Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/The Rambling Man
|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
Voting against
I filed the arbitration case that led to TRM resigning his tools. After the case I was hopeful that things would take a turn for the better. I was willing to reset our relationship and said so as well (could not post directly to his talk page since I was banned there, and still am). Unfortunately it didn't work. Speaking generally, there was improvement, but within a couple of months TRM lapsed back into the kind of behaviour that led to the Arbcom case in the first place (see enforcement log). None of the behaviour that got TRM suspended was directed at me, which is especially bad, since it means it's possible he's offended more people and I simply didn't see it. On a more personal level his behaviour has been less than appealing as well. After a disagreement in which he clearly said he doesn't care about me, I told him I'd stop responding to him, which he welcomed, except he felt he still had to respond to me a few weeks later. I find this kind of behaviour provocative and ludicrous, especially after he said during the arbitration case that he "will address [my approach and tone and correspondance style]".
Further, TRM has had severe disagreements in the past with some of the current arbitrators, such as Newyorkbrad ([1], see second paragraph of NYB's answer) and Opabina Regalis [2]. Forcing the three of them to work together hardly seems like a good idea. Sure, TRM says in that he'll act professionally with individuals he doesn't get along with, but he's accrued more than one suspension after the arbitration case while interacting with individuals he doesn't get along with. If he's unable to act professionally to those individuals, what evidence is there that he will be able to act professionally with NYB & OR? I find this claim difficult to believe, just like his claim that he "will address [my approach and tone and correspondance style]".
It's hard for me to understand why some editors are enthusiastically supporting TRM as a candidate. Sure, his content work is great, but Arbcom's purpose is to resolve conduct disputes. I can't trust an editor who has demonstrated severe conduct issues to resolve other people's conduct disputes. I will vote to oppose, and if there were an option to strongly oppose, I'd tick that box too. Banedon (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Many ways people might choose to reply to this. Here's a pithy answer: Groupthink is bad. If you think the last few Arbcoms have done a splendid job, keep electing people who are like them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree Groupthink is bad, but I don't see how it is relevant here. If you are interested in discussing this privately (I am) then we can do this via email. Banedon (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- You decided to air your views on the candidate publicly. If you choose to do that, be prepared for people to disagree with you publicly. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Of course. I simply asked if you wanted to discuss this privately. If the answer is no, that's fine too. Banedon (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'll elaborate a bit more since (and this is often the case when I see you commenting on TRM's behaviour) I don't understand what you are saying. You've said "Many ways people might choose to reply to this". Agree. You said "Here's a pithy answer: Groupthink is bad." I agree Groupthink is bad too. You said "If you think the last few Arbcoms have done a splendid job, keep electing people who are like them." Absolutely. "You decided to air your views on the candidate publicly." Yup, I decided to do that. "If you choose to do that, be prepared for people to disagree with you publicly." Undoubtedly.
In other words, you've written five sentences all of which I agree with, and yet you give the impression that you are disagreeing with me. I don't understand that. What exactly are you disagreeing with? Again if you want to discuss this privately, I'm in. If you want to do this publicly (are you actually interested in discussing it?), then don't expect me to say everything I'm thinking about, because it's public. Banedon (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you can't follow my arguments. I don't have time to write longer ones. I was responding to "It's hard for me to understand why some editors are enthusiastically supporting TRM as a candidate". If you can't understand my reply, maybe you'd like to read the voter guides to find more reasons why people think he'd make an absolutely excellent voice on a committee and hopefully help them improve the way they do things. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've already done that. You don't seem very interested in serious discussion, so I consider this conversation over. Banedon (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you can't follow my arguments. I don't have time to write longer ones. I was responding to "It's hard for me to understand why some editors are enthusiastically supporting TRM as a candidate". If you can't understand my reply, maybe you'd like to read the voter guides to find more reasons why people think he'd make an absolutely excellent voice on a committee and hopefully help them improve the way they do things. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- You decided to air your views on the candidate publicly. If you choose to do that, be prepared for people to disagree with you publicly. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree Groupthink is bad, but I don't see how it is relevant here. If you are interested in discussing this privately (I am) then we can do this via email. Banedon (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I came here to say the same thing. TRM does lots of great content work, but his behavior is frequently a problem. He repeatedly violates WP:CIVIL (as shown in the relevant Arbcom cases), and he doesn't seem to understand what is wrong with the way he interacts with other users, which makes him wholly unfit for resolving conduct disputes. -- irn (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to User:Banedon for continuing to represent the Arbcom cases he has convened. I posted at a 2013 case with diffs to show a time when TRM has viewed talk page discussion as play and entertainment. It is my understanding that TRM is currently under Arbcom sanctions diff dated September 2017. It is one thing to hope that an ex-Bureaucrat might represent a counter-culture influence, but my experience is that TRM's interaction and empathy skills fall short. Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see even Alex Shih approves of TRM. RenZutↂ 10:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Renzut: For what it's worth, I didn't think my response to Banedon was an approval of TRM. If that's what it appeared to be, then that's something I need to reflect on. I suppose my main point was that TRM represents a voice in the community that probably shouldn't be thoroughly dismissed, in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Regardless of whether TRM lacks civility or is downright rude, I don’t think one can deny he is well placed to understand and appreciate the arbcom process and where it may be failing. From my albeit limited experience he appears to treat editors equally whether they have years or weeks of experience which I have to say is refreshing. Mramoeba (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Arbitrators don't just have to understand and appreciate where the arbcom process might be failing, they also have to solve conduct disputes. I find it implausible that someone whose behavior is as controversial as TRM's will be able to solve conduct disputes. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)