Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Discussion

2012 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

• Thank you for participating in the 2012 Arbitration Committee Election. The results have been verified and published.
• Please offer your feedback on the Election process.

This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2012. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012.

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 potential candidates may find it useful to read an FAQ written for 2010's election by Arbitrator Risker.

Candidates

Beeblebrox

• Oppose – An arbitrator should have a disposition to help settle down arguments into workable consensus. B's edits like this and this do the opposite, by telling 60 editors who came to a workable consensus that he thinks they're wasting his time, while ignoring the one real trouble maker who is challenging the consensus at many venues and stirring up trouble. Whatever the underlying dispute is, and no matter how disinterested a person is, this kind of response can only make things worse. Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "This kind of response can only make thongs worse" is exactly how I feel about having my remarks summarily removed from a discussion and labeled as vandalism by someone who apparently does not know nor care to find out how Wikipedia defines vandalism. You do realize this election has been ongoing for two weeks and ends in a few hours, and that nearly 800 users have already voted, right? Thanks for dropping by though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Beeblebrox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth

• This is a general discussion page, but if anyone has questions of a more open-ended nature, please feel free to ask them here. 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Further note: if anyone wants a reminder of what I said during the December 2008 elections, the questions I answered and the answers I provided back then are here. Some of what I said back then may no longer apply, as things change in four years, and my opinions may have changed as well. Again, if anyone has any questions related to that, please feel free to ask. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note: all questions answered as of this timestamp. Follow-up questions will be answered as available time allows. Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I voted against Carcharoth the first time around. Not only did I think he was a horrible choice for Arbcom, I also wasn't shy about saying so. This time around I am more than happy to admit I made a mistake. Over his last term, I have seen a degree of integrity and level-headedness from this candidate that is above and beyond the expectation I have for Arbs, which I will be the first to admit is absurdly high. He has my strongest possible support. Trusilver 03:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Carcharoth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 10:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Coren

• Coren is another candidate that I support without question. Most of my experience with Coren is working at SPI, where I've found him to be patient, helpful and full of clue. His past experience as an Arbitrator is certainly helpful, but I would be supporting either way. What I appreciate about himthat he can be principled but not dogmatic, which I think is important for an Arbitrator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I cannot support this candidate. In November 2011 this candidate, along with Elen and Jclemens, voted to have me banned from abortion articles. I had no idea that my posts to that article talk page were even being discussed and that three of my posts were criticized as sarcastic, one to an editor that was expelled as a sock, another to an editor that was banned, and the third to an editor that was an admin and by all rights should have been mentioned as using sarcasm himself. This incident represented to me how Wikipedia has become similar to corporations that have grown so large that they forget the "little peole" working at the bottom that are doing the actual work of the corporation, in this case, Wikipedia articles. Gandydancer (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Coren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 10:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Count Iblis

Questions

Questions for Count Iblis

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

David Fuchs

Questions

Questions for David Fuchs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads

Discussion

• Glad to see you bit the bullet and joined the party. I know its a tough job, but the place is a bit sweeter with you on the committee. Of course you have my support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm, I seem to find myself saying "what Dennis said" a lot these days - but, erm, what Dennis said :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Elen strikes me as one of the more level-headed members of the current ArbCom — a group which, on the whole, has done an admirable job. Carrite (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• What Dennis said. Bumped into you several times Elen! Vacation^nine 21:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Why I am opposing this candidate. My opposition to Elen of the Roads' candidacy is due to the recent leak of information from arbcom-l, for which Elen was responsible. She has quite clearly violated the confidentiality of Arbcom's communications. I would guess that she feels it was justified in terms of exposing unacceptable actions by another arbitrator (in effect, whistleblowing). While I do have some sympathy with that view, Arbcom cannot function if arbitrators selectively leak information against each other. The fact that Elen apparently thought it was right to do so is, in my view, a sign of unfitness to serve as an arbitrator. Her actions are very likely to lead or to have already led to a breakdown in trust between her and the other arbitrators, and as such I cannot see how she can be an effective arbitrator in future. Prioryman (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• I trust Elen and will be voting for her. She's intelligent. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Why I am supporting this candidate. I always intended to support Elen. There has been no "selective leak". That's an absurd take on the situation. That Elen should be opposed as fallout from the worst behaviour I have ever seen from another sitting arbitrator, Jclemens, is ludicrous. The list is for discussion of confidential material relating to cases which the arbs have been elected to arbitrate - not petty infighting, electioneering and jockeying for position.

The fact that Elen felt she needed to discuss this carefully with someone before deciding whether to run again may have been a minor lapse in judgement (I'm not even sure about that). The rest is speculation. The motion to remove her access stinks of the same political infighting, with no suggestion that any editor with an expectation of confidentiality has had that breached. I seem to recall that Jclemens himself posted mails he said he had received in support of his position, and did so without consent. I'm not sure his inappropriate and off-topic comments to the arb list should be protected by the spirit of the confidentiality requirement for that list.

The only reason I might have had to not support her would have been the nagging feeling that I shouldn't support the election of anyone into such a broken system. In the end I decided that she's big enough to judge that for herself - so I support her. Begoon ^talk 05:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I feel extremely uncomfortable about having to say this because Elen is one of the users for whom I have the greatest respect and would normally whole heartedly support as I did last time. However, recent events suggest to me that she may not after all be best suited for the committee. I am not influenced by, but certainly concur with, some of the issues raised by Sandy Georgia in her candidate guide, so I'm going neutral. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Elen of the Roads
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Guerillero

Questions

Questions for Guerillero

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jc37

Looking backwards

In a recent RfA, you were the first to oppose four nominators and several supporters who all saw the potential of the candidate, whereas you seemed to only look backwards, wording "myriad levels of deception and rampant socking", which I would find questionable wording even if I believed it was true, but I don't. This is no the treatment of an editor as a human being that I want to see from every editor, but especially from an arb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only was it true, but he admitted it previously.

Regardless, thank you for sharing your thoughts. - jc37 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Link please? I hadn't seen that. (Although I am aware of the fully disclosed "Dog/Puppy" Wikipedia:Alternate_account#Legitimate_uses) — Ched :  ?  20:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try, but AN/I is a royal pain to find diffs, obviously. My recollection was that he tried to do somewhat of a mea culpa, but that it apparently wasn't enough for the community at that time. - jc37 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Myriad, as I recall from my Greek, means 10,000 or more. I'll settle for, say, eight. With diffs of the admission to each, please, arbitration work requires such.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well to me it means "uncountable" (which is obviously hyperbole...)

As for the rest, Wehwalt, I provided diffs at the RfA.

PS is not currently active, is not blocked or banned, afaik. I don't see a purpose to bringing back up his past in this forum.

If your motivation is to find out whether you should feel comfortable trusting me to be an arbitrator, I'm content to allow you to look over my contribs and decide for yourself (Presuming you haven't already.) - jc37 05:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

These are among your contributions, and I am hoping for better explanations. After all, hyperbole is not favored in arbs, just ask Jclemens about that. Please answer the questions candidly to the best of your ability, and do not fob people off with "Oh, I answered that someplace else". Have patience with your voters and answer it here too. I ask that you now answer the question, with diffs of his claimed admissions, regarding PumpkinSky.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of you understood my remark. I am not concerned about true or false, I intentionally didn't even say who. I am concerned about 1) opposing several trustworthy users, 2) only looking backward, 3) a wording that I am not able to describe politely. That makes three concerns I don't want to see in an arb. Let go of the past, please, I (still) think of the future, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My concern , Jc is that you appear prone to making snap decisions with insufficient evidence, and assuming bad faith from the evidence provided, in absence of clear diffs and other concrete evidence. I am also concerned that we have a flood of solid content editors leaving wikipedia due to the hostility of the environment and an unwillingness to ever forgive any "sins" ever. I have concerns that someone on Arbcom cannot view people as growing and changing, becoming ever better human beings in the process. One's record on WP, absent admin deletion of posts for very limited reasons, is forever. Most people would agree that the person they were 10 years ago - or even thee years ago - is not the same person they are today. WP has a bad habit of issuing life sentences to people for misdemeanors, and it concerns me that you may have a tendency to be one of these people. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is merely a guess, but it looks like you apparently missed out on my comments during the Brer-rabbit situation. These indeed can be thought-provoking situations. (NYB wrote a long paragraph concerning that situation, well before the banning discussion took place, which I vaguely recall commenting on.)

Anyway, while I sincerely disagree with your opinion of me (and I think my overall edits in discussions over the years bear that out), you are of course welcome to your opinion. I hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 03:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. A candidate for arbcom answers a concern that raises legitimate questions not with a thoughtful answer, but by telling the poster that they are ill informed and stupid, to boot. That sure wins you my vote. I'd advise you to avoid "guessing" in the future. Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anywhere in your comments where there was a question to respond to, merely your statement of your opinion. So, as response, I merely expressed my opinion. And I don't see anywhere where I suggested you were "stupid". But regardless, if you saw that in my response, I freely apologise, as it was in no way intended. I believe I stated you were free to your opinion. As you indeed are.

I said at the top of the questions page, I'm not a politician. So I'm not concerned about "votes", anyway.

My perspective on this is merely requesting the commmunity to decide whether they wish to entrust me with some additional tools and responsibilities. If they do, fine, if not, that's fine too.

Thank you for taking the time to comment, and to share with me your thoughts and opinions. - jc37 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I supported Jc37's run for bureaucrat but in hindsight I consider it was one of my few misjudgments and that the community decided correctly. My decision to support was borderline as expressed with my lengthy rationale - perhaps I should have gone neutral if not actually opposed. Jc does not get my vote for Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Jc37

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens

Jclemens: "Not a Wikipedian"

Jclemens from the questions section:

"This election is somewhat of a referendum on what I said--if I am hopelessly pounded into the dust in the upcoming election, then I probably should have resigned already, but distinguishing the larger sentiment from the louder sentiment is sometimes quite difficult."

On this, we agree. The "Not a Wikipedian" statement was both asinine and illuminating. Count me as one that will be doing his best to be pounding the Jclemens candidacy into the dust... Strongest possible oppose. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I may very well vote for him in spite of this. I hate to take Jclemens out for one stupid thing when he's done so much elsewhere. But wanted to note that such a vote from me isn't in support of that statement. Even if it's true, it was heat where light was needed. And that should have been foreseeable. You (Jclemens) really need to realize that nothing good could have come from that statement--even if you believed it with all your heart (and I think you did/do). That lack of judgement about when to keep your mouth closed is troubling. I'd hope in hindsight, at the least, you'd realize that. On top of that, I disagree with the statement itself, but that's less of an issue (I don't mind people saying things I disagree with, I mind them creating drama to no purpose). Hobit (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I rarely vote in these, but I will make sure to vote for JClemens in this one. The fact that he has endured so much abuse and venom over a simple comment and still wants to run indicates to me a lot of dedication.....or mental illness. I'm going with the former. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is a third possibility: ratcheting things up. If they win then they could well start claiming some sort of mandate for a hard-line take on civility and Malleus. Even though they acknowledge his positives, they have chosen to accentuate the systemic bias against him and, indeed, people such as me also. It would have been so much easier if the statement had been recognised as absurd at the time and retracted in full. It shows a distinct lack of judgement that it was not.

  That they think it sensible to submit themselves for election so soon after they have massively divided the community and have taken a pounding even from people who do not generally form part of the pro-Malleus crowd just blows me away: we need pragmatic arbs, not dogmatic ones. I've been asked to re-read their statement on the affair and will do so but, really, no explanation after the event can get round the fact that there was a glaringly obvious missed opportunity during it. Like it or not, this candidate is going to succeed or fail here on the basis of their recent actions. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To Hobit, and anyone else here who considers this to be all about the "not a Wikipedian" comment: I may not change your mind or anyone else's, but I just want it to be clear that for me, my strident opposition to Jclemens has never been a single-issue matter. My guide shows that for me, it's long list of grievances, of which "not a Wikipedian" is only the most well-known one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Moral support but abstain. I think the principles Jclemens supports are sound. I also often agree with his take on a situation (sometimes also not, but we need a breadth of voices on arbcom). In particular, I think habitual I-know-someone-will-have-my-back-if-someone-tries-to-chastise-me incivility, used as an offensive weapon, has become just as toxic on Wikipedia as overofficious adminning - and is very different from someone's occasional frustrated or even vulgar outburst. Jclemens gets this, and I'd like to have a voice like that (as well as opposing voices) on arbcom. Within this context, I see what Jclemens was getting at with the "not a Wikipedian if you don't adhere to the 5 pillars" remark, and while it was suboptimally phrased I don't consider that on its own to be a big deal. But there are too many similar instances where his wording is ham-handed, even bullying, and deflects attention from what matters to how he is reacting to it. And that's why I can't actually vote for him. Martinp (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

As an aside: This is one very big community. While there has been disagreement on the appropriateness of Jclemens comment, it it no way has split a community as large as this one. We have to be careful it seems to me on all counts to not misjudge the community's, as a whole, interest in one statement.(olive (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

• Why I am opposing this candidate. My opposition to Jclemens' candidacy is due to the recent leak of information from arbcom-l, which concerned an email posted to the list by Jclemens in which he disclosed his intention to actively campaign against serving arbitrators, while he was himself serving as an arbitrator, concerning the recent decision on Malleus. It's absolutely unacceptable for serving arbitrators to campaign against their colleagues, publicly or otherwise, over decisions that they have taken. I can absolutely understand why some arbitrators might have considered it to be intimidatory, even if that was not Jclemens' intention. Arbitrators should not take part in political activities of this kind; they're supposed to stand aside from wikipolitics. It's especially inappropriate that Jclemens should think it acceptable to campaign against his fellow arbitrators because he disagrees with their judgement. There's such a thing as collective responsibility; if Arbcom reaches a particular decision, it's a decision of the whole committee, not just a faction. To put this in a real-world context, imagine if the US Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare had resulted in one of the dissenting judges announcing that his colleagues were incompetents and that he was going to actively campaign for them to lose their jobs. Nobody would think for one moment that that was acceptable. The fact that Jclemens apparently thought it was right to do so is, in my view, a sign of unfitness to serve as an arbitrator. In addition, his action in openly declaring hostilities against his colleagues is likely to lead or to have already led to a breakdown in the relationship between him and the other arbitrators, and as such I cannot see how he can be an effective arbitrator in future. Prioryman (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• On standards From recent (and not so recent) arbitration cases, requests, talk pages, noticeboards etc, its quite clear that the 'hostilities' as Prioryman above so vividly puts it, have been ongoing and divisive amongst the sitting arbites for quite awhile. What Elen's disgracefully leaked emails show is no more or less than Jclemens statement of intent regarding one of the pillars of wikipedia in which he has found his fellow arbites lacking. I not only expect sitting Arbcom members to hold their fellows up to the highest standards, I demand it. Without months of background detail that we are not privy to (as it took place behind closed doors) saying that we shouldnt elect someone because they cant be effective in the future is weak. We should be voting in people of stronger morals and judgement, not discarding them! We should be getting rid of those who do not take the pillars of wikipedia seriously and resort to underhand tactics. Do you want an arbcom made up of people who speak their mind outright to their opposition directly? Or an arbcom made up of people who work slyly behind the scenes, leaking emails and hiding behind lame whistleblowing justifications? As I require the highest standards from Arbcom, I may not agree with their opinions on every ruling, but I want someone who actually believes in the five pillars and will work to enforce them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My concern with Jclemens isn't with his views on policy. I suspect that his general views on Wikipedia governance and mine could probably get along fairly well. For the record I also believed that the motion to temporarily ban Malleus was a regrettable but necessary step. The problem that Jclemens has is that his approach to disputes makes him an ineffective and even counterproductive advocate for his positions. Broadly speaking – and with more than a little irony – this is the same problem that Malleus faces. Both Jclemens and Malleus have demonstrated a tendency to cast disputes and disagreements in 'you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us' terms; those editors they categorize as 'against us' are fair targets for marginalization and demonization.

It's worth remembering that very shortly after Jclemens' now-infamous "not a Wikipedian" comment on the motion to temporarily ban Malleus, that motion had actually been likely to pass: holding a 7-vote majority in favor with just 2 Arbs against. Within a day, three oppose votes (all explicitly disavowing Jclemens' comment) and an alternative motion appeared. Shortly after, the motion to ban fell below the threshold to pass, and never recovered. By turning the discussion from what Malleus had done to what he believed that Malleus was, Jclemens needlessly personalized the debate. The case stopped being about whether or not Malleus' conduct warranted the proposed sanction, and started being about whether or not you were on Team Jclemens or Team Malleus. Jclemens still doesn't seem to grasp how large a role his own comments had in reframing the way the motion was considered, and ultimately in the motion's failure. Like Malleus, he puts potential allies in the awkward position of having to say, "we mostly agree with him, but we'd rather not agree with him."

I'm torn by his recently-revealed misuse of the ArbCom mailing list. I can't tell whether it was deliberate dirty pool, or just execrably poor judgement. There is no question that Jclemens stood to personally benefit from discouraging other candidates running in this year's election. In the last two elections, he has only been seated on the ArbCom by the skin of his teeth—in the 2010 election he received the fewest supporting votes and was effectively tied for the worst percentage support of any successful candidate, while in 2011 he received the lowest support by a substantial margin and made it aboard only because an additional seat opened up after the nominations period had closed. Jclemens ought to have been aware that tipping the balance in even one potential candidate's mind against running might make the difference between an election win and loss of his seat. It is quite apparent from Jclemens' response that he never expected that his 'warnings' would ever see the light of day on-wiki, presuming that the secrecy and privilege of the ArbCom mailing list would provide even greater protection from disclosure, discussion, or mention than, say, a regular email or any other off-wiki mode of communication. In other words, he expected to get a free chance to knock out some potential competitors for his seat and distort the upcoming election, without having to face any open discussion or scrutiny of his own tactics.

Now was that actually what he thought when he put hands to keyboard? The alternative is that he was venting—telling his fellow Arbs that he was pissed off and issuing a "You'll all be sorry!" rant after he helped snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If it were purely that, the timing seems odd; his messages were sent two weeks after the Malleus motion closed, when even the hottest blood ought to have had a chance to cool. Even if it were only that, it shows a gross failure of the collegiality with which we expect functionaries to conduct themselves. I have trouble crediting Jclemens with a sufficient lack of awareness, though. Is it entirely plausible that, in the process of writing multiple messages 'warning' other potential candidates about how he intended to conduct his election campaign, he had no thought for the effect it might have on his own election? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Full support. Jclemens has always struck me as having the ability to judge situations fairly. I feel that he holds the policies regarding civility to be extremely important to collegial editing. I think it is also good to have someone on ArbCom who understands the importance of continuing with content creation, to tie him to the realities of everyday editing – as both having been a GA reviewer, and an editor who contributes his own fair share of GA's, I think that qualifies him as such. In fact, in my experience, he has been able to remain calm and continue working on content despite incredibly persistent and discourteous opposition, which is another quality I would like to see in an arbitrator. BOZ (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support due to detractors - "You can't speak negatively or propose sanctions for Malleus, he is a valuable contributor even if he insults and disrespects other editors on occasion... Now, lets go attack Jclemens for his disrespect of Malleus!" Toa Nidhiki05 20:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not a personal attack to say someone is unfit to serve on the committee or to point out that person's faults, which is what people are doing here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I never said it was a personal attack; it is a regular attack on a poor comment by an ArbCom member. And poor comments deserve to be inspected and noted. However, it is being 'noted' by a group of people who support a user who is known for making 'poor comments' of a much more insulting and demeaning nature on a regular basis and for a much longer period of time. I think that is a bit hypocritical to be attacking Jclemens because of one bad comment he made and be defending Malleus in spite of a much longer history of even more offensive comments. You can argue Jclemens comment is worse because it is coming from an acting ArbCom member, but I don't see the logic in the detractors here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Toa Nidhihiki05,

Unless you are deliberately wasting the community's time, you are irresponsibly suggesting that Jclemens's critics are supporters of Malleus.

JClemens's personal attack against Malleus was condemned by several ArbCom members (including some voting to ban Malleus).

Your suggestion that e.g. WMF employees' guides oppose Jclemens because their authors are "supporters of Malleus" ignores the obvious fact that Elonka and H J Mitchell (Ironholds) are consistent critics of Malleus.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Other issues

Subheading introduced for clarity Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • Neutral guides list plenty of diffs documenting JClemens's mistreatment of non-administrators and indeed disruption and attempted intimidation at SPI: See for example Ealdgyth and Heimstern. Of course, there were similar examples of JClemens's behavior in the 2011 guides, for example, mine, which was too generous towards him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

      And by neutral you mean...? There's no question that the same cherry-picked episodes have been circulated by plenty of guide writers, but there are two sides to every story, and a truly neutral guide writer would cover the other side, wouldn't he or she? Like when I caught MathSci reverting a legitimate complaint against himself, and he later made a false statement about what he'd done. Every single alleged abuse has it's flip side, and I'd love to hear if any of the so-called neutral guide writers have ever seen fit to drag any of 'em up. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Jclemens,

Please consider the case of NewYorkBrad, who has been endorsed by everybody. NYB has had more conflicts with Malleus than you, for example, regarding RfAs, and has commented on Malleus at far greater length than you. Nonetheless, nobody is opposing NYB (imho). The guide-writers have not quoted ("cherry picked" in your words) cases that show NYB misbehaving.

NYB, incidentally, is a good counter-example to claims that I and other guide-writers are retaliating against Jclemens for doing his job as an arbitrator. In my case, I have at least twice asked Malleus to stop gratuitous criticisms about NYB (while wishing that NYB reassess Malleus).

I would understand Jclemens's writing that "I have never claimed to be perfect, and I shall renew my efforts to uphold the best standards of behavior on WP", perhaps noting a wish to emulate NYB or Geometry guy, etc. However, what I don't understand is Jclemens's denial of a history of hot-headedness. The community is tolerant and indeed supportive of arbitrators who, after having made a mistake, then take responsibility and strive to do better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Jclemens, Mathsci is not running for ArbCom. Therefore, what abuses he may have committed have no bearing here or on any voter guide. If he has committed abuses that merit sanctions, of course he may be brought to AN or even the committee for the consideration of sanctions. That is not what this election is about; it is about the suitability of the candidates for the committee, including you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

*Jello carotids (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Why is Jclemens using his election campaign to renew his WP:BATTLEGROUND attacks on me? His short statement above is evasive and entirely misrepresents what actually happened.[1] In a prior act of misjudgement, Jclemens had wiki-befriended the DeviantArt group who were later sanctioned in the R&I review (Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin & co). Their shenanigans were pointed out by me and, prior to that, by Shell Kinney. Jclcmens seems to have assumed that, if a group of editors had been acting deceptively, as they had, the person pointing that out must have committed even worse acts of deception. That was flawed logic. As checkuser Jclemens knew that the SPI request by Jello carotids had been made by a sockpuppet of the community banned wikihounder Echigo mole. The SPI request had already been reverted by Future Perfect at Sunrise, not by me as Jclemens implies.[2] That Jello carotids was a sock was obvious per WP:DUCK. My alternative legitimate account, used for gathering diffs for the R&I review, was clearly labelled M·a·t·h·s·c·i to stop Echigo mole searching for it. Jclemens claims the dots were an attempt to deceive.

Echigo mole's wikihounding was one of the five topics chosen by Roger Davies for consideration during the R&I review, so evidence of Echigo mole's previous mischief-making had been comprehensively documented during the review. Jclemens did not take care to keep track of the emails I had sent to arbcom about this alternative account and later apologised for that error. That error and his subsequent apology have now conveniently been forgotten. Having restored the trolling SPI report,[3] Jclemens needlessly escalated dramah in ways that appear to have been designed to intimidate me, misusing his authority and wikipedia processes. That involved fully protecting two pages of the alternative account and making an emergency report to arbcom seemingly with a view to a seekrit hearing. These emergency requests were unsurprisingly ignored by other arbitrators and the frozen evidence-gathering pages deleted by MastCell, overriding Jclemens' shenanigans.

Jclemens ignored the warnings from other administrators and has continued to label me in other venues as having operated "abusive alternative accounts". He is still doing so. His conduct in this particular case has been dishonest, bullying and evasive. His way of labelling me as a liar (as he has done above) is characteristic Clemensism. He made several errors, was corrected, and then after that advised and warned by administrators (in this case by NuclearWarfare, MastCell and Future Perfect at Sunrise).[4] He writes now as if those warnings never happened and that his actions were justified. Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the report by the blatant sock troll [5] and Jclcmens decided to follow the wrong path by restoring it.[6] As a checkuser he should have checked the account Jello carotids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is a pity that Jclemens decided to mention this now as an illustration of how well he has acted as an administrator/checkuser/arbitrator. I was not intending to comment. As far as I am concerned his "performance" back then showed serious deficiencies in all three roles. A motion was later passed by arbcom about enabling socks of the wikihounder Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And after all that unnecessary rehash of your perspective, Mathsci, have you ever once admitted that your statement I quoted in my first diff above--that the revert was to another SPI, not one opened on you--was a material falsehood? You state above how I should have known this, or would have known that... but the fact remains, you spill all this ink, and never admit the problem that started this whole mess: Mathsci reverting an SPI complaint about Mathsci. If you can't manage to even do that, why should anyone bother with the rest of your selected retelling? The reason I picked you as an example, Mathsci, is because diffs don't lie. Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I should specify "the reason I picked you out of all the incidents that people are claiming to unilaterally show my poor judgment". If the supposedly neutral guide writers hadn't been picking on me, I would haven't brought it up again, and to that extent, I'm sorry that it was necessary to do so to refute the neutrality of such testimony. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Jclemens for commenting. Jclemens cannot dismiss other administrators' comments by portraying himself as a victim. The diff he's referring to as a "material falsehood" was clarified later. There were two parallel SPI reports. One the trolling one, enabled by Jclemens; the other a report on Jello carotids, where Jclemens chose not to comment. There was a long discussion on his own talk page subsequently. I'm off back to France after my final checkup in London, so cannot respond until much later. But please could Jclemens cut the snark. He should go and check the edits: I reverted a trolling response from a banned user per WP:BAN. FPaS reverted the SPI report, blocked the sock troll and after that Jclemens restored the edit. Could Jclemens please reread the warnings/trouting again from administrators at the close of the SPI report? He cannot dismiss NuclearWarfare, MastCell and Future Perfect at Sunrise. They were not electioneering as Jclemens is doing now. Mathsci (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see the diff you reference where the material falsehood was "clarified later", because as far as I've seen, this is the closest you've ever come to admitting that the root cause of the whole affair was that you reverted an accurate report (yes, by a sock) at SPI of your own clandestine additional account use. If you think that WP:BAN allows editors to remove true and substantiable complaints about their own conduct, then you and I have very different views of the purpose of the insta-revert clause and its applicability to concealing one's own actions. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Matters concerning Echigo mole from May 2012

On 18 May Khvalamde started a discussion at WP:AN to community ban Echigo mole. That ban discussion was concluded with the confirmation of a community ban at 19:37 on 27 May. Before that Jello caroids had already made edits in project space that showed back knowledge and editing style which confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that he was yet another troll sock of Echigo mole.[7] I gave a complete list of the complete set of confirmed named socks and ipsocks on 20 May, when I noticed the thread. Echigo mole had intervened twice on 23 May using the usual ip range.[8][9] Further ipsocks of Echigo mole were reverted in that discussion by me and reverted and blocked by MastCell and Future Perfect at Sunrise. Echigo mole created the account Jello carotids as a sleeping sock in October 2010, with 10 namespace edits to autoconfirm the account. Their first edits on 26 May 2012 were related to the community ban discussion on Echigo mole.[10][11] They trolled on an arbitrators' talk page [12] and then opened the SPI report on me at 13:27. [13] I made a checkuser request on their account at 18:11 [14] and they commented at 18:34 [15]. I reverted the edits at 18:36 on that SPI report.[16] Just before that he made his last trolling edit at 18:35. [17] He was blocked at 19:02 by Future Perfect at Sunrise. On 28 May Reaper Enternal confirmed him as a sock[18] per WP:DUCK. 2 hours later Deskana, in response to the two checkuser requests for Leon Gonsalez and Jello carotids, wrote[19] that the circumstantial evidence was enough without CU to confirm Echigo mole as sockmaster. So I made two reversions of Jello carotids trolling in 2 separate SPI reports. Behind all this was a mailicious wikihounding troll, using two sockpuppets and at least two blocked ipsocks. Jclemens reaction was to enable the blatant Echigo mole sock, presumably aware of the parallel community ban discussions on WP:AN, and escalate matters into high dramah. No other administrator or checkuser agreed with him. He received advice and warnings from several experienced administrators. From MastCell:[20] ". But if you disregard the administrative consensus here without the clear consensus of the Committee, then I will pursue it as I find your handling of this case extremely concerning;" From NuclearWarfare;.[21][22] The request was closed as inappropriate by an experienced checkuser DeltaQuad. [23] And from Future Perfect at Sunrise.[24] There were two emails sent to arbcom that disclosed the existence and reason for creating this legitimate and fully declared alternative account. In all of this, Jclemens acted out of all proportion. Multiple administrators fortunately acted with cool heads: Reaper Eternal, Deskana, MastCell, Future Perfect at Sunrise, NuclearWarfare, DeltaQuad. Jclemens did not. Some of Jclemens most questionable edits can be seen here:[25][26]

Since Jclemens insists, I have summarised above some of the disruption from May 2012 created by Echigo mole, prior to Jclemens' intervention and attempts to use arbcom-l to start a private arbcom hearing on me, apparently for reverting one edit of Echigo mole. Jclemens knows that reverts and enabling of Echigo mole edits have been discussed in detail amongst arbitrators. The issue led to an arbcom motion that passed.[27] Jclemens continued to plough his own lonely furrow during that vote. Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh well. I was hoping that just once you'd actually be introspective enough to admit your own fault, since anyone else can see from the two diffs I posted above that you 1) removed material from an SPI on yourself, and 2) denied having done so. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In the collapsed review above, the penultimate diff shows that on 26 May 2012 Jclemens permanently protected the user page of a legitimate fully declared alternative account User:Aixoisie. [28] He wrote in the edit summary Protected User:Aixoisie: Freeze for ArbCom investigation of potentially inappropriate use of alternate accounts; this protection will be lifted by an ArbCom member when appropriate (‎[edit=sysop] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite)). Since that "ArbCom investigation" did not take place, could Jclemens please now unprotect that page? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer to 2), as mentioned in the collapsed review, is that I was probably referring to this revert.[29] Because of the community ban discussion on WP:AN (18-27 May), Echigo mole and his socks/ipsocks were hyperactive and alll over the place there were multiple reversions of his trolling, some of them by me. Mathsci (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've unprotected the account page per request--Sorry for the delay, it would have been done sooner had it been posted to my talk page. And re: reverting multiple things and misspeaking, that's exactly what I thought had happened, but until now, I don't ever recall hearing that common-sense explanation from you. Thanks for that, after all this time. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea until two days ago that Jclemens had even fully protected that page. It served no administrative purpose and was a very odd thing for Jclemens to have done. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It was protected to preserve evidence of your inappropriate retention of case data in a manner designed to evade scrutiny and prior directives from ArbCom to delete similar data: storing diffs is not a legitimate use of alternate accounts per WP:SOCK. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The mailing list brouhaha seems to be a key issue -- I have a couple or three more years exprerience in seeing use of mailing lists <g> (try three decades) and so I can assure folks that such usage (I have only seen the one leaded email) is not alien in this world, and suspect some of those making the most noise that it was "evil" are the same ones who opposed Jclemens in the past and who opposed his "Wikipedian" remarks as well. In fact, with the leaked post text only as my guide, there is no sign that I see of being "beyond the pale" at all. What I do see is what many Americans would see as normal posting to a well-defined group indicating that he intended to defend his positions, however controversial that are to some. I, personally, find a variety of strong opinions to be of greater value to the committee than a group of malleable arbitrators susceptible to "groupthink" results. I further suggest that having a group of members all of whom agree on everything would be extraordinarily easily gameable as a group for decisions. Collect (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Collect,

Former arbitrator Iridescent predicted the outcome of the Civility-Enforcement decision based only on his knowledge of the arbitrators, before evidence was collected.

It is a problem that arbitrators' decisions can be predicted 100%, even before they've viewed evidence or deliberated. After this election, Jclemens will have been replaced by Worm That Turned, and we can look forward to ArbCom decisions that the community regards as fairly deliberated as reflecting policy rather than members' politics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a brief comment: I stopped by here inclined to vote "support," but without knowledge of recent events. I wish the candidate statement explained what was at stake, instead of making reference to things that are "needless to say" or obvious. One of my general concerns around ArbCom etc. is the assumption that people know what is going on, when I believe most Wikipedians are actually too busy working on articles to follow the intricacies of ArbCom goings-on. I'm not sure how I'll vote, but I would be much happier with a candidate statement that reflected an understanding that many voters are coming in without a lot of background information. -Pete (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• IMO Jclemens has disqualified himself with his lack of restraint over the Malleus case. There should be no place on the committee for people allowed to decide on civility/PA when they can't exercise it themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Jclemens made himself persona non grata as far as I am concerned when he appeared to offer me a "retrial" at arbcom, as an alternative to an apology from him, over an untruth he had posted about me. I still find this completely baffling, as he had neither the authority to offer the one, nor any reason not to proffer the other, and hope that there is a sane explanation, however he has consistently refused to explain, so I must take it at face value. I have posed the question on the questions page, but doubt I will get a coherent answer. Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC).
  

Questions

Questions for Jclemens

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Keilana

PumpkinSky RFA nomination

In her nomination statement at PumpkinSky's recent RFA, Keilana called PumpkinSky / Rlevse "one of the most stalwart, trusted members of the community." A non-trivial segment of the community disagreed. I question Keilana's capacity to assess others' trustworthiness. Townlake (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's simply because you don't remember Rlevese's work on the wiki before he stopped editing with the account. He held many positions of trust in the community from administrator to arbitrator and discharged all those responsibilities diligently for many years. He even ran the "Awesome Wikipedian" system for a considerable length of time, which was a very effective way of recognising good things done by editors and the sort of kindness that is needed if we are to reverse the decline in editors that threatens us. So, no, I really don't agree that someone who does remember Rlevse from those times has any problem at all in assessing another editor's trustworthiness. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but you will recognise that a much larger segment of the community won't agree with you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Townlake, I saw your comment earlier, and as I'm one of the many who have quite lengthy experience of the contributions made by PumpkinSky/Rlevse over the past few years, I was wondering how to respond. And then I logged back in and saw RexxS's comment, which says it better than I could have done. If you could poll those who have known PumpkinSky/Rlevse and his contributions, I think you'd find overwhelming support for his honesty and integrity, and I think Keilana's judgment is spot on. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Voters can read the votes cast at the RFA linked above and make up their own minds. *shrug*. Townlake (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd just add that the RfA was recent, but Rlevse is not, and that around these parts a small amount of bad (judged by current standards when past standards were very different) can sadly outweigh an enormous amount of good. The single-point snapshot that is that RfA does not represent a summation of the opinions of all the people who have known Rlevse over the years. *meaningless dismissive gesture* -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You supported the RFA, so I'm not surprised you disagree with the result. Townlake (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You opposed the RFA, so I'm not surprised you agree with the result. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Townlake. I believe very strongly in the concept of "assume good faith" and try to do so with other users wherever possible. I do my best to remind myself that every editor here, regardless of how well I've gotten on with them, is a fellow human who I would treat kindly if I met them in real life. I stand by my belief that PumpkinSky has contributed high-quality edits and would have been a benefit to the project if he had the admin tools. I understand that others disagree and that's fine - dissent and diversity of opinion is necessary in a community like ours. I would like to reiterate that I would recuse in any case that involved people I am close to, as I would not be able to be neutral and unbiased. I hope that clarifies what my approach as an arbitrator would be for you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, and your reiteration of your intent to recuse in situations where your neutrality would be in question. While this doesn't totally remove my concerns, I should note in fairness that your nomination statement at that RFA was the most informative and honest of the four nomination statements offered. Townlake (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm glad I was able to assuage your concerns at least somewhat. Feel free to ask me anything if there's more you want clarified. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Keilana

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ks0stm

Insufficient maturity to be an Arb

While User:Joefromrandb clearly violated the No Personal Attacks rule, Ks0stm inserting himself into verbal fisticuffs on that irate user's talk page HERE was an ill-considered provocation that turned bad to worse and shows a clear lack of the type of mature judgment that we need in ArbCom members. That the escalation was followed by running to mommy at AN/I is even worse. I strongly oppose this candidacy. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Agree - Ks0stm could have been way more mature there and nicely settled the issues. I strongly oppose Ks0stm for Arb. Vacation^nine 21:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Agree - Awful. (How the H did an editor like this pass RfA?? Is there something dastardly the matter with that process?? And I know it isn't limited to this Admin by any means. Some that got thru with no negative !votes are purely awful. How the F does that happen??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Ks0stm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lack of response

I asked all candidates the same question on 27 November. Ks0stm is the only candidate not to have responded yet. It's been a week. IMO, anyone who cannot be bothered to reply to a simple question is unlikely to contribute much to ArbCom. It's an Oppose from me. Bazonka (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Included in the questions subheading by me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bazonka, I'm planning to power through all the questions I've currently got unanswered tomorrow...I've been rather busy for the last week dealing with end of semester studying and tests. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Obviously some level of commitment is required to be an admin, so I hope your academic duties won't cause too many interruptions if and when you become an arb. Bazonka (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Kww

• It's important for ArbCom members to communicate reasonably well to avoid appearance of an isolated institution, and the ability of this candidate to fulfill that require appears questionable. Well reasoned and supported queries about any details of their decision process from an assortment of parties are met with either dodging/silence or at best unhelpful vague answers. Also contrary to their statement that wiki should be well trimmed ("consolidation of material"), they appear to have no reservations about leaving behind a mess of broken links and whatnot as a result of aforementioned deletions despite being prodded about it (yet finds time instead to shut down any more complaints). By the candidate's own reasoning this rather opaque and uncooperative behavior shouldn't be so readily exhibited in the sort of editors that constitute wiki's highest authority. Agent00f (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've answered. I've answered several times, in fact. The fact that you disagree with my answer doesn't mean that I haven't answered, it simply means that you disagree with the answer. You can't keep asking the same question over and over and demand that someone reply each and every time.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just because there are words in a non-answer doesn't mean it's the same thing as an answer. Let's hope that candidates for ArbCom at a minimum are able to tell the difference. To be specific, you were asked by numerous people for the reasoning behind deletion decision(s) which are not only at odds with other admins but seems to completely ignore the detailed discussion at AfD. I acknowledge there were words typed in reply to a couple of them, but all of the questions and concerns still lack answers.
• It's now finally evident from the ArbCom candidate Q&A that this implements a personal view that wiki is getting too large. However, this isn't a paper encyclopedia and ignores one of the major benefits (and original vision) of an electronic site. This is reflected in the fact that most hits are through the long tail of search (eg. Google), where size is only an advantage not a drawback. I might add that a very detailed and well articulated comment concerning this and more on your talk page by another editor was also met with silence. Perhaps answers would be more forthcoming for the larger audience here. Agent00f (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Then I will repeat the answer for clarity: the issue is not about notability. Notability arguments are irrelevant when the deletion argument is based on WP:NOT. Only after you provide evidence that refutes the WP:NOT argument can arguments based on WP:N even be considered. You have asserted that the coverage afforded this event does not come under the umbrella of "routine news reporting ... on sports". You have not demonstrated that, you have only asserted it. A review of the coverage of UFC 155 convinced me that the delete argument is built on a solid foundation. You want to persuade me that my reasoning is incorrect? Demonstrate that the coverage of the event is substantially different than the coverage of other sports events and cannot be considered routine. Argue that point in an AFD, and you can win. Arguing that there's lots of coverage, that similar articles exists for other sports, insulting the nominators, and bringing in sockpuppet accounts to disrupt the discussion does nothing to refute the deletion argument, and, by the deafening silence, reinforces the deletion argument. As I've said multiple times, I allocated most "keep" arguments no weight because they did not address the policy foundation of the nomination, and relied on a guideline that has no bearing on an article that fails WP:NOT.—Kww(talk) 04:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Most individual sporting events do not get immediate mainstream sporting coverage when they are announced months in advanced. That is not routine. A football or baseball season schedule getting announced will get coverage but there will not be actual articles on Yahoo Sports or ESPN.com or in the L.A. Times about a specific game that happens to fall on the schedule. This is not the case with most UFC events, even as they've rapidly increased in number. Let alone would that game get follow-up coverage as more details emerge. However, major sporting events like ATP Tennis Tournaments or the Daytona 500 do. The proper analogy both in practice, relevance, and media coverage is ball game:MMA fight::season:MMA event. No one is advocating that individual MMA fights get their own articles. Probably only a handful would qualify. UFC events however, have established counterparts across many different sporting articles and the major ones easily supersede the practiced guidelines of "routine" coverage, well beyond what your typical Olympic tournament would in fact (please enlighten me as to how deep the non-routine coverage of specific Kayaking events from the Beijing Olympics are, or individual Olympic Mens Taekwondo tournaments by weight class). If you allowed the reestablishment of UFC 155 I'm sure we could populate it with non-routine references if you like (I believe there were some there to begin with but I can't exactly verify that now). The Portuguese language version of the page has non-obscure (Portuguese-language) coverage that started in August and I believe the English page had coverage even earlier than that. The reason I'm saying this here is because it indeed has not been easy getting clarification from you on these issues, and making blanket statements such as comparing a UFC event to a Penn State football game or claiming that it wants to be treated differently from other sports are things that have been brought up many, many times in the sizable debates over the last year over targeted UFC articles. I would think they require a more elaborate explanation, when you claim to have already read the many previous UFC AfD discussions and summarily dismissed the arguments of other editors as "vote counting". I appreciate your reiteration above as it does clarify the core of your reasoning but WP:NOT, too, is an argument that has already previously come up many times. My question as it pertains to ArbCom: if it were determined that 90% of non-biographical sporting events failed to meet WP:NOT and WP:N to the letter (something I believe UFC 155 actually does meet but that's not my point), and a mass-AfD effort was aimed at upwards of 50k articles simultaneously, then should they be given the standard term of a few days each to rebut a mass AfD effort, or should their simply be a much more long-term threat with Wikipedia admins working with contributing editors to improve references, citation, and prose, before a gigantic culling? Beansy (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)1

• Most of that advance coverage would appear to be well-orchestrated promotion rather than coverage. If consensus came to the belief that we had a large number of sports related articles that failed WP:NOT (something that likely is true, but probably not 90% of them), then the community would have to adopt something similar to our BLP PROD process: faster and more efficient than AFD but allowing the small percentage that should survive to do so.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's really quite annoying when folks with zero expertise on a subject still deem themselves fit to make decisions over those trying to explain what's going on. Much of the advanced coverage concerns event details, and here specifically it tends to change over time as contestants drop out over injuries and whatnot. This can be trivially derived from glancing over any of the hundreds of other peer articles to the ones deleted. A summary of a temporal event both in advance and afterward is exactly the sort of modern advancement which a digital crowdsourced encyclopedia enables, and it's very unfortunate when those who're supposed to represent its interests only see fit to copy a dinosaur paper version by rhetorically reinterpreting an unrelated newscopy rule. Agent00f (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• You're claiming that advance coverage from mainstream media outlets or subsidiaries of mainstream media outlets (Sherdog.com for instance is a subsidiary of CBS Sports) that are not official press releases are "well-orchestrated promotion"? Seriously? Regardless if a journalist is getting their information anonymously from a promoter, or from a source at an elite camp, or by regularly calling major venues and asking about reserved dates, or because they asked a question in an interview or a press conference, all of these publications still ostensibly print these articles because they consider the information to be newsworthy. Whether there was any attempt at manipulation on the promoter's part or not is immaterial. The only other possible interpretation of your argument amounts to accusing numerous ostensibly legitimate news outlets of taking payola, including USA Today and numerous major foreign outlets. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not claiming a global sporting press conspiracy. So, if there are no global media conspiracies here (please correct me if that is what you're saying), if major outlets are successfully "tricked", or simply go along with "well-orchestrated promotion" because they consider it newsworthy, how does this affect whether an article meets WP:NOT or WP:N standards? Beansy (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Also, are you saying you'd go along with simultaneous speedy-deletion protocol for over 50% of all non-biographical sports articles if they were simultaneously AfD'd? This would probably destroy tens of thousands of articles in the process and hundreds of thousands of man-hours worth of effort to add information and knowledge to the Wikipedia database. I assume you are aware of this. How is this a superior arrangement to instead giving Wikipedia contributors at least a month to get the articles up to snuff via citation, reference, and improving prose before starting mass (non-speedy) AfD procedures? You know, like an arbitrated compromise that doesn't rely on summary mass-deletion of knowledge with only ~24 hours worth of appeal? Do you seriously think that Wikipedia should only consist of articles that are either irrefutable nearly to Encyclopedia Britannica standards or are so popular that a strong, organized defense by veteran contributors can be mounted in under 24 hours? Beansy (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That last claim is so blatantly ridiculous that I'll reply, and then point you at WP:DRV if you think my logic on deletion is so flawed that it won't be upheld on review. There is nothing, nothing, nothing at all, in anything I've said from which a good faith reading could derive support for a "simultaneous speedy-deletion protocol for over 50% of all non-biographical sports articles" which would require an "organized defense by veteran contributors in under 24 hours". You've made that up out of whole cloth.—Kww(talk) 05:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be pretty quick at denying, but slow at explaining what you mean. Perhaps the former would be less necessary if the latter were better communicated. Given an absence of any information, or even the appearance of interest in answering simple questions, people are forced to make their own assumptions about what your plans may be. Agent00f (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• @Kww: I'll retract the "speedy" part after re-reading the WP:BLPPROD page (damn reading and writing these things 2 AM; misread "special" for "speedy", and misinterpreted the part stating it is to be used on articles that are unsourced for every single sentence for articles that have even a single sentence unsourced). However, the deletion protocol appears barely any different in efficiency from AfD with the only advantage being that there is a "highly-recommended" attempt to contact the author and a 10-day time limit, which I would think fine for a normal AfD but highly onerous to the defending editors in the scenario of a mass-AfD targetting tens of thousands of pages simultaneously. There would still be a mass AfD effort. At the same time, WP:BLPPROD protocol repeatedly states it can only be applied to articles that are completely unsourced, which actually seems like a fairly reasonable starting point in addressing a mass-deletion request. However I'm kind of wondering why do you would think only a "small percentage" of pages would survive that? Following this protocol I would think that it would be the admins' job to immediately dismiss AfD proceedings for every page that has at least one reliable source, and proceed from there. Almost every sports page I've ever seen has at least one reliable source. I'm still a little confused on your statement regarding "the small percentage that should survive." Why would only a small percentage survive? Take the bottom 50% of sporting articles in terms of WP guideline adherence and relevance, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority still have at least one good source each (if I'm wrong on that please correct me). Also, as for the question above it, I stated and signed it separately because I was hoping for an answer to each, although obviously that choice is up to you. Beansy (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• • If that's what you're still claiming, then it appears the AfD discussion simply wasn't read much less understood before jumping to judgement, because the reasoning which refutes this rather limited NOT argument were not only covered there but also on your talk page. This is not a good start on the road to Arbcom responsibility. Specifically, I would even argue that the reasoning wasn't even necessary given that those remotely familiar with sports coverage on wiki should be aware the statement "Demonstrate that the coverage of the event is substantially different than the coverage of other sports events and cannot be considered routine" doesn't makes sense since the average sporting event(s) articles on wiki pales in comparison to those in question for routine and regularly survive AfD as deemed by assortment of other admin. This was perhaps why folks were justifiably displeased since it seemed to them they were simply being ignored, when in fact the admin on hand was not knowledgeable to rule in this category and evidently doesn't intend to be by reading either reason or precedent.

If you or others desire the basic logic again, I'll simply repeat what's been covered on this topic over the past year: the section you quote from is explicitly designed to prevent wiki from becoming a newspaper as self-explanatory in its title. This is substantially different from a summary page of all factoids related to the event from history to context to analysis or any number of oddities which may present themselves to large public happenings. This may include news items but not limited to them. A summary of all facts and exposition for future reference (and the figures were directly presented to you) is exactly the point of an encyclopedia as opposed to a newspaper which is only concerned about the day. This simple logic should be rather self-evident, especially to existing admin, which is why it's puzzling it even needs to be explained to someone posing for higher office. Agent00f (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Kww

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad

Discussion

Proven experience

I've come to respect Newyorkbrad's judgment on ArbCom. The ability he has demonstrated by authoring a big percentage of actual ArbCom decisions is not to be taken lightly either. I support this candidacy. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Word. No sign of assholery or of Chuck Woolery. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Newyorkbrad

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare

Questions

Questions for NuclearWarfare
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't your handle just make it look like you are a warmonger and not an good arbitrator? CarolMooreDC 03:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• If people think that, that is their business. I may yet change my username in the future, but for now I am comfortable leaving it as is. NW (Talk) 16:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pgallert

Questions

Questions for Pgallert
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RegentsPark

Questions

Questions for RegentsPark
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Richwales

Comments on two ArbCom cases

Regarding the "Civility enforcement" case, the following comment which I made on an amendment request may be of interest to readers. In a nutshell, although I felt (and still feel) that civility is paramount, and that Malleus Fatuorum's communication style has been inappropriately uncivil, I accept the evident fact that there simply is not a clear community consensus on this point. To avoid any possible future controversy over whether I harbour prejudice or bias against MF, I will say that if a subsequent amendment request or new case involving him were to come before an Arbitration Committee on which I was sitting, I would recuse myself unless I were presented with unusually compelling reasons not to do so.

Regarding the "TimidGuy ban appeal" case, the community needs to be aware that I have had somewhat of a connection with Will Beback in the past, both on- and off-wiki — primarily in connection with my two RfA bids. In the event that a ban appeal or other action involving WB were to come before an ArbCom on which I was sitting, I would recuse myself, unquestionably and without hesitation. — Richwales 18:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please supply diffs, or even one diff, where you address incivility or personal attacks against Malleus, and thereby show that you are concerned about even enforcement of civility.

You don't have to be perfect, but I have a fear that you don't have 1/100th of the sense of fairness of Worm That Turned, who earlier predicted or called for a ban of Malleus (and who did bar him from one RfA). Please prove me wrong.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking me to answer the above as an official part of the election process? I believe the proper procedure in this case would be for you to add your question to my question page. If I see a question from you (or anyone else) on my question page, I will certainly do my best to answer it. — Richwales 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rich!

Thanks for your reply. I was wondering why nobody had asked a question to you before!

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh-oh. If you had failed to find my question page, I hope you will go through it now and see what I have said to others. It might change your evaluation of me, or it might not, but at least you (and the people who consult your guide) will have as complete a view of me as possible. Same goes for the other candidates too, of course — please read their question pages as well, and act as you see fit based on what you read. — Richwales 22:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted in my guide, I reviewed Rich's responses, of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Richwales

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano

I don't think that someone that interprets a simple pun as an personal attack, and therefore blocks the user at his own will, despite being involved itself, is suited for such a position. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly. My reaction to Salvio's candidacy is "Lol, no." He's fine in a technical role but shouldn't be involved with sanctions because he is far too impulsive. --Claritas § 00:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, I noticed that in some of the answers here you seem to answer slightly different questions to the ones asked i.e. what your general opinion is about certain things rather than how you would have acted in the admins shoes. I can't tell whether you're avoiding answering the questions directly or if you just misread them, but it may affect how I vote. Formerip (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Salvio giuliano

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens

T. Canens has 4,931 mainspace edits, which is 16% of his total edits. Last month he managed only six edits to an article, and just three the month before. The most edits that he has made to any article has been 47 to Liu_Yong_(Qing_Dynasty), which is still a stub. What does he spend his time on? Overwhelmingly, it appears - over 50% of edits - on various admin noticeboards. So he seems to have very little experience at all. The profile looks depressingly like Elen's, who started actively editing a few months earlier. Reading through Tim's RfA, there were a number of opposes on the basis of a limited main content edit record. One editor noted that he found it difficult to write anything at all . He subsequently made no effort whatsoever to remedy the situation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens has been an admin since 2010 and his track outstanding even after going through his track and also all the guides including a few of which do not support him they have nothing against the candidate or nothing to oppose him for he is totally non controversial . He is a clerk at sockpuppet investigations and worked in arbitration enforcement and Deletion review and is experienced and has worked extensively in admin areas and is fully qualified to be an arb. He has more mainspace edits and has created 7 articles and has done more content creation than several other candidates who were arbs in the past .Personally would not consider this to a major factor in Arb election.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize him as "non-controversial" given that he not too long ago threatened to abandon AE and get others to join him when the Arbs considered modifying one of his sanctions. You can look at the revision history of his user talk page to see where he had posted a big notice about it. The Arbs relented because of such threats.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Timotheus Canens

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Worm That Turned

Discussion

Correcting last year's error

I opposed WTT's candidacy last year out of solidarity with an editor that was perturbed with him over something or another. I've subsequently kept a very close eye on his comments on several controversial matters backstage at WP. I've found his views to be well-considered and sound and am now convinced that I misstepped with my opposition last time around. WormTT finished 9th for 8 slots and he would have been an asset to the project with a voice on the Committee with a few more votes. I feel badly about that, actually, and will be righting my wrong in 2012. I have a hunch that my previously perturbed associate will be supporting him, too, for what it's worth... Carrite (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't expect to opine about every candidate, but without question I will support Worm. His measured attitude and connection with new editors through his adoption program make his an excellent candidacy, and I'm very confident will make him an excellent Arbitrator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I have run into WTT multiple times and they have all been positive. Vacation^nine 05:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Carrite, I have been endorsing WTT in 2012 for a long time. He is now certainly a strong candidate, who will do a good but unpredictable job, which is what this ArbCom needs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• WTT and I do not always share the same opinions on some matters, particularly those concerning what is wrong with RfA and Arbcom. However, we have collaborated very closely on on several projects and know each other well. I value his opinions enormously and have a great respect for his genuine commitment to improving both the environment at Wikipedia and the performance of those who seek his help. I strongly support this candidacy as I did at his first run, and I'm fully confident that his empathy and natural tendency to leniency will not cloud his judgement in Arbcom cases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Questions for Worm That Turned

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Props

For the way you boxed your replies, makes reading so much easier and quick. Kudos, props, and applause. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad it helped. Worm^TT(talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Best candidate

If only Dennis had stood as well... Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC).

YOLO Swag

Questions

Questions for YOLO Swag
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

---