2023 ArbCom election

[ChaosMeRee]

In yet another sign of Wikipedia's glide slope trajectory to oblivion, it used to actually be quite hard to find the tragic comedy in their annual Supreme Court election. It's becoming easier and easier.....

Democratic choice

As always, we start with the fact that yet again, there is huge reluctance in the community to even stand. With less than 24 hours until the deadline, there are fewer candidates than vacant seats. One fewer, to be precise. So this is not an exercise in democratic choice, but rather a dare, to see if you will vote for poor or unqualified candidates rather than leave a seat vacant.

And that is as always, not quite the theoretical you would hope.

The spread

There seems to be a mass delusion this year that while there aren't enough candidates standing, there is a good mix of youth and experience. Wtf?

Here is the reality....(RfA, previous ArbCom terms)

* 2023, none
* 2022, none
* 2022, none
* 2022, none
* 2020, one term incumbent seeking re-election
* 2019, none
* 2011, none
* 2007, two term former Arb

That's a rookie slate if ever there was one.

Aoidh

Absolute no hoper. Why would anyone in their right mind think 9 months experience as an Administrator would make you qualified to be of ANY PRACTICAL USE to the Wikipedia "Supreme Court"? If Wikipedia wasn't so fucked across the board, they would probably insist on two years Admin experience just to serve as an ArbCom clerk (there are so few cases that even that might not be sufficient exposure to conflict situations to be able to judge their suitability).

Z1720

Only slightly more experience as an Administrator than Aoidh, but 16 months is still woefully inexperienced for a seat at the top table. Unsurprisingly, their candidate statement was merely a statement of the obvious, namely that ArbCom's job is to settle interactible disputes and Arbitrators should be responsive and transparent where possible. Why on Earth would anyone be rushing to vote for this genius, if they genuinely had a choice?

Firefly and ToBeFree

The obligatory greasy pole careerist candidates. Reasonable experience but clearly only interested in Wikipedia for the power. I recognise both as people who happily block without giving specific reasons or even allowing open appeals, just the usual Defence of the Cult bullshit. They have already got a taste of the power that being given the keys to the private data locker allows, and they want more. ToBeFree even goes as far as kissing up to the current Committee members and their voters in their candidate statement. Worryingly, CheckUser Firefly hopes to ease ArbCom's workload by delegating appeals of CheckUser blocks to ..... the CheckUsers. One can only hope that if elected, these turn out to be socks.

Cabayi

The obligatory first term Committee member seeking re-election. As such, their candidate's statement is long on claims of success and effectiveness, short on examples. Comes across as the sort of asshole who thinks NOTHERE was an improvement in the effectiveness of Wikipedia governance. Not likely to worry most voters, but some of them should really ponder now much harassment on Wikipedia could be avoided if dick move blocks like that were not a thing. Although hilariously, he does seems to have a bug up his ass about Admins not giving any reason for a block in some pathetic attempt to DENY trolls, making work for ArbCom. Here's hoping he has fun serving with Firefly and ToBeFree.

Sdrqazabove

The obligatory I'M SUCH AN OUTSIDER, VOTE FOR ME I'LL SHAKE THINGS UP (BUT NOT IN A SCARY WAY) candidate.

Fuck off with that bullshit. Why would anyone vote for someone stupid enough to think one voice can effect real change in how ArbCom works? Unsurprisingly, their candidate statement doesn't specify one single thing they aim to actually change. It is a word salad of virtue signalling and statements of the blindingly obvious (so clearly he is not as much of an outsider as he thinks).

Being kind, one can say this is the exuberance of inexperience, having only been an Administrator for less than two years. I much prefer the edgy outsider to be relatively new. Wikipedia's rotting carcass has meant that the very long serving perpetual squeaky wheels who used to fulfil this role in these elections, are now finally long departed, and very forgotten.

HJ Mitchell

Jesus Christ. There's always one absolute dickhead. Harry is for sure a very experienced Administrator. Too experienced. He doesn't give a very convincing reason why he hasn't considered standing before, especially when he claims to have relevant real world experience and has quite willingly exposed himself to all the less savoury parts of Admin work that give good insights into the need for ArbCom.

I detect more than a few attempts to rewrite history and even lie in his statement. But why, is the question? One can never rule out stupidity or even arrogance I guess, and Harry is certainly stupid and arrogant. He used to be smart, a genuine free thinker and idealist, but somewhere along the way, he fell into line. He does his bit Defending the Cult just as surely as Firefly and ToBeFree.

Suffice to say, merely by not standing when his window was open, around five years ago I guess, after this much time, with his history of poor judgement, he has frankly amassed too many enemies inside and out, to be an effective Arbitrator. One cannot assume good faith here. Whether it is opportunism, hubris, boredom or something else, it just doesn't pass the small test. Hard pass.

Maxim

The obligatory multi-term former Arb who took a break and now wants to get back in the saddle to finish what he started. Since there is quite literally nobody else he would be denying a seat, it is literally pointless thinking that you could in any way deny them a seat. If he doesn't get a seat, crack open the champagne, because that would be constitutional crisis territory.

[Bbb23sucks]

Basically my thoughts as well.

[ChaosMeRee]

Rather amusingly, while trying to drum up interest in content creators to run, SandyGeorgia included Drmies in her dragnet.

He declined, because he was shit at it. I doubt he did anything in the role except try to save his black Jew mate Malik Shabbaz. Thankfully Malik knew what everyone else did, he was temperamentally unfit to be a Wikipedia Administrator (read: he'd had some kind of breakdown). But it was interesting to see Drmies didn't think that was a problem. After all, Drmies had revenge blocked the person Malik had racially abused (supposedly as a piece of sattire) months after the event, claiming to have absolutely no emotional connection to the action, so the way was clear for Malik's return to duty, right? Asshole.

Drmies' excuses for why he won't be running again are hilarious though.....

Hey Sandy--I'm not going to run in that popularity contest/online harassment gauntlet again, but thanks for thinking of me. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ha, I know ArbCom needs people like us, but the harassment and humiliation and public shaming, I am really not prepared to do that again. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ha, not everyone here has a set of trolls building websites and doxxing them and whatnot. Turns out what's his name, Hotbling or something, is not being prosecuted after all. Admins like me and Bbb23 seem to catch flak that not everyone else does. If I'd only stuck to article writing! So, besides that I can confirm what Wugapodes says, and I was happy to be on the committee; it felt like I was doing something useful. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbcom needs people like Drmies? Citation needed, as they say. It is only Sandy asking him, but she also asked Bishonen (which is as stupid as asking Rolf Harris to mind your kids).

-------

The cryptic reference to legal action is typically Drmies. Vague enough to not break any policies or laws (or perhaps not?) but convincing enough to elicit sympathy. Or is it? Does anyone seriously think anyone actually set up a website to doxx him?

According to our very own Eric writing on Wikipediocracy in 2013....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 248#p42256

He did a pretty good job of covering up his identity for years. I assume they forced him to give his real name, because nothing could be more ridiculous than to have a WMF Board member who is a faceless anonymous username.

Clicking through to the results page for that Board election, you will see Drmies lost (lol), but he was listed in the results under his real name and Wikipedia handle, "Michel Aaij (Drmies)".

But even as early as 2011, Drmies wasn't exactly hiding who he was.....

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2011/04/06/t ... ributions/

Dr. Michel Aaij
Tenured professor
Department of English and Philosophy
Auburn University Montgomery in Alabama

That blog post admittedly doesn't name "Drmies", but the idea nobody would have a clue who the Wikipedia editor being referred to, is laughable. Hiding behind OUTING while benefitting from literal career advancement from being a Wikipedian, is classic Drmies shithousery. I guarantee he would never have protected anyone trying to pull that kind of GAMEy crap if it came before ArbCom.

Drmies was an ArbCom member from Jan 2016 to Dec 2017.

Clever readers will note that 2016 is after 2013 and 2011. So Drmies is implying his tenure as an Arbitrator led to someone setting up a website to doxx him, when in reality, his identity was widely known in Wikipedia circles from at least 2013, and more likely 2011. If he was doxxed, it was clearly for something he did long before he ever thought about seeking high office in Wikipedia (or indeed the Foundation).

Fast forward to 2023, and Wikipedia still has two user accounts controlled by the good doctor Aaij, the one called "User:Dr Aaij" and the one called "User:Drmies". Both are active and seem to edit in the same topic areas. Neither is declared as an alternative account of the other.

Does that seem like a policy violation? It does to me. What is more likely? There is a legitimate reason, or Drmies is just taking the absolute piss. Dr Aaij is most likely used only for Wikipedia courses, but that is just a guess. There is no reason why Drmies couldn't be transparent about such things that I know of. Do his students not deserve to know he has a main account that edits far more than his professor account? Would that not help them in their courses? Or help them find better people to teach them?

Fun fact for all those who have been CheckUsered by Drmies, his Drmies account's first edit was in 2007, while his Dr Aiaij account didn't start until 2010. Which makes exchanges like this sooooo funny....

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished!

--The New Mikemoral 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I appreciate the welcome and the advice. Dr Aaij (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and if you ever have any questions, just drop a line at my talk page. Out of curiosity, were you already a Wikipedian? Your grasp of wikicode seems great. --The New Mikemoral 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. As for wikicode, I simply copy and adjust...but thanks! Dr Aaij (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Look how easily he lied. He could have simply said nothing, or sent Mike a private email. If he had a genuine reason for not linking this named account to User:Drmies.

I'm not sure what the protocol is now, but it feels decidedly wrong to me, that you can find a full list of the names of Drmies's students listed in that account's talk page archive. Simply because he told them to do it. If he got pulled up for that, would he have pretended to be a clueless professor, or reveal he was at that time already a Wikipedia Administrator (just on his other account)?

---------

Unsurprisingly, other people who have done the job of Arbitrator (and actually done things in it) do not recognize Drmies' whining excuses (and are probably glad he isn't running). Wugapodes essentially called him a pussy here....

I don't share Drmies' perception but that's like saying my RfA went well so there's no problem at RfA. I think there's just a wide envelope of experiences, the emotional experience of having your beliefs and actions picked apart isn't trivial

David Fuchs goes even further, and not only essentially calls Dmies a pussy, he calls him a liar too (if we assume Drmies still involves himself in controversial areas, which he does)....

Drmies' experiences is, I think fortunately, relatively uncommon; the project's history is replete with arbs who showed up and left and didn't suffer consequences for it. At the very least I'm not entirely sure it makes you any more a magnet than wading into any potentially controversial area onwiki (and if there's anything I've learned from ArbCom, it's that any topic is a potentially controversial area.)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Potential candidates should learn from Drmies however. The truth of why he alone is viciously harassed, is quite simple. He is a bully. He is an asshole. He is the sort of cunt who CheckUsers people he is in a content dispute with, rather than make policy based arguments or even respect the editorial policy. He treats both of those core requirements of Wikipedia, with contempt. And he always has.

I have absolutely no doubt that he did not change his approach or mindset simply because he won a seat on ArbCom in 2016, nor has he got worse because he supposedly has a bad time of it.

He gets away with it because someone like Yamla is always around to process unblock requests in a way that protects the cult. (Yamla never would stand for ArbCom election, because he knows he is a corrupt bastard who is living on borrowed time).

So, dear candidates. If you think you're like Drmies in any way, prepare to be harassed. Severely.

You will deserve it.

HTD.

[ChaosMeRee]

Good news. With just over 4 hours to go, they now have nine candidates for nine seats.

Bad news. It's just Robert McLennan.

He is not an Administrator. You don't need to know anything more than that to know he has zero chance of being elected. But it probably helps to know he has stood at least twice, in 2022 and 2018, and was well beaten both times.

Simply because it's 9 from 9, he could theoretically slip through as some kind of fucked up freak outcome if people don't realise they have to actually oppose him to make sure he doesn't poll above the minimum required % (something he actually did in both his recent losses).

If by some miracle he got elected get used to seeing more of this....

 I didn't know that I was allowed to do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The dozy fucker couldn't even get his candidacy up and running without help.

[Bbb23sucks]

Good news. With just over 4 hours to go, they now have nine candidates for nine seats.

Bad news. It's just Robert McLennan.

He is not an Administrator. You don't need to know anything more than that to know he has zero chance of being elected. But it probably helps to know he has stood at least twice, in 2022 and 2018, and was well beaten both times.

Simply because it's 9 from 9, he could theoretically slip through as some kind of fucked up freak outcome if people don't realise they have to actually oppose him to make sure he doesn't poll above the minimum required % (something he actually did in both his recent losses).

If by some miracle he got elected get used to seeing more of this....

 I didn't know that I was allowed to do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The dozy fucker couldn't even get his candidacy up and running without help.

Do you think this is the worst year for ArbCom yet? Also, adding links in your posts would be nice.

[ChaosMeRee]

Wugapodes makes ten.

As the only other incumbent seeking re-election, they will easily gain a seat.

So now the choice is clear. The community must decide between three very unpalatable options.....

1. Allow an Administrator of only 9 months experience become an Arbitrator, so as to return 9 candidates for 9 vacant seats

2. Allow a non-Administrator to become an Arbitrator, so as to return 9 candidates for 9 vacant seats

3. Proactively vote against 1. or 2. as ridiculously unfit candidates, and possibly several others deemed unsuitable, returning less candidates than their are vacant seats

To answer Bbb23, I am quite confident a new low has been reached. And there aren't even any joke or protest candidacies this year!

The committee is meant to have fifteen Arbitrators. This might seem high, but it is that size to cover inactivity and mid-term resignations (and in due course one imagines, expulsions as socks of banned users, if the Lourdes scandal is any indicator).

It has previously been as high as eighteen. They cut it to thirteen in 2018, but reversed it a year later as a reduction too far.

Now the Committee has no choice but to stare a future in the face where they are apparently still dealing with a heck of a lot of work, albeit more in the form of appeals not cases, but they might already be going into next term with I would imagine, only 13 members to start with.

Now it will have to be enough.

Nobody can go inactive, and nobody can resign. The near certainty of a record number of newcomers will just have to learn on the job and cope with being hamstrung by their acute lack of institutional knowledge.

They all must sit there and deal with Wikipedia's problems. One of which being people like Drmies are still getting away with INVOLVED abuse of the CheckUser tool, waved away by Yamla. This is the exact sort of routine corruption that is presumably leading to all these complaints about ArbCom having to deal with appeals that never should have got to them in the first place, or are otherwise time consuming because ways and means have to be figured out to justify these events after the fact. Far easier to just ensure Drmies and Co. are not corrupt policy abusing cowboys in the first place. The original but now oft forgotten purpose of the Committee.

All this work for so few members, even though I have never seen so many candidates claiming they are not going to be consumed by the role, the workload it demands, they will find the time to carry on other things. After all, if the temperamentally unfit hothead Cullen can somehow find time to earn $75 an hour as a mere Administrator, imagine what an Arbitrator is worth. Why would anyone be prioritising wading through email after email, when they could be getting paid.

How curious that I never saw Cullen's name doing the rounds as people scoured for fresh (but qualified) meat for the grinder this year. Either he has lost the trust of the community (and in his sheer arrogance he will never accept that as the explanation) or the community have got the message. Don't be looking to Cullen to be donating any more time than he already has. He's put his time in, now his rewards are due. Home office for consulting, toilet seat for Teahouse work.

Wikipedians used to make jokes about executive bathrooms and whatnot around this time of year.

Now, well, I have noticed things don't seem very funny anymore.

Good.

For their crimes, their derelictions, they deserve a bit of suffering.

HTD.

[ericbarbour]

Do you think this is the worst year for ArbCom yet?

For nearly all of its history, people have FOUGHT over Arbcom seats. Like raving mad dogs at times. Usually there were far more candidates than openings. And most of the real fighting was on IRC channels or in private messages so nothing was preserved. "It never happened". Only a cult would hide the real history of its internal politics in this manner.

I think this is hilarious. Nine slots and only eight candidates appeared at first. One is Harry Mitchell, still one of the worst insiders of all time, and I continue to suspect that Maxim is a sockpuppet run by David Gerard. This is indeed one of the worst elections in history. I am quite certain the IRC and Discord channels are on fire this week.

They are going the way of Wikinews and Wikibooks, more slowly since English WP is the "mighty flagship of the WMF". But if this continues, a slow fade-out is inevitable. A giant, obsolete videogame posing as an "encyclopedia-thing". You will know the cult is fading when the WMF office has to put paid employees in charge of things--thus destroying their Section 230 immunity. And leaving them wide open to libel suits.

[Bbb23sucks]

Do you think this is the worst year for ArbCom yet?

For nearly all of its history, people have FOUGHT over Arbcom seats. Like raving mad dogs at times. Usually there were far more candidates than openings. And most of the real fighting was on IRC channels or in private messages so nothing was preserved. "It never happened". Only a cult would hide the real history of its internal politics in this manner.

I think this is hilarious. Nine slots and only eight candidates appeared at first. One is Harry Mitchell, still one of the worst insiders of all time, and I continue to suspect that Maxim is a sockpuppet run by David Gerard. This is indeed one of the worst elections in history. I am quite certain the IRC and Discord channels are on fire this week.

They are going the way of Wikinews and Wikibooks, more slowly since English WP is the "mighty flagship of the WMF". But if this continues, a slow fade-out is inevitable. A giant, obsolete videogame posing as an "encyclopedia-thing". You will know the cult is fading when the WMF office has to put paid employees in charge of things--thus destroying their Section 230 immunity. And leaving them wide open to libel suits.

That was my guess as well. I don't know too much about the history of ArbCom elections, but this few (and awful) candidates and not even a meme candidate like last time was a very bad sign to me.

I wonder if WMF employees will start running for ArbCom sometime.

[ChaosMeRee]

The stench of death surrounds this election. One notable difference is that there is no longer any collective wailing and gnashing of teeth. There is a seemingly broad acceptance that this core brick of Wikipedia governance is crumbling and nothing can be done about it. Noting should be done about it. Apathy rules.

SandyGeorgia's appeal for experienced content creators producing only Harry as a candidate, in an election where voters can and have shown a willingness to reject controversial candidacies in favour of an empty seat, is tragic comedy. In a healthy Wikipedia, Harry doesn't even run, because he knows he doesn't stand a chance. It is clear the discussion Sandy initiated at WT:FAC is what inspired Harry, not because he was needed, but because he sensed a poor candidate finally had a shot.....

If someone reading here is curious about serving as an arbitrator—not definitely sure but also serving at least one year won't be the end of the world—wait until the last day of nominations, and if it looks like we're heading to another choose 8 of 11 situation, then put your name in, and there's a very good chance to get in. Maxim (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Harry threw down when it was only 5 for 9 with only three and a bit days left of the nomination period. Late enough to make people think he was not eagerly grasping for power, a reluctant servant, but early enough that he could make a dignified exit if the ground shifted. It hasn't.

The historical trend is clear. A lack of true democratic choice emerging from an election of the willing, has ensured the last few years featured a rush of last minute candidates entering to give an appearance of choice. People who insulted the Committee and the community by making it absolutely clear they were reluctant candidates, that they didn't want the job, they were only standing to stop either a wholly unqualified person getting it, or a controversial person getting it, or a vacant seat.

That didn't even happen this year. Wugapodes was the only truly last minute candidate, making it 10 for 9, and it seems clear that while he admits he was not originally intending to run, this wasn't a last minute decision. He had put a lot of thought into it, and definitely wants to run. He was being tactical clearly, well aware that there was no real point in submitting at all if there were already 9 perfectly suitable candidates and all he was offering was an incumbent candidate who admits he will be trying to reduce the amount of time and effort he puts into the job. As it stands, even with his last minute decision, there isn't even close to 9 suitable candidates.

It isn't hard to see why there is a dearth of willing and suitable candidates. It clearly Isn't because they find the job too stressful. It clearly isn't because of harassment (although that likely explains the continuing dearth of women, the previous highs of two or three at the height of Wikipedia's attempts to de-sausage due to media criticism, a distant memory). It clearly isn't because of the time commitment. Never stopped people before. There were always enough volunteers. The work is still worthwhile and rewarding, according to those who do it.

It is because the broad field of prospective of candidates have seen what is obvious to all. Pronouncements by the Committee are widely ignored. If it ever was, it is no longer seen as a a beacon of principle, a guiding light. If anything, it has become a pawn in the grubby business of Wikipedia revenge. Far more than it ever was.

The Scottywong case was an absolute disgrace. A clear act of revenge, served very, very cold. It isn't even in doubt that if those are the standards now, if that is the length of time over which an Administrator's conduct can be judged, and if that is the bar of misconduct, if that is how little an apology and genuine contrition means to the Committee these days, then a significant number of Administrators are living on borrowed time. Surviving only because those who might file a Case against a Bishonen or a Drmies or a Cullen, are too scared to do so.

There was a time when it seemed like the democratic mechanism of ArbCom might have ushered in sufficient numbers of candidates with integrity, and a more representative set of genitals and orientations, to weaken and eventually nullify the iron grip of the sausage people (and their few women companions whose ascent to power came only by being worse than the men) over the internal governance and thus wider culture of Wikipedia.

How ironic that It was perhaps Framgate that dashed these hopes. It being rather obvious that neither Floquenbeam or Beeblebrox are anything other than the exact sort of sausage wielding bastards who would have been first to lose influence and then ultimately power, if the silent minority became the vocal majority through the power of the ballot box and free and fair elections.

Jimmy trusted them to be better than their base instincts. As did the Foundation, post Fram.

How wrong they were.

Democracy dies in darkness.

Tru dat.

It was inevitable that, internal use for revenge and repression aside, Arbcom's entire focus would turn outwards to tackle external "abuse", even where the sole and indeed obvious purpose of such abuse is exposure of corruption, while their only internal usefulness would be to give legitimacy to the inexorable slide of Wikipedia's culture toward authoritarianism, protectionism, and their perpetual victimhood.

The forces of darkness in Wikipedia long ago realised they cannot rid themselves or ArbCom. Jimmy would not stand for it, and the Foundation would back him. So they nullified it. Disrespected it. Openly shat on it. The result is husk you see before you.

Everyone who sees the corruption and is in a position to stand, knows this. So they do not stand.

It will limp along like this forever.

There is no reset button. Bishonen, Cullen, Drmies and Floquenbeam made sure of it. Ripped the absolute fucking wires out of it. There is a reason those people do not stand. The truly rotten state of Denmark suits them fine. No longer even just in raw power. Now Cullen has shown there are monetary rewards too.

HTD.

[ChaosMeRee]

I'm actually VERY pleased at the stench of decay rising from this election. There aren't even any voter guides up yet. That doesn't feel normal. Even if they haven't yet interrogated the candidates, there's usually no shortage of people wishing to broadcast their preferred criteria (and skill with formatting wikitables, lol).

The first flurry of questions reveals the deep concerns (and absolute blindspots) of the Wikipedians, at least the ones that still think there is any point to any of this bul!shit.

Sitting Arbitrator Barkeep has asked this telling question to every single candidate (including multi term veteran Maxim, lol)....

This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

He perhaps should have focused only on the potential rookies, because Wugapodes seems to have taken that as a personal insult to his efforts and has been oversharing quite a bit in his answer. He does not make serving as an actually committed Arb very fun. Quite disturbingly tragic, actually.

The lesson is clear. The choice for voters is to either intentionally burn out the few committed people they have, or vote for patently unsuitable candidates just to make up the numbers. And apparently that only keeps them in their current situation, where the committee has "had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators" this year, according to someone in a prime position to know.

Both Maxim and Wugapodes have been asked questions about the concerns arising from people being Arbitrators and Bureucrats at the same time. A problem that doesn't exist if you have enough people full stop. It is ironic that this question arose because Wugapodes though it was a good idea to run for RfB so he could enact the consensus that said RfA could be improved with having 'crats deal with the hostility problem at RfA. He failed.

Only a rookie Arbitrator would make the mistake of thinking the consensus view of what is needed to improve civility on Wikipedia, would be allowed to manifest via a public RfX vote. Fear and intimidation works. Plenty of pro-civility candiates have been elected to ArbCom, but of course that is a secret ballot. If Wikipedia wasn't losing institutional memory at a rate of knots, one of his more experienced colleagues probably could have told him that.

The lesson is clear. Rookies are nice to have, they can bring new ideas and are very committed, but there is no sense in making them the dominant force. Voters in this election have no real choice in that regard. At the start of the next term, assuming Maxim is elected, then it will only be him and Guerillero whose experience of being an Arbitrator will pre-date the 2021 election. That's INSANE.

Robert McLennon has been asked by two people already, what on Earth he thinks he is doing, standing as a non-Administrator. It curious, since they could have easily just consulted his previous answers, which have presumably not changed.....

It should be more difficult to be elected as an arbitrator than designated as an administrator, because arbitrators have even greater responsibility. I think that RFA is still too difficult, and that it is at least as difficult to pass RFA as to be elected an arbitrator. ArbCom elections are a more civilized process than RFA.

(response to "Since becoming an arbitrator is more difficult than becoming an admin, why did you make the decision to stand for ArbCom knowing that it would be extremely difficult to be elected, and that you are bucking precedent?" )

I will tell them that I respect their opinion, and that we disagree.

(response to "What would you say to members of the community who might feel that you should have stood at RfA and become an admin first..." )

One of the questioners should know they exist, BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONE WHO ASKED THE ABOVE IN 2022.

The lesson here is obvious. The answers do not matter. It is now all important to remind voters Robert IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATOR. Why? Because now it cannot be assumed Robert will finish last. For Robert not to become the first ever non-Administrator to become an Arbitrator, he has to literally finish last.

And that would be pretty fucking cruel imho, because in all likelihood, last place will go to Aoidh, an Administrator so green, from her own questions she reveals she genuinely struggled with whether or not she should be drawn further into a dispute between two editors, by one of the editors asking her to block the other, after having already blocked both once.

It is of course standard protocol for Administrators to see themselves as part of a team and proactively seek out assistance even when they think they can handle an issue on their own. It's about avoiding the perception of bias. Note the word perception.

I'm pretty sure Robert's experience means he knows that, even if he technically doesn't need to. Rather disturbingly, Aoidh didn't apparently know that, despite having been a very active editor for twelve years, and no stranger to talk pages.

You would hope RfA would have spotted her naivety and probed her on it as an issue of concern, but more than likely the one person who did, was beaten into submission. Would anyone dare ask Robert at his notional RfA if he can be trusted to know when to seek outside opinion? The man loves Dispute Resolution. Probable knows the manual word for word.

Last but not least, Harry is one of the few candidates to have attracted five questions already. One is Fram being Fram. Under the cover of a question, he delivers this withering condemnation of Harry's personality....

.....you seemed completely unwilling to accept that an error had been made by an arbitrator even after it had been pointed out repeatedly by multiple editors, and you continued to badger and ridicule opposing viewpoints while at the same time insisting that it was all rather irrelevant. Why should we believe that someone who is not willing to accept evidence when it contradicts their position, will make a fair Arb?

The lesson here is obvious. If you have been on Wikipedia long enough to piss Fram off, you are either an extremely good Administrator, or an extremely bad Administrator.

It doesn't matter which Harry is (but I think most know he is a bad Administrator). The fact he has waited this long to stand, arguably only standing when he thought (correctly) he would effectively not be facing any actual competition, his only task being to win against himself (Harry is taking a BIG risk that he can drum up 50% support in a race against himself), means he will make an ineffective Arbitrator. He has the potential to turn every single Case into a complete clusterfuck. Assuming there even are any Cases he isn't obliged to recuse from.

This is presumably why even a fan of Harry's candidacy said....

a committee comprised exclusively of HJ clones would not be good for Wikipedia.

It isn't hard to see that their concerns may be rooted in a deep suspicion that Harry is more of a Fram than a NewYorkBrad. And that isn't saying much, given Brad is only seen as effective by those who were not subjected to his idea of justice. Neither Harry or Brad read evidence and weigh opinions as truly impartial observers. Both are steeped in the tradition that Wikipedia is first and foremost for the devotees. The more devoted you are, the less right you need to be, on the facts or the morals.