Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Tamzin

Statement by RoySmith
It saddens me to say this, but I think Tamzin would make a poor arbitrator.

In her RfA, Tamzin said, “I don’t like conflict”. She reiterated this in her answer to Rschen7754, adding that she doesn’t think she has been involved in a lot of controversy. Yet, conflict and controversy follow her wherever she goes. Her RfA was highly contentious, and largely self-inflicted. I supported her, hoping the big blow up would make her slow down and think more before acting. It has not.

She soon got into an extended argument with arbcom regarding off-wiki evidence. This ended in an RfC which made it clear that her interpretation was not supported by the community. I assume her statement that “ArbCom still sometimes forgets it can't make policy” is a reference to this and running for arbcom is an attempt to continue this battle.

Tamzin proudly states that she’s written an article that’s subject to 4 discretionary sanctions. These are areas that are rife with conflict, quite at odds with her statement that she doesn’t like conflict. If you don’t like conflict, stay away from conflict-filled places.

Most recently, Tamzin got into a fight about a questionable block she placed, which got as far as a request for arbitration being filed. Again, conflict.

We had an (off-wiki) interaction a while ago. She made a relatively small change to a policy page. I politely pointed out to her that it would have been better if she had first posted on the talk page to see if anybody had any objection. The gist of her response was to blow off my concern and say that talking about it first would take too much of her time. I think that’s illustrative of Tamzin’s temperament. Act quickly, then get defensive when somebody offers feedback. This is not what we want in an arb.

Tamzin says, “ArbCom should never be afraid to act decisively”. I can only guess how this will express itself should she win a seat. Arbcom is known for ponderous slowness, which is a good thing. We don’t need arbs that act impulsively.
 * You're welcome to post those IRC logs so that the community can assess for itself what I said. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 09:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, noting lack of response to, I'll post my half and summarize yours. Feel free to edit in your portion if you'd like. For context, Roy and I have been in contact intermittently about various Wikipedia matters for just over a year—usually regarding SPI, where he is my superior."2:09 PM 5 August 2022, Roy Smith [suggestion that I should have discussed this edit to Revision deletion on talk first] 2:11 PM  Is there something about the edit you disagree with? 2:14–16 PM Roy Smith [stating no objection to the edit, but saying I changed words that may have been important and changed the target of a link, and that it would not have cost anything to comment on talk first] 2:17 PM  I don't mean to be standoffish here, Roy, but: It's a straightforward correction of some inaccurate terminology. People make changes like this to policy pages all the time. Proposing it on talk does cost one thing, which is my time. And risks starting some bikeshedding-filled discussion and wasting others' time as well. Instead, I changed it, knowing that if someone has a problem, they can revert it. Which you of course are welcome to. 2:18 PM It's very hard to defend an edit against a charge of 'It might have been wrong'"
 * -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you posting that. I'm not even sure it was necessary to ask my permission.  But, what I do find odd is that having asked permission, you didn't wait for a reply.  Between your asking and posting, I was off-grid eating Thanksgiving dinner and sleeping.  It pains me to have to keep hammering on this point, but arbs need to be deliberate, cautious, and patient.  So far you have not demonstrated those qualities. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You were actively editing. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I also supported the RfA - and affirmed it - but I regret I must concur with . As with the rejected article for The Signpost, I see a need for confrontational defence and rebuttals in the words above. I personally do not believe this to be the best temperament for Arbcom - we don't have 'superiors' whatever some admins or Arbs think; some have more tools than others but we're all supposed to be equal. People who set store by hierarchy on Wikipedia are here for the wrong reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you say it's accurate to describe the Signpost piece as having been rejected? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Playing with lexis is again confrontational: I could have used: not retained, declined, turned down, advised against, disadvised, put off, discouraged. Whatever - it did not get published. As far as I recall it was either an editorial decision or an agreement between the editor and yourself that you withdraw it.  The diffs are somewhere in the archives of The Signpost. FWIW had I still been the E-in-C at that time, I would have suggested that it would need very much rewriting including style, flow, tone, and above all, volume; in all, a lot of work.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those terms would be correct. The piece was deferred to the next issue due to an internal communication issue between the editors-in-chief, and I subsequently withdrew the submission (and had to rebuff an attempt by one editor-in-chief to run it nonetheless). See . --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the candid clarification and the diffs. So you do admit to it having been spiked. Yes it was an interesting thread. It appears I said the same then about the piece as I said above but I wasn't seeking to criticising anyone from the editorial team or the author, after all I had recently supported (and reaffirmed) your RfA .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin thank you for the accurate description of the situation. I indeed do not believe it is accurate to describe the piece as having been rejected, but rather, as you put it, deferred to the next issue due to an internal communication issue between the editors-in-chief. I'd like to reiterate my statement that you linked above and my sincere apologies, especially for attempting to run it nonetheless of your requests to have it deleted. I wish you best in your candidacy. Sincerely, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 05:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I too concur with Roy. VM's page gives plenty of diffs and is an example of questionably appropriate behavior. I cannot in good conscience support this candidate. Buffs (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As someone who has never interacted with Tamzin but as seen some of her posts at WP:AFI and read some complaints about her handling of being an admin, I would urge people to do a thorough review of this candidate's history before casting a vote in her favour.Xx78900 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If memory serves, I said that the font colors were distracting and that I would be glad to run it in the next issue. Tamzin said that she didn't want to. It wasn't a particularly dramatic episode.
 * Even if it were, though, I don't think it would be an appropriate subject to bring up during someone's ArbCom candidacy; how are we supposed to run a newspaper if nobody's allowed to get emotional without it biting them in the ass months later? I mean, am I going to get bitten in the ass for not wanting to run the article in that issue? This is an awful precedent. jp×g 01:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For me personally there's no one specific issue, I hadn't come across her RfA or the Signpost bit before now, but I think Tamzin is consistently controversial, which isn't a good thing to be for ArbCom imo. Xx78900 (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , I was pinged, so I'll answer. When I was E-in-C of The Signpost I tried very hard to insist that as a newspaper it was more or less independent of Wikipedia (which I still maintain it should be - and even hosted on a separate server). That claim was not without support. However, there are others who insist that it is a Wikipedia page. Levering on this latter premise, I feel it's therefore perfectly legitimate to 'bring up' anything that might be controversial in an ACE candidate's history.  has said his piece and I came out concurring. The rest is for the voters to decide for themselves. That said, as probably the vast majority of votes has already been cast (it usually is by the end of day 2), any further comment here is moot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

by Paine Ellsworth
Support this candidate, Tamzin, here and as I did at RfA. While the candidate may seem controversial at times, I think highly of efforts to make things better. Sometimes that means one has to buck the system a bit, and that can manufacture enemies. Tamzin sees a need and tries to fill it. There are few higher aspirations. Candidate has helped me and other editors many times in the past, and I expect that will continue to be the case when involved with ArbCom. Thank you, Tamzin, wish we had many more like you!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 07:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

by Nosebagbear
So. I read Roy's statement, and concurred with the 2nd sentence. I don't think Tamzin is, in fact, particularly unhappy being around conflict. It's just the rest of the statement where I disagree - starting with that an arb who dislikes conflict too much is going to struggle to be an arbitrator, surrounded by it. Tamzin's RfA drama was indeed self-inflicted, she could have avoided it by being more coy. But that outspoken controversial view was, at the least, outspoken - you had the information to make your judgement. I'd be more nervous about an arbitrator whose positions, biases, and humanity were played close to the vest.

I was originally going to ask my questions of Tamzin specifically with regard to the need for the highest level of vigilance when it came to recusals. Arbs must avoid being biased, but also from undermining trust in the process by engaging where a reasonable person could view them as engaging when biased. Other editors thankfully asked the questions first - and Tamzin's answers on it were excellent (though I'd like to caution them that, just or not, the same standards de facto apply to them as a regular admin while serving as an arb).

I do not endorse Tamzin because I think they or their judgement is flawless or even without controversy. I endorse them because they are aware of the risks and take steps to mitigate them - and that awareness is what I like in an arbitrator. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably not corrupt
I'm superficially aware of how Wikipedia is corrupted by democracy promotion and Western propaganda (which includes smearing and disinformation).

I was quite surprised to see someone actually did something about the situation. I really believed the project was hopeless in its cooptation, and still don't quite understand the mechanism this candidate used to effect some global good.

Talk⁄Louis Waweru 01:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)