Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Beeblebrox

Beeblebrox
Strong Support It has been years since Brox has addressed me directly, but I strongly and enthusiastically support Brox returning to his formerly held Arbcom post. I don't hold any ill will anymore, but I'm not afraid to admit, when I was a 12 year old kid, I had a huge grudge against this Wikipedian for instantly revoking my talk page access and not waiting for me to demonstrate competency after I had waited a year to get it back when I was blocked on Wikipedia on my childhood account for WP:CIR violations that no longer represent me now (the whole block/block evasion situation was forgiven by community consensus once I began my senior year of high school last year), but over time I understood why he didn't trust it enough to listen and that he was only trying to protect Wikipedia from disruption. That has been what Beeblebrox has done best on Wikipedia. He is one of Wikipedia's best administrators. He in my opinion also was amazing as a sitting arbitrator back in 2014 and handled everything to the best of his ability to maintain order on Wikipedia, and I loved it when he took his stand in protecting the interests of the Wikipedia community by voluntarily relinquishing his admin tools during the Fram fiasco. I'm glad he received them back when he was ready, and I'm proud of his bold move that stood with the community as a whole. With the year of 2019 being a huge pickle for the Arbcom, some veteran leadership needs to return to the Arbcom and lead by example to start the new decade. Beeblebrox can do just that. I appreciate you a lot, Brox. Even if I felt previously hurt by you, you have gained a very deep respect from me that results in me voting in your favor for an Arbcom seat. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I'll oppose. Two reasons for this. First is Beeblebrox's response to Peacemaker67's question . I interpret Peacemaker67's question as a legitimate one. Peacemaker67 wanted to know what Beeblebrox would have done if the case had been accepted, which is quite natural since he has strong feelings one way. His response to Beeblebrox's answer just indicates what he thinks, which also gives some indication how he's going to vote. It's quite natural then that he'll say the same thing to all candidates regardless of their response. Beeblebrox interpreted Peacemaker67's response in a much more hostile way, which I find rather disturbing because it's an accusation of bad faith which probably missed the mark (per Peacemaker67's response). I don't hold this too harshly against Beeblebrox because I have felt very aggrieved at similar things in the past, but after the explanation it should be time the drop the stick.


 * The other reason is Beeblebrox's position on the Fram case. He wrote in response to my question that "I think the committee erred in not just overturning the office decisions in the Fram case and requiring a traditional case, since supposedly the evidence was all on-wiki". This I think is a very dangerous position. As I understand the Fram case, the case arose because someone felt they were being harassed, and sufficiently so that they were not willing to use Wikipedia's DR process. From what I have seen this is quite understandable - it's practically guaranteed that someone filing a case against Fram will get comments that Fram's actions were completely correct and [person] should not have been offended. Who wants to use a DR process in which one will get bashed? Witness intimidation is not fun for the witness (or third parties for that matter), and forcing a traditional case effectively also forces the person - who's already feeling harassed - to experience more of the same in a very visible venue. I find this rather cruel. I would also guess that the natural response is for the person to decline to file a case and retire, which is not a solution.


 * This isn't anything against Beeblebrox's character as an editor or admin. I simply do not agree with his positions on topics that might come to arbitration. Therefore I think I will oppose. Some people might feel that Beeblebrox's positions are defensible or even desirable, but I am not one of them. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just can't get down with secret trials and invisible evidence, where the accused is given no chance of rebuttal or appeal, for something like perceived harassment. We've been told that all of the "secret" evidence is actually still live on-wiki, and yet we aren't able to even know what it is and judge for ourselves. I asked myself how I would feel if I was told I was being blocked for secret reasons based on complaints whose origins I would not even be allowed to know, and it felt a lot like injustice to me. Office actions, until this incident, were limited to the very worst of the worst, pedophiles, stalkers, that sort of thing (and lest we all forget they've only even been doing that much for about five years). that is what the community expected of them and suddenly they changed the rules, and they let us know they'd changed the rules by banning an admin for a year, suggesting they felt free to just spring this on the community with no warning, and no explanation.


 * The community as a whole seems to have agreed that this was wrong of the office to do, and the office just today conceded the point. I of course do agree that harassment is awful, and we sometimes don't do enough to curb it, but it should be us, the community, dealing with things like that. The office should only be involving itself in cases that merit a full ban from all WMF projects, and they have also agreed to that as of today. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)