Difference between revisions 992877076 and 992877228 on enwiki

{{noindex}} 
{{Stb}} 
{{Usercomment}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-sock|small=yes}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an [[open door policy (business)|open door policy]].'''<br />
(contracted; show full)
:That's a nice thought but Jimbo has a large following that protects his user page. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 23:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
::As I found out! :-) [[User:REDMAN 2019|<span style="color:#daa520">REDMAN 2019</span>]] ([[User talk:REDMAN 2019|<span style="color:#c0c0c0">talk</span>]]) 12:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
⏎
⏎
== If Donald Trump's lawyers were arguing against Bradv they would have a field day ==

Good morning, Jimbo.   The rules for the 2020 Arbitration Committee election include the following:

{{talkquote|11. If inappropriate questions, questions in excess of any limit, any content prohibited by above and/or other disputed content is added to the questions to candidates page it may be removed by Election Commissioners and nobody else, with the exception of the author of said material.}}

A question was asked of Bradv on 26 November.   "Future Perfect at Sunrise" removed it.   It was restored on 29 November and Bradv removed it in under a minute without giving a reason.   I won't restore it again as this would only give him the opportunity to wikalawyer.   If I had restored it I would have added the following:

{{talkquote|The incompetence continues.   In a discussion about a deleted article an editor makes an observation on his/her talk page and you delete it using Twinkle}}
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikieditor23232&diff=prev&oldid=991553160].

Never in the history of this website has there been such a flagrant breach of electoral law.   Bradv's action preventing the Community from being fully informed must result in disqualification.   Never has disqualification or withdrawal involved someone who had any prospect of election.   Bradv is a serving Arbitrator and TonyBallioni was the front runner.   The Electoral Commissioners say they are not going to tell those who have voted (which is practically everyone) about the withdrawal, so they are precluded from voting for the candidate of their choice.

In 2017 you confirmed your right to formally appoint the incoming Arbitrators (ratifying the election result) before they can take office.   You can at any time disband the Committee and call for fresh elections.   I urge you to void this election and require a fresh one.   Not one woman has put herself forward, the first time this has happened in the seventeen contests to date.   If you don't do this and the votes Bradv has amassed by trickery push others out you should decline his reappointment.   If you do rerun the election he should not be permitted to stand.   January polls have occurred in the past and the existing retiring members (apart from Bradv) could be co-opted on for an additional month.

He is standing on the absurd platform that the Foundation has no power to implement a uniform Code of Conduct on all its websites.   He is known to spend his days with his eyes glued to his monitor looking for opportunities to abuse his position.   For example, an editor who previously didn't have a talk page created one.   Within a minute Bradv, who knows perfectly well that any editor can post on her talk page unless specifically forbidden, had deleted it G5 ''page created by a blocked or banned user in defiance of his/her ban.'' [[Special:Contributions/89.240.79.26|89.240.79.26]] ([[User talk:89.240.79.26|talk]]) 13:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)