn't result in blocks, so why you would expect to see a good arb wielding the tools like a barbarian with a cudgel is problematic to me. Roux and Malleus were engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing and unwilling to disengage, continuing to drag personal disputes into other areas. The block was entirely warranted as a preventative measure. Your mileage may vary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that good dispute resolution rarely requires blocks. However, I am extremely unimpressed with your single attempt at dispute resolution using blocks. At arbcom you will get much much worse bickering than the couple of very minor quibbles between the very experienced users who you blocked. Will you rush for the double block every time? That is not the sort of arb action I would like to see. Polargeo (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I am trying to find better instances of your diplomatic action in dispute resolution so I looked at your ANI contributions. A quick scan just came up with this recent incident and a lot of very old bickering from 2-3 years ago. I haven't really seen anything encouraging that would say yes arb material. Polargeo (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't impress you, I don't impress you. A double block was warranted in the above case because if only one were blocked, the other was going to continue their posturing behavior—they both had to be taken off the table. I don't imagine ArbCom would have any remedy similar to that, because by the time the arbitration case has ground its gears there's not going to be any need for such a preventative block unless the editors really went off the deep end. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. You will be dealing with this sort of thing day in day out. This answer displays your naivety with regard to arbcom. Which is also displayed in your contributions. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's your opinion, which frankly I hold in no high regard. If you feel my record is poor, more power to you, but I believe I am finished at this venue; there's nothing constructive left to be said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion based on a review of your contributions. I have absolutely no personal axe to grind on this. I think your response to me here highlights the issue of my concerns regarding your dispute resolution ability. Polargeo (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems David Fuchs was pretty patient with you, considering you created your account today and have already been warned for vandalism. The most productive thing you can do now is disengage. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo has been here since January 2009, and has even been an administrator. And the "vandalism" wasn't actually vandalism; see User talk:Waterfox#please chill. Reach Out to the Truth 18:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This exchange strengthened my support for DF. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your foe is my friend :) hey Lar? I'd like to get this straight I have no problems or past history regarding DF whatsoever. I was just surprised by what I saw as both a significant weakness and lack of evidence of his dispute resolution ability, because we are looking for arbs whose main function is to rule on disputes I thought that this was a real problem worth highlighting. I wasn't expecting to be attacked for it. Not least of which from DF himself who responded to this thread by trying to smear me [2]. On second thoughts that is exactly the sort of political tactic that could get David Fuchs a long way. Dismiss other editors' opinions based on unrelated events that you have no knowledge of so that you don't have to deal with those editors seriously. Polargeo (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just that he handled your repeated badgering rather diplomatically, all things considered. Which is a good characteristic. You could learn from it. So could I. But especially you. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lar and David Fuchs. Polargeo can vote as he/she likes but there is no point pressing one issue over and over again. DF may have limited experience in dispute resolution but he is one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributers, and that counts for something, in my book. - BorisG (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he disenfranchised himself by serially scuttling and creating accounts; someone should salt User:Polargeo 4 to end this silliness. Jack Merridew 02:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say...[edit]

Just a note to say I have replied to FT2's reply to a question about my block of him in early 2009, and wasn't sure where to put my reply: here or somewhere else? It's "discussion"... but then again it's about something on the "Questions" page. Anyway. I ended up putting it on the FT2 "Questions" talkpage. Here's a link to my post. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

There was this discussion about two years ago. Mathsci (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was disturbed by your previous service on Arbcom[edit]

I had not any firm opinion of your work until the OrangeMarlin case. I discovered several points in the precis you wrote on that case which were either false implications or patently false and was unhappy with your evasiveness about seeing those points corrected. I remember being disturbed when you would bring incidents where you had involved yourself forward as Arbcom cases. You always seemed to be escalating things and then talking in circles around the point. I have found you to be out of touch with reality and unreasonable too often. I hope you do not return to the committee.BirgitteSB 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians have different strengths and skills, and it's important that we learn over the years what we're good at, and not so good at. FT, I have to agree with Birgitte that your strengths don't lie in dispute resolution. I think it would harm the ArbCom if you were to sit on it again, and I also think it would harm you. I remember how tense you were when you were on it, and how you began to relax once you'd resigned. I really hope for both those reasons that you'll reconsider your decision to stand. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is something special about Arbcom in that case -- because I've found FT2's dispute resolution in other fields to be pretty good and well thought out. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

civility police[edit]

i was blocked by GeorgeWilliamHerbert a few weeks ago. the reason given for the block was "personal attack" which was based on a statement i did not make, but rather based on other users interpretations of what my comments might have implied; interpretations which george took at face value. i was not notifed of the ANI discussion which prompted geroge's action and given no chance to clarify my comments or defend myself in anyway. even when george notified me on my talk page that he had blocked me, he made no mention of that thread; i only discovered it through another users talk page. i subsequently appealed the block to arbcom, a case which george neglected to make a statment in. afterwards i tried to take the issue up with him directly on his talk page, but was simply ignored. other users have accused george of acting like the "civility police", a charge which george denies. but seeing as he appears to regularly arbitrarily and unilateraly use admin powers against users without discussion or consultation with other admins or even the users he blocks, and then proceeds to ignore people who question him, i don't think this accusation is necessarily all that far off the mark. even in his nomination questions page, questions sit unanswered, and the voting period is almost half way over. just my personal POV about this candidate, cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my acquaintanceship with GWH activity on the I-P conflict I can tell that his decisions looked many times, for many editors, as lacking reasonable explanation. While it's natural that one side will always be unsatisfied when sanction is enacted by an admin, it was away more than that with his.

In the "principles" clause, under the "responsibility" count -GWH wrote that all of the admin actions should be transparent but it's not applied to private correspondence. In fact, WP obligate any admin to explain his/her deeds when he/she use his/her admin tools to enact sanctions against other editors-however, though GWH was asked to do that by editors he blocked and etc (sometimes without any complaint by others) he systematically failed to do so many times (for instance, he blocked me about a year ago without any complaint by others for "violating several of WP guidelines" but though he was asked many times by me (and not only) specifically to tell which guidelines exactly he never answer that). Also, while he used heavy hand against some editors without disruptive history, he used very very light hand against users with very long disruptive history.

I believe that this admin behavior make him incapable to deal with admin responsibilities within the I-P conflict. I also believe that the very light hand he used against repeatedly disruptive editors had very negative contribution to the I-P conflict(many times he wrote that he looked for the lightest possible punishment in cases when editors refused to apologize for their actions, to take any responsibility and continue with very obvious disruptive behavior on the AN/I itself, including PA and etc-in these cases he enacted sanction which were way below the minimum expected in Wikipedia). Obviously such policy couldn't and didn't yield any good. GWH activity in the I-P conflict area convinced me that he's not a good candidate for the ArbCom. I can provide many diffs in support of what I wrote if someone is interested. --Gilisa (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I revere GeorgeWilliamHerbert as the most nearly perfect human being I know. I believe him to be the inspiration for this superb series of instructional videos at YouTube:

• Wikipedia: an introduction
• Wikipedia: an introduction pt II
• Wikipedia: an introduction pt III
• Wikipedia: an introduction pt IV Pachuco cadaver (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em[edit]

For quite sometime Giacomo has been frustrated with Arbcom & now he's chosen to run for a seat on that very committee. I think that's great & wish him well. In fact, his candidacy may well be the first to get me to vote in an AC election. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also aplaud his decision to run, not because I support him (I don't) but because he has the guts to put his money (Ok time, effort etc) where his mouth is. In fact it would be very intriguing to see how he behaves on the other side of the fence. Reminded me of the nomination of this guy for DCI. Good luck (I mean it)! - BorisG (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has my support, but Jimmy Wales has no intention of listening to so much as 99% Support consensus. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

let's just wait and see. This is a serious attempt to gain a seat on the Arbcom to represent those on the shop floor, so let's hope it is taken seriously.  Giacomo  16:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya got my support. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got my support too because those overturned blocks show you have the wikicourage to challenge wikiauthority appropriately. We need people like you on the arbitration committee. Good luck to you! Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without identifying, I will have no access to CU and OS and the Arb's mailing list; I first of all thought this would be a huge impediment, but I now realise it would be liberating - meaning that for the first time we would have an Arb making decisions based purely on presented evidence, rather than secret lobbying and back channel influences
Wow Giano... I find that statement to be, quite frankly, one of the most refreshing concepts to come down the pike in a while! Arakunem^Talk 02:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is plainly obvious that some of the evidence is sensitive (IP's, personal info etc) and cannot be discussed publicly on-wiki. - BorisG (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true, but it's freely available to a select few anyway whether they are Arbs or not. [3]. It appears we are constantly deceived by the Arbcom about confidentiality anyway.  Giacomo  14:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand there's my vote. This election season is very drama monger loaded, even moreso than usual. I count at least 13 and potentially more, and that is a frightening number as one of them might sneak through the cracks in this, "Anonymous secret ballot with a discussion link that so few voters even notice." These elections will have been a failure if even one of them passes. I couldn't find a single candidate to support other than Giano at this time. Balloonman may get a support later in the month if I can remember enough about him. His discussion page is frikkin empty. Hard to know these days with the secret ballot and discussion dropping 99.9%. Good luck, Giano. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Balloonman has withdrawn his candidacy, although he's still listed on the ballot. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more things change...[edit]

I wrote this three years ago, give or take. User:Lar/ArbCom2007/Giano ... It makes interesting reading, there are things that have changed since then. But I stand by what I said then, by and large it's all still valid. Barring some major surprise, I'll be voting for Giano again this year. ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be voting for Giano - regardless of the fact that I personally quite like him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy doesn't believe in using IRC to try & settle things on Wikipedia. Who could ask for anything more? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, one could ask for less inflammatory rhetoric? I don't know this guy, and he may have a good point, but he sure doesn't know how to put it across in a calm and reasoned manner. Anyway, if he actually wants the job rather to just make a point, he hides it pretty well, so I suppose it doesn't matter. Herostratus (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that swung it for me (against)? Giano is barely contributing to the Wiki - he currently spends most of his time in User_talk and Project space. I think it's much more preferable to have arbs who have are focused on the project primarily and not the drama -Errant ^(chat!) 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you will find in terms of time, I have spent far longer writing two very large and heavily researched pages during the last couple of weeks than I have commenting elsewhere. It takes two minutes to make a comment, but several hours to read a large chunk of a book for research, then use that information in an article. Just drawing one plan for a page can take up to 20 hours work. What you don't see in a page is the hours it takes to create it.  Giacomo  23:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, Giano has several obvious weaknesses as an ArbCom candidate but his content contributions are substantial and valuable. I think tmorton's criticism is unfair. - BorisG (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say, Giano, with all due respect, I have opposed your nomination. The way you've handled the whole identification situation appears to be textbook navel-gazing and disruption simply to prove a point. You need identification to open a bank account, to buy a plane ticket, or even to buy a beer in this nation; I can't believe you haven't done any of the above without complaint. If this is how you handle a simple matters such as to identify yourself (and cannot believe the foundation if they make you a promise), then I think your priorities are off. As an arbitrator you'd give far too much credence to the WP:FREE speech side and not enough to the recognition that there are rules to be followed, and they exist for very good reasons. I would give you a chance to change my mind, but it appears I'm already too late and voting has ended :(. On a personal level I wish you good luck. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous identity[edit]

One of the requirements for a candidate's statement, is that they disclose alternate accounts. I see no such disclosure on Harej's current statement, even though there is considerable history on at least one alternate name. --Elonka 02:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an exemption for users who may have received unwelcomed attention while operating a prior username? (Logically, there should be.) I don't know who this user was, but perhaps there is a reason they didn't disclose a past account, or perhaps it was just an omission. For convenience of readers and to avoid doubts, could you link to those requirements, please. That may help all of us get on the same page. Jehochman ^Talk 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above the button that says, "Click here to create a candidate profile", at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates. Specifically, a candidate's statement must, "include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee".

--Elonka 03:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have disclosed my prior username, "Messedrocker". I was renamed in 2009, and then a vandal took over the old username. I apologize for the oversight on my part. harej 04:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is explained in harej's own words on his candidate questions sheet, FYI. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, from what I have seen, Harej is a solid editor and admin and I'm looking forward to supporting him.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sleep[edit]

You can be a good arbiter, an underemployed arbiter, and/or loose sleep as a result of Wikipedia. You can't be all three; which will you choose? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I choose to incorporate ArbCom as part of a healthy and balanced life. I love really difficult questions, and there are not many Wikipedia jurists in the world (compared to jurists of real-world legal institutions). One of the things I love about contesting this election is that I get the opportunity to answer these really difficult questions about Wikipedia and its practices. I am prone to getting little sleep if something worthwhile (or not even!) keeps me up. I also see what you mean by how with two options, you have to exclude a third. To that end, there will probably be times where I am working on only a little bit of sleep, but that won't make me a bad arbiter necessarily, but perhaps one of interesting character. (Right now I'm working off of a caffeine high.) If in the future I am employed (by something other than course work, that is), I still hope to somehow keep ArbCom in my life. I'll see. harej 02:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on copyright issues question[edit]

Just to clarify, that was not a loaded question - I haven't looked at your contributions at all, and the question was purely hypothetical. Thanks for the answer. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below conversation taken from Iridescent's talk page[edit]

Iridescent, you've probably been dreading this question, but is your identity on a certain BADSITE and the comments made under it fair game to bring up on-wiki? Skomorokh 18:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the statement - Iridescent mentions the fact she registered Eva Destruction here, and her account on the "bad site" is even linked back to here. AD 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, but wanted to know how Iridescent felt about the issue before dredging up dead drama to sate my own curiousity. Skomorokh 18:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fire away; that I have a WR account is no secret. Yes, WR has some truly obnoxious people, but so does Wikipedia itself; I've never seen any reason to condemn everyone on that site just because they grudgingly tolerate the presence of a few obsessives. – iridescent 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, added. I think most editors these days would agree with that stance on WR. Thanks for humouring my questions thus far, the responses have definitely been of interest. Skomorokh 19:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________________

Eva Destruction's (Iridescent) opinion of Newyorkbrad, as expressed on Wikipedia Review (23/02/10):

"Really? In my experience, Brad is a pompous obstructionist with a severe mote/beam differentiation issue; he divides the world into his friends who can do no wrong and whose most blatant abuses he'll explain away as "honest mistakes", and his enemies who can do no right and whose most trivial errors deserve the harshest punishment he can dish out. Of the current arbcom members he's probably the one whose opinion I'd trust the least. Someone like Luke/One or Kirill Lokshin I may disagree with on pretty much everything, but they'll take pains to explain how they reached whatever opinion they have; Brad, on the other hand, either backs up his real-life buddies come what may, or stays out of the decision making until it's obvious which way the wind is blowing, then wades in at FT2-like length to support whatever the consensus view is."

Does Iridescent still hold that opinion of Brad? Terrafermat (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways yes; in some ways no. Brad has got a lot better than he used to be when it comes to wall-of-text pronouncements, but I still think his view of Wikipedia is diametrically opposed to mine; he sees Wikipedia's primary purpose as the advancement of the community with the improvement of the content secondary, while I see its primary purpose as the advancement of the content and the community side only important insofar as it advances that. It's not a case of right/wrong; we just are coming at Wikipedia from fundamentally different angles. – iridescent 00:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Brad is likely to get re-elected, if you were also an Arb wouldn't you find it frustrating to work alongside him? Terrafermat (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This not being the place for threaded or inter-candidate discussion, I'd welcome if someone would post an individual question on my questions page asking for my comments on Iridescent's remarks. (Aspects of the response I intend might surprise many.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec; I'll post this reply as it's already written, but won't reply any further here) Not as frustrating as he'll find it to work alongside me… Seriously, no; while I doubt either of us will ever be top of each other's Christmas card lists, I think all the candidates are at least on speaking terms with each other. We may have completely different ideas on the best way to get there but we're both headed in the same basic direction. If everyone thought the same, we wouldn't need multiple people on Arbcom and could go back to the rule-by-decree days. – iridescent 01:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep[edit]

"You can be a good arbiter, an underemployed arbiter, and/or loose sleep as a result of Wikipedia. You can't be all three; which will you choose? John Vandenberg (chat) 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)"

That was a great question... Which will you choose? Are you going to serve out your term this time? ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a sleeper.

One of the reasons for resigning was that, from November to July of 2009-2010, I was responsible for the compilation of the Excellence in Research for Australia submission for my university. At the time of my resignation, I was starting to feel the pinch, and I don't like letting tasks slip, or be done sloppily. Tasks at work were slipping, and the ArbCom decision should have been handled better.

The government has announced that this reporting requirement will be required of Australian universities again in 2012, so the months leading up to that will be a period of high workload for me. As a result, I'll need to focus on work during this period.

Also, if elected, I won't be as active an arbiter in 2011 as I was in 2009. But I will loose sleep when something needs to be done, and I'm not going to buckle under pressure or vanish if things turn ugly.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you to be trustworthy and reasonable[edit]

I have worked with you in too many different areas to be able to easily recall my impressions of your service on Arbcom. I already had a firm opinion of you long before then. I respect your judgment and have found you to be thoughtful and reasonable. I remember thinking your difficulties on Arbcom were problems of process rather than ones of judgment.BirgitteSB 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern European editing restrictions[edit]

In connection with WP:DIGWUREN and editing in Eastern European topics, Loosmark has had two 6 month topic bans, 1 six month revert restriction, one two month interaction ban and other logged warnings. He was blocked on October 1, 2010 for two weeks and his six month topic ban reset from then. A record like this on a topic which often comes before ArbCom regrettably makes Loosmark an unsuitable candidate for ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User is a friend and apologist of the EEML users, and most likely would have been involved himself had it not been discovered until later. I note with dismay that he was unblocked in September by Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a long term friend and associate of the tag team group of which Loosmark is part. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Darwinek for previous abuse by this user. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither a friend nor an apologist of the EEML users. It is true however that I opposed how the ArbCom handled the EEML cases both in terms of how private emails was used as evidence plus how the case dragged for an incredible 3 or 4 months. That's not to say that the EEML users have not made their mistakes and done things which they should have not done. Anyway since in minds of some people that makes me an associate or a friend of the EEML users, if elected, I will recuse on anything concerning the EEML.

Regarding Darwinek: I am not a part of any "tag team group", I don't know Darwinek and I have never contacted Darwinek in any shape or form. He has not "unblocked" me as you inaccurately state above but rather he reduced my block length from 1 week to 1 day. Why, you have to ask him. I guess he thought the so called "harassment of an admin", for which I was blocked by Sarek of Vulcan is worth a day block rather than a week block.  Dr. Loosmark  18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions are false, and you know them to be so. But, fine; stick with that line. See how many people believe you when a casual google search of your user name and that of key EEML users reveals multiple threads proving my point; and of course any search through the archive itself will clarify your relationship with the EEML.

Incidentally, if I were to guess Darwinek's "reasons" ... most likely he was emailed and asked to do so either by you or another EEML user; or if not, did so off his own back to gain favour/help a buddy. Almost certainly had nothing to do with admining; he's only performed one block/unblock in the last half year, and that just happened to be a tag team buddy. What are the odds? Just my "theorising" though. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I don't know them to be false, I know them to be true. And you know that as well. The EEML case was the most examined case in the history of the ArbCom. The Arbs (and the whole armada of anti-EEML users) examined every aspect of the case inside out, including reading the emails. I was never even as much as mentioned by any of the Arbs. I had nothing to do with the EEML. These are the facts.

And I have already stated that I will recuse myself from anything regarding the EEML. If you think that Darwinek or whoever else have done anything wrong please report on the appropriate boards. (And again my block was shortened, I wasn't unblocked).  Dr. Loosmark  23:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have more respect for you Loosmark if you admitted your connections and sympathies, and moved on. You share national sympathies with these users and have been caught up. So what? It's a cultural thing and that's what happens ... people would understand and let you move on. Instead, you're trying to mislead people and treat them like fools. In this format there will just be too many eyes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month for sock puppetry[edit]

Loosmark has been blocked for one month by Avraham for sock puppetry. AGK 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been extended to an indef block and there's a discussion on whether a community ban should be applied at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban discussion: Loosmark and sockpuppeting Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That ban was extended to one year [4] for violating an Arbcom enforcement case, ironically enough. I rather suspect, if there was any doubt before, that that puts paid to his candidacy.  Ravenswing  15:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sprawling, unfocused, repetitive evidence, and long durations[edit]

I was a little disappointed that NYB's response to general question 8 (proposals for change) rightly identified the length of cases as a major problem, but offered no specific avenues for the new Committee to explore that might avoid the blow-out of cases:

“

Pretty much every candidate for the Arbitration Committee campaigns on a platform of "cases need to be decided faster," and [three years ago] I was no exception.... I've done my best to keep things moving ... there are too many cases that have taken too long, ...

”

Given Roger Davies' recent observation in a Signpost interview that "the cases ArbCom hears have become bigger, nastier and much more complex", I wonder whether NYB's RL expertise in legal text and process might be the basis for specific suggestions as to limiting the size of evidentiary text and the sprawling duration of cases. I'm not referring so much to the drafting stage, but the evidentiary stages. Why isn't four or five weeks enough for a big case, given the stress of long cases for the parties and the arbitrators, and multiple demonstrations of how anger and frustration between parties tend to increase during an extended case. How might word lengths be brought under control when there are many parties? Might parties be systemically encouraged to workshop more unified (and therefore shorter, and perhaps more focused) responses before submitting evidence? Is there a role for tighter stage-deadlines? Tony (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be discussing this issue in a couple of responses to other questions, including one specifically about the Climate change case, in the next few days. Input from others here would be welcome as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NYB. Tony (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here you go: You guys screwed the pooch about 11 different ways on that case... stapling three cases together when two of them could have been handled with quick and easy motions, asking for input about questions that needed addressing, and then never doing a thing with them, not participating as the case went along to help steer it, then shutting down discussion completely for a month while you all took a runner... and that's all **before** the proposed decision was posted. I won't even go into the problems with what happened afterwards or the decision itself. Why should we believe that you (collectively) are going to do any better? And more over, why should we believe that you (personally) are going to have the mettle to come to grips with the problematic individuals in complex cases when you didn't really do so in this one, or in several others? ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with Lar here. The Committee needs to come to grips with the more recent environment of the big nasties. It still treats cases with similar procedures and protocols to those it had in the relatively innocent days of 2005. Tony (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(To Lar) I don't know if you've a chance to read my answer to individual question 3 (on the main questions page), where I discussed some aspects of the Climate change case yesterday. I don't know if you'll think that is (anticipatorily) responsive to the points you made above, but it acknowledges at least some of them. As for "com[ing] to grips with the problematic individuals" in the case, the committee ultimately voted to topic-ban a dozen editors from the Climate change topic areas; I voted in favor of more than half of the topic-bans, while suggesting that less severe sanctions could be considered against a few other editors (and as to some of those editors, for all I know you might have agreed with me). I've voted for bans (both topic bans and outright site-bans) where warranted in other cases as well, both simple and complex, though I will certainly oppose a ban when I think a more lenient sanction would be more fitting. As for the more general question of "strict vs. lenient," as I've said elsewhere, it is also important to have a range of approaches rather than a single one; there is a reason that the position I am seeking reelection to is not that of The Arbitrator Of Wiki, but as a single member of an 18-member committee. Lastly, while I have acknowledged more than once that the Climate change case was not the committee's finest hour, I have to say (despite some constraint I feel about arguing with the voters on an election page, much less taking the risk of blaming them for a committee failing) that with all due respect, this case was not many of the case participants' finest hour either. Do you think your behavior as a party to the case made my, or my colleagues', job in this case any easier?

(To Tony1) I actually had some refinements of procedure in mind for the MickMacNee/blocking-unblocking policy case, but then my colleagues voted not to take the case. I had in mind setting up a workshop by topic, and also creating and enforcing deadlines for evidence submission and so forth, because the case was straightforward enough that we would not likely have been overcome by excessive masses of evidence. My goal has always been to expedite the arbitration process, and it seems I once was good at doing that; there are several cases I wrote that went from opening to closing in a couple of weeks or less. In this area, as in many others, I can only say that I will always do my best. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question you asked me: Yes, if you had actually paid any attention to what I said before and during the case. Or had been there to lend support to the sanctions regime the community came up with when you (collectively) were asked specific targeted questions, early on, which you ignored. This case had some of the most pernicious factional behavior I've seen, and certainly the worst outside of ethnic areas. Which you pretty much blew off dealing with. What was the point of the principle about factionalism you articulated if you didn't then use it for anything? And I'll again ask, why on earth the big show of asking what everyone's concerns were and then ignoring the input, even when asked what you planned to do with it? I think you've got a good bit of "blame the victim" going on here, NYB. As well as a lot of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, with a healthy dose of shoot the messenger. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have stuck with my initial instinct that this page is for discussion about each candidate such as myself, rather than for responses as on the questions page. This is not for lack of desire to respond to questions or criticism, but more a matter of not getting in the way of the discussion, or focusing too much attention on any one point. If there are further questions about this or any other matter, from anyone, I'll be glad to address them on the questions page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, it's a tough tone in your most recent post: I hope NYB has been left enough "space" to show how his legal expertise can be put to the task of modifying the Committee's protocols and procedures. But he cannot achieve reform alone without support from the community and the other arbs. Tony (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYB that was a non answer. Would you rather I repeated what I said on the questions page? Because I am sure I'm not the only person interested in your actual answers. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we had more Arbs (and editors, for that matter) who were capable of polite non-engagement in the face of aggressive badgering. Since this tangent seems increasingly focused on your personal grievances about the climate-change case, it might be best to take it up elsewhere, so that Brad can address more general issues here. I think Tony is gently suggesting the same thing. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly one view of this subtopic, and I can see why you in particular might hold it, MastCell, but I'm not sure it's generally held. (in other words, nice try on the spin, when the message gets uncomfy shoot the messenger) At any rate, I've already offered to move this to the questions talk page, and I await a response on that procedural matter from NYB. Whether it will then lead to a response on the substantive issues raised remains to be seen. I think Iridescent may have went a bit far in her evaluation (quoted above) of NYB but I can see where she's coming from. At this point I'm afraid I cannot in good conscience support this candidate for a repeat performance. Perhaps if some acknowledgment of error and undertaking to do better were forthcoming... I was among the 500+ supporters in the first go round and I suspect my view is a minority but I do think unless NYB changes approach, we may be better off with fresher voices and fresher ideas. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear from my comments above and from my answer to individual question 3 on the other page that I don't point with pride to Climate change in retrospect as a smoothly-processed case or as typical of the cases I've handled for the committee, other than with respect to the fairness that I attempted to display and perhaps in the detail of my comments on the proposed decision page. I'd urge that you and every voter judge my record of three years' service based on the whole of the three years' service, rather than on that of a single case in which I was one of multiple drafters—which was also, FWIW, a case in which you were one of the parties and throughout the course of which I, and I daresay other arbitrators, found your strident rhetoric to be, at best, unhelpful. As for procedure here, I do think it would be best to have questions on the questions pages, including both the main questions page and the questions talkpage that I set up at your request; and I suspect that would be the election coordinators' preference as well, though I won't make a fetish of what goes where. As for fresher voices and fresher ideas, I will (as will we all) defer to the decision of the community of voters: suffice it to say that I would 100% agree with your desire for a new voice if the election were to fill one seat on the committee; in reality, the election is to fill 11 seats on an 18-member committee, meaning that there is likely to be turnover of a majority of the members, and voters are challenged to balance the need for new voices with the potential desirability of some continuity as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you find this strident... but you have, again, failed to respond to the specific questions or concerns and instead emitted rhetoric. I despair of you actually addressing the points I raised. As I did before. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(We should undent soon if there is much more of this.) I didn't say that I found your comments in this thread strident (I will let them speak for themselves); I said many of your comments on the Climate change pages were strident, and I think that they were. I'll answer your questions on the questions page, later or in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC) I've now responded to the two questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brad is 100% correct. This isn't the place for questions, or for grievances about specific Arb cases. In my view, Brad has provided extremely detailed and thorough if somewhat longish answers to all Lar's questions. And certainly his patience (demosntrated throughout his tenure and exemplified by the above discussion) is commendable. Not a small bonus for an arb. - BorisG (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, my thanks to Brad for his response to my question. On BorisG's last point: I don't agree. If people have grievances concerning specific arbitrator decisions, the arb election is as good a place as any to air them. However, I think that people need to disclose if they are mentioned in the decision, if they are. Lar is cited for battlefield conduct here, and that needs to be pointed out to make his exchange with Brad understandable. NYBrad abstained, but his comment speaks for itself.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always gotta get that dig in if you can, don't you ScottyBerg? Oddly, you don't point that out for everyone mentioned in the case, just me... bit battlefield there, isn't it? I admit I let the baiting get to me from time to time, yes. But that's not the point of my comments. The point is, this case was botched badly, and NYB is a good part of why. Blaming the participants for his failings shows part of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfair to say that NYBrad "is a good part of why" the case was "botched," and that kind of criticism makes a lot more sense when read in conjunction with your being cited in a decision in which NYBrad participated. You really need to disclose that, voluntarily, when you take potshots at arbs who were involved in citing you for battlefield conduct. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is that not a fair assessment? Findings about me are irrelevant, I would have had the same view if I hadn't even been a party. Did you really want to argue that this case wasn't botched? Go ahead, explain how asking for input and then doing nothing with it, letting the case sit for a month with pages locked down, etc, isn't "botching" a case. ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Assessments of arbs by parties who've been dragged through arbitration proceedings, in which those arbs participated, are inherently suspect. You've been so dragged. You were cited. You were barred from taking action in enforcement of the CC decision. Was the finding against you sufficient? Of course not. It was weak-kneed and timid. But you need to disclose it in situations like this, and shouldn't wait until someone mentions that you had a finding of battlefield conduct against you. I'm surprised you're resisting that. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are YOU serious? I'm not resisting anything. Go ahead, explain how the case wasn't botched. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and I'd be delighted to explore the loused-up-edness of the CC case on this page if I felt it would be the slightest bit constructive, which it won't. I have mentioned one of its major deficiencies. Your mileage may vary. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's not lost in the discussion above, please note that I've responded to three questions about this case (one from ScottyBerg and two from Lar), over on the questions pages. Other than that, this probably isn't the best place for me to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you to be a valuable member ArbCom[edit]

Your Arbcom work has been very consistent and you have maintained clean hands. Those items might seem like faint praise on the face of it, but the high value is set by the relative scarcity.BirgitteSB 01:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete user talk-page archives[edit]

I have some rather serious concerns about this candidate, including the prospects for an effective evaluation by editors not already familiar with him. The block log is revealing to a point, but the editor's talk page (including archives) is incomplete, as a result of his practice of "shifting shit" from it: if he is displeased by something having been raised on his own talk page, he sometimes deletes the discussion and moves it to the talk page of the other editor (for his description of this practice, see here, at the bottom). The archives of the user-talk page, then, are incomplete, having been cleansed of some unpleasantness, including not only other editors' concerns but the candidate's own incivility in response. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My archives are 99 percent complete, and I can only suggest that you refrain from such unfounded accusations as you accused me of. Your throwing around of insults and accusations of antisemitism was the problem. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had a hard time making sense of this response until now, because it appears to emerge from a misimpression: you seem to be thinking of a thread you started on my talk page (not vice-versa), leading to something about spitting and a threat on the associated ANI thread to "beat the living daylights out of [me]" (later stricken). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, would you please provide a diff of what you deem the candidate's most egregious transgression in that regard? Not a whole bunch of diffs that no one will bother to look at, but rather the single most egregious one? Surely the link you provided can't be it. After all, if you were accused of supporting the use of forgeries in Wikipedia articles, wouldn't you remove that from your talk page? Also, please identify the specific policy or guideline that you think the candidate violated. Thanks, I know that will take you a little time, but it will help others to evaluate your comment. Incidentally, per WP:Talk, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving.". As for the candidate's block log, I must say (tongue in cheek) that I'm impressed to see one longer than mine; doesn't it mean the candidate now has a good idea of how Wikipedia administration operates? Seriously, do you agree with everything in the block log, and which block log entry do you find most important for our purposes now?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one is embarrassed by having certain issues raised on one's talk page, surely the solution is to avoid doing embarrassing things -- so no, I don't see the logic in your comment about supporting the use of forgeries. As for a long block log: I would have thought that knowing how Wikipedia administration operates is a means of avoiding frequent blocks, not acquiring them. I realize you have asked me a number of other questions -- but let's remember that I'm not a candidate here (and don't intend to be one). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication of embarassment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Off2riorob's block log is concerning. It shows a tendency to volatility which is incompatible with being a member of ArbCom. His present block log would preclude him even being chosen as an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think a long block log is damning in and of itself? Or do you have a particular entry or entries in the block log in mind?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob lost his temper at one point and edit warred over something related to climate change. I've only noticed it because I was watching WP:AE at the time for another report. Although he got blocked for that, it wasn't an AE block per se. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#Off2riorob. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocklog is certainly concerning, but even more important to someone seeking to artibtrate a dispute is to be level-headed. On this very page discussion the nomination thereof "refrain from such unfounded accusations as you accused me of." This is not a very good start and doesnt show much change since the last block in June (discounting the previous 2 that were withdrawn). Instead of such a statement, he can always defend himself instead of attacking the other editor. Perhaps next year..Lihaas (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passive aggression to tiptoe around WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, also severe concerns with temperament. I certainly hope the secret ballot voters will read this section before casting their vote. I will obviously be Opposing this candidate. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blocklog is certainly disturbing with blocks ranging from 15 March 2009 to 24 October 2010, and the only admin who has blocked more than once is YellowMonkey who blocked them twice in 2009. Making a grand total of 10 blocks combined with 4 unblocks (1 in October) and one block reduction. Certainly an interesting block log... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those blocks are just plain bad and clearly not the candidate's fault. Looking at the log, it seems that at least one of those blocks was completely egregious and ... made by another candidate in this election. I'm referring to this block by HJ Mitchell made on August 31 of this year, with the justification that there was a supposed legal threat involved. As can be clearly seen there was no such legal threat ever made [5], the block was soon reversed (by User Avraham - why isn't he running?) and HJ Mitchell was criticized (not to say "reprimanded") for making the block. I'm left wondering if the blocks aren't just due to some other people's misunderstanding of policy rather than this candidate's fault. Unfortunately, a bad, even a very bad, block still leaves its mark on the user's record and I'm getting the sense that that is what's going on here. People need to actually click through and look at the diffs rather than jumping in with an opinion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks can be wrong, but they are seldom completely without foundation. And when there is a whole series if them, and made by different admins, then it is a pattern. Sorry, I won't be clicking on individual blocks to find out. Besides, he is not an admin. OTOH I do not see removal of content from user talk page as a porblem at all. That's completely normal. - BorisG (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with all the above concerns, the conduct/approach really isn't appropriate for this type of role. Perhaps one or two blocks are incorrect, but that leaves many perfectly justified ones. I personally have had experience of the candidate's issues with civility and most of my discussions with him have also been removed from his talk page. Technically such deletions are not a breach of the rules but I want Wikipedia to be run by people who are open and transparent. If people post false comments on one's talk page then then it's better to refute them, similarly when one makes a mistake there's no need to delete any discussions about it. Based on my experience I'd question Off2RioRob's "99 percent complete" figure for the completeness of his talk page. On the positive side the candidate did apologise to me so that is to be commended, but it would be better if most of these incidents did not occur in the first place.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the general sentiment expressed above. Would also note, while some blocks may raise eyebrows, so as well may some reports at AN/I that did not result in blocks, but which another "closer" might IMHO very well have closed differently. Editors who are interested are of course encouraged to look at the relevant AN/I posts, and decide for themselves if that is the case, but in any event that is but a footnote to the general sentiment expressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the concerns. I have had several unpleasant encounters with this editor. My long-term impression is that he is highly unsuited for the sensitive post of ArbCom member. Attempts to gloss over his block log are unconvincing. Further, I am unable to easily access any of his talk page archives prior to late August of this year without manually changing the URL's archive number in the window. If they are otherwise available I am unable to find the way in after ten minutes of looking, though it may be a function of the archive bot being used. In any case, I urge any casual voter unaquainted with this editor's lengthy record to look as deeply as is possible. As one example, Off2riorob's participation in this thread [6] is of interest; note the implied threat directed at me, should I ever run for adminship here. Jusdafax 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow[edit]

I've read a few ANI issues where Off2riorob added his two cents. Unless he was personally involved, his contribution looked either extremely shallow or otherwise they were biased towards one party. We need unbiased arbs willing to dig deep into the issues present, not off-the-cuff judgments. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Intemperate in dispute resolution[edit]

My interactions with Off2riorob were short-lived--maybe he was just having a bad day. But they occurred in an arbitration, so I'm concerned enough to speak up here.

In spring 2010 I lent my assistance to a WP:NORN which figured in what I later learned was a meta-dispute in numerous race/intelligence related articles. Shortly after I became acquainted with it, the meta-dispute spread itself to the WP:BLPN board, where off2riorob left opinions. (I assume that he was drawn in to the meta-dispute in a similar manner that I was.) We didn't come to the same conclusions. Which is ok-and business as usual, at wikipedia. No big deal. But this meta-dispute landed in arbitration, and that should be where the rubber meets the road-in other words, evidence backed with diffs.

This edit was the 3rd move in a temper tantrum by off2riorob who flew off the handle when I disagreed with his conclusions offered in arbitration, that I think are unfounded, in defending a subsequently topic-banned party in the arbitration. While I was trying to focus on the complexities of the issue and sources themselves, my dissent triggered in him an impatient explosion about my "bombarding" with diffs.[7] To minimize drama, I didn't fly into high dudgeon in the arbitration page, but went to his talk page seeking an explanation. He self-righteously nuked it from his own talk page, and lectured me to discuss it on mine. (I don't care either way. My first instinct is the efficiency of "I talk to you on your page, you talk to me on mine.")

What suggests to me that he may too intemperate yet for the arbitration committee were his comments like this, "'No I have never spoken to you before, but talking to you today has allowed me to easily form these positions" and "Please leave me out of this POV single purpose users issue, I hate it , I would block you all, at least topic ban you all so that you either go away and stop disrupting wikipedia or that you get the wikipedia idea and start improving the wikipedia instead of simply attempting to assert your POV on the wikipedia, try this...help on some football articles or something independent of your single POV. I strongly support all my comments at that Arbitration requests race and intellegence noticeboard and will defend them anywhere, please forget about me and carry on regardless.' Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2010" I'm not a single purpose user, I didn't draw him into the debate. This may have been a bad day, like I said. But on that day he failed in those attributes I think important in dispute resolution. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns over judgement[edit]

Perhaps Off2riorob has matured a little, I don't know, but I think it's worth mentioning a somewhat odd view on Wikipedia's civility policy, a view which preceded this. There's nothing personal here, but I was surprised to see his name in the list of candidates. He seems well-intentioned, but lacking in judgement, and I'm not sure I want someone with such a poor understanding of the difference between strong language and civility able to contribute to important decisions. Parrot of Doom 22:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both much of the criticism (that he is has a battle field (indeed Trench warfare) mentality) and that he sometimes brings a fresh (and not always incorrect) vision to many articles. He also has a tendency to (for example) close ANI’s prematurely and unilaterally. He does not seem to be able to distance himself from his sense of righteousness (or perhaps his own self belief in his sense of righteousness). Thus whilst I believe the user is not wholly disruptive and will be an (overall) asset in the long run I do not believe he has the ability to sufficiently distance himself from matters to truly be an asset to arbom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved outside opinion[edit]

I notice a few people have commented who have had personal interactions with Off2riorob. I've never had any personal interaction with him as far as I can remember, and so I'm coming from a completely neutral position. The examples noted above are certainly not one-sided - I think Off2riorob did have some justification for his part in a number of them, and various antagonists were not entirely innocent. However, having said that, I have seen Off2riorob in discussion around the place a lot, and although he is a fantastic contributor and has done a lot of excellent work at BLP, and his judgment on BLP issues, of which he has great experience, is often spot on, I don't believe he has the right temperament for ArbCom - and I was actually very surprised to see him as a candidate. I think he gets into too many unnecessary arguments, and he seems to have an approach of digging in and defending his own entrenched position very strongly, while not really trying to understand any opponents' positions - and that would really not be a good approach for ArbCom. The block log concerns me too, even if one or two were unjustifed. I note that they were all short and Off2riorob cooled down pretty quickly in each case, which is commendable. But that observation, and other interactions I've seen, suggest too much of a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. Sorry I can't offer difs, but I'm really just expressing a general feeling from having seen a lot of interactions, and picking out a few specific incidents would not really illustrate that. So, in short, I see a very competent and committed editor, with a great deal of knowledge, especially in the BLP arena, but I don't see the personal interaction skills that would be needed for admin or ArbCom. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional, underscored above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inflexibility and intemperance[edit]

Having interacted with him, and having watched other editors try to work with him as well, I would second the above comment: he seems to have an approach of digging in and defending his own entrenched position very strongly, while not really trying to understand any opponents' positions. I have linked to an example on his candidate's question page. IMO his approach is not at all a good match for ARBCOM. The dispute in question is one in which every editor but one (i.e. Off2riorob) is in agreement that some material should be included, but Off2riorob is simply vetoing it unilaterally, refusing to recognize consensus, refusing to participate in any consensus-building exercise, and attacking everyone who disagrees. It eventually became irreconcilable with the presumption of good faith. One can argue one way or another about this block or that block on his rather strikingly extended list of same, but behind it all is a pattern of absolute inflexibility that is IMO the exact opposite of what ARBCOM is supposed to be. Spaceclerk (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, possibly in retribution for these comments, he's accusing me of being the sock of a banned user. Which, as I shouldn't even have to say, I am not. Somebody toss me a prop skull for me to call Yorick, because apparently someone wants a drama. Spaceclerk (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CheckUser for the accusation came back "unlikely" - not at all a surprise, given that I am not a sock. It will be an interesting measure of Off2riorob's character to see whether he apologizes for the false accusation. It could happen, you know. 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceclerk (talk • contribs)

• - I am sorry if you are upset about the sock report, it was made in good faith according to the investigations I had made. - and my report was mistaken. Lets try to go forward on a fresh spirit of good will. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial temperament[edit]

Reading the remarks above I must point out a big difference between being IN a dispute, and being OUTSIDE and ABOVE a dispute. I do not know how he handles himself when party to a dispute. Maybe with a personal stake he loses his temper. But when he has no personal stake, I have seen Off2riorob bring restraint, and a dignified and fair perspective to other people's quarrel. My experience of Off2riorob came in the course of my talk page conversation with a (from my jaundiced perspective) frothing-at-the-mouth ideologue. Off2riorob without taking sides gently and tactfully steered us toward a workable solution. Also he's a Brit, and I think it good to have a non-American perspective. I support Off2riorob's candidacy. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit I do not support his candidacy. Nor do several other Brits. If you wish for a Brit on arbcom there is always Elen of the roads. Polargeo (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Arbcom decisions are not taken in 5 minutes, but over days and weeks; there is plenty of time to reflect. Off2riorob has proved time and again in his BLP work that he is astute, perceptive, and cuts to the point. See e.g. [8] --JN466 15:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - Well thank you Jayen. I have been a bit silent on this talkpage as it seems more like it was just a place where some of the users I have had disputes with were coming to vocalise their dislike, but I will make a comment after seeing Polargo's comment. Polargo was involved in the Climate change debacle and it didn't go well for him. I was involved in raising up the communities awareness that there was a serious issue in that topic area. There was ultimately to end the massive disruption to the project an Arbcom case and as a result the disruption in the area is reduced completely. I collected through my efforts to help reduce the community wide disruption regarding this put at least a couple of users in a negative position in regards to me. As I hear, being a member of the committee is a thankless task, without any power as such and members appear to regularly find themselves upsetting one faction or the other, as they say, you can't please all of the people all of the time. I can say to you that if I users trust me enough to support, I will be meticulous in assessing all cases in depth and I will show neutrality to all sides. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Performance as a mediator[edit]

The candidate seems to have had a long involvement with WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM. His experience there would therefore seem to strongly recommend him for a position as an arbitrator. However, in the one encounter I have had with PhilKnight, with me as a disputant and PhilKnight in an unofficial mediator role, I was underwhelmed. I see that he is well-meaning but I was left with the impression that his lack of content creation skews his perspective against content contributors in favor of Wiki policy enforcers. I realize my role in the dispute may color my view or perhaps the episode is not generally representative of his contributions. I'm therefore curious and it would be germane to his candidacy to know about how people feel about PhilKnight's performance as a mediator. Maybe PhilKnight could also provide examples of contentious mediations he has conducted that highlight his strengths and the way he would operate as an arbitrator. I'd also like to ask PhilKnight what he thinks about the mediation process. In his view is it effective? If he believes it is, how would he explain the tendency for editors to bring so many disputes to ANI first? Lambanog (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started mediating cases in 2006 for WP:MEDCAB, however I don't have many recent examples. Instead, I suggest you look at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles, which I set up and subsequently closed. Regarding your questions, I think mediation is effective for content disputes between parties that are prepared to compromise. I think disputes which go to ANI are usually situations where one party believes the underlying problem is conduct, as opposed to content. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambanog, could you provide a link to the case, I tried looking but couldn't find anything. DC T•C 08:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My dispute with the other editor occurred mostly at Talk:List of Philippine restaurant chains. Another editor and PhilKnight have become the de facto substitutes while the editor I had a problem with has deftly left it to them to handle things while going on to cause further dismay elsewhere. Lambanog (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i too would second Lambanog's request for examples of PhilKnight's mediation skills in heated disagreements. in all the instances i have come across of phil's involvement in contentious discussions, he seems to often take sides, even sometimes appearing as a source of division, as opposed to mediating and promoting cooperation. mediating disputes where the participants are willing to compromise is one thing, but these are not generally the types of disagreements which will end up at arbcom. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WookieInHeat, this is an example of a mediation, which resulted in the {{wordstoavoid}} template. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't eactly call that a complex and difficult mediation, or even a particularly "heated disagreement". Got any more? Franamax (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I haven't made any claims in regard to the descriptions in your above post. However, I can give examples of relatively straightforward disputes I've helped with such as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-30 Democratic National Committee and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-09 Zero Mostel. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you take my questions to?[edit]

You left only small part of the discussion (my first questions and your first response) on the project page and wrote that you removed the rest here-where exactly? It is very severe in my eyes that you remove this content so close to the voting itself (even if you removed here, which you didn't) -right now I don't know where it's, so I treat it as a deletion-restore it a.s.a.p to the project page.--Gilisa (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gilisa, the questions and answers were move to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/PhilKnight/Questions by the election coordinators. PhilKnight (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apologize then.--Gilisa (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First post!! (but seriously, can anyone tell me why he shouldn't be re-elected?)[edit]

Is SirFozzie unique in having run in the 3 arbcom elections in a row? Regardless, his contributions as an ARB have always struck me as both thoughtful, incisive and imbued with a deep appreciation for the culture of wikipedia. Asking here incase in my wanderings I have missed something that casts doubt on his re-election, but I have seen nothing that would suggest he is anything other than eminently qualified for re-election. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Kinney, another sitting arb who's term expires in December, has run in the last four elections (see here); I'm not sure if he's running again. And I supported SF last year, and will likely do the same again. DC T•C 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell is a 'she' ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I supported SirFozzie last year. I cannot say I'm satisfied with the way he communicate. I don't mind if an arb member is more in the strict side as far as voting goes. What I mind much is an arb member who likes to give orders and issue threats to fellow editors. I've seen SirFozzie using different formulas of the statement "I do NOT want to see ... again". I prefer someone who communicate like Newyorkbrad does. Sole Soul (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation on Shell's talkpage[edit]

I think this conversation on Shell's talkpage is entirely relevant to the current election. I have a copy of the current state of the conversation here in case Shell's talkpage changes. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried about the state changing (e.g. talk page archiving), use a wp:permalink. Carcharoth (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be returned to the committee[edit]

Stephen Bain should not be allowed to resume his role as an arbitrator. In the ARBMAC2 case, he left this gem, referring to admins as having "Atlas complexes". If that's not an uncivil attack on others I don't know what is, and for the record, these were the admins who were trying to enforce neutrality. Later, in the WMC-Abd case, Bain posted a remark in one of his votes of how I had "assessed community consensus" concerning a ban imposed on Abd. I did no such thing. I closed a discussion procedurally because Abd had accepted restrictions (this closing turned out to be a horrible mistake on my part because some matters were in fact left unresolved, notably the length of this ban). After seeing Bain's misrepresentation of my remarks, which I was willing to assume were a simple misreading, I went to his talk page to request that he correct his comments. After no response in 11 days, I requested it again. No result, and the case closed with the misrepresentations still there and permanently preserved on the page. Arbs who are unresponsive to concerns (not even giving me a response until after the case had already closed, let alone fixing his distortions) have no place on the committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You consider it appropriate that administrators should be given the discretion to determine for themselves whether dispute resolution might be futile in a particular situation, and have free exercise of their administrative tools if they decide that it is? --bainer (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the administrators sanctioned in that case "were trying to enforce neutrality". I'm presuming you consider neutrality to be a good thing. Do you therefore consider it appropriate that administrators should be given the discretion to determine for themselves whether dispute resolution might be futile in a particular situation, and have free exercise of their administrative tools if they decide that it is? --bainer (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I objected to the decision to sanction the administrators in that case, it is true, but that is not the objection I have raised here. There is room for debate on when users should be sanctioned. I do not see room to debate whether it's acceptable to insult users by suggesting that they have a complex, regardless of what abusive actions they may or may not have taken; this is simply unacceptable for any arbitrator (not really acceptable for any user). That is the objection I've raised here. The issues of what sanctions should have been made in that case and what should be done in intractable disputes are matters for another time and place, as neither can justify Stephen Bain's choice of language. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was impressed by your contribution on the Eastern European Mailing List case[edit]

I remember that the case was practically wrapped up in a somewhat superficial fashion, when you add a full set of nicely articulated FOF's to be voted on. I personally think that properly articulated FOF's can be of more use than remedies in Arbcom cases. I was very impressed at the time that you put in the effort to do especially as the case could easily have been closed without it. I remember that you resigned left shortly afterward and I thought it was a shame as I hoping to see if this incident was a fluke or if you would continue to make the effort to articulate to people exactly where they went wrong.BirgitteSB 23:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor correction: Stephen's term came to an end in December 2009, rather than him resigning. Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of prior incidents[edit]

Prior incidents involving "Giano" (currently editing under the account GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs)), examples [9] [10], and Xeno being mentioned in this block log — could all use some significant explanation. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My prior involvement with Giano received significant coverage at both of my RfBs (1, 2), but feel free to let me know if anything still needs clarifying. –xeno^talk 14:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be most helpful to have a brief summary statement about these prior incidents, as well as a statement of recusal from future admin and arbcom involvement with the user(s) in question. -- Cirt (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to your question. –xeno^talk 14:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed, thanks Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that response was a bit obtuse, and did not satisfy either of the points from my last reply, above. I sincerely hope the community does not face the same sorts of vague responses and comments, in future ArbCom cases. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what more you're looking for. I understand you took instance with my transferring rollback from Giano II to GiacomoReturned, but your concern did not find traction with the community. –xeno^talk 14:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a refusal to recuse with regard to involved user(s) (cited above), or at the least and more disturbing, a subtle way of ignoring that question. -- Cirt (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you drew those conclusions. The answer takes into account the fact that context matters. –xeno^talk 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "yes" or "no" with regards to recusal involving the user(s) above, or admission of outright refusal to do so in the future, would be most appreciated. A simple positive/negative statement, either way, would go a long ways towards clearing up where things stand with regards to prior conflicts and involvement of admins/arbitrators, and expectations of their subsequent actions (or lack thereof). -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a case entitled GiacomoReturned were to come before the committee, I would likely recuse. If Giano asked me to delete one of their userpages, I would not. Context matters. –xeno^talk 15:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for any opposers[edit]

Are you Xenophobic? Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of question is this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A jokey one; I think =) –xeno^talk 03:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well qualified[edit]

I'd say Xeno is among the most level-headed and logical of all the candidates. I trust his judgment and would feel at ease with him presiding over arbcom cases. -- œ^™ 04:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through admin recall, and there were a few bumps in the road since it hadn't been done before and we had to sort of feel our way through a sometimes contentious process. Xeno helped me work through some of the technical aspects, and as we worked together I remember thinking: I cannot tell - literally cannot tell - what this person thinks of me, my case, or the process. I found that quite impressive. Based on the experience, I consider xeno to be unusually fair-minded and am confident he will discharge his duties in a in a dispassionate, thoughtful, and intelligent manner. Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]