Note: Archives are below in template as well. New archives will appear in header.
Header ripped off from Anonymous Dissident (Thanks)
|
||
|
Formerly Redskunk (talk · contribs)
Archives |
---|
Threads older than 31 days may be archived by ClueBot III. |
Contents
- 1 Request review of admin statement on ArbCom Talk page
- 2 Thank you
- 3 Clarification request
- 4 Kingofaces material
- 5 Email
- 6 Is there a reason...
- 7 Please read your email (again)
- 8 Arbcom election
- 9 The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
- 10 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 11 Yngvadottir's unblock
- 12 Rangecalc!
- 13 Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
- 14 Typo in GMO PD
Request review of admin statement on ArbCom Talk page
Greetings. May I ask that you review my request at the ArbCom Talk page in question? It seems clear-cut to me what the circumstances here are, and I believe the behavior calls for immediate resolution. Thanks. Jusdafax 15:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I see that the admin in question, JzG/Guy, has been warned. I have been calling for this admin's inclusion in this case as an obviously involved party since the beginning. At the risk of stating the obvious, a statement is placed at the top of that same page, and I quote the final sentences: Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision. I frankly am astonished that an obvious campaign of naked intimidation by an involved administrator has been allowed to continue unabated until this warning, as the admin's harassment is plainly designed to have a chilling effect, as the warning notes. I ask that ArbCom block this admin and/or that his behavior in this case and elsewhere indeed be considered by the committee. Thanks again. Jusdafax 20:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- UPDATE 2: Now an interaction ban has been emplaced, so at least I see some results. It's worth observing that JzG/Guy archived his notice within a few hours of the posting. I still feel strongly that further sanctions are justified against JzG/Guy. Jusdafax 20:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Crucial early decisions in the GMO case emboldened Admin JzG/Guy
As is shown on the record here at least three ArbCom members voted to take on the GMO articles subject saying JzG/Guy was uninvolved in this case and doing "the Wiki's work" which exempted him from an ArbCom case. Given the above recounted events, I ask for an explanation.
A strong argument can be made that by specifically singling out administrator JzG as uninvolved despite his clearly being involved in several of the articles, his being a blocker of a Party to the case SageRad, JzG/Guy's being an involved closer of an RfC on the Monsanto legal cases Talk page, and an enabler of other editors engaged in dubious editing practices in GMO articles, that JzG/Guy felt invulnerable, leading to JzG/Guy's harassing behaviors of SageRad.
If doing the Wiki's work includes repeated comments to SageRad like "I know who you are," something is terribly wrong, in my view. In fairness, the ArbCom member doing the warning and the handing down of the recent Interaction Ban was one of the three ArbCom members giving JzG/Guy a free pass. But that iBan will expire at the end of the ArbCom case. These facts require a statement by JzG/Guy that he acknowledges his wrongdoing and pledges to change his ways, and without this expressed contrition, in my view, stronger corrective measures will be needed. Thanks for your consideration. Jusdafax 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Noted. NativeForeigner Talk 10:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- The workshop is closed, so I'm only going to leave this comment. I believe it's been established at the case already that JzG was not considered involved at the time of SageRad's block or during RfC closes, which happened before the case opened. It wasn't until after the case opened that JzG really started editing within the topic outside an uninvolved perspective.[1]. The committee sure can discuss expected decorum for an admin trying to deal with things like vendettas, advocacy, etc. from an editor (examples of that at SageRad's block discussion and denied appeal).[2] However, I'm not going to comment on what comments were appropriate or not with the context of SageRad's history in mind because it was hard enough to document it in part at the case page much less here where this isn't quite the right forum. Seems to be one of the many areas that needs to be fleshed out in terms of evidence if one really wants to delve into the interaction. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also noted @Kingofaces43:. NativeForeigner Talk 12:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: have posted the following on my Talk page, and this is an appropriate spot to place it as well, given the above and regarding your remarkable addition to the PD a few hours ago.
- As amendments go, this makes the PD worse, not better. No addition of Kingofaces, which is needed in all justice, and instead his suggestions to add Wuerzele are heeded, which continues the tit-for-tat pattern of intimidation of those asking hard questions. Sill no option to site ban the chief offender Jytdog. The given explanation re: JzG/Guy, one of the most patently abusive admins in my experience, is inadequate in the extreme. I have the distinct impression if not for my repeated demands for clarity, it would be even worse. Still no reply re: why JzG's non-addition as a party is actually used as a rationale for excusing him from sanctions when Arbitrators openly and repeatedly refused to do so in the first place, despite his obvious malfeasance and subsequent convenient disappearing act. Questions can be asked at the current ArbCom elections, and there are other ways to seek accountability in this process, and to have a broad community discussion regarding the glaring inequities on display here. This overall matter has been a cancer on Wikipedia for years, it has now reached Stage 4. Jusdafax 14:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- In terms of Kingofaces, if someone can actually present evidence which shows policy violations, and not waving of hands "We don't like these edits", I'll propose a remedy to match. There is relatively little evidence submitted against him that doesn't rely on there being some sort of cabal, for which little evidence is presented. I suppose we could add JzG at this point in the case, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. It was an oversight. I thought Guerillero had (an error on my part, undoubtedly). I could present a siteban for Jytdog, but I wouldn't be in support and it almost certainly wouldn't pass. Also, Guerillero had included Wuerzele in his rough draft at a PD. Going back through evidence I agreed with him that there was adequate evidence. I'd also note that I spent several hours earlier today going through literally all of the diffs presented against Kingofaces. I saw the concern, hence went back through to make sure I wasn't making a grave error. My conclusion was that there is very little good evidence against him, as I stated previously. Perhaps @Guerillero: has an opinion on this, but I do not believe he saw the evidence for a sanction against Kingsofaces either. Even at this late stage you're more than welcome to outline which specific evidence you find damning and why. NativeForeigner Talk 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I'm a bit concerned some of the things you said may have been taken out of context a little and spurred some canvassing by Jusdafax on their talk page with their "call to action" language.[3] If it were just Jusdafax individually, I wouldn't consider that canvassing obviously, but that language and this is more of a purposeful attempt to coordinate editors. If you or other arbs think this crosses the line into hounding territory by trying to single out an editor in this fashion and without further evidence of policy violations as you mentioned above, I am open to an interaction ban. I'm not going to push that at this time though per my email to ArbCom a few weeks ago on periphery editors.
-
-
- That being said, thank you for your analysis so far. In evidence presented so far, at worst they should show I've tried to respond to edit warring by getting people to follow WP:BRD and come to the talk page in my edit summaries. There is no great way to respond to edit warring though when others trying to edit war content in rather than reach consensus (pretty much everything cited against me should be an example of this), so I'm hoping the 1RR restriction resolves anything that would even slightly be considered a problem on my part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I vigorously reject Kingofaces charges of hounding, given the preceding statements. Nor is the charge of canvassing appropriate here. I have notified the case Parties concerned, and my actions are all aboveboard and legit, unlike the veiled threat in Kingofaces statement regarding "periphery editors." Chilling effect attempt, I'd call it. There was no need to say that other than to intimidate. Right there is a blockable offense. Jusdafax 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry, but trying to address the behavior issues I've outlined is not a chilling effect. The canvassing comment comes from trying to coordinate other editors against me (notifying all involved parties doesn't nullify that). I've said what I'm going to say on the matter though since I don't intend to spill over more of this onto NativeForeigner's page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Just wanted to say thanks for your efforts here, and that not everyone is in a rush to see a PD that you are unhappy with; we put weeks and months into presenting this case to the Arbs, so waiting a couple extra days for the PD is not a big deal. Normally we only hear from the disgruntled and most vocal (usually synonymous), so I wanted to present the other side. I'm also sorry to hear that there isn't more support for this work. It looks tedious, tiresome and quite thankless. It doesn't make sense that so much of the workload should fall on one or two people. Luckily, beer exists. petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ditto what Petra says. I know you and Guillerimo have been unusually busy, and the GMO articles have actually calmed down so much that they seem like "normal" articles now :D. I hope my occasional requests for updates have not been construed as pressure to rush a decision. And yeah, luckily beer (and whisky) exist. Take care. Minor4th 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, i've waited over 3 years to bring much of this evidence to the Arbs. So, yeah: whiskey, beer, chocolate and other stuff. I'm full of patience ;) petrarchan47คุก 20:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, now, from me. I actually think that the PD is very well written and conceived, so you had nothing to worry about. And now, I wish you a restful night's sleep! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- One thing more, though. Looking at the PD, I wonder whether you might want to add something about Wuerzele. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- See [4] NativeForeigner Talk 01:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw it, and I do note that you may consider adding to it. I thought it better to say this here instead of at the PD talk page, in the interest of not inflaming things, but I might re-post there tomorrow if that would be better. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing as Tryptofish. The current PD covers the core issues/remedies quite well considering it's intended as minimum of what should happen, so thanks for the good work. I think mention of Wuerzele is the only major issue lacking from it in terms of dealing with persistent sniping of editors, but I'll comment on that at the PD talk page more formally this evening. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw it, and I do note that you may consider adding to it. I thought it better to say this here instead of at the PD talk page, in the interest of not inflaming things, but I might re-post there tomorrow if that would be better. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- It would be much appreciated if my questions and those of other editors were addressed on PD Talk. I tried pinging drafting Arbs but I'm wondering if the pings are working? Did you receive notice of my ping, NF? Atsme📞📧 17:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I've been reading it. Only so many hours in a day and I've been otherwise occupied for the last 24ish hours. NativeForeigner Talk 06:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- See [4] NativeForeigner Talk 01:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Clarification request
Re [5] -- could you clarify what " it's very unlikely that we'll see anything" means in that context? NE Ent 11:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- @NE Ent: Hopeully that makes more sense? Essentially if Djembayz goes before arbcom I'll recuse, but I don't think it's likely I'll be on arbcom if/when she goes before it. NativeForeigner Talk 11:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, makes total sense. NE Ent 12:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Kingofaces material
I have added material regarding Kingofaces in my section as requested. While we appear to disagree fundamentally on a number of points, I do thank you for the opportunity to respond, and for your calm demeanor.
I once again ask that Administrator JzG be added as a party to this case after his being given a warning and Interaction Ban with Party to the case SageRad. Jusdafax 18:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just doing my best. @Jusdafax:. Going to discuss with a couple more experienced arbs re: JzG. As I explained earlier I thought he had been added as a party some time ago, but I was mistaken. I have exams and whatnot, I'll probably check wiki once tomorrow, but the next 24 hours will see markedly slow response times. NativeForeigner Talk 12:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Minor4th 21:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
And you, NF, have some explaining to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Typtofish, please just stop following me around and talking about me - especially since you have banned me from your talk page so I can't even address what eureka moment you think you've had. Honestly, I don't think the very short block you received was enough to make an impression on you. Minor4th 21:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have both drafting Arbs' talk pages on my watchlist already. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that you have been online and editing. I request that you please look at the email I sent you, as it is something that needs attention right away. Thank you. Minor4th 00:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason...
...if what happened in your comment here is accurate, why this was not brought to the attention of either the community or the WMF? The community is pretty hardline on threats of violance from editors. Likewise the WMF recently has been taking a more pro-active stance towards banning people. Do you not want to cause a fuss? Is it fear of reprisal (possibly at future events)? The thought that nothing would be done? This sort of behaviour needs to have a zero-tolerance response, and the problem is without it being brought to light by the victim, nothing will be done. I am not above shameless guilt-tripping so think about what other potential victims of violent threats there may be who are too scared to say anything. If an Arb wont do anything about it, what example is that setting for the rest of the community? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Because I didn't feel in danger as soon as the incident was over and didn't want to raise hell over it. I didn't view it as a true threat, although from a legal standpoint it could be considered one. I don't fear reprisal in any way. I knew something would be done, but feared it would be questioned and didn't want to have to argue about it. The narrative does seem pretty darn unlikely. I'm perfectly willing to forgive her for it, I think it was in the moment and not generally representative of her general conduct. That being said should I have raised it early? Probably. NativeForeigner Talk 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well I asked Jayen to comment as you indicated elsewhere he was a witness to the exchange. The main problem I have is that as an Arb, like it or not you do have a duty that involves setting an example - both in your conduct and in your response to other's. I know thats not what you signed up for, but taking no action at all sends completely the wrong message, it validates the actions of the perpetrator (in their eyes) and lets them know they can use threats to get their way. It also disincourages other people who may have witnessed it from speaking up, especially if they have also been on the receiving end of such threats/abuse. At the very least this should have resulted in a ban from future events for at least 2-3 years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I will say that her conduct in no way changed my course of action, if that is your concern. I think that's all I have to say. I'm not a fan of being effectively told that I handled harassment too in stride. It took me a while to realize its true magnitude. It was my realization that this needs to be addressed openly that led me to present it. But I do find it somewhat offensive to be told that as an arb it's my duty to immediately notify the community of all harassment I've underwent. Although it's impossible to equate this incident with what GorillaWarfare experienced, I think she had similar frustrations regarding the intersection of harassment she underwent and her role as arbitrator. @GorillaWarfare: NativeForeigner Talk 12:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- You were effectively a publically elected official at an event with both your peers and which no doubt included people who elected you because they trusted your judgement to arbitrate cases brought before you. When you stay silent on such a serious issue, it not only hurts yourself, it hurts the trust they placed in you, as well as harms the confidence in Arbcom as a whole. And thats not including the obvious issues already stated above with regards to others who have received similar treatement. Cue Uncle Ben. You have been elected to greater power on Wikipedia, you have greater responsibility to be an example in serious issues like this. For clarity, I dont think you necessarily should have told the entire community at AN/ANI (although I dont think it would hurt given your positive reputation) you definately absolutely should have told the event organisers, had her removed from the event, and made the other attendees aware of exactly why that took place and similar behaviour would not be tolerated. -Ninja Edit- Keep in mind I dont actually expect any action or outcome to be forthcoming now, however given you have raised it on-wiki, I felt the need to make it known (on-wiki) exactly why your response in this situation was wrong, and counter-productive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Point taken. NativeForeigner Talk 12:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- You were effectively a publically elected official at an event with both your peers and which no doubt included people who elected you because they trusted your judgement to arbitrate cases brought before you. When you stay silent on such a serious issue, it not only hurts yourself, it hurts the trust they placed in you, as well as harms the confidence in Arbcom as a whole. And thats not including the obvious issues already stated above with regards to others who have received similar treatement. Cue Uncle Ben. You have been elected to greater power on Wikipedia, you have greater responsibility to be an example in serious issues like this. For clarity, I dont think you necessarily should have told the entire community at AN/ANI (although I dont think it would hurt given your positive reputation) you definately absolutely should have told the event organisers, had her removed from the event, and made the other attendees aware of exactly why that took place and similar behaviour would not be tolerated. -Ninja Edit- Keep in mind I dont actually expect any action or outcome to be forthcoming now, however given you have raised it on-wiki, I felt the need to make it known (on-wiki) exactly why your response in this situation was wrong, and counter-productive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I will say that her conduct in no way changed my course of action, if that is your concern. I think that's all I have to say. I'm not a fan of being effectively told that I handled harassment too in stride. It took me a while to realize its true magnitude. It was my realization that this needs to be addressed openly that led me to present it. But I do find it somewhat offensive to be told that as an arb it's my duty to immediately notify the community of all harassment I've underwent. Although it's impossible to equate this incident with what GorillaWarfare experienced, I think she had similar frustrations regarding the intersection of harassment she underwent and her role as arbitrator. @GorillaWarfare: NativeForeigner Talk 12:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well I asked Jayen to comment as you indicated elsewhere he was a witness to the exchange. The main problem I have is that as an Arb, like it or not you do have a duty that involves setting an example - both in your conduct and in your response to other's. I know thats not what you signed up for, but taking no action at all sends completely the wrong message, it validates the actions of the perpetrator (in their eyes) and lets them know they can use threats to get their way. It also disincourages other people who may have witnessed it from speaking up, especially if they have also been on the receiving end of such threats/abuse. At the very least this should have resulted in a ban from future events for at least 2-3 years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
On the same subject
Why did you delete this, with the comment about 'drama'? It was a serious question. Was the Davies incident you referred to the Wikimania 2014 in London, or something else? It was a polite question, sincerely meant. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I removed it because, given the wording, I was almost certain you knew the answer. It seems my assumption was correct. Yes. NativeForeigner Talk 20:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was probably that, but puzzled because not many people knew of the Wikimania incident (it was briefly on Wikipediocracy but I think they canned the post). So I thought I would check with you. Remember I was one of those present at the 2014 incident, and I was asking out of interest. It seems a bit unfair to accuse me of bad faith in that way. But no harm done, I hope. Peter Damian (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I was familiar that you were. No harm no foul, I'm not at my finest right now. Pretty stressed, and a bit snappy. NativeForeigner Talk 19:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was probably that, but puzzled because not many people knew of the Wikimania incident (it was briefly on Wikipediocracy but I think they canned the post). So I thought I would check with you. Remember I was one of those present at the 2014 incident, and I was asking out of interest. It seems a bit unfair to accuse me of bad faith in that way. But no harm done, I hope. Peter Damian (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read your email (again)
Further to my earlier email. Please read. Minor4th 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Arbcom election
I won't be running this cycle. Perhaps next, I think I still have valuable input and perhaps then I will have time, but at present I have a lot to attend to in real life (tm), and for my own sanity I won't be running. I'll be writing a guide at User:NativeForeigner/ACE2015 Guide but its far from complete. NativeForeigner Talk 18:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yngvadottir's unblock
I'm not going to hammer at you, but your vote seems to indicate that an oppose is more in line, per Roger, DGG and Doug, simply as a statement that desysop was certainly an action worth considering, but doing it as if it were an emergency, even with the best of intentions, is using that power outside of the original intent. Using emergency powers when thoughtful discussion is the better choice sets a bad precedent, whether you are a government or a committee. I don't expect a reply, and won't labor it further, I just ask you reconsider the position of your vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Rangecalc!
I've been told by NeilN that your tool Rangecalc! can be applied to check contributions from IPv6 ranges, but i can't figure out how. I want to check contibutions made from the range which 2A02:908:E620:A260:1CAC:6226:86AD:A824 belongs to. Krakkos (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Krakkos: I apologize - I misread your question. Turn on the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms..." gadget in Preferences. Then you can do checks like this. --NeilN talk to me 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yup. I'll probably implement that at some point but we're talking at least six months. NativeForeigner Talk 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Thanks a lot. LTA user User:Tirgil34 has been using IPs from that range and an an active account on Wiktionary to harass me.[6][7][8][9] This will make it easier to keep track of his activities. Krakkos (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Er… que? I saw this question when I came here to ask how to use the output from your calculator. (I'm no computer nerd — the very notion would give my son a good laugh. Perhaps I shouldn't even be involving myself with ranges... sigh.) For instance, if I input 2607:fb90:4882:da86:0:23:c512:f901 and 2607:fb90:2272:1e63:0:2e:4968:7801, the output is 2607:fb90::/33. This form doesn't get any results if I put it for instance here, or at User contributions like NeilN said. (I did turn on the required prefs.) As for blocking the range in that form, I daren't even try. If the range given by the tool was in a form that X's tool, and Contributions, and the block tool could use straight off, it would be so helpful. Even better if the result also told me how many IPs the range represents. Failing that, could you (or Neil) perhaps explain how to handle the kind of result I get now? Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Typo in GMO PD
I saw your note on the GMO PD talk page, and I hope that you feel better soon. I pointed out a typo in my section of the talk a while back, and I suspect that it has just gotten lost in all the noise, so I'd like to remind you of it here.
In Proposed Principle 5, about "Casting aspersions": ""Editors are however remind → reminded". That really ought to get fixed before it gets finalized.
Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm feeling fine. Just in midst of interviewing for positions, taking exams, etc. Time is a premium. NativeForeigner Talk 22:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Then may you get a better job than serving on ArbCom. Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)