Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Edit Analysis
A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments
LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate (although I am opposed to WP:AMR). LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am grateful for the sentiment.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A serious candidate
Those who doubt the seriousness of this candidacy (by an otherwise extremely humorous person) may wish to consider this edit and the philosophy it expresses. Leave out the personalities and consider what he is saying. The Arbitration Committee, and Wikipedia in general, would benefit from the wisdom expressed in that edit. Kablammo (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's oppose

 * copied from the project page:


 * 1) Can I say no fucking way under any condition should this user be an admin let alone ArbCom member, refuses to maintain a reasonable size for his talk page among other issues. βcommand 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All users should please maintain reasonable standards of civility on the ArbCom voting pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He's alright, NYB. I've been accused of being a bit saucy myself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making the request for you, you know.... Someone can remove this to the talkpage after a few minutes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Bradford. Typical narcissism on my part.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An edit to User talk:Mike R which shows a lack of ability to check the evidence
I would like users who are voting for this candidate to be aware of the following incident - which would seem to indicate that shouldn't be on ArbCom:

One day while I was patrolling pagemoves from/to the userspace, I found that had moved a page from  to his own userpage. This move was noted by the system as "over redirect" - this means that the target page was a redirect to the source page with no history.

Further investigation turned up that the page was legitimately Mike R's userpage, which had been moved by together with the talk page. The talk page also had this edit by, which clearly accused Mike R of the move. The userpage had the sort key "fixed" by from "Mike R" to "Swippy", marked as a minor edit, with the summary of "I still think you should usurp the account thru proper channels, but until then, pls alphabetize yr new username correctly". Mike R's first edits were to revert the sort key fix and to move his pages back into place.

I left a response to The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's comment, explaining that Mike R seems to be innocent in the matter. The response to my comment by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back was: "I should have guessed it was TFMWLBRASWL. I've just about had it with his sockpuppet shenanigans.:

This brings up a number of questions:
 * 1) Why did he accuse Mike R of the page move without checking whether or not it was Mike R who did it?
 * 2) If he "should have guessed" that it was, he definitely should have checked. Why didn't he?
 * 3) How come he just happens to come to the scene where The Fat Man Who Left but Returned a Short While Later had caused trouble? Please also note that he has an edit in which he seems to admit that this is his alternate account.
 * 4) Why did he change the sort key on an other user's userpage, marking it as a minor edit?

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Od Meshehu, you pose questions yet don't appear to have given much thought to the possible answers yourself. Was Mike R bothered by this incident?  Have you deciphered TFMWLBRASWL?  Are you aware that a top content contributor was recently blocked because he and another close friend were joking with each other on their own talk pages, and an admin happened upon the conversation and took it wrong? Just adding some more questions to yours.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making me aware, Od Mishehu. This section should perhaps be retitled "An edit to User talk:Mike R which shows a lack of ability to take everything way too seriously". ---Sluzzelin talk  17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The argot which friends use with each other can be confusing to outsiders. The best course of action is to assume good faith rather than jump to conclusions.  Kablammo (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I took zero action against him at the time, but being on arbcom requires not only good faith, but also competence - and I see no reason to assume that in this case. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What SandyGorgeous said. The "Swippy" incident was just some joking between friends. Also note my support vote for the Fat Man. Mike R (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was him who moved the page from Mike R's namespace into the namespace of a third party, that only makes things worse. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say, I'm starting to regret the genuine confusion and mischief The Fat Man Who Left But Returned a Short While Later caused that day (see my old user page if there's any doubt who TFMWLBRASWL is). I will eschew impenetrable and unfunny inside jokes and shall conduct myself in a serious manner henceforth.  TFM isn't all fun and games, once you really get to know him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh I hope not, because if you conduct yourself 100% seriously henceforth I'm switching to Oppose. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Lar. TFM's sense of humor should stay the same.  We need heavier arbcom decisions delivered with a ton of humor (topped with bacon grease) instead of the vanilla language used by the skinny ones. Tex (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The irony of "shows a lack of ability to check the evidence" as a heading! --JayHenry (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)