Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Banedon

No cat pics :(
Hey,, if I vote for both the idealist (you) and the pragmatist (WTT), what kind of an idiot does that make me? BTW, for years I keep clicking on your username in hopes of cat pics. Should I just keep trying? I'm gonna just keep trying. Thanks! El_C 13:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think if you vote for both me and WTT, it would indicate you value diversity of opinion in the committee. It would make changes more difficult to implement though. As for cat pictures, I suggest nudging Opabinia regalis =) Banedon (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am actually more puzzled that the page User:Banedon does not exist. I really don't mind if it exists, is protected, and say next to nothing, maybe simply date of first contribution to Wikipedia.(or even re-direct to talk page). But better than seeing the list of previous deletions which makes one feel there was a hidden history there (my checking seemed to show there wasn't and likely put there by someone else).  But in the end there's no requirement not to have a user page, it just looks odd.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm new to this. Just got my first notice on my talk page that I am invited to vote. I can't help but agree with Djm-leighpark about the lack of userpage. If it's not required, as they say above, then it's not required. I just find people's talk pages kind of nice to glance at as a way to get to know that user (though some are just left blank or near-blank). Not a make or break thing as far as my vote, though. Best of luck to you! YellowAries2010 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory statements?
Banedon does not have a user page that tells us at least a bit about himself or even where he comes from (admittedly, admins can take a peek at the page he asked to be deleted in July last year, but that would not be fair to the rest of the voters). His selective pruning of his talk page without leaving archives also makes examining his interaction with others rather difficult. He is not an admin and appears to have little or no experience as an editor of the kind that would secure a pass at RfA. Banedon is campaigning solely on a platform of reform of Arbcom, apparently wishing for it to be modeled more on a court of law and the points he makes about Arbcom are - or have been - relatively accurate. However, his claim that 'Cases should only be filed by someone with Standing (law) (or someone authorized by a person with standing' seems to be at odds with his action here, but it was a few years ago and everyone can change their opinions. That said, he could do a lot more to bring about the changes he would like to see from a position outside the Committee rather than from within it as a member of it and I heartily encourage him to do so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, has put Banedon's candidacy out of its misery. Nothing more to see here... just like the user page  :)   ——  Serial  11:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on most of what you've written - if anyone wants to know ask in the questions page - but the claim that I didn't have standing when filing the TRM case is demonstrably wrong, as you can see from this section. I was banned from TRM's talk page at the time, which should give some indication about what had happened between him and me. Banedon (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Not yet
Merits of the justice first approach aside, the committee may benefit from having an arb or two who approach disputes that way. But I think Banedon has a way to go in familiarising themselves with policies, guidelines and norms. The high-profile public cases we see on-wiki are only a small part of what arbcom does.Banedon has not disclosed the exact nature and extent of their relationship with TCEC which, apart from showing that they are not familiar with our COI guidelines (or at least norms for editors seeking positions of trust), makes it difficult to evaluate a lot of their recent contributions in context. Their TCEC contributions which are substantial but extremely lacking in sourcing might have benefited from extra scrutiny such a disclosure might have brought. TCEC Season 21, for example, is full of original analysis like this one, where they later added this image as citation for one of the claims. This is by no means an isolated occurrence, as here as well, they had added original analysis and synthesis, and seemed to think a random straw poll would be WP:DUE. Their BLP editing could be better too. Here, they present their own analysis about an LP's public image cited to an April Fool's piece. And they reinstated it as is last year after it had been challenged (though quite poorly), despite the joke having become largely stale by then.They are one of a handful of editors who can and do regularly give uninvolved and dispassionate perspectives in arbcom proceedings. And I think we would continue to benefit from more of the same. But, at least for now, I think, outside the committee is where they can do the most good from. Regards! -- Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not
I like idealism. But I don't like absolutism. The "only parties with standing may bring a case" is a insta-no for me. This is a collaborative project. When two users, or groups, (A - B) are in conflict, and there is a third party or group (C) that finds it disruptive to the editing process - whether involved or not - the third party (C) should be able to seek resolution to the disruption. Being involved in the disruption should not be a prerequisite. That's a hard no.--v/r - TP 13:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting views, dubious elsewhere
So I would definitely like a "justice first" supporter in ARBCOM, as I have a strong accused rights bent, especially with unclear UCOC enforcement pending publication.

But. A couple of areas concern me.

One is the standing issue noted above - standing itself causes problems in an actual legal setting, and would be far worse in a project like ours.

I also am not sure that Banedon's knowledge of policy is at the very high level expected of an arb.

I do share concerns about lack of archiving and so on (I'm not so fussed about deleting their userpage) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User page
You're the first (to my memory) Arb candidate, who doesn't have a userpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment
Banedon makes excellent points, especially concerning the Arbitration Committee as a quasi-judicial body. Given the importance of Wikipedia, I think it is incumbent for Arbcom to adhere to rules of fairness and his suggestions are very good. Coretheapple (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)