|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
Comment
I am looking for certain qualities in an Arbitrator. Experience, skills and the right temperament are of course a must. Someone with a great sense of humour especially in stressful situations, yet has the ability to do the job without prejudgement are important qualities too. They must be strong enough to voice their opinions after examining a case thoroughly rather than resting on their laurels and just "going with the flow" or being influenced by other dominant Arbitrators. I need someone who can hold their own and is willing to stand up for what they believe in even if it defers from the majority view. Although the Doctor and I have disagreed on certain things in the past, I strongly believe the Doctor will make a brilliant Arbitrator and will be getting my vote. Tamsier ( talk) 18:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
What Tamsier said. Joefromrandb ( talk) 19:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment by Fram, moved from questions page
- I've moved the comment below by Fram from the questions page, along with Drmies's brief response. The questions pages are for questions for the candidates, in this case for Drmies. Comments on the candidates, by contrast, go here, on this page. This was a comment (a very aggressive one for a putatively collegial process), not a question in any sense, and the question mark in there does not make it so. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC).
Let's see. You have a "secret" sock which you use to edit articles you created with your main account (e.g. Schmerling Caves or Alexander Shunnarah), making a mockery of all claims you make about the necessary secrecy. Why you force your students to make DYKs (unless it is to get free reviews of their articles by other editors) is not really clear, quite a few have been pulled from preps or queues for problems, so it's not as if you are helping DYK in this regard either. You link in your defense to a DYK I hadn't seen before but should somehow know about. Template:Did you know nominations/Zu den heiligen Engeln has no indication that it was a QPQ, it was simply a review by you. In which you stated (about the AfD) " I shouldn't weigh in there as reviewer here", but you did so anyway. If you want evidence for my claims about your failed rehabilitation project, just ask. If I were you, I wouldn't go ahead with your "if he comes to my house I'll still offer him coffee", but you have shown to be a poor judge of character when you offered to unblock him in the first place. So, a sock which is secret if it please you, but not secret when that suits you as well. A track record as an Arb which gives no confidence. And an extreme case of ABF biteing because the username might indicate that it's a vandal. Perhaps you will now hardblock User:Sturmgewehr88, whose name is much more offensive and clearly indicative of neo-nazi sympathies, if one follows the same reasoning? "Like others, I don't have much of a platform to run on, though transparency is one of them". Except that you weren't transparent (or good) when an Arb, you weren't transparent when declaring your socks (or good at hiding them), and your adminning seems dubious as well. Any actual reasons why should become an Arb anyway? Fram ( talk) 19:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- "free reviews of their articles" is hilarious. There wasn't really a question here, so have a nice day Fram. Drmies ( talk) 01:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Bishonen, no problem with the move, but there is little reason to be collegial about the re-election of a failed Arbcom member who defends the indefensible and makes the most ridiculous attacks to deflect the attention of his own misbehaviour (his edits at AN yesterday are exemplary, apparently it's dangerous for other admins to unblok someone I feel is unfairly blocked, because I urged for the reban of (Redacted) GdB, where Drmies had supported the unban, failed to either mention it (or his suppoed topic ban) to the community or monitor his edits, and still feels the editor is a good enough chap to invite over to his house for a coffee). Drmies is running on a platform of transparency, but in reality is running on a platform of lies and deceit. There is very little reason to be collegial in such a situation. Fram ( talk) 05:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)