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

"Worst committee ever"
I want to counteract a well-worn trope, and say, in contrast to it, that I agree with Beeblebrox that the current committee has been better than some of the previous ones. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Mature and experienced
The current Committee (bar one early hiccup) with its intake of new blood has indeed probably been somewhat better than previous line ups. However, there hasn't exactly been a plethora of prominent cases this year to demonstrate a trend.

Beeblebrox doesn't stand on ceremony and doesn't suffer fools gladly, which in some peoples' perception makes him occasionally controversial, but he has never been unfair or discriminatory and knows where to recuse himself if he must. These qualities together with his long and solid participation on Arbcom and other noticeboards that matter, are therefore exactly what the Committee needs. What he has to say off-Wiki in another place is no concern of ours as long as when it concerns named Wikipedians it reflects the maturity and discretion he exercises on-Wiki. Beeblebrox is a respected known quantity and it would be a shame and a net loss for his seat to be claimed by someone less experienced, principled, reliable, and trustworthy, whether a new candidate or one who might be seeking re-election. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy
I'm sadly unsurprised that Beeblebrox has the gall to say: That being said, in the last two years of social isolation,working from home, etc, I have realized that to a certain extent [Wikipediocracy] replaced actual socializing for me, and the community made it very clear that some of what I was discussing there was not material they wanted a sitting arbitrator to be discussing off-wiki. I have taken that criticism on board and endeavored to keep it in mind when posting there in the time since.

I do believe that they are genuine in their comments that they attempted to keep feedback in mind. Additionally, I don't dispute that Wikipediocracy participants can be reasonable, or that criticism of Wikipedia is important (I post many scathing criticisms of Wikipedia myself, onwiki). However, a person with access to highly sensitive information who realizes that they are oversharing and overstepping on a forum frequented by multiple people who pose a threat to the safety of individual Wikipedians should not give themselves the chance to step over the line again. Someone with good judgement would step away from the website entirely, as continued participation can bring much harm, to little benefit. Beeblebrox's continued comments on Wikipediocracy in full knowledge of the concerns of the community and their own personal reflections are unbecoming of an OS, CU and ArbCom member.

The justification for frequenting the website is that there are quite often, perfectly valid, well researched criticisms of Wikipedia editors or content. Now, I don't think there is a problem with reading comments there (as I do), or taking actions based on them in some cases. However, part of the problem is that this "well researched" obsessive investigation into Wikipedians is the same drive behind doxxing, and Wikipediocracy certainly does not care what WP:OUTING says (though a sitting arb should). Downplaying the worst of Wikipediocracy as boneheaded conspiracy theories or saying that critics consider some participants "bad people" is hugely insulting to those of us who have experienced harassment as a result of our volunteering (and I would have thought any ArbCom member would be well aware of the risks of volunteering). It undermines the community as the people in question have generally been blocked and/or banned for serious reasons.

I do not believe I have ever commented on an ArbCom candidate on an election page before, despite having been eligible to vote since 2014. Nor have I ever otherwise made a mental note to oppose somebody's candidacy in case they chose to run, as I did earlier this year. I am aware that Beeblebrox is not the only person who is overstepping the line with their comments on Wikipediocracy (though you should always consider if it's a joe job when someone claims to be User X offwiki), but I believe this is the most serious case. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel like what you are saying (some others have said it as well) is that I should "know better" than to discuss anything at all there, even things that can be discussed openly here. I just don't see the logic in that. There are people there that go to far, and there are some people there I go out of my way to not talk to, but I could say exactly the same thing about Wikipedia itself. I've been harassed myself (watch my talk page for a while, I have some recurring trolls that just stop by once in a while to hurl all sorts of nasty insults at me), and in fact there is another, far more horrible criticism site that has like 15 threads just about me and what a terrible person I am at any given time. I don't see how that means I shouldn't even speak to anyone there, a decent number of whom are also very active here as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying that you shouldn't even speak to anyone there. What bothers me, for example, are on-wiki comments like these at ANI earlier this month  followed by this on WO . I find that to be unbecoming of an arbitrator, even if it's a case you would recuse from. I don't see how you're helping anything by posting that comment on WO (or the ones at ANI for that matter). Levivich 05:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a number of people have very directly told me that I should not comment on anything, ever, there. They don't seem to hold several other arbs and advanced permission holders to the same standard. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ...which may be an indication that your WO posts are somehow different from the WO posts of other arbs and advanced permission holders. 🤔 Levivich 18:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems more to stem from the belief that it is a "hate site" with no redeeming qualities. Admittedly, I do comment there more often than other arbs, and it has gotten me in hot water once or twice, but the comments I'm talking about are basically shock that I would say anything at all, about anything, in any tone, over there because I might be talking to someone who is banned from Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself but my problem is the content of your postings and not the forum. I don't have a problem with NYB or anyone else posting there because they show appropriate discretion in the content of the their postings. (Or at least the ones I've read.) Levivich 19:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the specific ones you've highlighted about ARS, I actually don't see a problem there. I'm blunt. Sometimes I use humor to make a point. Sometimes I use foul language (very rarely on-wiki, moreso off-wiki where things are more relaxed, of course never in an actual arbcom setting) . That was who i was before I was elected to the committee, people seemed ok enough with it to elect me anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not humor or foul language I have a problem with. I don't think you understand why I think those three comments are unbecoming of an arbitrator so I will explain it in some detail:
 * In an ANI discussion wherein editors are discussing whether to handle something at ANI or bring it to Arbcom, a sitting Arb should not say "This very much looks like something for ArbCom. I doubt any admin will even want to close this monster of a discussion. I certainly won't be reading the whole damn thing. Arbcom cases have word limits to stop this sort of insanely long debate." Because Arbs shouldn't discourage the community from trying to handle something on its own and avoid Arbcom. Arbs should stay out of it at that stage.
 * Unsurprisingly there was an arbcom case request shortly thereafter and you recused from the case request, which was a totally empty move because you had already said in public at ANI "This very much looks like something for ArbCom", and an Arb saying something looks like a case for Arbcom is the opposite of an Arb recusing from a case request, even if the Arb doesn't log an official vote. The recusal in that context seems disingenuous since "recusal" means not just "don't vote" but also "stay out of it", i.e. don't comment. That's "Recusal 101" IMO and I'd expect an Arb to know that.
 * Arbcom declined the case request and I think it was unanimous or almost so. So you were wrong about this being a case for arbcom.
 * After calling it a "monster of a discussion" and "insanely long" that you weren't going to read and doubted any admin would want to close, you then lengthened the discussion by creating a new joke subsection. This is exacerbating the very problem you complained about. In your next edit IIRC. Clearly you didn't actually care about the length and you weren't trying to help keep it short.
 * Admin actually closed the discussion, so you were wrong about that too.
 * You then went to WO and linked to your own ANI subsection that you had just created, effectively advertising the discussion, while also criticizing it, and the people who were being discussed. Again, this is the opposite of an Arb recusing himself. You were making the discussion longer, bringing attention to it on WO, and taking sides in the underlying dispute, while making predictions that it had to go to arbcom which turned out to be incorrect. It's almost like you were trying to make it harder for ANI to handle it because you wanted it to go to Arbcom. Almost like an Arb putting his thumb on the scale of a community discussion to get it to turn out a certain way. And while that may not have been your intent, that's the optics to me, and I actually agree with you on the substance! I can only imagine what the optics would be for the users who were sanctioned. Or how fairly they will feel the process is if and when they get to arbcom.
 * The above lengthy explanation is just of the three links I posted, which isn't the only problematic example, but the most recent. Levivich 20:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I obviously don't agree with most of that analysis, but to reply specifically to the point abut the case being declined, I said at the time that while I got why they wanted to let it go for the moment, I firmly believe it will come back around and a case is a near-inevitability. . Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent interactions

 * Not my experience today and yesterday to my questions in the election page and now on his talk page. His immediate response to me was an accusation of loading a question, "This is kind of a loaded question, in that the way you phrased makes it impossible to answer directly without admitting to wrongdoing. If you'd care to rephrase it in a less leading manner I might be inclined to provide an actual reply.", which accelerated to an assumption of bad faith when he accused me of playing games.  This is pretty shocking and not what I expected from a sitting arb.Littleolive oil (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by my reply to you, all you needed to do to get an answer was to rephrase the question. Instead you've rambled on and on for several paragraphs without doing so, and when I didn't go for that you started posting on my talk page, and when I made it abundantly clear I wasn't interested, you posted to my talk page again. I really don't think I'm the problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are running for arbitration and are a sitting arb. You have made multiple bad faith accusations to a good faith editor. I have serious concern about the arbitration process; I know of several people who have experienced trauma from it and so I would like to see changes. I am looking for arbs who have the ability to make changes, to see the problems and who are not stuck on some superficial level of what an arbitration means. None of this was directed at anyone specifically but on a process that may have outgrown it's usefulness. Your response was to see the question as a personal affront and you then went on to accuse me of game playing. My so called rambling questions pertain to the complexity of the arb process and are not easily explained. You didn't even attempt to answer but when on in the accusatory way you  began. (I moved this to its own section because I don't want to label anyone.)Littleolive oil (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)




 * I didn't take it personally, not sure where you're getting that. My only objection was to the way you phrased your actual question. None of your subsequent replies actually contain a question at all. You're trying to make this into a complicated thing when it's actually quite simple: "How do you reconcile ignoring the simplest path with "all other reasonable means have failed"" was the question. It is not possible to answer that question directly without accepting the premise that the committee "ignored the simplest path". That is why it is a loaded question. You are free to refuse to rephrase it, and I am equally free to refuse to answer it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * See comment here . Done.
 * In the future, you might want to consider responding to what people actually say, as opposed to what you imagine they've said. That would probably make things easier for everyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What's in a candidate?
By way of reiterating my post which was the first one to address this candidate's suitability for the Committee, contenders should be judged on what they do and have done on Wikipedia. It is important to assess or evaluate contributions, actions, decisions, they have made on Wiki, as well as their behaviour and character on Wikipedia or off it at  organised Wikipedia events. Those who know them personally may well recognise that some editors are very different in real life from the way they come across on Wiki - so much is shown also in these discussions about the various candidates.

What they do off Wiki is no concern of mine. There are some really nasty and hated arbitrators and admins who frequent other forums or who bloat their egos in their own blogs or other Internet venues, but there are some really nice ones. I support those who have demonstrated intelligence, maturity, and fairness on Wikipedia. is a far more qualified candidate than many if the others is the running. There aren't many candidates to choose from for the available 11 seats - let's hope the community gets it right for once. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox is not a fair arbiter on the project
I have never commented on an Arbitration Committee candidate before. Beeblebrox is very biased based on the recent Halloween Purge thread. Beeblebrox is so biased that they started a thread within the thread just to mock the four accused editors. Also, sadly their participation off wiki on a forum with exiles gossiping and pillorying WP editors means they should not be trusted with sensitive information, as Bilorv has stated above. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the "Halloween Purge" is or was, so I'm a bit lost as to what you are referring to. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Giving it an overly-dramatic name like that is a perfect example of exactly what is wrong woth the ARS. I'll also note that you say I am not a fair arbitrator, but your comments are entirely about an ANI thread. When it went to the committee I recused myself. So if this is just about my views on ARS you can rest assured that I would do the same in the future and would not be involved as an arbitrator in any ArbCom proceeding dealing with ARS. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can't find what you are referring to either - I don't follow ANI anyway and it's archiving system us a challenge to anyone - but I'm sure you are probably referring to something isolated that possibly affected you directly and is not part of a pattern of his work on the Committee. As regards his participation on forums off Wiki, it has no more to do with his trustworthiness on Wikipedia than what he gets up to in the wilds of Alaska that you don't know about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is more than just their disdain for the four content creators who were stockaded and ridiculed - There is also the gossipping offwiki that several above have referenced - IMO not a fair arbiter. FYI: I recently improved an article that they wanted removed: Bilingual pun. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#Counter_proposal This is the monster thread at ANI . Note that it ended with Lightburst topic banned, among other things.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Funny that you mention the bilingual pun article, as I fully acknowledged when nominating it that it was entirely possible that it was a notable topic, but the actual article we had was not an encyclopedia article at all, just a mostly undourced list of examples. Did you see me making a fuss when instead of deletion you removed basically the entire article and started over? Of course not, why would I? I wanted a crap article removed, and it was. It was fine result as far as I'm concerned. This is what the ARS gets so very wrong with all the overblown hyperbole about deltionist hordes destroying the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I mentioned it because you stated: Bilingual Pun...ARS thread, they got wind of it and block voted, with some objecting to the utter garbage that this was before being removed. FTR I was the one who questioned blanking the majority of the article in the middle of a process. But you have shown even with that comment that you act in a manner which is incongruent to basic Administrator standards. You claim there was a block ivote of ARS? The ivoters that followed me were. Dronebogus? indy Beatle? Avilich? Two ARS ivoters were in there (me and Dream Focus)- apparently that did not fit your narrative when you were jostling with the fellas on the gossip site. A good administrator would acknowledge the improvement. Now I have said quite enough here and will comment no further. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Beeblebrox mocked me one time, therefore I dislike him, which inherently means he isn't appropriate for Arbcom, this is an unbiased opinion, honest" is what this reads like pure axe grinding. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Man does anyone have a good wine recipe for all these sour grapes?Valeince (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Axe grinding is what brings people who have been justifiably cautioned or sanctioned by an admin to come out of the woodwork to pile on at Arbcom cases and other discussions. It forms the basis of some of the questions I have asked various candidates for this election. If an editor has made a quarter of a million postings on talk pages or discussions, do 5 isolated issues spread over several years demonstrate a clear pattern of very poor behaviour? Nobody, absolutely nobody, is perfect . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The user made four comments on the AN from the link you posted, and none of them seem to be problematic. I'm more concerned by your apparent attitude and following the user across Wikipedia, seemingly just because they commented on a noticeboard discussion. On the other hand, the user does seem to be unnecessarily snarky. Breaking out visual aids for a meaningless retort that could easily be said is always in poor taste. Still, I'm not sure bad manners would make them a bad moderator. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Having just discovered the Lourdes situation, I feel moved to comment as she'd been most helpful to the Colonel & myself, and I always liked seeing her around. Can't help but feel she was badly mistreated by the community. The original mention of Lourdes RL identify seems only a minor mistake at worst, she had technically self disclosed. Though not unreasonable for her to feel differently about that. Same with summarising the gist of an email exchange (which would only be majorly problematic if it would be embarrassing or majorly harmful to other party.) But when Lourdes asked for Beeblebrox not to discuss her emails on the Arb noticeboard, then even accepting that Lourdes wording may have unfairly implied wrongdoing on the part of Beeblebrox, & that it was one of several related threads she'd started, I see it as a major omission that Beelbrox didn't say something conciliatory. Summarising the emails was mostly harmless, but not totally, it did very slightly reflect badly on Lourdes. If she felt that as a violation of her privacy, that's something that should be respected. Just because some of us are quite comfortable with transparency, we shouldn't expect every editor to be like that. By staying silent on the thread (until making a defensive post), Beeblebrox let his forceful friends & others essentially tear in Lourdes in a way she didn't deserve. No wonder she's made very few edits since.

That said, at the risk of making myself unpopular with my wiki friends, Im still voting for Beeblebrox. He has unfortunate opinions on the rescue squad & especially on some legendary former members, but theres no way he'd fail to recuse if the ARS was ever up before the committee. Much as I normally tend towards leniency, I see it as essential to have Arbs willing to support severe sanctions against popular editors when needed. Without that, there's ultimately going to be much more distress and loss of good editors. Beeblebrox may have been slightly heavy handed on occasion, but overall he makes firm but fair decisions and also support sanction free resolution when it's sensible to do so. Overall, IMO Beeblebrox as an Arb provides an extremely valuable service to the community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not "a minor mistake at worst" to dig up extremely sensitive information about a prolific contributor to share with violent and unstable banned editors on a forum known for participating in harassment of Wikipedians. It is not normal to expect every one of your tens of thousands of edits across several years to be dug up at any moment and spread widely. If a person does not disclose their identity on their userpage, user talk page or otherwise discuss it regularly then it is at least common courtesy not to bring it up unless it is actually relevant (e.g. COI). — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're aware of this, but these "unstable banned editors" you speak of are also able to at least read Wikipedia for themselves, so where the comments were made is hardly a defining factor. You making these vitriolic comments because a long-term member of the ARS has suggested that maybe I'm not an inhuman monster after all won't change any of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what ARS has to do with anything—I am more or less uninvolved in that dispute. My comment is specifically a counterargument to the already-posed argument that the information was public, so your restatement of this truism shows a fundamental lack of engagement with what I actually said. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not like these edits revealing her identity were deeply buried, they were right at the beginning of her edit history (now since removed from the logs, even though they had previously been declined to be oversighted). A users edit history is public information, pretending like it is private is absurd and sets a bad precedent. None of this was brought up onwiki until Lourdes made a fuss about it, and the thread where her identity was discussed was later moved to a members-only section. Offwiki forums do not count for outing purposes. The only editor who posted on Wikipediocracy that I could reasonably describe as a "violent and unstable banned editor" is MMAR/Crows Nest/Brian K Horton/Attackthemoonnow etc, who is now banned from Wikipediocracy precisely because he is an asshole. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing anyone of violating WP:OUTING and surely you can see how the edits being towards the start of Lourdes' tenure is a point in favour of my argument about reasonable expectations (why would you expect someone to bring up an edit several years later in a place where it poses a threat to your safety? This isn't normal conduct on other websites where your comments are still technically public indefinitely). There are multiple Wikipediocracy users I had in mind when writing "violent and unstable banned editor" but getting into the weeds there is rather a tangent. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you bring up any actual incident of Lourdes actually being harassed either on Wiki or in real life as a result of people discussing her identity on Wikipediocracy, or is this just hypothetical? Lourdes was very upset at RexxS getting desysopped, so you can't see her actions as ones merely a reaction to the Wikipediocracy discussion of her identity, but also as a desire to get back at Beeblebrox for his role in the RexxS desysop. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hemi, what are you saying? Is that really where you'd draw the line, at actual harassment? Until someone's actually harassed, it doesn't count? Levivich 22:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Writing about specific Wikipedia users outside of Wikipedia is not harassment if it is not specifically intended for the subject to read it. If they happen to read it and react negatively, who cares? Crows Nest/Brian K Horton writes extremely negative things about me on Wikipedia Sucks. Is that harassment? No. He's entitled to write as negatively about me has he likes, if I read it and find it hurtful I just need to grow a thicker skin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'd never discuss your RL identity off-wiki, and if anyone discussed my RL identity off-wiki, I'd feel harassed, even if there was some clue somewhere in my contribs history, and if I had to put up with that to contribute here, I would not contribute here. Levivich 23:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is explicitly not a reasonable expectation that anyone's edits will ever be considered private. It's right there at the bottom of the page every single time you make an edit: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." That being said, had I been aware of the prior denied request for suppression I wouldn't have made that particular comment. I've said as much to Lourdes and I'm fairly certain she accepted that I was being honest about it. You act as if I had some malicious intent to harm when I made my remarks, but I know what I was actually doing, which was trying in a light-hearted way to suggest that that particular thread was going in a stupid direction that shouldn't be pursued. There was no ill intent, despite your insinuations that it was some sort of viscous attack, solely because of where I said it. I also don't think making a specatacle about this now does her any favors, as it will only encourage people to try and figure out what we're talking about. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you ever feel like you're in too deep? I'm very confused why #1 editors are talking like everyone who reads this page is already intimately familiar with this situation #2 why you're participating in websites off Wikipedia about Wikipedia. Can you really not get enough Wikipedia? #3 why you're so nonchalant about doxing someone? Maybe there's details in there that I missed that might make that more understandable. #4 Just because someone's information is under a shareable copyright license doesn't mean it's ethical for you to reshare that information. Defense of that mistake seems highly inappropriate. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On #2, Id have the opposite concern. If someone isn't interested enough in our community to talk about it off-wiki, then it would be a worry if they wished to be an Arb. As theyd be signing up for much unpaid work theyd likely find boring. On #3 & 4, it's not unreasonable to defend yourself from an overstatement of your mistake. It looks to me that a clear majority of editors at the time saw the mistake as much more minor than doxing. Id agree though that the Beeblebrox defence was too robust, or maybe a better way of putting it is that too few defended Lourdes's position. I could be wrong, but I think thats why she sadly mostly stopped editing after the event. I made the OP as I wanted to address that, albeit in an inadequate and possibly unwise way. As you say there are likely details being missed, but at this stage Id think it would do more harm than good to thoroughly re-examine the situation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a number of concerns with people using other websites to discuss Wikipedia. For one thing, it increases the chance of conspiracy when we can't monitor all the ways in which users are interacting. It intensifies the potential for cliques. Users create off-website drama that bleeds over to Wikipedia, as evidenced in this case. Also, I'm not concerned that the user wasn't being defended here. This isn't a trial, it's an informal discussion of the attitudes behind that incident. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to dignify half-baked loaded questions not posted on the question page with answers post-election. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You do seem to struggle with the concept of a dignified response. I didn't ask you those questions with the intent of eliciting a predetermined answer. They were mostly rhetorical and I hoped you'd examine your behavior on Wikipedia. If you note I defended you in the section above this, it seems odd that you'd accuse me of bias against you here. I don't even know who you are beyond this comments section. And I'm very sorry to see that, it sounds like from this response, your concern for what the public thinks is limited to election season. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)