Why on Earth would you even consider voting for a candidate who has been an Administrator for all of two months? Are you a fucking retard or something?
Most recently openly solicited on the harassment site Wikipediocracy for leaks of confidential information from ArbCom, which if that isn't bad enough in of itself (since it is not exactly unknown for that place to leak), he was well aware any leaked material would have been immediately used by said site to further pursue an already pretty traumatized woman, who based on nothing but rumour and innuendo originating from that site and gleefully transferred to Wikipedia by other scuzzy Admins, was forced to vanish from Wikipedia.
To date, Beeblebrox has not lifted a finger to ensure that site at least follows through on their claim there would be a blog post in due course, exposing what would have been, if true, the most explosive controversy in Wikipedia history. Beeblebrox, like the rest of the scum over there, seems entirely unconcerned that it seems increasingly likely there is nothing they can actually print that would be defensible as the simple unvarnished truth, as they claimed at the time.
The participation of Beeblebrox on that site is of course also the reason why another women editor is asking questions of all the candidates what they think of Admins who go over there and casually watch and even interact when one of their fellow Admins circumvented an ArbCom "gag order" with the pretty clear intent on furthering the distress of the editor it was placed to protect, in part through solicitation of further harassment on Wikipedia. Hard pass, for all but women hating scum, obviously.
Isn't it curious how even Clerks of the Committee make the mistake of going into the election making the same old promises that have gone unfulfilled by previous winners of the Golden Turd? We are left to guess what this person might bring that countless others before him apparently didn't have, even after questioning, which didn't reveal much in the way of unique insight, and even saw him admit he didn't have any bright ideas to offer in one specifically looking for ideas!
Even though they're standing as a reaction to FRAMBAN, their statement in that regard is generic and instantly forgettable. Could have been said by a dozen other of the angry loudmouths who vented their anger at the time, but who are going to be as unable to suggest workable solutions going forward from their sawdust covered pens, as this guy will be from his High Office. Definitely seems to be a follower not a leader. Most likely a wasted vote on someone who would be an unremarkable Arb at best. Not the fresh blood Wikipedia needs, not by a long shot.
Not an Administrator, and is not exactly being forthcoming over the 2017 incident - blocked 1 week for "personal attacks, vandalism, harassment, and abuse of advanced permissions". And although the permission was only rollback, the rest is as bad as it sounds, albeit his admission it stemmed from getting too emotional about a favourite checks out, and it sounds like it was an isolated incident, at least in recent years, he has two other blocks in 2011/12 for pa/ha. Hard pass, obviously.Yes, I have had some bouts of incivility in the past, the most recent of which in 2017. I stepped away from Wikipedia at that time, but I have been active for the past year.
In 2008 he claimed he could spot when it was appropriate to be firm and when the Committee should cut people some slack. In 2010 he admitted his previous resignation was because he was unable to separate his loyalties to his friends from his duty to Wikipedia, and he stood as a unifying candidate, able to bridge the supposed divide between those who want to enforce the rules and those who want to build the encyclopedia. In 2015 he reaffirmed his unified credentials, arguing he knew what it takes to be able to view cases from a neutral perspective.My previous statements in 2008, 2010 and 2015 still hold true.
Unless you find, or can make him produce, a single shred of proof that he is, was, or ever has been capable of being a neutral Arbiter in the long running ccontroversy surrounding Eric Corbett, a dispute that perfectly exemplifies his previous difficulties setting aside personal friendships to do what is best for Wikipedia, do not go near him.
Not only has this guy not been remotely neutral when it comes to Eric, he has been absurdly partisan even by the standard of the civility/productivity false dichotomy that has crippled Wikipedia since forever. You would be a fool to expect he could or might or would act any differently, should a similar case come before the Committee, and there are quite a few users looking to inherent Eric's crown as a willfully defiant and deliberately disruptive influence.
If you feel compelled to go with a former Arb just for institutional memory etc, then this is obviously the guy to go for. Has a good idea of what ArbCom is for and where recent Committees have fallen down and why. As good a chance as any to fix it. Potential red flag for believing Fram didn't need to be (kept) desysopped, but at least makes a logical argument as to why, with no hint of all the partizan True Faith bullshit that features in other candidacies. Now I think of it, I've always seen this guy as logical, sensible and impartial, often in a sea of the complete opposite even from his own nominal colleagues.
Makes a good case that he is at least entitled to recognition as an often lone voice of dissent/action against increasingly stymied Committees who have forgotten their first duty is to policy not the mob, and thus deserves a chance to further the work of turning the tanker, futile as it may be.
A code monkey who only obtained Adminship in January, despite being a seven year veteran, and only because he needed the IA user right to do more fancy coding, and of course block people who mess with his coding. Why would anyone even waste their time asking him questions? But apparently people have. I was going to say his answers did at least reveal enthusiasm, if not any substantive reason to elect him, but it rather appears as you look further down the page, that he has already lost confidence in his suitability. I'd vote him candidate most likely to run for the safety of what he loves doing most when the shit really starts getting real.
These is a certain level of naive optimism about this candidate, but at least their suggestions for change are novel, and when combined with solid stances on core policies that prior ArbComs have been unwisely eroding out of fear of corruption, they certainly deserve a chance.
Indeed. Is it arrogance or just sheer foolishness that he doesn't even mention in his nomination statement that he is not an Administrator, much less why? It would frankly be absurd to elect someone to the Committee who has demonstrated so spectacularly that they cannot secure the trust of a community that is apparently quite happy to elect and retain all manner of scum in that most trusted of roles. Stupid candidacy is stupid.I hope that I can provide a voice for content creators on the Arbitration Committee.
Joke candidate. You should vote for them just to make sure someone actually puts some thought into how you stop people like this from wasting everyone's time in future elections.
It's contemptible that there is only one woman standing in this election, even more so that she is only one of two survivors from that Year of Hell, her two sisters abandoning her. Obviously you don't vote for her because that would just be cruel. Wikipedia needs to face up to the reasons why women absolutely run a mile at the thought of running for their highest high office, and going into 2020 with one lone woman on the Committee, herself a lone victor from the class of 2018, one well known for having been battered and bruised by the experience of serving multiple previous terms as part of the token representation, would be a far better use of Katie's time, than joining her.
If you didn't laugh your fucking ass off at how deluded this guy is, how at odds with reality his sense of self really is, then you probably shouldn't be voting in this election at all.I believe I am fair without being too lenient and firm without being possessed of power. I sometimes do not stand on ceremony, and occasionally call a spade a spade but I can also keep my trap shut and forego on the last word.
In time, people will wonder how it was that the Wikipedia community got so fucked up that it was possible to be this poor at giving a fair representation of your thoughts and actions, and still remain a Wikipedia Administrator. If there is a better example of the inmates running the asylum, I've not seen it.......I have significant experience reading remarks and disagreements and determining the best path forward......I understand this nuthouse from many perspectives.........I've treated other humans here with kindness, compassion, and patience.......If you're looking to cast your vote for someone who's going to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia, I may be your candidate.
Put simply, unless you think Eric Corbett is a model Wikipedian, then this guy is not your candidate. Not by a long chalk.
So close. If only he had not said "functioned satisfactorily in most cases", or even if he had just admitted that not removing Fram's privelages when it was in their power to do so was one such example of ArbCom dysfunction, you might have been able to vote for this guy.I see the Arbitration Committee as the place where disagreements come to an end. Matters are decided, people have their privileges revoked. That is all it does; it does not set policy or otherwise promulgate rules. I have not been involved with it in recent years because I believe it has functioned satisfactorily in most cases, & the ArbCom can do without free advice. Nonetheless, the ArbCom has come to rely on the same small group of volunteers to donate their time & energy to make it work, & they need reinforcements. It's time for someone else to take his turn in the barrel, & I'm volunteering for that......The projects & the Foundation should be working as partners, each focusing on what we can do best to keep the community & the encyclopedia flourishing. And I'd like to be one of those who can convince them that this is the right approach.
A vote for this guy definitely seems like a vote for the status quo, and the fact he is about as old-school as they come, scribbling on Wikipedia before there was any thought they might need a Foundation, seals the deal.
As recently as December 2018 they shortcircuited the role of ArbCom to unilaterally desysop an Administrator who had made the mob angry, and while they were standing for election to ArbCom no less, so de facto torpedoing their candidacy, which was decidedly anti-mob. More recently he is clear that he would not have desysopped Fram in his case, something not even the mob would countenance, but doesn't have any good reason why not, and he practically dragged mob favourite RexxS over the line in his highly contentious RfA. All these things, and his candidate statement, add up to someone who clearly fancies a first time stint in ArbCom to further act as the instrument of the mob. Evidently the powers of a Bureaucrat are not enough when it comes to ensuring "we are better off remaining autonomous with regards to behavioural concerns".
Did his level best to ensure Eric Corbett never had to be treated like an ordinary user. Cast Fram as a misunderstood victim. In neither case has he shown even the slightest cognition that what these two people were, and what they became after many years of exposure to Wikipedia's ineffective governance system, reflects the many years he has supposedly been a leading light on the Committee.Editors who have followed ArbCom's activities in the past will have a pretty good idea what you can expect from me if I'm elected again.
A vote for Brad is a vote for more of the same alright. The same stinking shit, shoveled down your neck and sold as fillet steak.
This guy has been on Wikipedia for fourteen years, and yet he still doesn't understand that there is no such thing as the NPA policy, or that being superficially polite is against the WP:CIVIL policy (of which NPA is just a sub-section), which is far more than just a ban on "nasty words". He most certainly doesn't seem to understand that incivility typically goes hand in glove with battleground conduct and POV pushing, so if you don't really get what the WP:CIVIL policy is, you're not going to spot these other forms of misconduct.I am a strong believer in Wikipedia's core policies — especially the NPOV and NPA policies. I believe in civility, though my time spent here has helped me to understand that disruptive activity can be a real problem even if editors remain superficially polite, and I am really not as concerned about "nasty words" as I am about battleground conduct, POV-pushing, and undisclosed paid editing.
A vote for this guy is a vote for someone who is probably gonna punish you for abiding by the letter of the civility policy at best, or assume your ability to follow it to the letter is somehow a sign you're not normal, quickly followed by a presumption that you must be engaged in some form misbehaviour, at worst. A vote for this guy is a vote for the idea that not just saying nasty words, but being a nasty person, is somehow a desirable trait in a Wikipedian, as long as they're capable of making a passable effort at neutral editing and prefer to call their ownership of articles, stewardship. You know the type. Wikipedia is full of them.
Likely to be a safe pair of hands, deserves their chance in the big chair.
The Rambling Man
If you consider voting for this prat for even a second, you probably need to reevaluate your whole life.
Fuck you too.My philosophy is that everybody's first priority should be to do what benefits readers of the encyclopaedia, and that everybody's second priority should be to facilitate a collegiate and welcoming environment that enables editors to improve the encyclopaedia.
A vote for Thryduulf is a vote to bolster the idea that people like Eric Corbett and Fram can do what they like as long as their victims have fewer credits in the bank, and you can expect no protection or respect from any Committee this guy is part of if you haven't earnt it.
Worm That Turned
Talks a good game, honestly admitting mistakes and personal failings. I guess the question is, after two terms already, is Worm really deserving of yet another chance to be the one to turn things around? Or is the only institutional memory he is going to bring, how not to do things? As one of only two Arbitrators who were up for re-election and actually made it to the end and decided to stand again, they perhaps need saving from themselves.I've .... served twice on the Arbitration Committee (2013/4 and 2018/9).......I would like to see a good shake up of the committee this year, with 11 seats to fill we have a very good chance of that happening. Equally, we need some institutional memory. I do hope I can be part of both.
A vote for this guy would be not just a vote for the status quo, but a locking down of all past mistakes by previous Committees within the problems of insider/outsider dynamics and Vested Contributors, as eminently good practice. You get an idea of how this person could cause serious long term damage in the way they didn't seem to have the slightest awareness of how their comments as a Bureaucrat in the RexxS and 'crat chat and indeed their recusal in Floquenbeam so they could actually vote as a gushing support, could be perceived by anyone considered an outsider by the hardcore Wikipedians. I wonder how much awareness this person even really has of the outside world, and what obligations the higher ups of Wikipedia have to it......the unfortunate events of the past year in Wikipedia have energized, rather than diminished, my desire to contribute to the project and protect its ideals from overzealous outside influence.