Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Wehwalt

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Use third-level headers for new sections. Example: === Heading title ===. Unsure about the election process? Please review the election rules. Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions? Please notify an election volunteer.	Be civil No personal attacks Refrain from canvassing and harassment Discuss the election, or ask questions here

Wehwalt

• Comment I've been highly impressed by you everywhere I see you on Wiki, and I think you're highly qualified and will definitely vote for you since you're running. That said, I hope you'll forgive me if I say that I hope you don't win: you have a rare gift as far as article writing goes. I am extremely impressed by your ability to write great expository prose, at high volume without losing nuance, on extremely complex topics (to use some recent examples, the lives and political careers of Nikita Khruschev and Neville Chamberlain). Frankly, I think it's easier on Wikipedia to find people who are willing to do housekeeping chores, or pass judgment on particular disputes, than it is to find somebody with the skill and obvious joy in research and encyclopedic writing that you possess. Every hour you take away from your writing to put into arbitration is, I think, a loss as far as the articles you might have written in that extra time go. Ray^Talk 22:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  I appreciate it. I just feel this is something I need to do, for a term, to pay Wikipedia back. I will still be writing, never fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've had a recent disagreement over a mixture of content and policy with Wehwalt. My feelings became heated. Wehwalt displayed great maturity and integrity. Wehwalt attempted to resolve the issue in the best community manners. As a result of Wehwalt's actions, I feel a great deal of respect towards Wehwalt. Wehwalt displays editorial attributes I would associate with an excellent arbitrator. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Question In cases related to the Israel-Palestine domain, will you be recusing yourself? Tiamut^talk 08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I can and will be fair to all to come before the committee. I am inclined to recuse only in matters or with people which I have had close, recent involvement. I do not think I have edited in that area in the last six months. I am not an I/P partisan, and I would ask you to look over my record, and if you think I can be fair to all, vote for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If I was at all hesitant about this user's candidacy before, his failure to recuse himself from Arab-Israeli related cases[1] completely disqualifies him in my view. He is plainly far from an impartial participant in this topic area, as demonstrated by his editing history and the opinion of those who have edited alongside him on such pages. That he would try to pass himself off as such is an obvious cause for concern, not only because it calls into question his motives for doing so, but, more importantly at this time, because it shows either incomprehension of, or disregard for, a basic principle of jurisprudence. I couldn't possibly vote for someone whose judgement in regards to even so basic a principle as COI is awry.

Other than that, his lack of participation in project areas that would allow the community to assess his ability to make sound judgements is also a concern. His only apparent participation in potentially controversial project space appears to be his early interest in AFD, which by his own admission was not particularly impressive.[2] Certainly he's done some fine work in regards to content creation, but we have lots of excellent content contributors who can't even make it to admin status. Wehwalt simply doesn't have the track record one would expect to see of an arbcom candidate. Finally, I found his answers to questions at his candidate pages to be for the most part vague and unimpressive. For all these reasons, I will be voting oppose for this candidate. Gatoclass (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Response I will not routinely reply to posts here, since I think all voters should vote with the same info in this very extensive election, but Gatoclass's comment moved me to reply. Gatoclass appears unaware that ArbCom deals with issues of conduct not of content. Further, ArbCom procedures provide that in any case, you can ask an arb to recuse himself. If he is unwilling, you can ask the remainder of the ArbCom to exclude him, a decision in which he does not participate. Thus, recusal is still available, and it basically falls in the judgment of the committee, for sure if the committee feels I am biased (I am not), I won't have to be told a second time. That really addresses the thrust of his COI argument, which is probably more the appearance of impropriety, as I have no vested interest in the I/P dispute, I am not a member of the PLO governing council or of the Knesset, so there is no direct COI. A spot on ArbCom in the hope a case might come along which wouldn't be about content anyway and that ten arbs wouldn't find it better to recuse me? Please. That is an awfully thin reed for someone to do all the work required of an arbitrator, in the hope that a case where one can justify his partisanship and get away with it will come along. You'd have to be tremendously motivated as a partisan there, and that would undoubtedly spill out. You'd have to have the self control of a saint to leave the issue aside while building up the street creds to run for arb credibly. And then, the vote of ten arbs can make it all for nothing! For all Gatoclass suggests that my motives are open to question (that's probably a smear, designed to make people think of the CAMERA incident), no one can say with any credibility that I am running for ArbCom for any other reason then to help Wikipedia, a project in which I strongly believe.

I will not spend much time going over the other damning with faint praise that Gatoclass indulges in to make at least a surface claim that he really cares about more than a single issue. I'd put up my involvement at TFA/R over AFD any day of the week, No one comes to TFA/R who is not a solid editor, who has gone through FAC (by the way, Gatoclass has never had a FAC, failed or successful, so does not know what is involved in steering 14 articles through that process as I have) and who passionately cares about seeing his article on the Main Page. Someone had to step up and informally mediate that page, and I have and still do, and I get few complaints.

Gatoclass's arguments, such as they are, fall of their own lack of substance. Were I a partisan, I could influence Wikipedia through my (as Gatoclass grudgingly admits) "fine work" on articles, and would have the credibility of a top content creator behind me and could influence an awful lot of articles that way. Then, I could use my status as an admin to do the same thing, presumably also hoping I wouldn't be seen as involved.

While I understand that Gatoclass passionately feels his opinions and arguments, in the final (or in any) analysis they are overblown and without substance. However, I thank him for his feedback and will take it to heart.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass appears unaware that ArbCom deals with issues of conduct not of content.

You've done a rather good job of raising straw men in your responses to me thus far and this is another example. Of course, I am quite aware that arbcom (at least supposedly) deals with "conduct not content". But the essence of your argument here is that while an arbitrator's political views might influence his perception of content issues, they won't affect his judgement at all when it comes to judging the conduct of his political opponents. I put it to you that that is a patently absurd argument. Why do you think we have rules about only "uninvolved" admins issuing blocks and bans to misbehaving users? Plainly, because there is a clear conflict of interest for involved administrators when it comes to judging the conduct of those with whom they disagree. That you apparently cannot comprehend this simple fact, or don't want to acknowledge it, even after having it pointed out to you, is of growing concern to me, and ought to be to anyone thinking of voting for you.

In regards to your comment that "the rest of arbcom" can exclude one of their colleagues who refuses to acknowledge a COI, my response is simply - why should we want to elect such a person to arbcom in the first place? I want arbitrators who have sound judgement and a firm sense of right and wrong, of what is and is not appropriate propriety, if they have to be instructed in such matters by their colleagues, they were clearly not suitable for the position to begin with. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the thought. I tell you I've had a firm grasp on right and wrong since second grade or so, but I'm grateful for the refresher course. We simply disagree. I'm a bit saddened that you can only conceive that someone who has made, as you see it, edits contrary to your point of view and quite some time ago, is exactly equivalent to a raging, present day, partisan. That isn't how it is in my world. As an attorney, I've regularly represented court appointed clients who appall me. They get zealous representation. As an arb, I will be fair to all. And if a request is made for me to recuse in a particular case, I will look at the evidence, consider it seriously, and consult with other arbs.

You've conceded, I think, that I've made no such edits as you complain of anywhere near recently and have kept out of it as an admin. You seem to conceive that I would act differently as an arb. Not so. Because let me tell you: I want a reputation left when I complete my service as an arb. I will still be here, you will still be here, Wikipedia will still be here. I want my reputation as a fair editor (maybe you don't share it, but I'm a thinkin' it's the majority view) to still be there too. And you know what? The I-P problem will still be there too!

I suspect in a way we aren't really talking to each other, but to the voters, a lot of whom have already cast their ballots, so perhaps we should wind this down?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment-Huzzah for Arbs who write articles and not just opinions and judgments!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt's unblock of Die4Dixie without prior discussion or a valid explanation not only causes me to need to vote against him, but to wonder whether he should even have the admin bit. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought! As can be seen from the AN/I thread, there was an awful lot of prior discussion, in which I engaged and am still engaging. A prompt explanation was posted. Jehochman had blocked without a valid stated reason for blocking. Do you seek Arbs who will do what is popular, or what is right? And would you want to be blocked without proper grounds being stated? Wouldn't you want an uninvolved admin to look at the situation and deal with it neutrally? Sorry I don't have your vote, but a decision between a vote and doing what is right is an easy one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't want ones that are both contrary, wrong and wedded to policy over encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment My purpose in commenting here is twofold: First, to express my strong support for Wehwalt's candidacy. He has shown himself at all times to be thoughtful and considerate, reluctant to make hasty judgements, and able to keep his cool in the most heated debates. Second, I would like to council anybody reading these comments and debating whether or not to vote for Wehwalt to first read the thread here [3] and determine for yourselves if his actions were inappropriate. Quite the contrary, I contend that his nuanced and dispassionate appraisal of the incident and the actions of editors involved makes him a prime candidate for arbcom. I would further advise anybody reading these comments to give appropriate weight to the comments of opposing editors above who felt personnaly offended by the conduct of D4D in the above case. While I understand that they feel very strongly about the issue, I am disheartened that they have allowed those feelings to colour their appraisal of this excellent editor. Wikipedia is fortunate to count Wehwalt amongst its members. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I resolved not to go on record with my votes this year, but in this case I'll make an exception. I am concerned by Wehwalt's unblock of Die4Dixie (talk · contribs). I would suggest reading through this thread up to the point at which Wehwalt unblocked Die4Dixie. I see no consensus to overturn the block (if anything, outside input was predominantly supportive). Nor did Wehwalt notify Protonk (talk · contribs), whose indefinite block he overturned, either before or after reversing him. It's cavalier and disrespectful both to administrative colleagues and to community feedback to overturn a block over the objections of the blocking admin and without anything resembling community consensus to do so (and without even notifying the blocking admin to give the the chance to comment or elaborate). Wehwalt doesn't seem to see the problem here, whereas it seems incredibly obvious to me. And so I'm not comfortable putting him in a position to adjudicate inter-admin disputes.

  It's not about Die4Dixie per se. I'd personally lean toward giving him a second chance too - in fact I have done so in the past (see his block log). It's a matter of self-awareness and accountability. If someone is unaccountable to feedback as an admin, then enshrining them on ArbCom seems like a worrisome prospect to me. I could even be persuaded that it's a one-off and just agree to disagree about the specific incident if there was any sign that Wehwalt took these concerns on board. But I get the sense that Wehwalt's response is: "Oh well, I did what I know was right." There is no mechanism to force introspection or self-awareness on Arbs, and it is virtually impossible to force accountability on even the most problematic Arbitrators after their election. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Response The block I overturned was that of Jehochman. Protonk was an earlier reviewing admin, who extended the block. There had been a considerable discussion of it at AN/I, I felt the stronger argument was with the unblockers. Consensus, even if it is required for an unblock, is not a numerical count. Jehochman had not stated any valid reason for the initial block, and so the argument to remain blocked was weak. Jehochman weighed in within three minutes of the unblock (alleviating the need for me to notify him) and we engaged constructively with each other. Perhaps you should address yourself to Protonk, who while not an Arb candidate, extended the block with no community consultation; I see no note left by him on Jehochman's talk page. Aren't you rather exhibiting a double standard? Shouldn't you remonstrate with Protonk? I'm waiting ...

I'm not clear why you say I am "unaccountable to feedback", I've stated on AN/I, in response to you in fact here that had I thought of the option you suggested, I would have seriously considered it, and suggested yet another way to act. If being "unaccountable to feedback" means "crawling on the ground hoping to get votes", you've come to the wrong shop. I think we agree on the basic issue, that I was within my rights to unblock D4D, we seem to have differences on the procedure involved. You have every right to oppose. This thread suggests (by your agreement with the author of an guide which opposed me) that you were planning to anyway or most likely already had, since you voted at 0534 on 2 December, before this went down, and have not changed your vote. That's your right.

I suggest that the reader read the entire AN/I threads, not just the bit of it suggested by Mastcell. The idea is to be fair to everyone, something I wish you would take on board. You view this as a mistake, but you say nothing about anything else I have done at Wikipedia, very odd indeed. I have every confidence in Wikipedians to read the whole thread, and not to be inflamed by the subject matter, and to be fair in their votes. You have to do what is right, and please keep in mind that next time, it may be you on the unpopular side of a dispute. Will you want an admin to deal with you fairly, or will you want him to be sweating about his vote count? You decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into a back-and-forth here. I linked the thread, not a series of diffs, so that people can read as much of it as they like. I didn't "remonstrate" with Protonk because, among other things, Protonk isn't running for ArbCom where he will be expected to adjudicate exactly these sorts of questions. You are.

Maybe I didn't communicate my concern effectively. I don't think you "had the right" to unblock Die4Dixie without discussing it with the blocking admin (whose judgment you saw fit to question in the indelible block log without even asking him to defend his decision), nor in the absence of a consensus to overturn the block. But that's not even the point. You've cast this as a principled stand. I don't see how overturning another admin's block without even notification, and in the face of community support for the block, is a principled stand. It looks to me like a disdain for accountability, which is where my concern comes from. I feel justified in weighing this incident heavily, since you seem determined to spin it into part of your campaign platform.

Since you mention my voting habits: it's the holiday season and I'm busy. I didn't want to let the deadline slip by, so I cast a slate of votes based on my initial impressions. I intend to revise them, but in case I don't get around to it, at least I won't have completely disenfranchised myself. If you care, I was neutral on you. I'll go back at some point to switch over to oppose. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, however, is an administrator. You came down hard on me in the AN/I thread for what you saw as a lack of courtesy in notifying Jehochman, even though we had engaged in a rather lengthy thread. I gave it a few hours to see if any more arguments were made, and then acted. Jehochman responded in three minutes, alleviating the need for me to notify him. Protonk never notified Jehochman, and you never said a word to him about it. AN/I stands for "Administrator's noticeboard/incidents", not "Arbcomcandidates Noticeboard/Incidents" Obviously equal treatment should have been your standard. I guess we can conclude one of two things, either you remonstrated with me, and not him, because you didn't like my decision (but liked his) or because I am an ArbCom candidate. Whatever, the importance is not terribly great. And yes, I did have the right to undo that block, there was clear error by Jehochman in doing the block without stating any valid block rationale. D4D's complaint was not frivilolous, he was not out of line in maintaining it, when one participant at AN/I, William S. Saturn, had already agreed with him." The only other ground stated was that D4D had a block log. That's no reason for another block, many valued editors have been blocked.

I think I've admitted I could have handled it better procedurally. However, that most likely would not have changed my decision, and would not have altered much of the deluge, but it is possible to take a stand, and have made procedural mistakes in doing it. But I agree, unless you have something profound to say, let's agree to disagree and leave it to the voters.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Extending a block is not undoing it. You do not need to consult a blocking admin to further block someone they have blocked - in effect, you are merely stating "after your week block, I'll block him for XYZ." That you think unblocking someone is something you can do without discussing is troubling - people have been stripped of their tools for that, and that you are neither accountable to the community as an admin and that ArbCom is such a shit-show right now doesn't mean your behavior was not, and is not continuing to be, abusive. Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that way, but I would submit that you are altering another admins decision. In fact, Protonk said it wasn't long enough, and that is why he went indef. By that logic, I would have been better off altering the block to one second. And there was an extensive discussion, in which both Jehochman and I participated, at which the question of the appropriateness of the block was very much on the table. Surprised you would say that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, if you were to block User:Giano II right now you would be overturning the decision of Moni3? Get real. This demonstrates a complete lack of clue. Extending a block absent abnormal situation - which this most certainly was not, does not contravene the initial blocker. Reducing a block does. This is wheel-warring 101. Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you, sorry. And if you have anything further to state, can I ask that you use edit summaries for the purpose intended, rather than for snide comments?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Gatoclass's comment

I've also responded there. I thank Gatoclass for his opinions, as profoundly as I may disagree with him, I do respect him.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(The discussion to which Wehwalt refers is in the section above). Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Scott MacDonald's comment

Not what I wrote, please see my comments. Many thanks, sorry I didn't get your vote!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of SilkTork's comment

Most people think we need arbs with a variety of viewpoints. Usually the complaint is too little article creation, I may be the first arb candidate to get "too much article creation"! Your oppose made me smile at a tense time, thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My thinking is that working on ArbCom will take you away from creating content; also, that creating content is not quite the same as dealing with behaviour problems - same as experience in welding together cars does not quite prepare one to become an F1 driver in the same way that driving rally cars does. However, as I have moved through each on the candidates I have noticed that I have been neutral on those lacking experience, but with other positive qualities, and have only opposed when I felt there was something negative. So I am actually voting Neutral. Regards (and good luck!) 12:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Mathsci and AniMate's comments

I'm sorry you both feel that way, but I would advise anyone reading these comments to read the thread in question at [4] and decide for yourselves if his comments represented poor judgement. I personally couldn't disagree more, and it was his level-headedness in this affair that led, in part, to my voicing my support for him. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also sorry they feel that way, but I intend, as an arb, or an admin, to continue to be fair to everyone who edits Wikipedia without fear or favor. Both the er, "good faith editor" and the "highly problematic editor" deserve fairness without favoritism. I hope that Mathsci and AniMate come to see that and change their votes. If not, there are more important things than elections. All the best, --Wehwalt (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, apart from this problematic incident, you are still one of the strongest candidates. This particular case is quite exceptional and it remains to be seen what will happen. You'll probably get my vote back when the dust settles in a few days time :) Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mathsci. Please check the long screed that D4D left on my talk page about Jehochman. If he had left that before I acted (obviously not while blocked), I would have had second thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of MastCell's comment

I've responded there. Note that MastCell's comments were posted 1 day and 14 hour after his vote, and he did not subsequently change his vote before posting (and has not as of this writing). Not saying he has no right to post, just saying that what he posted apparently did not influence his vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. See [5] (last paragraph). MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Moreschi's comment

Sorry if you think I am naive and would favor Israel over the Palestinians, which is what you and a couple of others seem to be saying. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't say the latter, although others may have. Naive, yes, however. The value of Kirill to the AC in the old days was precisely his ability to see where people were coming from, that is, to assess and analyse their biases. Which is why I'm voting for him again. I don't think you can do this, or, if you can, you don't think it's relevant. I disagree: arbitrators must possess the virtue of imaginative realism. Your assertion that Zeq and the rest of the Israpedia crowd had the wiki's best interests at heart was at the same time spectacularly unimaginative and unrealistic. I am not closely familiar with the Die4Dixie situation but I'd imagine something pretty similar is going on. Moreschi (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, getting to your specific complaint, can you give me a diff on what you say I said? that is my "assertiaon that Zeq and the rest of ..." bit. I just searched that page and can't seem to find it. I looked at every comment I made, too!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly that's not a literal quote, but a summation of your position. As for what you did say..."With a little massaging, the CAMERA emails could have been phrased in a way that might cause some to gnash their teeth, but would be perfectly proper.", or the frequent references to "lynch mob mentality", or, most tellingly, "as well as an assumption that CAMERA's NPOV differs radically from everyone else's NPOV. Those assumptions are really why the bans are taking place." - come on - how does CAMERA's NPOV not differ from a normal person's NPOV. They're an effing advocacy group! Moreschi (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Even your cherrypicking does me no discredit. Yes, they could have massaged it. Suppose they had urged their readers to get involved in WP since it was the history book of the future from which Jewish History and that of the Holocaust would one day be read, and urged readers to get involved in WP to help write it properly. That might cause some to gnash teeth, as I've said, but I doubt there would have been bans handed out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Which would not be massaging. Not in the slightest. That would be rewriting. Did you actually bother to read the 130-odd emails on the list?

Plus, I probably didn't comment at the time, but I don't think any of us (myself, FPAS, Chris0) really appreciated being told we were displaying "lynch mob mentality" that was "sickenening". At best this assumed pointless bad faith of fellow administrators. Moreschi (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I wasn't an administrator at the time, nor is ChrisO currently my colleague as an admin, as you know he's been desysoped for going a bit too far. Second, it didn't refer to you. Here is the diff:[6]/Wikilobby_campaign#Note_that_signature_name_.22Juanita.22_is_user_.22Dajudem.22] which referred to questioning the good faith of having a signature displaying a different name, and that the user had used for three years. As you the reader who clicks on the link (which Moreschi did not provide, sadly) it has nothing to do with you and was perfectly in order. Sorry. What's next?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Disingenuous, as you then repeated the lynch mob accusation at [7], this time quite clearly aiming it at the admins who imposed the bans and specifically the one on Zeq. That would be myself, as I extended the initial block of a week to 1 year. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah so. Thank you. Hardly disingenuous, I simply ran a search and saw the other one. That was a formal statement to AC. The AC has every right to strike any abusive comments, as do its clerks. I don't see you or your colleague and our former colleague taking affront there either. I see the comment was first used by Avi, who I was agreeing with. Actually, I don't see anyone taking offense to either comment at the time, whether Arb, clerk, or innocent bystander. If you were offended, I am sorry, but a nice note at the time on my talk page probably would have caused me to change it to something like "too much of a rush to judgment". It's too bad if you were offended, but I can't offer to go out and settle it over a couple of glasses of beer if you don't SAY anything, Moreschi. But I'm willing now. Not asking you to change your vote or your position, but I could have found a better phrase even without being prompted. Shake?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have moved the above discussions from the comment page. Please restrict posts there to a single brief comment on the candidate or explanation of your vote.  Skomorokh  16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Analysis

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Wehwalt. Franamax (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)