Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/ToBeFree

ToBeFree

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

LGTM

ToBeFree is a very strong looking candidate to me because of their involvement as an ArbCom clerk. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A truly excellent editor, ToBeFree is

ToBeFree's dedication, calm competence, and friendly demeanor are indisputable, and I can personally attest to them having worked with him for almost a year in his role as an ArbCom clerk. Those are traits that will serve him very well on ArbCom. It is a real delight to see him throw his hat into the ring, and I hope everyone joins me in supporting him. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, hey L235, thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. i'm voting support in the securepoll.--RZuo (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

After reading the candidate statement page, I was unsure whether to vote for this candidate, as this is my time eligible for voting in an arbcom election and did not feel like the statement gave me a sufficient understanding. However, after reading the candidate's answers to editor questions (and all the other candidates' questionnaires), I now think ToBeFree is one of the strongest candidates in this election. I encourage all other first-time voters to read the questionnaire pages as well, even if it seems like a lot of time to spend on wikipedia that isn't editing (or just learning about subjects by reading) wikipedia. Bennyfactor (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

Because of All of the above GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Sometime ago I had a dispute with ToBeFree in a permission request I made. At the time, I was using the Template:User Status, which notifies other editors if one is online or offline. But to do that the status needs to be changed from online to offline, making an edit. I then religiously proceeded to make minor edits changing my status to online or offline according to my presence or absence from my Wikipedia session. Then ToBeFree directly implied an accusation against me telling me, "I am also puzzled about your recent edits to your user talk page, which seem to have no other actual purpose than inflating your edit count."

ToBeFree for some reason decided that my edits seemed to be unreasonable and dishonest without even caring to inquire before making a conclusion as to why I made those edits. ToBeFree failed to assume good faith, failed to properly inquire about the situation, made a hasty conclusion about my edits, without even realizing that the purpose of the template I was using was to notify others of my online status which needed edits to do so.

To me, Wikipedia is an important part of my life and I try to make quality, detailed, and methodical edits. Therefore, I felt completely humiliated about ToBeFree's premature and painful accusations of dishonesty in my edits. As such, I don't feel comfortable about ToBeFree being an arbitrator. It is what it is. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, please replace "purpose" by "effect". My assumption about your intention was incorrect and should have been one of good faith. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Undecided

I haven't voted yet, as I'm still trying to figure out which candidates to support—honestly, the contenders this year are so strong, I've got half a mind to vote for all of them. However, ToBeFree is one that I'm wavering on a little. Not because I don't trust him, but because I'm not sure of his willingness to make difficult decisions, and his ability to communicate his perspectives clearly and effectively. For instance, his answer to Theleekycauldron's question felt like more of a tangent than a straight response. He was asked for a specific example of a time when he made a tough decision as an administrator, and he gave a boilerplate "I try not to act unilaterally" generalization. It wasn't the kind of direct, forthright answer that I was looking for (and while I can't speak for her, I doubt it's what Leeky was looking for either). Then there's his answer to Tamzin's question, in which he doesn't really elaborate or offer much insight into his stance on ArbCom transparency; as before, it was very boilerplate and vague. None of this should be seen as a knock against TBF, who is a very competent and effective administrator—I think he'd do just fine if elected. But I like it when arbitrators are able to expound upon their ideas in ways that really give you insight into their line of thinking. TBF strikes me as being more reticent than I'd prefer. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)