Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Shalom

Whenever I see Kurt say something disruptive or funny on Wikipedia, I sometimes laugh and say out loud, in a low-toned serenade: "Kurt...!" It's time for another celebration of Wikipedia's most hated character.

Kurt is going for Kelly Martin's record number of oppose votes. He may not know it, and he may not care, but if he stays in the election for the full 14 days, he is virtually guaranteed to be the most opposed candidate for any position of trust in the entire history of Wikipedia. The prospect was not lost on Tombomp (oppose number 174), who says "I'd prefer to see him gain a record on number of opposes." EconomicsGuy dutifully points to Kelly Martin's record of 263 opposes (against 41 supports).

Move over Kelly, you are no longer the most hated person on Wikipedia! "Kurt...!"

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Damn. I knew I should have run.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

his supports seem to stem from "people are being so mean by opposing him a lot."

Kelly, records are made to be broken. If only this was a worthy successor...

Posted by: michael

That would have brought wikidrama to a new level.

Posted by: Giggy

I supported him because I agreed with his platform and most of the views he expressed in answering questions.

Posted by: Milton Roe

To be fair, there do exist other candidates and admins who also seem to lack even a microgram of introspection or self-doubt. But they all toe the Wikipedia party line.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

Including mine? Both the one he answered and the ones he didn't?

Posted by: SelfHater

I think the number of questions thrown at candidates is ridiculously large. And I certainly have no intention of reading through thirty something complete sets of answers. Though I suppose it is a requirement of arbcoms that they have to be able to put up with being thrown loads of rubbish to deal with.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

In my euphemistic way I'd prefer to say "large amounts of user input, some more useful than the rest," but yes.

Posted by: everyking

Bear in mind that most arbitrators do not communicate with the community at all between elections (but here's hoping that changes), so it seems reasonable to bombard them with questions during the one time that they're likely to respond.

Posted by: SelfHater

Wel l, that's why you're on Arbcom whilst I'm a lowly rollbacker who has to keep his identity semi-concealed.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

I found the majority of the questions thrown at me last year to be reasonable and in some cases thought-provoking, but it did take me most of a wiki-month to answer them all. (The questioning period was shortened from a month to three weeks this year, which was good.)


Perhaps, but on the other hand, you only hate yourself, while I have been reliably informed that I hate all of Wikipedia.

Posted by: SelfHater

That's the problem with any form of representative democracy.

Judging by how those arbcomers standing again are doing, in this case you only get to hear how those who haven't yet been arbcoms intend to handle things before they actually get their hands dirty. Those with dirty hands (even non-arbcomers who have dealt with hard cases elsewhere)don't get the votes.



This is one of those rare occssions were the initials LOL are actually true.

Posted by: D.A.F.

Call me sick but I do..., well for 6 candidates. Besides BLP issues brought, not much questions about anything on content directly and if it is asked answers are usually vague and unsatisfactory so it's a total waste of time reading them.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

I'm not sure that's possible, but I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

So that's why you stopped talking to me on IRC? I'm no longer a "user" so my input is no longer welcome?

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

I may be off by a few months, but you had pretty much stopped being a regular Wikipedia "user" around more-or-less the same time we started chatting regularly, so this theory doesn't stand up. Beyond that, I haven't been on IRC that much recently, and when I was I don't recall seeing you often, plus when I come on I am often beseiged with the drama du jour (which come to think of it is one reason I don't come on so much these days). I also suppose that since you haven't been focused on Wikipedia, I wouldn't find you in the channels I log into. I've often said you provide some of the most trenchant commentary on Wikipedia around, especially when any self-admitted trolling is screened out. I'd be glad to catch up soon.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Just out of curiosity, what channels do you log into?

I haven't been on IRC for years - the wikipedia channel was sewage then. I've always assumed there were various unofficial channels of better quality (can't believe #wikipedia is as good as it gets).

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

The ArbCom channel (but there are rarely more than one or two people in it), the ArbCom Clerks channel (there is a bot that feeds recent decisions from the arbitration pages, useful during contentious times), #admins (some comments from me about that channel in the Piotrus 2 proposed decision), and once in awhile the other wikipedia-related channels like #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en. And lately, as I've said, not much of any.

Posted by: Moulton

And there it is! NYBrad has reached the fabled 300 mark. Congraduations!

Posted by: The Joy

It's primarily your forum, Moulton. Otherwise, it's just yelling and screaming all day long.

You can get all that for free on Wikipedia!

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Nonsense; I have been a regular reader ("user") of Wikipedia for a long time; this hasn't stopped just because I no longer edit.

You people still don't get that Wikipedia's real users are its readers, not its editors and certainly not the silly buggers who mainly habituate its drama pages.


There are quite a few useful channels out there, mostly dedicated to productive activities. I'm personally a regular in a few ham-radio specific channels on a couple of networks, where we actually talk about ham radio type things. Funny how that works.

Posted by: The Joy

Wikipedia's primary stakeholders have always been the readers, but Wikipedia's "regulars" have yet to realize this.

Good point.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

I largely agree with this. But in this instance, I was using the word "'user'" -- in quotation marks -- in the sense that you had used it earlier in this thread. You stated that you were not longer a "user," which I reasonably understood to mean that you were no longer editing the site (which at least under this account name is clearly true), not that you were no longer reading the site (about which I could have no knowledge one way or the other).

Posted by: Obesity

Moulton, someone is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/The_Fat_Man_Who_Never_Came_Back/Questions_for_the_candidate&diff=255559750&oldid=255340632 b/c you are a banned user.



Can't a checkuser see who logs in and when?

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

I think this is where I'm supposed to fall into the trap of saying "checkuser would never be run without a good reason," and then this thread spins even more off-topic and turns into the "checkuser abuse" thread?

Posted by: Shalom

Re: Can't a checkuser see who logs in and when?

I am not a checkuser, but I don't think so. At least in the past it was not possible, but maybe it's been added. Checkuser can definitely check edits, account creation, and that an account sent an email by special:emailuser without discerning the contents of the email (recently added). As far as I know, that's all. It seems rather pointless for the database to maintain records of who logs on and off and at what times: if the users aren't actually doing anything, it seems without purpose to keep track of them.

Posted by: Alison

No.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

Wait, wait, wait...isn't this supposed to be about me?

TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMEIWANTATTENTIONIWANTTOHEARMOREABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTME!

Pretty please?

It's all about me! MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

But how would doing that benefit my individual self-interest in the Randian sense?

Posted by: Obesity

Now there's a Kurt sentiment to which I can fully relate.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

It struck me as being the same Kurt sentiment as in every other Kurt post he's ever made, only capitalized.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

now that's funny.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

You mean the sense you had used it. My usage was intentionally ironic, and was intended to see if you would make the mistake of agreeing with my claim that I was no longer a user. Gotcha.

Posted by: Viridae

Giggle.

Posted by: Lar

You're saying that agreeing with you is a mistake?

That may be a bit too involuted for me to keep up with.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Why couldn't the candidates just form into parties, then the parties could have a single manifesto and a press officer to field questions.

And what would the parties be?

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

So you used "user" the way the Wikipedia set-up uses "user" ("user" = "editor"), and since I followed suit you now claim that my usage of "user" was an improper use? It was all a trap for me? Geez, I feel ... used.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Was it good for you too?

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

I think we're supposed to be talking about Kurt.

Posted by: LaraLove

I think I'm going to throw up.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Talking about Kurt doesn't satisfy my Randian need for self-fulfillment.

Posted by: Gold heart

Brilliant answer.



So that means a checkuser can "see who logs in and when!"

Posted by: Alison

Oops!

No. I think

Posted by: sarcasticidealist

I don't think you understand how the following things work:
i. double negatives,
ii. rhetorical questions.

Posted by: Krimpet

http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/CheckUser/CheckUser.php?revision=44056&view=markup

Posted by: Gold heart

Don't 2 negatives make a positive. Well, that's what they told us at school!

Posted by: Giggy

Emphasis on most. I recall you asked about hating Wikipedia and he removed the question. (See my userpage) I'm not currently Wikipedia's biggest fan, but I wouldn't consider myself a hater either; make of that what you will.

Posted by: Random832

A "no" answer to a question beginning in "can't" does not constitute a double negative - the negatives have to be modifying each other.

Posted by: dtobias

Two wrongs don't make a right. (But three lefts make a right... and two Wrights made an airplane.)

Posted by: Anonymous editor

225 verified opposes now, 38 short of the record.

Posted by: One

Do you suppose people might be holding out because they want to enter vote #264?

Posted by: Rhindle

If Kurt weren't in this the two current arbs running for re-election would be the top 2 in oppose votes.

Posted by: Somey

It wouldn't surprise me - I myself actually waited an extra week or two to join Wikipedia Review, because I wanted to be the 100th member. At the time I didn't even realize that the board doesn't store that sort of information - I ended up being Member ID #275, and nobody remembers where I was at in the sequence. (I think I ended up being, like, 97th or something.)

And I don't think it's just me... there's always a lull period just before we reach a "landmark" number. Just before the 1,000th member recently, I think we went for almost a week without a single human registrant, whereas normally we get at least one or two a day.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

I think a few people are waiting. Just like there are people who wait so they can make support #100 or whatever.




True, and that's a very interesting phenomenon to observe.

Posted by: Shalom

Kurt's at 251 opposes with 5 days left. He needs 12 more to tie and 13 to win. I think he'll get there, but one wonders if all the people who truly hate him would have shown up already.

Posted by: One

Kurt stands at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Kmweber.

One for the tie, and one lucky voter gets to push him over.

While we're on this topic, I'd like to point out an interesting thread about "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#.22Tactical_supports.22" votes.

Posted by: Lifebaka

I believe I am going to wait for the magic number 264 to come in, and then support him as a prize. Maybe include a cookie too, for good measure.

EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008%2FVote%2FKmweber&diff=257338622&oldid=257336184

Posted by: Shalom

Oh, Lar! LOL!