|
|
|
Kurt...!, going after Kelly Martin's record |
|
|
Eppur si muove |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
|
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 12:12am) QUOTE(Giggy @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 6:37pm) QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 6:25am) his supports seem to stem from "people are being so mean by opposing him a lot."
I supported him because I agreed with his platform and most of the views he expressed in answering questions. Including mine? Both the one he answered and the ones he didn't? 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.
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(SelfHater @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 7:22pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 12:12am) QUOTE(Giggy @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 6:37pm) QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 6:25am) his supports seem to stem from "people are being so mean by opposing him a lot."
I supported him because I agreed with his platform and most of the views he expressed in answering questions. Including mine? Both the one he answered and the ones he didn't? 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. In my euphemistic way I'd prefer to say "large amounts of user input, some more useful than the rest," but yes.
|
|
|
|
Eppur si muove |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
|
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 12:26am) QUOTE(SelfHater @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 7:22pm) 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.
In my euphemistic way I'd prefer to say "large amounts of user input, some more useful than the rest," but yes. Wel l, that's why you're on Arbcom whilst I'm a lowly rollbacker who has to keep his identity semi-concealed. This post has been edited by SelfHater:
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 7:29pm) QUOTE(SelfHater @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 1:22am) 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.
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. 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.) QUOTE(SelfHater @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 7:31pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 12:26am) QUOTE(SelfHater @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 7:22pm) 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.
In my euphemistic way I'd prefer to say "large amounts of user input, some more useful than the rest," but yes. Wel l, that's why you're on Arbcom whilst I'm a lowly rollbacker who has to keep his identity semi-concealed. Perhaps, but on the other hand, you only hate yourself, while I have been reliably informed that I hate all of Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Eppur si muove |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 12:29am) QUOTE(SelfHater @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 1:22am) 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.
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. 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. QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 12:37am) Perhaps, but on the other hand, you only hate yourself, while I have been reliably informed that I hate all of Wikipedia.
This is one of those rare occssions were the initials LOL are actually true.
|
|
|
|
D.A.F. |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE(SelfHater @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 7:22pm) 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.
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. This post has been edited by Xidaf:
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 9:06pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 6:26pm) In my euphemistic way I'd prefer to say "large amounts of user input, some more useful than the rest," but yes. So that's why you stopped talking to me on IRC? I'm no longer a "user" so my input is no longer welcome? 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.
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 9:33pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 6:16pm) I also suppose that since you haven't been focused on Wikipedia, I wouldn't find you in the channels I log into... 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). 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.
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 10:00pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 8:16pm) 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. 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. 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).
|
|
|
|
Obesity |
|
I taste as good as skinny feels.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 737
Joined:
From: Gropecunt Lane
Member No.: 6,909
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 9:52pm) And there it is! NYBrad has reached the fabled 300 mark. Congraduations!
Moulton, someone is pwning all your ArbCom candidate questions b/c you are a banned user. QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 10:22pm) 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).
Can't a checkuser see who logs in and when? This post has been edited by Obesity:
|
|
|
|
Viridae |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined:
Member No.: 1,498
|
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 4:40pm) QUOTE(Obesity @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 12:38am) QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 12:22am) Wait, wait, wait...isn't this supposed to be about me?
TALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMEIWANTATTENTIONIWANTTOHEARMOREABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTMETALKABOUTME!
Pretty please?
It's all about me! MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now there's a Kurt sentiment to which I can fully relate. It struck me as being the same Kurt sentiment as in every other Kurt post he's ever made, only capitalized. Giggle.
|
|
|
|
Lar |
|
"His blandness goes to 11!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 1:23am) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 9:22pm) 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 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. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) You're saying that agreeing with you is a mistake? That may be a bit too involuted for me to keep up with.
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 1:23am) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 9:22pm) 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 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. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) 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.
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 9:34am) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 8:29am) 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. Was it good for you too? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I think we're supposed to be talking about Kurt. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |