I have worked closely with GeneralNotability for several years and have only good things to say about him. As an arbitration clerk, as an SPI clerk and now as a CheckUser, as a mentor to a number of Wikipedians over several years, and as a friend, GeneralNotability has constantly demonstrated competence, dedication, and empathy. He will make an excellent arbitrator and I strongly recommend voting for him. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 23:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon has been almost singlehandedly handling WP:DRN for as long as anyone can remember. I think he's a blatantly obvious choice, despite the lack of admin tools. I have yet to see an argument against his candidacy other than "not an admin", although I could have just not looked hard enough. I'm sure there are plenty of people who've went to DRN that could sing his praises, if such a thing was warranted. I think what an arbitrator does has quite a lot in common with what a DRN volunteer does, perhaps even more than with what an admin does. casualdejekyll 00:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Paradise Chronicle
I followed the link provided by Robert McClenon in his answer to my question, which was: Can you lead to any former example where a leading presidential candidate of the polls was rightfully deemed as not notable? but there I found nothing that would justify to deem a leading presidential candidate not notable. I even found WP:POLITICIAN, and there Nataša Pirc Musar is rather obviously notable. If McClenon makes the choice to defend the withholding of notable info regarding a presidential election as an Arb. and even defends this with Wikipedia policy,
(which he really did in his answer), it wouldn't support the Wikipedia spirit of providing information for free. Said that, he also said he wasn't sure if he understands the question, so I hope he can clarify what he meant.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused what WP:POLITICIAN has to do with this, it pretty clearly says unelected candidates are a WP:GNG matter - or what McClenon does with it, either, for that matter. casualdejekyll 14:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll Just bring an example of a an article on a presidential candidate leading in the polls that was deemed as not notable.
Imagine someone would apply to become an Arb and his statement would be removed (by mistake) and the one who could fix it defends his removal and doesn't just bring it back to the ArbCom elections. It was not a one or two line stub but a fairly expanded article on a leading presidential candidate. Thanks for the diff. Robert McClenon.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradise Chronicle: Let's imagine this is an AfD that takes place on 3 September 2022, the date of Robert's comment. What are your WP:THREE best sources (dated 3 Sept 2022 or earlier, since we are discussing Robert's actions here) to show that Musar passed WP:GNG? (Since this isn't a real AfD, I do not feel like assessing 29 sources is worth my time.)
Please note that people can become notable in the future. I haven't investigated: Musar is likely notable now. Since you're criticizing Robert's conduct, the context of his actions is relevant.
Additionally, McClenon isn't the only one who thought that Musar wasn't notable, as your very diff shoes that Bkissin felt the same way. You keep implying that a leading presidential candidate is automatically notable due to being a leading presidential candidate, despite multiple people telling you that isn't true. casualdejekyll 18:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They can say whatever they want, as long as they don't show me a precedent of a declined presidential candidate leading in the polls for notability, I am correct. Maybe I am also wrong and they are right. Maybe there actually exists a precedent and they just followed this example, who knows? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you WP:LISTENing to what other editors are saying? Asserting that because she led the polls, she was notable, despite multiple editors providing evidence that that's not what notable means on Wikipedia... I don't truly know what your intention is, but it certainly looks like you aren't even reading our arguments. EDIT: It also concerns me greatly that you are a New Pages Reviewer that seemingly doesn't understand WP:GNG. casualdejekyll 14:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not listen and brought the article back to main space and fixed what I expected a more experienced editor to do. Are you WP:LISTENing?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So to recap: your issue with McClenon is that he did not think Musar was notable in September 2022. In response, you asserted that since she was leading in the presidential polls, she was notable. This has been thoroughly refuted as an argument. You have been provided with the policy, which says that candidates for elected positions are subject to WP:GNG. The question is simple: Does Musar pass GNG? You have refused to answer, repeatedly. Let me state this again: Leading in the presidential polls is NOT a criteria for notability. And again, too, just to make sure you read it: Leading in the presidential polls is NOT a criteria for notability.WP:GNG clearly defines what notability is, and you by all accounts already know the definition, but to recap, the definition of notability is that a topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I asked you to show me reliable sources, and you did not. casualdejekyll 15:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think furthering this discussion will be productive. casualdejekyll 15:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Government suppression of the media could complicate WP:GNG. Maybe that's an example of WP:IGNORE? WP:GNG arguably assumes freedom of the press. But I wouldn't fault someone for using their best judgment in the above scenario, since this is clearly not covered in the policy. The void century (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no Government suppression of the media that could have complicated WP:GNG, she was a prominent part of the Government for ca. 10 years before she became a candidate. Besides she was the lawyer of the First Lady of the United States and a prominent functionary in Europol etc. which all gives press coverage for multiple articles. And ok, one can make a mistake and say sorry, I'll double check next time one opposes my decision...I was in a rush at the time, and the whole thing would be much better. But no, Robert defends not moving her back to main space with Wikipedia policy. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robert defends not moving her back to main space with Wikipedia policy.If anything, I think this is a good thing. casualdejekyll 14:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Santasa99
I agree with above statement by Casualdejekyll. Robert McClenon composure, tone and attentiveness are breath of fresh air in situations which are by nature situations with a lot of tension, strained dynamics, which inevitably causes discomfort in the editors. He is always calm, and most importantly focused. He has my vote of confidence. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Ritchie333
I'm going to give a counter-argument. Yesterday, Robert proposed a community ban for a user that was immediately shut down as being excessive. While some might think this is a moot point, given the user was indefinitely blocked (and indeed, I had suggested was a sockpuppet), I can't vote for arbs who immediately plump for the most draconian reaction possible out of all the options. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly call a community ban "draconian" - it was wholly unnecessary, yes, but I think it's significantly nicer to the blocked individual than a single admin's decision. Perhaps Robert believed that the blocked user was acting in good faith and felt that it was more appropriate to be handled on a community level. (And if we're arguing about moot points, we might as well bring up that your entire evidence for the socking allegation was a username pattern when the behavior didn't really match at all.)Of course, I'm definitely involved (lowercase) in all this, so people reading the statements are encouraged to do their own look into the situation. casualdejekyll 16:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's habitual, one such situation maybe should not be so easily overstated. ౪ Santa ౪99° 17:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by casualdejekyll: The self fulfilling prophecy
While reading the voter guides, I noticed a common theme that irked me greatly: people choosing to oppose McClenon because he's not an administrator. On paper, this is completely valid: adminship gives a lot of useful tools that an arb can make great use of. What irks me about this is Elonka and Pythoncoder opposing on the rationale that failing RfA means you can't get the community's trust, even the latter user specifying that it is a "regretful" oppose.
This doesn't make any sense to me at all. The entire point of having an election instead of just picking random admins or whatever (like has been suggested) is to judge the community's trust. I was under the impression that the goal was to determine what the community's trust of Robert and other candidates is? Those RfAs were five and fifteen years ago, respectfully. Many admins haven't even had an account for that long. They're so old that they aren't really an accurate measure of community trust at all beyond the most general terms, which suggest that at the very least a good 40% of the 2017 community trusted him. A lot can change in 5 years. A vote that is effectively "I would support if you were an admin" is complete bollocks if we want to keep insisting that adminship isn't a requirement, especially since as far as I can tell, of all four of the voter guides that advocate for and against candidates, only one brings up an argument against Robert not based on his flags. So is "failing RfA five years ago automatically disqualifies you from arbitration" really going to be a popular enough position to make McClenon lose? I hope that most who oppose McClenon have a non-flags related reason for doing so, and they just haven't shared it - these votes boil down to "he lost the !vote before, so he must lose the vote again", and I'm afraid that voters as a whole are taking this rationale and not looking at Robert's actual contributions (which I have already talked far too much about above).
On the opposing hand, what Giraffer said, Outside of permissions, he matches the admin candidates in his profile and background for the role, and will be a real test of the community's opinion on adminship as a precursor to becoming an arbitrator, seems to hit the nail on the head for me: people opposing because "not an admin" are de facto making adminship a requirement for ARBCOM, when it seems like there is a significant fraction of the community opposed to that. I can't see a difference between Robert's qualifications and most of the admin candidates', and if that puts me in the minority of voters, then so be it. casualdejekyll 22:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's patently clear that User:BoldLuis has wholly failed to demonstrate suitability for the ArbCom role. I admit that I know very little about ArbCom and their job duties, but their statement doesn't explain at all why they are suitable for the ArbCom role (or indeed, that they themselves understand what the role requires). Not only that, they have answered zero of the questions posed to them, and it seems they've outright not done anything on Wikipedia for the last two weeks. My understanding is that ArbCom requests should normally be responded to within 48 hours, and it seems we cannot rely on them to be active enough to do that. Edderiofer (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. They had delay with posting the Confidentiality Agreement, And has failed to answer the questions asked, By not contributing to the project during this time in 2 weeks, Its shown that they do not have a strong enough focus on the project to particularly serve on the Arbiration Comittee. And while not a requirement, Having 0 Administrator experience does not help the case here. PerryPerryDTalk To Me 18:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. BoldLuis might make an excellent arbitrator, but how would we know? De Guerre (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have concerns about possible prior accounts so I asked this question on his questions page and he hasn't responded to that or to any of the other questions asked by others. A disinclination or inability to respond in a timely manner tells me they are not suited to this responsibility. The position requires extraordinary trust and they've failed to demonstrate they deserve it. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:BoldLuis is someone who has pretty much zero chance of ever passing RfA at all, never mind win an ArbCom election. The fact that this guy even considered running for ArbCom election is mind boggling, to say the least. 92.29.170.121 (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's crazier is there's no WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW equivalent for Arbcom elections. I'm assuming because something like this hasn't happened before? And the current criteria (500 mainspace edits) is way too loose to be reflective of what happens in reality. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 06:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW couldn't work as it's a secret ballot and the only thing we know before the results are announced is how many people have cast votes - for all we know they could have received the highest proportion of support votes of any candidate. They aren't the first candidate to stand who has little hope of getting elected, but none for quite the same reasons (they are the very first I know of who hasn't answered any questions at all, and the first who hasn't been consistently editing during the election period) and it would not have been appropriate to exclude any of the previous ones from the election. If you want to propose something for next year though, then Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Topics to review for 2023 is the best place to note that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that something like this happens pretty much every year. I mean, at least Banedon had a chance. casualdejekyll 14:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't well when I interacted with this user in December of 2020, and the logs seem too cringe for me to look through them thoroughly. But I have the feeling that Primefac wasn't dismissive of my concerns, didn't escalate my agitation, and managed to help the project arrive at the correct outcome. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 01:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It saddens me to say this, but I think Tamzin would make a poor arbitrator.
In her RfA, Tamzin said, “I don’t like conflict”. She reiterated this in her answer to Rschen7754, adding that she doesn’t think she has been involved in a lot of controversy. Yet, conflict and controversy follow her wherever she goes. Her RfA was highly contentious, and largely self-inflicted. I supported her, hoping the big blow up would make her slow down and think more before acting. It has not.
She soon got into an extended argument with arbcom regarding off-wiki evidence. This ended in an RfC which made it clear that her interpretation was not supported by the community. I assume her statement that “ArbCom still sometimes forgets it can't make policy” is a reference to this and running for arbcom is an attempt to continue this battle.
Tamzin proudly states that she’s written an article that’s subject to 4 discretionary sanctions. These are areas that are rife with conflict, quite at odds with her statement that she doesn’t like conflict. If you don’t like conflict, stay away from conflict-filled places.
Most recently, Tamzin got into a fight about a questionable block she placed, which got as far as a request for arbitration being filed. Again, conflict.
We had an (off-wiki) interaction a while ago. She made a relatively small change to a policy page. I politely pointed out to her that it would have been better if she had first posted on the talk page to see if anybody had any objection. The gist of her response was to blow off my concern and say that talking about it first would take too much of her time. I think that’s illustrative of Tamzin’s temperament. Act quickly, then get defensive when somebody offers feedback. This is not what we want in an arb.
Tamzin says, “ArbCom should never be afraid to act decisively”. I can only guess how this will express itself should she win a seat. Arbcom is known for ponderous slowness, which is a good thing. We don’t need arbs that act impulsively.
@RoySmith: You're welcome to post those IRC logs so that the community can assess for itself what I said. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, noting lack of response to [1], I'll post my half and summarize yours. Feel free to edit in your portion if you'd like. For context, Roy and I have been in contact intermittently about various Wikipedia matters for just over a year—usually regarding SPI, where he is my superior.
2:09 PM 5 August 2022, Roy Smith [suggestion that I should have discussed this edit to Wikipedia:Revision deletion on talk first] 2:11 PM <Tamzin> Is there something about the edit you disagree with? 2:14–16 PM Roy Smith [stating no objection to the edit, but saying I changed words that may have been important and changed the target of a link, and that it would not have cost anything to comment on talk first] 2:17 PM <Tamzin> I don't mean to be standoffish here, Roy, but: It's a straightforward correction of some inaccurate terminology. People make changes like this to policy pages all the time. Proposing it on talk does cost one thing, which is my time. And risks starting some bikeshedding-filled discussion and wasting others' time as well. Instead, I changed it, knowing that if someone has a problem, they can revert it. Which you of course are welcome to. 2:18 PM It's very hard to defend an edit against a charge of "It might have been wrong"
I have no problem with you posting that. I'm not even sure it was necessary to ask my permission. But, what I do find odd is that having asked permission, you didn't wait for a reply. Between your asking and posting, I was off-grid eating Thanksgiving dinner and sleeping. It pains me to have to keep hammering on this point, but arbs need to be deliberate, cautious, and patient. So far you have not demonstrated those qualities. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also supported the RfA - and affirmed it - but I regret I must concur with Roy. As with the rejected article for The Signpost, I see a need for confrontational defence and rebuttals in the words above. I personally do not believe this to be the best temperament for Arbcom - we don't have 'superiors' whatever some admins or Arbs think; some have more tools than others but we're all supposed to be equal. People who set store by hierarchy on Wikipedia are here for the wrong reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Would you say it's accurate to describe the Signpost piece as having been rejected? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Playing with lexis is again confrontational: I could have used: not retained, declined, turned down, advised against, disadvised, put off, discouraged. Whatever - it did not get published. As far as I recall it was either an editorial decision or an agreement between the editor and yourself that you withdraw it. The diffs are somewhere in the archives of The Signpost. FWIW had I still been the E-in-C at that time, I would have suggested that it would need very much rewriting including style, flow, tone, and above all, volume; in all, a lot of work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those terms would be correct. The piece was deferred to the next issue due to an internal communication issue between the editors-in-chief, and I subsequently withdrew the submission (and had to rebuff an attempt by one editor-in-chief to run it nonetheless). See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 24 § On communication. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the candid clarification and the diffs. So you do admit to it having been spiked. Yes it was an interesting thread. It appears I said the same then about the piece as I said above but I wasn't seeking to criticising anyone from the editorial team or the author, after all I had recently supported (and reaffirmed) your RfA .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin thank you for the accurate description of the situation. I indeed do not believe it is accurate to describe the piece as having been rejected, but rather, as you put it, deferred to the next issue due to an internal communication issue between the editors-in-chief. I'd like to reiterate my statement that you linked above and my sincere apologies, especially for attempting to run it nonetheless of your requests to have it deleted. I wish you best in your candidacy. Sincerely, 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 05:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too concur with Roy. VM's page gives plenty of diffs and is an example of questionably appropriate behavior. I cannot in good conscience support this candidate. Buffs (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has never interacted with Tamzin but as seen some of her posts at WP:AFI and read some complaints about her handling of being an admin, I would urge people to do a thorough review of this candidate's history before casting a vote in her favour.Xx78900 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: If memory serves, I said that the font colors were distracting and that I would be glad to run it in the next issue. Tamzin said that she didn't want to. It wasn't a particularly dramatic episode.
Even if it were, though, I don't think it would be an appropriate subject to bring up during someone's ArbCom candidacy; how are we supposed to run a newspaper if nobody's allowed to get emotional without it biting them in the ass months later? I mean, am I going to get bitten in the ass for not wanting to run the article in that issue? This is an awful precedent. jp×g 01:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me personally there's no one specific issue, I hadn't come across her RfA or the Signpost bit before now, but I think Tamzin is consistently controversial, which isn't a good thing to be for ArbCom imo. Xx78900 (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
jp, I was pinged, so I'll answer. When I was E-in-C of The Signpost I tried very hard to insist that as a newspaper it was more or less independent of Wikipedia (which I still maintain it should be - and even hosted on a separate server). That claim was not without support. However, there are others who insist that it is a Wikipedia page. Levering on this latter premise, I feel it's therefore perfectly legitimate to 'bring up' anything that might be controversial in an ACE candidate's history. RoySmith has said his piece and I came out concurring. The rest is for the voters to decide for themselves. That said, as probably the vast majority of votes has already been cast (it usually is by the end of day 2), any further comment here is moot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
by Paine Ellsworth
Support this candidate, Tamzin, here and as I did at RfA. While the candidate may seem controversial at times, I think highly of efforts to make things better. Sometimes that means one has to buck the system a bit, and that can manufacture enemies. Tamzin sees a need and tries to fill it. There are few higher aspirations. Candidate has helped me and other editors many times in the past, and I expect that will continue to be the case when involved with ArbCom. Thank you, Tamzin, wish we had many more like you!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there 07:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
by Nosebagbear
So. I read Roy's statement, and concurred with the 2nd sentence. I don't think Tamzin is, in fact, particularly unhappy being around conflict. It's just the rest of the statement where I disagree - starting with that an arb who dislikes conflict too much is going to struggle to be an arbitrator, surrounded by it. Tamzin's RfA drama was indeed self-inflicted, she could have avoided it by being more coy. But that outspoken controversial view was, at the least, outspoken - you had the information to make your judgement. I'd be more nervous about an arbitrator whose positions, biases, and humanity were played close to the vest.
I was originally going to ask my questions of Tamzin specifically with regard to the need for the highest level of vigilance when it came to recusals. Arbs must avoid being biased, but also from undermining trust in the process by engaging where a reasonable person could view them as engaging when biased. Other editors thankfully asked the questions first - and Tamzin's answers on it were excellent (though I'd like to caution them that, just or not, the same standards de facto apply to them as a regular admin while serving as an arb).
I do not endorse Tamzin because I think they or their judgement is flawless or even without controversy. I endorse them because they are aware of the risks and take steps to mitigate them - and that awareness is what I like in an arbitrator. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not corrupt
I'm superficially aware of how Wikipedia is corrupted by democracy promotion and Western propaganda (which includes smearing and disinformation).
I was quite surprised to see someone actually did something about the situation. I really believed the project was hopeless in its cooptation, and still don't quite understand the mechanism this candidate used to effect some global good.
I was really impressed with the in-depth research that SilkTork did in investigating my Arbcom case. He was sincere, thorough, and fair.TimidGuy (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2022 Arbitration Committee Elections
