Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Technical 13

Technical 13

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

Gerda Arendt's question

• @Technical 13: has got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. The place he links to is a motion to change an existing remedy. The existing remedy passed 7:3. The motion to change it failed 5:7. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
  

(I dared to changed the ping above to try to make it work, and repeat in case that also doesn't work because not signed.) @Technical 13: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate your attempts (which were ultimately successful and I saw it this morning). I am, of course, watching this page (and all other related pages) and saw the malformed ping last night. Thank you, and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for sleeping over and re-thinking, a good quality that I like. You might correct typos if you have the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hastuer's question (and it's supressed follow ups)

Voter Guide writers (Elonka—Rschen7754—HJ Mitchell—Go Phightins!—Collect—EllenCT) I wish to draw your attention to a series of exceedingly poor choices by both the Election coordinator (Mike V) and the Candidate.

1. [1] I asked a relatively neutral question regarding the candidate's history and how do they reconcile their history (including events less than 6 months ago) with the demeanor of one who is at the top of the dispute resolution pyramid.
2. [2] The candidate responds and claims that the issues are dealt with above, but my question is how do they reconcile the entirety, so the question wasn't answered.
3. [3] I rephrase the question and indicate why I think it should be answered.
4. [4] Not 20 minutes later, the glorious election coordinator removes the rephrased question citing removing duplicate, unconstructive question.
5. [5] I restore the question specifically citing Not duplicate. Asking because the voters have a right to know what kind of Arbiter they're potentially voting on
6. [6] Less than 10 minutes later the candidate removes the question again citing reremoving duplicate, unconstructive question. Thanks again for stopping by. when clearly the candidate did not pay attention to the message I left when undoing the first removal.
7. Since my rephrasing wasn't accepted, I change tack and incorporate the candidate's removal of the rephrase into the follow up [7]
8. Finally, the Coordinator (less than 15 minutes after I rephrased the question) again removes my question citing removing disruptive question
9. And then the coordinator reads the riot act over me on the talk page.

I do admit that I did have a specific agenda in asking this question and a specific outcome that I wanted to see for this question. I do admit that I became somewhat ill tempered when an administrator who should know better is attempting to supress my right to bring to light certain aspects of Technical 13's character that are (in my view) incompatible with their asserted goal to be an Arbiter. Hasteur (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect Technical 13 my DISCUSSION is in order here. Your removal from this "Discuss the Candidate" page is out of order and has been marked as VANDALISM. Kindly keep your hands OFF this statement. Hasteur (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect, neither of you are impressing me with your behavior. --Rschen7754 04:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, if you want to "bring to light" things you know about a candidate, that is better placed in a guide or talk page comment than in a question to which you already (apparently think you?) know the answer. Have you considered doing those things instead of trying to force it through in the specific form of a question? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter A guide means you have to review all the candidates, otherwise it becomes an attack piece/advertisment of the candidate if you focus on a few candidates. By attempting to ask the question (and I see that the line was picked up by others) those that read the questions/guides will have a better understanding of the candidate's nature. Hasteur (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidate's understanding of copyright and deletion policy

I would suppose this is as good a place as any to bring this up. I considered submitting a question on his understanding of copyvio and deletion but I'm not sure it would have been constructive or well received. Anyhow, in the wake of a run in with Technical I was astounded to learn that, in addition to attempting a speedy delete on Cocaine a few weeks before filing this AfD, he is standing for ArbCom. He also filed this related AN/I report. Normally I wouldn't even follow up but Technical has been on Wikipedia for three and a half years, assembled over 24K edits, the whole cupboard of permissions, and does a lot of work in non-admin closes and with bots. I feel as though he's "slipped through the cracks", so to speak. GraniteSand (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• My understanding of copyvio is that an article that is comprised entirely (well, I suppose 99.5% isn't entirely) of content copied from other sites by an unauthorized bot (which was subsequently blocked and had talk page fully protected) where removing said copyright violations would leave no usable content in the article should be deleted despite whether or not the topic of the article is notable. This leaves it open for another user to recreate the article without the troublesome illegal page history as a good article. Furthermore, a comment by a user that is directed towards another user in an insulting and personally attacking way that distracts from the discussion about the deletion of said article should be redacted or removed in one way or another. The idea is to encourage discussion about the article and not get side tracked trying to throw mud around. I take Jayron32's comment as sound advice, and as such have let the AN/I discussion fizzle out. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you juxtapose your understanding of copyvio policy, deletion policy, and your SPEEDY and AfD nominations of Cocaine with the result of the AfD? What does it tell you? How does it guide your future actions and inform your understanding of the policies and procedures in question? GraniteSand (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)