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

Gets my vote
Strong oppose - Booked the pub for the 2019 Manchester Meetup for the wrong date, causing me and a non-Wikipedian friend to scurry round finding an alternative pub, and got "you're a wally" shouted at him from about ten people as a consequence .... nah, just kidding. Chris is one of the good guys on Wikipedia and somebody I consider a real-life friend and would happily sit in a pub chatting with for hours on end. What's not to like? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It's a good job that arbcom is not a cabal that meets in the back room of pubs! Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fram´s view
Not that it will really bother you, but the sheer arrogance of your reply here coupled with the tonedeafness in the linked discussion (in both cases not realising or caring how you come across, nor imagining for a second that your position may be less infallible than you pretend it to be) would be enough for me to oppose you as an Arb: the completely wrong approach to recusal in your reply to other questions only makes it clear that it isn´t just an issue where you oppose me that causes concern, but your position or opinions in general. Whether you believe that you would fairly consider a case in which a friend is a party, or whether that friend believes so, both have no bearing on whether you should recuse or not. That you believe otherwise makes you unfit to be an Arb. Fram (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for giving yet another reason to oppose. This reply is terrible for any admin or arbcom member. If one finds out that blocked or banned user X is editing again, one shouldn't have to do the legwork again of finding evidence of sufficient disruption to warrant a new block, just proving that they are a sock should be more than sufficient. Your approach would create an immense timesink and only encourages socks to try creating new accounts again and again, and discourages their victims (in the case of harassers, attackers, ...) or the ones that researched and described their previous disruption (in the case of copyright violators, POV pushers, BLP problem creators, ...). Disruption that leads to a block often isn't one or two incidents plus swift block, but may well be a process over years. Starting that process all over again when such an editor then socks is just completely off. Let me just give Eostrix as an example... Fram (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You've mostly misunderstood my reply I think. In all cases below "evidence" means the combination of behaviour and/or technical evidence.
 * Scenario 1: The user is disrupting the encyclopaedia (in any way, doesn't have to be blockworthy in itself)
 * If the evidence is clear they are a sock of a banned user, then block them as a sock.
 * If the evidence is clear they are not a sock, do not block them as a sock.
 * If the evidence is unclear, treat them as if they are not a sock but keep an eye on them as it may become clear in the future.
 * Scenario 2: The user is not disrupting the encyclopaedia in any way. Why does it matter whether they are a sock? If they disrupt the encyclopaedia in the future then scenario 1 applies at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the misunderstanding seems to go both ways. Some of these socks are among the most productive editors, and were only blocked (sockmaster) after it turned out that their innocuous or productive looking edits were actually problematic, but in sneaky ways. It can take multiple, lengthy ANI discussions or an exhausting ArbCom case to finally get to the bottom and convince others that yes, there really is a fundamental and continuing problem. It should then be more than sufficient to find that they are socking to get them blocked, without the need to go through their new contributions again and find enough evidence of disruption to convince people that this incarnation is disruptive as well. We do the exact same thing with e.g. topic bans: a topic banned editor doesn't get to use the excuse "but the edits I am amking now are not disruptive", a topic ban is a topic ban and the editor should simply stay away from that topic. What you are proposing is that completely blocked or banned editors get more leniency than topic banned ones, despite their issues having been deemed more serious at the time of the sanction. That makes no sense. A restraining order is not "you are not allowed to come near and make trouble", it's "you are not allowed to come near" full stop. Everything else only encourages editors to sock. I can imagine the user pages under your regime: "Hi, I'm banned under account X (and Y and Z?), but because this account isn't disruptive, you are not allowed to block me". Really a strong message you are sending there to people who have been the victim of some of these editors, or who have spent a massive amount of time cleaning up their mess (say, someone is blocked for massive copyvios: not only will there be people busy with the CCI, but they will now also need to keep an eye on the editor to check if they again post copyvio's: meanwhile, the blocked editor is free to edit to their heart's delight?). Fram (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Evasive?
Occasionally found among those who have a predilection for populating disciplinary venues and talk pages with their comments, a few isolated examples of arrogance might not necessary establish a troubling pattern, but Thryduulf nevertheless appears to be quite the hardliner. Such a strongly didactic temperament is however certainly out of character for the personal profile most people would expect in a candidate for higher office. I also perceive some of his other answers to the questions (as they were in 2019) as lacking a direct answer, or even simply winging it, but perhaps not deliberately so. If he can uphold his claims to fairness, he could be an asset to the Committee but he would also serve the community well by eschewing such fora and venues, but with his 'musings' appears to have great difficulty in staying away from drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose
Per the descriptions by other users above and my previous encounter with them on RSN, where they exhibited an ambivalent attitude regarding AGF and an excessively tolerant view toward well-known Chinese propaganda outlets. I believe that taken together, these are indicators of poor performance as a future member of ARBCOM. Normchou  💬 23:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * A more accurate summary of my comments in those discussions is (paraphrased) "state controlled media is a reliable source for the position of the controlling state" and "[Chinese state controlled-media] should be usable, with attribution, for facts in some circumstances where there is no CCP propaganda value, and for reporting the views of the CCP where those are relevant and DUE". Now it's entirely reasonable to have a different opinion, especially on the latter point, but holding them does not equate to assuming bad faith of those who do disagree, nor does it justify the stronger accusations of bad faith levelled at myself and others expressing similar views in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yet labeling my different opinion as a bad faith attempt to obstruct consensus was precisely what Thryduulf did during that encounter. I still can't believe one holding this kind of attitude would be associated with a fair and effective arbitrator of the community. Normchou   💬 07:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Except you will see from the context that this was not what I said., the full quote is . Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutral oppose
I think there is some good in Thryduulf. A man generally doesn't put his name forward for this kind of position if he doesn't genuinely care about or have some competence for the work. However, the lack of understanding of arbitration that Thryduulf has demonstrated is problematic and means that I can't support his candidacy. You the man(converse) 12:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)