Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/The Rambling Man

The Rambling Man
Oppose -- No offense to TRM, but he hasn't shown himself to be the most unbiased of candidates, on the main talkpage, or elsewhere. I could see myself supporting him in the future if he could demonstrate that he has the capability of separating out his personal beliefs from what information Wikipedia should present. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by biased? TRM has strong opinions, but that's not the same as bias. ----valereee (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He repeatedly inserts his opinions on the main talk page about internal US politics; treating the talk-page as a page for general discussion instead of a page for improving the main page. It's ok to have strong opinions, it's not okay to discuss them when they have no relevance. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   20:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this speaks for itself. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose -- I'm highly uncomfortable with the idea of someone with such a block history being part of ArbCom. Purplebackpack89's questions aren't really relevant to whether or not TRM can do a good job (it's more about whether such editors should be disqualified, which is an entirely different discussion), but TRM's brief answers are not really helping matters. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with someone with such a history, not to mention two ongoing IBANs, being in the committee. ~SlyCooperFan1 01:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In fairness there's likely some history between TRM and Purplebackpack89 which led to TRM interpreting the question as extremely loaded and therefore barely worth replying to - see e.g. . That said, my experience with TRM post-Arbcom has not been good (see what I wrote in the 2017 elections. I am going to oppose as well. Banedon (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I expected as much, but it's still a reasonable question in the public view rather than a one-on-one interview. And I definitely agree with what you laid out in 2017; not a whole lot has appeared to change about his behavior since then, so I guess it wasn't much of a wake-up call. Well, there's plenty of other candidates to choose from. ~SlyCooperFan1 02:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll propose looking at it from a different point of view: TRM has experience being an admin and a former admin. He has the experience of being under sanctions, and the experience of people trying to bait him/“gotcha” him because of it. I think this is a point of view worth including in a committee that is going to be dealing with people who could end up desysopped or sanctioned. We aren’t talking about a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation with TRM. He's not a vandal, he's not out to undermine Wikipedia. But his experience can offer a point of view that is perhaps different from those who have never experienced what he's experienced. My other comments on candidates are also about the value of diversity of point of view on the committee. We want a committee that has diversity of point of view; that's one of the reasons our committee is so large. We're talking one person on a committee of 15. ----valereee (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You want a committee that has diversity of point of view? I find that surprising: 1) I'd rather have a committee that does what I approve of (in fact I think this is the key issue in elections), and 2) if the committee has a diverse point of view, it could also be deadlocked and unable to make decisions. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, what Arbcom most definitely does not need is hive mind. As for opposing me for advocating bringing new views, different approaches, shaking up the pure well-documented disconnect between Arbcom who are here to serve the community, not the other way around, that's of course just fine, sticking with the current approach of Arbcom is certainly an approach.  After all, it's really worked well this year, hasn't it?  I'm not sure why this page is being used by a couple of people to tell the world how they're going to vote, but there you go.   The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is being used to discuss how you would handle being a member of arbcom, that's all. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   20:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No it is not. And if you wish to propose a question then do it in the proper place.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, that's literally what this page is about. I'm not asking you a question, I'm stating an opinion about your nomination, that's all. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   22:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Banedon, I think you're confusing diverse viewpoints with polarized viewpoints. Diverse doesn't mean half the people say toMAYto and the other half say toMAHto. It means some like fresh tomatoes, some only use canned, a couple ask for tomato juice, Isarra wants a Bloody Mary, and hopefully we end up with at least one person in the room who can describe the process of making ketchup at home from scratch. --valereee (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems incredible to me that an editor currently up for election to ArbCom, with the specific sanctions TRM has against him, would leave edit summaries like this one during the election. Whether or not he is actually blocked for it, it's clearly worded to push the boundaries of his sanction. Why would you do that? Why act so childishly at a time when your conduct is under higher than usual scrutiny? ApLundell (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)