|
|
|
ArbCom nominations begin, Two weeks left to draft Wesley |
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(One @ Mon 10th November 2008, 1:34am) After months of speculation on MBisanz' page, official candidacies are being accepted, and will be for the next two weeks. Standing candidate (scroll up for table of contents). Privatemusings is the first to cross form "likely" to actual candidacy. Hopefully there will be some good dark horses. Jdforrester has an interesting statement that concludes, "I do not expect to be given the community's support; nevertheless, I ask it, and welcome any and all questions." It's funny how he welcomes questions now, but throughout his ArbCom career he has been almost totally unresponsive. One question that springs to mind for me is: "Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?" Actually, that's a good question for all ArbCom candidates, but I dare not ask it lest I be accused of not having adequately informed myself before commenting.
|
|
|
|
SirFozzie |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 806
Joined:
Member No.: 1,200
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 10th November 2008, 7:59am) QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Mon 10th November 2008, 12:47pm) Well.. here goes.... Wish me luck :/
Good luck. As certain of us are prevented from asking you the same questions on-wiki, would you be prepared to answer any questions here? What for example is your view of a regens arbitrator contributing to Wikipedia Review at all? What is your view on FT2's question about the delicate balance between the need for some decisions to be made in private, and the need for transparency? I'm willing to answer questions. A) I don't see any problem with contributing to WR and being a sitting arbitrator. Brad and others before me have done so in the past. I may be restricted on what I CAN say, (don't expect me to even HINT about private discussions on the ArbCom list), but I won't let it run me off of WP OR WR. B ) I think it really has to happen on a case by case basis. There has to be a really good reason to take a case private (I understand why ArbCom discussion should be and is private), but I think you can strike a balance between stating what you believe publicly, and keeping what the COMMITTEE is discussing private. And Neil: don't worry, it's scarier below Bishzilla then above. Above you have to worry only about Bishzilla's atomic breath.. below.. if she falls.. *shudder* we go squit like a pimple (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) This post has been edited by SirFozzie:
|
|
|
|
KStreetSlave |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 352
Joined:
Member No.: 4,123
|
QUOTE(One @ Mon 10th November 2008, 2:50pm) QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Mon 10th November 2008, 7:18pm) I really hope privatemusings gets it. It will be interesting to see if there is a showdown between he and jimbo if he wins.
Regardless, he has good ideas and I think he'd do well on the committee.
While I agree with your about some of his ideas, I think you're being more optimistic than privatemusings himself is. His comments make clear that he expects to lose. At this point, I think Bishzilla is likely to receive less opposition votes (especially if users follow privatemusings wishes and only oppose him). I didn't say I expect him to win. I just hope he does. QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 10th November 2008, 2:57pm) QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Mon 10th November 2008, 7:18pm) I really hope privatemusings gets it. It will be interesting to see if there is a showdown between he and jimbo if he wins.
Regardless, he has good ideas and I think he'd do well on the committee.
What is this RFC about, by the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../PrivatemusingsIt doesn't seem very good for him but then nothing is as it seems over there. Looks to me like a sabotage attempt on PM. The timing is impeccable, and the players are right.
|
|
|
|
KStreetSlave |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 352
Joined:
Member No.: 4,123
|
His bid for arbcom is being sabotaged. Or rather, it looks that way. It's convenient that the RFC was brought up right before the nominations begin, over what doesn't look to be that serious of an issue. And notably it was an RFC, which I firmly believe does nothing but smear the parties involved without any outcome. Were it an Arbitration, and PM won, he could point to that and say "I was vindicated." Not so easy with an RFC. (thats not to say that the sanctions didn't do the job just as well).
As for the players, I see a number of people who are either on the arbitration committee, are interested in getting on it, have some sort of user rights granted by the arbitration committee, or are interested in getting those user rights.
I could be wrong, he could entirely deserve it. But it seems to me that for many of the RFC commentators, ulterior motives are at play.
This post has been edited by KStreetSlave:
|
|
|
|
The Adversary |
|
CT (Check Troll)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined:
Member No.: 194
|
QUOTE(One @ Mon 10th November 2008, 1:34am) After months of speculation on MBisanz' page, official candidacies are being accepted, and will be for the next two weeks. Hopefully there will be some good dark horses. <snip> Question 14 is interesting; do study the answers the candidates makes. And yes; Everyking asks a very relevant question, too. Will somebody brave add that question to all candidates?
|
|
|
|
Floydsvoid |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 91
Joined:
Member No.: 4,216
|
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Mon 10th November 2008, 10:08am) I'm willing to answer questions.
Why would anyone want to be a member of ARBCOM? In my county we have this superior court judge who is like the `ringer' of judges in the entire state. He gets all the hard/sensational cases. A reporter once asked him "How does it feel to rule on all these important cases"? He answered "Very sad; all my cases are very sad".
|
|
|
|
D.A.F. |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 10th November 2008, 7:33pm) Hey, look! White cat is in the running! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ments#White_CatI guess last year wasn't bad enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb.../Vote/White_CatSo who's going to do worse? White Cat or Privatemusings? Or Justice America? I don't really care who wins - I mean, I do care, but I care more that people who aren't competent or disagree with my principles don't get on. In other words, I'd easily take more than five of the folks who have already submitted their names, and aside from Rlevse, I'm not hell-bent on any of them. But for entertainment value, picking up the bottom of the barrel should be fun. Jehochman would be a more interesting pick than Rlevse. For those who still think Arbcom worth something.
|
|
|
|
Pumpkin Muffins |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 656
Joined:
Member No.: 3,972
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 10th November 2008, 7:55pm) QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:23am) I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.
So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. All right. Another question: how do you feel about the arbitration restrictions I've been subjected to for the last three years? If elected, you'll have to deal with that issue, so I'd like to know where you stand. Hey Everyking, why aren't you running? I bet you could beat Jforrester (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Tue 11th November 2008, 5:11am) QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 10th November 2008, 7:55pm) QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:23am) I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.
So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. All right. Another question: how do you feel about the arbitration restrictions I've been subjected to for the last three years? If elected, you'll have to deal with that issue, so I'd like to know where you stand. Hey Everyking, why aren't you running? I bet you could beat Jforrester (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Several reasons: I don't think I'd have a realistic chance of winning; I'm almost certain Jimbo would refuse to appoint me even if I did win; and I think ArbCom candidates should be current administrators, at least as a general rule.
|
|
|
|
The Adversary |
|
CT (Check Troll)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined:
Member No.: 194
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 11th November 2008, 2:19am) QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 10th November 2008, 6:02am) One question that springs to mind for me is: "Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?" Actually, that's a good question for all ArbCom candidates, but I dare not ask it lest I be accused of not having adequately informed myself before commenting. Now asked. Whether it stays live is another matter, but in the current climate IMO it's a damn good no-right-answer question. Thanks, ED! (And I don´t see any reason to vote for anybody who doesn´t answer the question (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) )
|
|
|
|
privatemusings |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined:
Member No.: 4,306
|
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 11th November 2008, 3:23am) I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.
heh! well I'm a little surprised, to be honest, Foz :-) - I look forward to chatting a bit about this one if you're up for the voice thing at some point.... I know this election is (currently) considered to be a sort of advisory process.. but I really don't think it should be, and it continues to raise my eyebrow a bit that others don't find this a little more remarkable. You're asking people to vote for you, whilst also stating that if the wrong people (or person!) receive more support you'd be cool ignoring the vote because obviously those voting.. um.. made a mistake? ps. the chances of my wherewithal being put to the test seem slim, but given your refusal to comment above on matters you don't feel well informed about, I'm also curious as to the basis for your comment - I was under the impression that we didn't really know each other :-) (although I'm sure we've 'met' somewhere?) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) PM. ps. Vote me! :-) This post has been edited by privatemusings:
|
|
|
|
Neil |
|
Awesome member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 302
Joined:
From: UK
Member No.: 4,822
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 10th November 2008, 5:02am) One question that springs to mind for me is: "Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?" Actually, that's a good question for all ArbCom candidates, but I dare not ask it lest I be accused of not having adequately informed myself before commenting. QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 12:39am) Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?
My answer: I don't think it's likely, as anyone likely to be passed over by Jimbo would probably have had enough things thrown at them through questions and voting to cause them to exit the "chosen few" before that situation arose. Jimbo has the power - for better or worse - to pass on anyone he doesn't consider suitable. As those spots have to be filled, the next person down the list is the obvious choice. If it happens to be me, then so be it. I really don't think it's going to happen, though.
|
|
|
|
One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 11th November 2008, 12:39pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 12:39am) Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?
That's a tough question to ask the candidates. Even though I don't agree with the way Jimbo is running this ArbCom election, I don't think I would hold it against one of the candidates if they accepted an appointment after a higher vote-getter was disqualified by Jimbo. All the candidates want to make a difference by getting onto the ArbCom. If someone ahead of them is disqualified, even if its done unfairly by Jimbo or anyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean that the next candidate in line did anything wrong or cheated in any way. Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way. At any rate, in the past he hasn't moved down to the next-highest, he's moved down to the highest former arbitrators with more than 50%. Consider that when voting for former arbitrators. James F. did answer rootology's rather pointed question about this incident: QUOTE(James F.) The Arbitrator in question was, of course, me. I'm not sure what further comment I can usefully give; I absolutely regret the concern raised through my being as honest as I was, and would chose to express my concerns differently if I were faced with the same situation again, but I cannot withdraw my edits in any meaningful way, so they remain. Regret the concern...raised through being honest...would express concerns differently next time. Hmm. Well, I do respect James for being straightforward in the past, and I also appreciate that he would not want an arbitrator unsupported by the community. He's at least got that right, although I still don't understand his apparent feelings toward Cla68. This post has been edited by One:
|
|
|
|
JoseClutch |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 603
Joined:
Member No.: 2,078
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 11th November 2008, 7:39am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 12:39am) Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?
That's a tough question to ask the candidates. Even though I don't agree with the way Jimbo is running this ArbCom election, I don't think I would hold it against one of the candidates if they accepted an appointment after a higher vote-getter was disqualified by Jimbo. All the candidates want to make a difference by getting onto the ArbCom. If someone ahead of them is disqualified, even if its done unfairly by Jimbo or anyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean that the next candidate in line did anything wrong or cheated in any way. Yeah, it is a hard question. But the candidates should be asked hard questions, reams of them, as long as ArbCom has this kind of power. That is not to say there is necessarily a right or wrong answer to this question.
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(One @ Tue 11th November 2008, 2:46pm)
Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.
Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate. If no one feels strongly about the issue, however, it would be grossly damaging to protest Jimbo's discretion. So, like all political choices, it is up to the candidate to gauge the popular mood on this issue. It is also up to the populace to ensure the candidates are aware of the strength of feeling over it.
|
|
|
|
One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:51pm) QUOTE(One @ Tue 11th November 2008, 2:46pm)
Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.
Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate. That's a good point. Voters could make this a requisite single issue. I'm a little surprised by SirFozzie's answer myself, which amounts to "I don't oppose Jimbo's unilateral acts when I agree with Jimbo." The whole point of the question makes candidates evaluate whether they actually oppose Jimbo's hand in selection, or if they think he's right about being a necessary check against bad candidates. In other news, Charles Matthews now also seeks re-election. He cites his backslapping work in the BADSITES ArbCom, but doesn't provide a link. Here it is. It does indeed look like the work of compromise... This post has been edited by One:
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(One @ Tue 11th November 2008, 2:04pm) QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:51pm) QUOTE(One @ Tue 11th November 2008, 2:46pm)
Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.
Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate. That's a good point. Voters could make this a requisite single issue. I'm a little surprised by SirFozzie's answer myself, which amounts to "I don't oppose Jimbo's unilateral acts when I agree with Jimbo." The whole point of the question makes candidates evaluate whether they actually oppose Jimbo's hand in selection, or if they think he's right about being a necessary check against bad candidates. Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
The Wales Hunter |
|
Hackenslasher
Group: Regulars
Posts: 869
Joined:
Member No.: 4,319
|
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 11th November 2008, 7:12pm) Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Then do the honest thing and resign in order to seek reconfirmation (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Tue 11th November 2008, 2:17pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 11th November 2008, 7:12pm) Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Then do the honest thing and resign in order to seek reconfirmation (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) What, and give Neil a chance to oppose me again?
|
|
|
|
Random832 |
|
meh
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined:
Member No.: 4,844
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 3:55am) QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:23am) I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.
So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?
|
|
|
|
SirFozzie |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 806
Joined:
Member No.: 1,200
|
At risk of someone putting a LOLCAT up with the phrase "ARBCOM IZ SERIUZ BIZNESS".. I agree with Jimbo in that Privatemusings should not be considered as a serious candidate for ArbCom. The only way that he WOULD be elected to ArbCom would be through an American Idol style "Vote for the Lulz" wave of voters.
I agree with two statements put forth in the current RFC in PM:
For whatever reason, PM is friendly, affable -- and disruptive
....Cases and issues of the kind Privatemusings involves himself in, are often delicate and sensitive, and may result from serious (often emotive) on-wiki events. Demands of this kind with little tact or understanding of the fact, can often do more harm than good. As commented above, the mentor(s?) seem to view it that they are seen by him as an obstacle, not an aid to improvement. That's fairly worrying, more so as these are extremely level headed users who are "on his side"...
I have not observed many of the other 17 or so candidates for the ArbCom who have declared so far, so I can't say if I would feel the same way about any of the others. But while I feel in general that PM has the best of intentions in doing what he does, I do not think that PM would make a good arbitrator, and I would urge him to withdraw, as well a to take his (now former) mentors concerns to heart, and to improve on Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 11th November 2008, 9:02pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 3:55am) QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:23am) I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.
So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in? A person should make a principled decision about something like this. Under certain circumstances, the correct course is to refuse to participate in something even if one knows that he or she will be replaced. The principled thing to do is to say: "No, I will not take the place of someone who received a stronger community mandate than I did." Furthermore, as others have mentioned, forcing Jimbo to go further down the list reduces the credibility of his appointments; he is more likely to refrain from picking and choosing arbitrators if many of the candidates disapprove of it, and particularly if the candidates next in line disapprove of it. If he goes ahead with it anyway, it will increase dissatisfaction with his role and increase the likelihood that he will be forced to relinquish it in the future.
|
|
|
|
Random832 |
|
meh
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined:
Member No.: 4,844
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 8:15pm) QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 11th November 2008, 9:02pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 3:55am) QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:23am) I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.
So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in? A person should make a principled decision about something like this. Under certain circumstances, the correct course is to refuse to participate in something even if one knows that he or she will be replaced. The principled thing to do is to say: "No, I will not take the place of someone who received a stronger community mandate than I did." Furthermore, as others have mentioned, forcing Jimbo to go further down the list reduces the credibility of his appointments; he is more likely to refrain from picking and choosing arbitrators if many of the candidates disapprove of it, and particularly if the candidates next in line disapprove of it. If he goes ahead with it anyway, it will increase dissatisfaction with his role and increase the likelihood that he will be forced to relinquish it in the future. I suppose that's where my other suggestion comes in - you don't have to be ninth to refuse.
|
|
|
|
One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 11th November 2008, 8:06pm) QUOTE(One @ Tue 11th November 2008, 2:46pm) Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.
There's another way to protest though: "I will not accept appointment to the arbitration committee if any of the top eight vote-getters are passed over by Jimbo." Now that would show commitment. It would also be much more effective than what everyking proposes. Imagine if four of the top picks made this vow. If Jimbo wants to skip over someone, he doesn't just go to #9 (or #10 if the ninth agrees with everyking), he has to go down #9-12, and probably deeper if some of those candidates are similarly principled. That said, I think LessHeard's comment below hits the mark. This post has been edited by One:
|
|
|
|
LessHorrid vanU |
|
Devils Advocaat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
|
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 11th November 2008, 8:02pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 3:55am) QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:23am) I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.
So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in? It is also a question of whether you are running for the ArbCom under its present constitution in the belief that you are doing it for the best interests of the community, or whether you are challenging Jimbo's "right" to disregard in whole or part the wishes of the community (I don't see a way of squaring that circle of running on the ticket of doing both). If you are running on the basis you wish to serve the community to the best of your ability under the prevailing conditions - and you believe you can do that job - then I suggest you accept on whatever basis a place is offered to you because Jimbo is going to try very hard not to allow people who are running on an anti status quo (including the sodding band!) ticket to join the ArbCom (and by running on such an ideal is a perfect way to disenfranchise them, "The candidate has stated they have no interest in performing ArbCom work, and are protesting only the way the Committee is chosen, and therefore are illegible for consideration.") So, if you are running on the protest platform then accept you will not be given the nod... no matter where you place. PM is running, it seems, the best campaign of that sort - being honest about wanting to be on the ArbCom for the purpose of influencing its working, believing that what they intend is to the betterment of the community, and having no chance of being selected whatever the vote. I think that there is also someone else running on that platform, which is why I am using my only support for them (I protest voted for Giano last time, this time I intend also to oppose anyone I truly don't think should be on the Committee.)
|
|
|
|
Pumpkin Muffins |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 656
Joined:
Member No.: 3,972
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 5:55pm) QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 12th November 2008, 2:38am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:59pm) I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy. That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years. Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/ComicI doubt that, but it doesn't really matter either way; what's important is that she did not answer my questions. Oh really? You doubt Bishzilla's satire?
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 12th November 2008, 3:11am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 5:55pm) QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Wed 12th November 2008, 2:38am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 11th November 2008, 4:59pm) I asked "Bishzilla" about the nature of her very odd candidacy, and she replied with an accusation that I was uncivil. I suppose I shouldn't have expected a reasonable response from someone who thinks it's all right to disrupt the election with a ridiculous joke candidacy. That's satire, Everyking. She's making fun of the abuse of 'civility' to bludgeon people who ask inconvenient questions. It's been one of her (and especially Geogre's) pet peeves for the last two years. Here's some of Geogre's thoughts on the matter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Civilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/ComicI doubt that, but it doesn't really matter either way; what's important is that she did not answer my questions. Oh really? You doubt Bishzilla's satire? I'm pretty sure it's not satire, but like I said, it doesn't matter. How do you feel about this joke candidacy, Pumpkin Muffins?
|
|
|
|
Obesity |
|
I taste as good as skinny feels.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 737
Joined:
From: Gropecunt Lane
Member No.: 6,909
|
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Mon 10th November 2008, 9:19am) I really do hope The Fat Man Who Never Comes Back does stand - he'll be a populist pick of sorts, and his sense of humour would appeal.
Apart from lack of motivation, interest and name recognition, I suspect the main reason TFM is not running is that my good man Outriggr/Whiskeydog (a delightful and gifted fellow whom you'd be glad to know) has reneged on his promise to make an epic campaign poster for our obese young friend. I will note that, given the few candidates running relative to the number of committee spots available, if he did run, TFM might have a sporting chance! I'd love to see Jimbo's face if some trolling, non-contributing jerk-off like the Fat Man came in 7th place. Speaking of Jimbo soiling himself, where's Kurt Weber? Where's Tony Sidaway? I've got my popcorn, I've paid my admission, now I want my friggin' "Carnival of the Absurd" [nods to Kato], which brings me to Bishzilla... I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win; while I find her alterego painfully unfunny in comparison to yours truly, Bishonen is a monster contributor (and the author of my favorite article of all time--it seriously makes me cry!); she's well-spoken (though a bit abrasive, at times), opinionated and cuts through the bullshit. Even if she does stay "in character" during Arb Com cases (btw, I'd love to hear her responding to Virginia Slim's latest scandalous allegations of cyber-molestation in her insufferable, twee baby/cavemanspeak), it's impossible that Bishonen's intelligence and insight won't shine through the scaly reptilian schtick. I'll probably vote for her. Too bad "it" would have to recuse itself from 60% of all cases, since that many of them seem to involve her BFF Giano. This post has been edited by Obesity:
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 12th November 2008, 12:02am) Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates. "We also have to watch out, though - for fuckheads like ED and even Bagley we're, honestly, well-equipped to handle them as-is because they're so self-obviously stupid. But we have to remember, we are the 800 lb gorilla in most conflicts with people.
We are huge. We are a huge fucking website staffed by people who do not know how to run the ninth biggest website on Teh Intarwebs.
We are bigger than Blogger, bigger than eBay, and bigger than Amazon. We have no clue how to deal with that. And I count myself in that we.
I have no fucking clue why I am a powerful and trusted administrator on the ninth biggest website in the world."
|
|
|
|
Giggy |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Inactive
Posts: 755
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,552
|
QUOTE(Obesity @ Wed 12th November 2008, 12:42pm) QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Mon 10th November 2008, 9:19am) I really do hope The Fat Man Who Never Comes Back does stand - he'll be a populist pick of sorts, and his sense of humour would appeal.
Apart from lack of motivation, interest and name recognition, I suspect the main reason TFM is not running is that my good man Outriggr/Whiskeydog (a delightful and gifted fellow whom you'd be glad to know) has reneged on his promise to make an epic campaign poster for our obese young friend. I'll make you one if you run. You haven't seen my photoshop abilities, but still... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Mon 10th November 2008, 9:19am) Speaking of Jimbo soiling himself, where's Kurt Weber? Where's Tony Sidaway? I've got my popcorn, I've paid my admission, now I want my friggin' "Carnival of the Absurd" [nods to Kato], which brings me to Bishzilla...
Kurt is banned from project space. I dunno if Tony knows where he is, but I wouldn't be surprised if he made a surprise appearance sometime during these elections. Not enough drama yet. QUOTE(One @ Wed 12th November 2008, 3:12pm) *jaw drop*
I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.
I wonder if he still stands by that...
|
|
|
|
One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(Giggy @ Wed 12th November 2008, 5:51am) QUOTE(One @ Wed 12th November 2008, 3:12pm) *jaw drop*
I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.
I wonder if he still stands by that... Quick turnaround: QUOTE Parts of it. I still think that we need to have some measure in place to help our volunteers when they need help. I'm reasonably convinced that there are logistical problems with the plan as I proposed it, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about the legal matters to take any sort of leadership role in developing a workable proposal.
I am still in awe of the power this project has developed since I joined it, and of the gravity of responsibilities administratorship entails.
Are there other spots you want specific clarification on? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC) He seems to have missed the gorilla. As for the meat of his listhost post, I have no idea why the foundation would step in to legally defend its independent contributors. This post has been edited by One:
|
|
|
|
UseOnceAndDestroy |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined:
Member No.: 4,073
|
QUOTE(One @ Wed 12th November 2008, 5:12am) *jaw drop*
I can't quite comprehend that it's a real quote.
*jaw drop* I can't quite comprehend that wikikids have such short memories. Still, I guess composing the next "oooo look who's running for arbcom" post keeps folks too busy to look up and see what's what.
|
|
|
|
One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 12th November 2008, 9:20am) I can't quite comprehend that wikikids have such short memories. Still, I guess composing the next "oooo look who's running for arbcom" post keeps folks too busy to look up and see what's what. So when did you join WR the first time? Or do you encourage every user to read all the threads since the site was created? If you don't value the content I provide this site, I want you to say it outright. I don't have to pollute this place with my wiki-childishness. Let me tell you what's what. In case you have noticed, most the remaining meta critics have fucking left the building. Why? Well, because the owner of this site thought it would be fun to shit on the most prolific contributor. I've seen precisely zero evidence that this site is interested in remedying the situation. You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism. To my mind, that leaves you with us insufferable wikikids who want better for WP. Yeah, I'm sure we suck, but what else are you going to do? If WR isn't willing to be a kind of alternative Wikipedia watchlist, then no longer serves any purpose at all. That's what's what. This post has been edited by One:
|
|
|
|
UseOnceAndDestroy |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined:
Member No.: 4,073
|
QUOTE(One @ Wed 12th November 2008, 3:21pm) QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 12th November 2008, 9:20am) I can't quite comprehend that wikikids have such short memories. Still, I guess composing the next "oooo look who's running for arbcom" post keeps folks too busy to look up and see what's what. So when did you join WR the first time? Or do you encourage every user to read all the threads since the site was created? Actually, I would recommend that. It would be a better use of time than playing Fantasy Election, and would generally reduce the incidence of misinformed posts. You might learn something, too. QUOTE If you don't value the content I provide this site, I want you to say it outright. I don't have to pollute this place with my wiki-childishness.
I'm not sure how much more "outright" I could be. At least taking the time to click the link at the top of Kato's post, taking you to directly to the original email, before tapping out a reply questioning whether it was a "real quote", would have made for an improved post (or better still, no post at all). QUOTE Let me tell you what's what. In case you have noticed, most the remaining meta critics have fucking left the building. Why? Well, because the owner of this site thought it would be fun to shit on the most prolific contributor. I've seen precisely zero evidence that this site is interested in remedying the situation. You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism. To my mind, that leaves you with us insufferable wikikids who want better for WP. Yeah, I'm sure we suck, but what else are you going to do? If WR isn't willing to be a kind of alternative Wikipedia watchlist, then no longer serves any purpose at all. It certainly serves the purpose of exposing what wikipedia really does to the "sum of human knowledge", and seems to have a track record of doing that pretty effectively. The continual demonstration of the "wikipedian" tendency to post the first damn thing that comes into their heads without doing some simple fact checking, or learning the lessons of very recent history, is all part of the mix, I guess. Tiresome, at times. QUOTE That's what's what.
Meanwhile, "arbcom elections" are still a sad parody, Sandifer still gets away with a weak backpedal from his unguarded bravado, and "wikipedians" carry on abusing real people.That's what's what.
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 11th November 2008, 9:38pm) The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time. The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain. If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help. I think the Arbitration Committee plays an important role on Wikipedia, as is reflected in the amount of consternation (on-wiki and here, among other places) when something goes wrong with it, but I also agree that the committee is not as important as some people think it is, and that far too much drama surrounds the election process. (Someone recently proposed on-wiki that to increase community input into the selection of arbitrators, there should be two ArbCom elections each year instead of one. Although this was a good-faith suggestion, it also qualified for my personal designation as a Really Bad Idea.)
|
|
|
|
One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 12th November 2008, 7:16pm) I'm not sure how much more "outright" I could be. At least taking the time to click the link at the top of Kato's post, taking you to directly to the original email, before tapping out a reply questioning whether it was a "real quote", would have made for an improved post (or better still, no post at all).
I did click the link. I still find it surprising. If you don't want to read about ArbCom, you could look at the title of the thread. I'm not exactly hiding the ball here. Apparently, you find my presence psychically troubling. Fine. I'm not sure what contributors you want. But you clearly don't want me. There's nothing to learn but a stack of nonsense from Blissyu2, PoetGames, and idiotic attacks by the owner, who makes even my least informed posts look profound. I'm tired of the snide remarks I get from a site that welcomed DL's disturbing illnesses and Baxter's puppet playhouse. This might seem pretextual, and it is somewhat. Last straw and all.
|
|
|
|
D.A.F. |
|
Unregistered
|
There is 'Important' in terms of the attention it gets and its inflated power, and there is 'important' in terms of working directly to better directly the alleged purpouse of Wikipedia. I have yet to see what direct advantage it has brought in bettering articles with their decision which could not have been decided by the community, which would have taken better decisions. It's a structure which drain the time and energy of those who are still naive to think that it will improve their experience with the project and the quality of the project itself. The Arbcom does nothing of the sort, it's the village circus, or an illusion show. It's the equivalent of the legal system, which lack of all the advantage of a true legal system. Such a system pretend to be what it is not. I could have just said that its useless, worthless... QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 12th November 2008, 2:51pm) QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 11th November 2008, 9:38pm) The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time. The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain. If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help. I think the Arbitration Committee plays an important role on Wikipedia, as is reflected in the amount of consternation (on-wiki and here, among other places) when something goes wrong with it, but I also agree that the committee is not as important as some people think it is, and that far too much drama surrounds the election process. (Someone recently proposed on-wiki that to increase community input into the selection of arbitrators, there should be two ArbCom elections each year instead of one. Although this was a good-faith suggestion, it also qualified for my personal designation as a Really Bad Idea.) This post has been edited by Xidaf:
|
|
|
|
Sarcasticidealist |
|
Head exploded.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined:
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 12th November 2008, 4:12pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 12th November 2008, 5:47pm) Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)
I was thinking of John Wesley Hardin (T-H-L-K-D), but that wouldn't make any sense. Or would it? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) My best guess is Wesley Clark.
|
|
|
|
Obesity |
|
I taste as good as skinny feels.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 737
Joined:
From: Gropecunt Lane
Member No.: 6,909
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 12th November 2008, 6:12pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Wed 12th November 2008, 5:47pm) Okay, I'll admit it -- I don't get the "two weeks to draft Wesley" header. Could someone explain? (I'm wondering if it's a pop-culture reference to Wesley Crusher from ST:TNG, but even so it doesn't quite fit.)
I was thinking of John Wesley Hardin (T-H-L-K-D), but that wouldn't make any sense. Or would it? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Sarcasticidealist is correct. Why One (One, don't storm off, btw! you are needed here; just ignore the oldschool WR curmudgeons; everyone else does) imagines that we will pick up on the Democratic party in-joke(?) is a mystery to me. That was an obscure one. http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/who_we_are.htmSpeaking of Mr. Crusher, poor Wil Wheaton! Why do these kid actors grow up looking so screwy? Don't cute kids ever make cute adults? This post has been edited by Obesity:
|
|
|
|
Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(One @ Wed 12th November 2008, 3:21pm) Let me tell you what's what. In case you have noticed, most the remaining meta critics have fucking left the building. Why? Well, because the owner of this site thought it would be fun to shit on the most prolific contributor. I've seen precisely zero evidence that this site is interested in remedying the situation. You should accept that WR is not the premiere (or even a very good source) of "deep" Wikipedia criticism. To my mind, that leaves you with us insufferable wikikids who want better for WP. Yeah, I'm sure we suck, but what else are you going to do? If WR isn't willing to be a kind of alternative Wikipedia watchlist, then no longer serves any purpose at all. One overstates his point somewhat - Cedric's rotten pillars come to mind as a worthy attempt to bring the Review back on track - but a mighty good point it remains. One might not like this, but recent prohibitions on identifying the real-life identities and personalities of internet pseudonyms - this while real-name contributors such as Brandt, Kohs and Merkey are attacked by swarms of pseuds - leaves us still one less thing to discuss that couldn't be equally well discussed at WP:WATERCOOLER. Really, what will be left? Pretty soon these supposedly unimportant Arbitrators will be banning people from this site, too (there was even one WR contributor - also a WP contributor, naturally - who thanked the Arbs for blocking me!)
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 12th November 2008, 12:02am) Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates. I think you're going to irritate the ArbCom by choosing this course of action. If you want to ask Sandifer a question, either ask it of all the candidates, or give a disclaimer at the beginning that says something like, "I can't ask this of all the candidates because it addresses a specific incident that only you were involved in..." or something like that. Then ask your question very politely. Then, if someone gives you a hard time about it, go ask ArbCom how you're supposed to participate in community open election processes if their sanction is going to be applied so ridiculously strictly.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 12th November 2008, 2:38am) The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that largely have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time. The Arbitration Committee is just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. Amusingly, this circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain. If you can't see this, then I suggest that you are so addicted to this crap you've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help. I think a lot of what you say is true. But, ArbCom is as close to a governance/"adult supervision" body as Wikipedia has. So, rightly or wrongly, WP participants look to them for leadership. If WP had a committee to address the other concerns that fall outside ArbCom's purview, then much less attention would be paid to ArbCom and whatever it happens to be doing at any given moment. Someone said once in another thread that it isn't in Jimbo's best interest to have an effective governance committee in en.wp, because that committee would probably send him packing and remove what little connection he still has to this project. Maybe that's true.
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 13th November 2008, 7:47am) QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 12th November 2008, 12:02am) Phil Sandifer is running for ArbCom yet again, and I, of course, am barred by the ArbCom from having any interaction whatsoever with Phil. So I've submitted a request for clarification to see if the ArbCom will let me participate in the process just like other Wikipedians, with the right to vote on all candidacies and ask questions to all candidates. I think you're going to irritate the ArbCom by choosing this course of action. If you want to ask Sandifer a question, either ask it of all the candidates, or give a disclaimer at the beginning that says something like, "I can't ask this of all the candidates because it addresses a specific incident that only you were involved in..." or something like that. Then ask your question very politely. Then, if someone gives you a hard time about it, go ask ArbCom how you're supposed to participate in community open election processes if their sanction is going to be applied so ridiculously strictly. Wouldn't work--one of Phil's IRC pals would block me, my chances of getting my sanctions entirely removed would be shot to pieces, and the block would be used against me in a future RfA. No, I've learned the hard way that I must get clearance from the ArbCom before doing anything of this sort. In other news, the candidate Bishonen/"Bishzilla" replied to my questions about the nature of her candidacy by accusing me of "misusing this page" for rhetorical purposes. You'd expect someone running for office to be a little nicer, wouldn't you? Sure, I suppose the questions were phrased a bit harshly, but she ought to be prepared to handle some tough questions if she's going to engage in ridiculous shenanigans like this. She's basically telling me to get the hell off her questions page. Now, for historical context, let me note that about three years ago she actually banned me from her talk page--told me not to ever show my low-down, dirty, no-good self around there ever again. Is this someone with the appropriate temperament to be an arbitrator? This post has been edited by everyking:
|
|
|
|
D.A.F. |
|
Unregistered
|
Some selected stuff. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Also adminship isn't a rank of trust. [1]Answer of Moreschi to the creation of the page with the header: You know you'll never be elected in a billion years, so why bother? [2]
|
|
|
|
KStreetSlave |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 352
Joined:
Member No.: 4,123
|
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Thu 13th November 2008, 11:44pm) Some selected stuff. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Also adminship isn't a rank of trust. [1]Answer of Moreschi to the creation of the page with the header: You know you'll never be elected in a billion years, so why bother? [2]Why on earth would you quote White Cat for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?
|
|
|
|
Pumpkin Muffins |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 656
Joined:
Member No.: 3,972
|
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Thu 13th November 2008, 8:50pm) QUOTE(Xidaf @ Thu 13th November 2008, 11:44pm) Some selected stuff. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Also adminship isn't a rank of trust. [1]Answer of Moreschi to the creation of the page with the header: You know you'll never be elected in a billion years, so why bother? [2]Why on earth would you quote White Cat for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER? Entertainment
|
|
|
|
D.A.F. |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Thu 13th November 2008, 11:50pm) QUOTE(Xidaf @ Thu 13th November 2008, 11:44pm) Some selected stuff. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Also adminship isn't a rank of trust. [1]Answer of Moreschi to the creation of the page with the header: You know you'll never be elected in a billion years, so why bother? [2]Why on earth would you quote White Cat for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER? Hmmm... lets see... Because it's funny?
|
|
|
|
Mr. Mystery |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 153
Joined:
Member No.: 2,106
|
QUOTE(Obesity @ Fri 14th November 2008, 2:13am) I'm not a big fan either, but I'm all for making a joke of the Committee in any idio(t)lect at our disposal.
On that note, why is Jehochman running? Not that he's an idiot (other than a wikipediot!) but why put himself, and potentially the whole arbcom, in a COI position on anything related to search engine optimization? Putting him on arbcom would probably not be as egregious as, say, electing the CEO of Halliburton to the Vice Presidency of the US, but it would still seem pretty egregious COI, for a sitting arb to be the CEO of an SEO company.
|
|
|
|
maggot3 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 251
Joined:
Member No.: 6,260
|
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Fri 14th November 2008, 9:03am) On that note, why is Jehochman running? Not that he's an idiot (other than a wikipediot!) but why put himself, and potentially the whole arbcom, in a COI position on anything related to search engine optimization? Putting him on arbcom would probably not be as egregious as, say, electing the CEO of Halliburton to the Vice Presidency of the US, but it would still seem pretty egregious COI, for a sitting arb to be the CEO of an SEO company.
How often does search engine optimisation come up as an issue for arbcom to deal with? Everybody has some sort of COI. It's best if it's declared, as at least it can be worked around/used to make him recuse/whatever.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Mystery |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 153
Joined:
Member No.: 2,106
|
QUOTE(maggot3 @ Fri 14th November 2008, 10:31am) QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Fri 14th November 2008, 9:03am) On that note, why is Jehochman running? Not that he's an idiot (other than a wikipediot!) but why put himself, and potentially the whole arbcom, in a COI position on anything related to search engine optimization? Putting him on arbcom would probably not be as egregious as, say, electing the CEO of Halliburton to the Vice Presidency of the US, but it would still seem pretty egregious COI, for a sitting arb to be the CEO of an SEO company.
How often does search engine optimisation come up as an issue for arbcom to deal with? Everybody has some sort of COI. It's best if it's declared, as at least it can be worked around/used to make him recuse/whatever. problem is, any article or group of links can be viewed as an element in an overall SEO strategy. any cases he'd decide on, that can affect content or have to do with linking, could be attacked on the basis of an appearance of COI, probably more damningly and irreversibly off-site than on WP. not saying that he would try to parley his influence on WP into influence in his industry, (like Jimbo has!) but putting him in this position would expose him to more accusations of this sort.
|
|
|
|
wikiwhistle |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined:
Member No.: 3,953
|
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Fri 14th November 2008, 3:11pm) QUOTE(maggot3 @ Fri 14th November 2008, 10:31am) QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Fri 14th November 2008, 9:03am) On that note, why is Jehochman running? Not that he's an idiot (other than a wikipediot!) but why put himself, and potentially the whole arbcom, in a COI position on anything related to search engine optimization? Putting him on arbcom would probably not be as egregious as, say, electing the CEO of Halliburton to the Vice Presidency of the US, but it would still seem pretty egregious COI, for a sitting arb to be the CEO of an SEO company.
How often does search engine optimisation come up as an issue for arbcom to deal with? Everybody has some sort of COI. It's best if it's declared, as at least it can be worked around/used to make him recuse/whatever. problem is, any article or group of links can be viewed as an element in an overall SEO strategy. any cases he'd decide on, that can affect content or have to do with linking, could be attacked on the basis of an appearance of COI, probably more damningly and irreversibly off-site than on WP. not saying that he would try to parley his influence on WP into influence in his industry, (like Jimbo has!) but putting him in this position would expose him to more accusations of this sort. Like the others say, everyone has a COI about something, he could abstain from any case *really* about that, although such a case would be unlikely IMHO. Jhochman is one of my favourites for arbcom (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:
|
|
|
|
D.A.F. |
|
Unregistered
|
Science ScienceApologist really rock here.
|
|
|
|
Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Mon 17th November 2008, 3:12am) QUOTE(Xidaf @ Mon 17th November 2008, 2:35am) Science ScienceApologist really rock here. What do you know of Rlevse? I don't know his wikistuff well but what I've seen to me resembles the arbs that are currently in place. i know he was quick to yell "stop harassing me!" after wordbomb showed yet again what a load of scumbags Rlevse's wikibuddies are. Somewhere there's a diff, perhaps wordbomb will have it handy.
|
|
|
|
D.A.F. |
|
Unregistered
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sun 16th November 2008, 10:12pm) QUOTE(Xidaf @ Mon 17th November 2008, 2:35am) Science ScienceApologist really rock here. What do you know of Rlevse? I don't know his wikistuff well but what I've seen to me resembles the arbs that are currently in place. Exactly, that's exactly the problem with him. He is like the Arbs already there. ScienceApologist criticism are right to the point and exactly what is so wrong about the arbitration and administrators action in general. Some may hate ScienceApologist, but any real change with the system would require people who are like minded. The problem is that this type of people are strong opinioned and will never achieve any concensus among such a heterogenous community. It's people like Rlevse who become arbitrator and the never ending circle continue turning. Rlevse is a scoot-like, and the type of zombie administrator who is unable of proper individual thinking anything beyond the 'stop your incivility' nonesense. But I wish him to become an Arb, because it's by voting for people like him in a repeated fashion that they will see the nonesense the arbitration is.
|
|
|
|
Giano |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 209
Joined:
Member No.: 4,610
|
QUOTE(Obesity @ Fri 14th November 2008, 1:23am) QUOTE(Obesity @ Tue 11th November 2008, 9:42pm)
I'm pretty sure Bishzilla will win;...
I'll probably vote for her. Too bad "it" would have to recuse itself from 60% of all cases, since that many of them seem to involve her BFF Giano.
Bishzilla just made the same observation, but upped the hyperbolic Giano-getting-sent-to-the-principal's office rate to 90%. Ah, but sadly it seems that Bishzilla has withdrawn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...lla_withdrawingPersonally I think she would have been one of the greatest Arbs ever, let's face it there was not much to beat, I shall not be running as the existing Arbs have made it quite clear they would refuse to have me, and Jimbo has said he won't appoint without their permission. However, it seems as one monster goes another comes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=252424152and this one wants to be a less than constitutional Queen. They should plead for Bishzilla to return better the monster you know. Giano
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Giano @ Tue 18th November 2008, 2:53pm)
and this one wants to be a less than constitutional Queen. They should plead for Bishzilla to return better the monster you know.
Giano
QUOTE JH: Have you ever been experienced? LCDB: Answer: I am person of vast experience in a wide variety of fields and subjects, especially fields where I have gained much experience indeed. Regarding you veiled reference to popular music, I believe it should all be banned as it is entirely responsible for the lack of moral fibre prevalent amongst the youth of today. They should all be performing public services, not sitting about all day, fiddling with computers, taking drugs, intoxicating liquor and impregnating each other. If elected I shall ban all editing by the under 40s - Admins aged 14-and-a half will become a thing of the past. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from ...Candidate_statements/Catherine_de_Burgh/Questions_for_the_candidate
|
|
|
|
Kurt M. Weber |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 199
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 18th November 2008, 9:18am) Drama warming up - Lar calls Kurt on his novel approach to candidates' questions (if in doubt, delete). "Novel approach"? They were irrelevant questions. I was not going to waste my time answering irrelevant questions, and leaving them there unanswered would have just cluttered up the page for people looking for the answers I did give. If we're not allowed to remove questions period, then fine, but that needs to be stated up front so we know that. Don't assume I'm trying to do something nefarious here.
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Tue 18th November 2008, 4:20pm) QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 18th November 2008, 9:18am) Drama warming up - Lar calls Kurt on his novel approach to candidates' questions (if in doubt, delete). "Novel approach"? They were irrelevant questions. I was not going to waste my time answering irrelevant questions, and leaving them there unanswered would have just cluttered up the page for people looking for the answers I did give. If we're not allowed to remove questions period, then fine, but that needs to be stated up front so we know that. Don't assume I'm trying to do something nefarious here. There is a big difference between removing a question and leaving it there unanswered. In fact, you could simply have answered, "I chose not to answer the question". You know full well that hiding the question creates a very different impression from a pointed refusal to answer and could well be interpreted as an attempt at deceit - voters are not going to check edit histories of the Q&A pages, are they? I think it speaks volumes that someone seeking to be an arbitrator thinks that not answering a question from NYB that highlights your distinctive views on certain Wikipedians is an acceptable approach. The fact that you state in your edit summary that you cannot answer it honestly without being banned is pretty shocking - and I'm not sure whether it reflects worse on you for being involved in something where you have such a low opinion of your fellow editors, or them, if your views and expectations are valid. Still, this is Wikipedia, and we know that real world ethics do not apply, so as a relative outsider I will just look on in amusement as advice and guidance of this surreal world would neither be welcome, nor would I be able to divine a rational solution acceptable to the asylum. Still, I'd vote for you - just the sort of drama we need to disrupt Wikipedia - - why do you hate Wikipedia so?
|
|
|
|
Kurt M. Weber |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 199
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 18th November 2008, 10:40am) There is a big difference between removing a question and leaving it there unanswered. In fact, you could simply have answered, "I chose not to answer the question".
Which would have created the same clutter I'm trying to eliminate. QUOTE You know full well that hiding the question creates a very different impression from a pointed refusal to answer and could well be interpreted as an attempt at deceit Yeah, I see now that it could give some people that impression, but the thought didn't cross my mind at the time or I wouldn't have done it in the first place--or at least made a very public statement of what was going on, to clear the air. I still operate in the real-world ethic where you assume people have good intentions unless they've made it quite obvious that that is not the case. Not that good intentions excuse everything, but even when they did something that needs to be undone then you deal with them as if they had good intentions unless it's clear they didn't. I haven't (and won't) submitted myself to the groupthink of always looking for any possible way to interpret any move I don't like as a deliberately malicious act. Concluding malice is only a last resort for me. QUOTE voters are not going to check edit histories of the Q&A pages, are they? I typically do. QUOTE I think it speaks volumes that someone seeking to be an arbitrator thinks that not answering a question from NYB that highlights your distinctive views on certain Wikipedians is an acceptable approach. What's unacceptable is the fact where I'm in a situation where I can't answer it. Do you really think I don't want to? I've said (on Wikipedia) in the past exactly what I would say in an honest answer to those questions, and I was threatened with community-banning if I ever said it on-wiki again.
|
|
|
|
Kurt M. Weber |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 199
|
QUOTE(Alex @ Tue 18th November 2008, 11:35am) Because we keep baiting and letting him continue what he does, so he's never going to go anywhere. He has about as much chance as you or I do of passing.
Because I've never done anything wrong. The fact is, I'm the best thing that's ever happened to Wikipedia, and people are starting to realize that. Everything I do is ultimately for Wikipedia's benefit. QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 18th November 2008, 11:39am) My reading was that NYB was giving Kurt the opportunity to modify his position. (I know NYB can well talk for himself).
That's what I gathered from it too; but my position hasn't changed.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Tue 18th November 2008, 1:39pm) There are three explanations for someone holding ideas and performing acts that are so blatantly detrimental to Wikipedia: 1) Ignorance 2) Insanity 3) Malice
At first I simply assumed it was the first; however, after repeated attempts to educate him (and others) of the error of their ways no change in their behavior came about. So then I progressed to #2, but it was quickly obvious that that was not the case.
That only left #3. For some odd reason, you've left off your list the single most salient cause of reactive behavior: Fear. Perhaps you left off fear because you would substitute hate in place of fear. Which brings me around to the title of one of the operas in The Ring of the Neener Bomb: " Fear and Loathing In Lost Vagueness." It is well known that hate is a mask for fear. And fear is what drives drama. As far as I know, the brain does not have a Hate Lobe. But it does have a Fear Processor (the Amygdala, Hippocampus, and Hypothalamus). These are all clustered in the R-Complex (the "R" stands for Reptilian because the R-Complex comprises the entirety of the reptilian brain). Bill Moyers refers to those whose politics are fear-driven as the " Reptilian Right" (and rightly so). What I fear, by the way, is the reptilian response of ignorant admins wielding the arbitrary and capricious reigns of political power whilst in a state of fear of people who actually know what they're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Random832 |
|
meh
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined:
Member No.: 4,844
|
QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Tue 18th November 2008, 5:41pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Tue 18th November 2008, 11:35am) Because we keep baiting and letting him continue what he does, so he's never going to go anywhere. He has about as much chance as you or I do of passing.
Because I've never done anything wrong. The fact is, I'm the best thing that's ever happened to Wikipedia, and people are starting to realize that. Everything I do is ultimately for Wikipedia's benefit. I'm sure you believe that. Have you considered that maybe other people don't hate Wikipedia, and in fact believe that what they do, even the parts you disagree with, are for Wikipedia's benefit? QUOTE(One @ Tue 18th November 2008, 6:22pm) But he asked you at least one question you've never answered (to my knowledge). Do you actually think that he and others hate Wikipedia, or is it a metaphor for having bad policy views? And it's it's the former, I would really like to know the last part of that question--what basis do you have for believing he actually hates Wikipedia considering alternative explanations?
I tend to read it as a parody of Colbert-style "why do you hate America?"
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 18th November 2008, 11:28pm) QUOTE(maggot3 @ Tue 18th November 2008, 4:20pm) You really don't need "multiple checkusers" to see that CdB = Giano; he's not making any great efforts to hide it. The block is moronic and the conclusion that it's a good hand account for winning votes for arbcom is just bizarre.
Nah, David just thought that this year's election didn't have enough lulz in it yet. David's being phenomenally stupid here, though; this is exactly the sort of nonsense that will just further widen the rift in the community between the writers and the admin-wonkers. Wikipedia needs both of these groups, preferably working together. Without the wonks the writers will be overrun by vandalism; without the writers the wonks will have no content to maintain. Chasing either off is bad policy, and Gothboy's little tantrum will just be seen as another shot across that divide. If Giano picks up the gauntlet, we'll be quite well assured of a fun holiday season. I think you're confusing admins in general, who are overwhelmingly constructive, with people like Gerard, who are just cruel, vindictive bullies doing very little good work to counterbalance the harm they cause. People who devote themselves primarily to admin work are valuable (although I don't think anyone should be exclusively devoted to it), provided they do so with great respect for volunteers, for the community and its processes. Gerard and his ilk have no respect for any of the above; they believe they are so supremely invested with "clue" that they can do whatever they like and treat people as badly as they want. The rift isn't between editors and admins; it's between the community and the bullies.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 19th November 2008, 7:13am) QUOTE(One @ Wed 19th November 2008, 7:56am) I think Kelly understands the distinction. In fact, that seems to be what she's trying to express.
There's nothing wrong with being an admin or a wonk, as she points out, but Gerrard seems to have fired a provocation across the divide. That block helps perpetuate the "admins v. content contributors" mentality for no good reason.
My view is that Gerard is not representative of admins as a group; he's only representative of bullies. Why should it perpetuate any such mentality? Anyone can see that admins overwhelmingly opposed Gerard's block. From blocking Piperdown as a "sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Overstock.com", to blocking the IP range of an entire suburb of Salt Lake City, to making this block, Gerard has been at the center of several of the stupidest, most bush-league episodes in Wikipedia history. He must be so proud.
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 19th November 2008, 6:13pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 19th November 2008, 7:13am) QUOTE(One @ Wed 19th November 2008, 7:56am) I think Kelly understands the distinction. In fact, that seems to be what she's trying to express.
There's nothing wrong with being an admin or a wonk, as she points out, but Gerrard seems to have fired a provocation across the divide. That block helps perpetuate the "admins v. content contributors" mentality for no good reason.
My view is that Gerard is not representative of admins as a group; he's only representative of bullies. Why should it perpetuate any such mentality? Anyone can see that admins overwhelmingly opposed Gerard's block. From blocking Piperdown as a "sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Overstock.com", to blocking the IP range of an entire suburb of Salt Lake City, to making this block, Gerard has been at the center of several of the stupidest, most bush-league episodes in Wikipedia history. He must be so proud. Don't forget that IP in Basingstoke, England. Which was also blocked as a "proxy of Bagley". Oh, and Gerard attempted (with Sandifer) to write an attack article on Judd Bagley out of spite, sourced largely to Gary Weiss. This was redirected after complaints from the community.
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(One @ Wed 19th November 2008, 9:41pm) QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 19th November 2008, 6:18pm) Don't forget that IP in Basingstoke, England. Which was also blocked as a "proxy of Bagley". Oh, and Gerard attempted (with Sandifer) to write an attack article on Judd Bagley out of spite, sourced largely to Gary Weiss. This was redirected after complaints from the community.
Amazingly, Mantanmoreland went the high(er) road on that score and voted to delete it...twice. [[Judd Bagley]] was an uncommonly obvious attack article. I don't think it was a matter of taking the high road. Some people wanted to hurt Bagley by making an attack article, others wanted to hurt him by denying him the attention.
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
Can we stop getting off-topic and let's talk about the candidates so far. This is my evaluation of the current candidates
1 AnthonyQBachler - statement seems more of a weak RFA candidacy rather than a ArbCom statement, answers shows no understanding of policy, 0% chance of winning, should withdraw. 2 Carcharoth - Most qualified candidate in my opinion, always been calm, reasonable and brilliant answers towards questions. 3 Casliber - A Kirill Lokshin style editor, should be elected easily. 4 Charles Matthews - Should be reelected, one of the more decent ArbCom members. 5 Cool Hand Luke - Nice statement, but some answers to questions shocks me, especially one questions about BLP and OTRS, hmm no. 6 Coren - Vandalfighter, no experience for ArbCom, shouldn't be elected. 7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though. 8 George The Dragon - no chance, no experience, should withdraw to avoid any conflect. 9 Hemlock Martinis - no change from last year, results will be the same. 10 Hersfold - Better candidates for the job. 11 Jayvdb - Great statement so far, likely to be elected, has the experience for the job, and a good communicator. 12 Jdforrester - Likely to be unseated, owning the admins IRC channel is a negative, also one of the reasons why ArbCom was broken. Inactive at times. Doubt he'll get reelected without top support, remember Raul last year. Will attract the most combined votes. IRC will vote for him in droves. 13 Jehochman - process wonk, will be a borderline candidacy, made too many enemies in the project in my opinion to win. Will just cause more drama in ArbCom in my opinion 14 Justice America - Too suspicious, 168 edits!. No Chance 15 Kmweber - no chance, doubt will even get one vote. 16 Lankiveil - more qualified candidates out there, weak answers, not much of a chance. 17 NWA.Rep - Too controversial, shaky history. Good answers to the few questions he answered so far, willing to see the rest. 18 Privatemusings - Was banned, unbanned, banned again, unbanned again, hmm no. 19 Rlevse -Qualified, and highly respected around the project, I personally don't like some of his stances, but he'll likely be elected anyways, too popular. 20 RMHED - joke nomination. 21 Sam Korn - Was a good ArbCom member before burning out, I don't see how he won't burnout again. 22 Secret/Jaranda - Most controversial admin running, I think his candidacy will attract the most combined votes after Jdforrester, all depends on answers to questions. He's a favorite among some of the cabal crowd. I think he will make a good ArbCom member, but unlikely to be elected. 23 SirFozzie - Calm of reason, should be elected, participation in this forum and constant criticism of certain editors may kill among some crowds though. Recall is a plus. 24 Vassyana - Tad controversal in my opinion, will get opposed by some crowd, mediation experience is a plus. Borderline 25 White Cat - One of the most controversal editors running, 26 WilyD - Some of his recent AFD edits show lack of experience especially for an admin, no chance. 27 Wizardman - Mediation experience is good, but more qualified candidates out there, borderline. 28 WJBscribe - Should be elected easily, second most qualified candidate.
This post has been edited by Littleunknownadmin:
|
|
|
|
Giano |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 209
Joined:
Member No.: 4,610
|
QUOTE(Giggy @ Mon 10th November 2008, 3:38am) QUOTE(One @ Mon 10th November 2008, 10:34am) Hopefully there will be some good dark horses.
Apart from James F, who I could not imagine would run (then again, he seems to acknowledge how likely he is to be successful), there are no surprises so far. However, he is not ruling out Jimbo appointing him whatever the result of the election. See question 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb..._.5Banswered.5DNo surprises there. Giano
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Neil @ Thu 20th November 2008, 3:18pm) QUOTE(Littleunknownadmin @ Thu 20th November 2008, 1:30pm)
7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.
Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views? I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought your replies to the questions about civility were poor. (a) Depends on the definition of 'civility'. The current arbitrary and narrow-minded conception is the issue for most of us who would like the freedom to tell trolls to get lost (and also to speak our mind to those dim-witted vandal fighters who regard any kind of work on the project as vandalism - see for instance the edit trail of Americanlinguist whose new article had all sorts of stupid templates slapped on it). Some of us don't suffer fools gladly. ((IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) Who actually cares about civility and equality among editors. Some of us care about building an encyclopedia not creating some utopian society. Join a political party if that's what you want. So, sorry, you won't be getting my vote. And I don't vote for people with silly names either. This post has been edited by Peter Damian:
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(Neil @ Thu 20th November 2008, 10:18am) QUOTE(Littleunknownadmin @ Thu 20th November 2008, 1:30pm)
7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.
Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views? Maybe your votes in last year's election? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
Neil |
|
Awesome member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 302
Joined:
From: UK
Member No.: 4,822
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 20th November 2008, 3:24pm) QUOTE(Neil @ Thu 20th November 2008, 3:18pm) QUOTE(Littleunknownadmin @ Thu 20th November 2008, 1:30pm)
7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.
Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views? I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought your replies to the questions about civility were poor. (a) Depends on the definition of 'civility'. The current arbitrary and narrow-minded conception is the issue for most of us who would like the freedom to tell trolls to get lost (and also to speak our mind to those dim-witted vandal fighters who regard any kind of work on the project as vandalism - see for instance the edit trail of Americanlinguist whose new article had all sorts of stupid templates slapped on it). Some of us don't suffer fools gladly. ((IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) Who actually cares about civility and equality among editors. Some of us care about building an encyclopedia not creating some utopian society. Join a political party if that's what you want. So, sorry, you won't be getting my vote. And I don't vote for people with silly names either. As far as I am concerned, Peter, you or anyone else may tell trolls to get lost on Wikipedia; just do so politely. Too many people think civility means you can't say what you think, or express your views forcefully. My concept of civility, and the spirit WP:CIVIL was written in (if not adhered to by many) requires you to respect the other person's viewpoint, and comment on their contributions, not them. "Not suffering fools gladly" is a commonly used, and exceptionally lame, excuse used by or on behalf of people who are unable to interact with others online in the same way they would interact with someone they met on the street. This means, for example, that "fuck off" is not acceptable, whether said to a troll, a vandal, a newbie, an admin, whoever. If you don't understand that, I wouldn't want you to vote for me anyway. Especially as you think my awesome name is stupid. QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 20th November 2008, 4:15pm) QUOTE(Neil @ Thu 20th November 2008, 10:18am) QUOTE(Littleunknownadmin @ Thu 20th November 2008, 1:30pm)
7 Fish and karate - I think he'll make a wonderful ArbCom member, but has some controversial views, won't get elected, will be one of the most edited though.
Thanks for the kind words, but I'm intrigued ... what are my controversial views? Maybe your votes in last year's election? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I still think the clerks lost out when you made the step up to Arbcom (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Neil @ Thu 20th November 2008, 5:05pm) As far as I am concerned, Peter, you or anyone else may tell trolls to get lost on Wikipedia; just do so politely. Too many people think civility means you can't say what you think, or express your views forcefully. My concept of civility, and the spirit WP:CIVIL was written in (if not adhered to by many) requires you to respect the other person's viewpoint, and comment on their contributions, not them. "Not suffering fools gladly" is a commonly used, and exceptionally lame, excuse used by or on behalf of people who are unable to interact with others online in the same way they would interact with someone they met on the street. This means, for example, that "fuck off" is not acceptable, whether said to a troll, a vandal, a newbie, an admin, whoever. But it's not telling someone to f-- off is it, it's anything close to the truth that can be used as an excuse to block or ban. Topically, see Giano's latest tirade below. He expresses his views forcefully and rightly so, but people confuse forcefulness with 'incivility'. If someone is a fool, tell them they are a fool, if they are a liar ... and so on. Wikipedia Review would not exist except for the impossibility of telling the truth over there anymore. QUOTE So Brad, what has the Arbcom done about this situation so far? In emails yesterday to you and others I said I was prepared to ignore Thatcher and the other one, if gerard was dealt with. So far I see nothing has been done. It is left to me to sort it out, and prevent similar abuse. According to you, I should not be cross with Thatcher, I should not be cross with the other one - presumably I should not be cross with Gerard because he is the pet of Jimbo and the Arbcom, and let's face it no-one is allowed to tell Jimbo that his tame checkuser is a lying cheat. Who invades and violates privacy at a whim. Why is this? What services does he perform for you all, that give him such protection? Giano (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Pumpkin Muffins |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 656
Joined:
Member No.: 3,972
|
QUOTE(One @ Thu 20th November 2008, 2:44pm) I agree in principle, Casliber.
The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users--whether their article editing is problematic or benign.
I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.
I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.
The old blocking rules identified 'disruption' as a valid reason for blocking. It was subjective and required an administrators judgment to interpret and use. Then, a couple of years ago the words 'civil' and 'civility' were thrown into the block policy. Then some admins started blocking for 'civility' whenever Giano made a good point. I personally find the stupidity of those admins far more disruptive, not to mention offensive, than anything Giano ever did.
|
|
|
|
JoseClutch |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 603
Joined:
Member No.: 2,078
|
QUOTE(One @ Thu 20th November 2008, 5:44pm) I agree in principle, Casliber.
The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users--whether their article editing is problematic or benign.
I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.
I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime.
The big problem is that "civility" is one of the few things you can block someone for, or get someone blocked for, and make it stick. Sockpuppeting as well, and spamming. But that is about all. But "persistant fringe POV pusher"? Very hard. "Disinterested in working together but polite?" Very hard. So people grasp at the straws that have traction.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Casliber @ Thu 20th November 2008, 5:31pm) I went to bed musing on this whole civililty thing, trying to figure some sort of algorithm about why (and what) it is the problem — I guess it is something along the lines thus:
*A positive and collaborative atmosphere is highly important (if not essential) to the whole collaborative editing thing.
*Thus, any posting or exchange which gratuitously aims to deteriorate the atmosphere between editors is a no-no. This includes baiting and snide remarks of people already angry as well as 'incivility'. I always try to look at the malignance or intent rather than the language, so an explosive 'fuck off' means less than something really cutting or demeaning said with polite language.
Not sure where to go with this as yet, I suppose trawling through all the archives (oh gawd...)....to see if I am not reinventing the wheel The concept of civility does appear to be one of those abstractions which Wikipedians perennially struggle with. On Wikiversity, the official Civility Policy provides some examples of serious breaches of civility: QUOTE(Examples of Serious Breaches of Civility on Wikiversity) More serious examples include: - Taunting
- Personal attacks
o Racial, ethnic, and religious slurs o Profanity directed at another contributor - Lies
- Defacing user pages
- Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove Trolling
- Calling for unjustified bans or blocks
This style of interaction between editors drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community. Note, especially, that two of the above examples include common practices of admins: Defacing user pages and calling for (and even summarily executing) unjustified bans or blocks. It is a precept as old as the Rule of Law itself that one must justify a ban with a provable cause of action. And yet it is common to block or ban rival editors on arbitrary, capricious, and specious grounds whilst bypassing the checks and balances of community or judicial review. And so there is both the irony and the disgrace of profoundly incivil conduct by unethical admins who routinely block, ban, deface, and baleet user pages without just cause, without review, without due process, and without remorse. QUOTE(One @ Thu 20th November 2008, 5:44pm) I agree in principle, Casliber.
The problem seems to be that "civility" is an excuse to block people you don't like. This is why "Civil POV pushers" infuriate some admins. The site is more focused on user speech than wholesale destruction to articles, and since we rarely look at the latter, "civility" is the most common excuse for dealing with users — whether their article editing is problematic or benign.
I should also add that civility rules aren't usually applied against admins. If you think about it, admins are the ones who would be most capable of creating an oppressive working environment. Ideally these would be flipped; admins would be removed of their bit for incivility, while users would have a somewhat longer rope so long as their editing quality is good. The current situation creates its own kind of oppressive environment due to the backwards double standard.
I agreed that civility rules should exist, but I don't agree with the current regime. The current regime exemplifies incivility by dint of their bullying practices. The primarily tool of the bully is to block or ban someone for capricious and undemonstrated reasons, without the checks and balances of a review by neutral parties. QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Thu 20th November 2008, 6:15pm) The old blocking rules identified 'disruption' as a valid reason for blocking. It was subjective and required an administrator's judgment to interpret and use. Then, a couple of years ago the words 'civil' and 'civility' were thrown into the block policy. Then some admins started blocking for 'civility' whenever Giano made a good point. I personally find the stupidity of those admins far more disruptive, not to mention offensive, than anything Giano ever did. Precisely so. Another instance of irony, in which the block for the specious reason of "disruption" is genuinely disruptive of civil process of resolving issues that divide rival factions. The current practice is for the dominant faction to kibosh editors promoting the minority viewpoint. And of course the ethical viewpoint is traditionally a minority viewpoint when facing down the pitchfork wielding mob. QUOTE(One @ Fri 21st November 2008, 10:54am) QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Fri 21st November 2008, 12:45am) The big problem is that "civility" is one of the few things you can block someone for, or get someone blocked for, and make it stick. Sockpuppeting as well, and spamming. But that is about all.
But "persistent fringe POV pusher"? Very hard. "Disinterested in working together but polite?" Very hard.
So people grasp at the straws that have traction. I agree 100%. That's why civil POV pushing really can be a problem. But that's a problem of Wikipedia where we look at the behavior rather than the expertise. Our anti-elitism, and all that. Eventually those straws are too weak to support and sustain the outlandish bullying practices of unethical admins who at best gain a temporary advantage by abusing their power to haphazardly block and ballet rival editors who seek to introduce more ethical practices into an increasingly unstable and unsustainable WikiCulture.
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
I don't see the candidates being stronger, even with Risker joining the elections, here's the weekend update.
Dream Focus - candidate statement has nothing to do with ArbCom, I think White Cat and George the Dragon will likely get more supports than him, should withdraw Risker- strong candidate in a weak field, made some enemies though, should be a close and exciting one to watch Shell Kinney - only candidate to run for ArbCom in the past four years, always fails with barely 50%, no different this time, plus expect some negative power hungry votes. The Fat Man Who Never Get Back - seems tempting to support this candidate, good sense of humor, nice statement. Won't get elected though. Trojanpony - candidate statement explains it all, looking at his edits, isn't even qualified to vote, I don't see a limit on edits to run though, but it should be a common sense removal
This post has been edited by Littleunknownadmin:
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
Two more
BillMasen- no experience, original candidacy was malformed, Lifebaka - Good with AFDs, not for ArbCom
This post has been edited by Littleunknownadmin:
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
QUOTE(Alex @ Mon 24th November 2008, 6:42pm) Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.
Yes, one of the strongest candidates yet. Also I want to see extra opinions on all the candidates, I was the only one that talked about every candidate so far. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Mon 24th November 2008, 6:54pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Mon 24th November 2008, 6:42pm) Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.
I don't remember ever hearing of him before. What is arb-able about him and what has he done on wiki, esp. when it comes to policies or conflicts which are what arbs deal with? Exact clone of Kirill Lokshin before he became a ArbCom member
|
|
|
|
Alex |
|
Back from the dead
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined:
Member No.: 867
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Mon 24th November 2008, 6:54pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Mon 24th November 2008, 6:42pm) Another late addition, who I will most likely support, Roger Davies.
I don't remember ever hearing of him before. What is arb-able about him and what has he done on wiki, esp. when it comes to policies or conflicts which are what arbs deal with? Read his statement. He's hardworking, solves disputes, well-trusted in the community, and writes articles. I've not come across him personally, but I've seen his work. See his RFA for some more info.
|
|
|
|
Kurt M. Weber |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 199
|
QUOTE(maggot3 @ Mon 24th November 2008, 2:05pm) QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Mon 24th November 2008, 7:59pm) Kurt, seriously?
You should know he's not serious/just doing it for attention. Just ignore him. Please don't claim to know my own motives better than I myself do.
|
|
|
|
Kurt M. Weber |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined:
Member No.: 199
|
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 24th November 2008, 2:18pm) QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Mon 24th November 2008, 2:57pm) I will probably win.
If not, we will have conclusive proof that the system is rigged.
Um, are you aware that in these elections, the votes are cast publicly? Um, are you aware that oversight has a serious capability for abuse?
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Mon 24th November 2008, 3:25pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 24th November 2008, 2:18pm) QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Mon 24th November 2008, 2:57pm) I will probably win.
If not, we will have conclusive proof that the system is rigged.
Um, are you aware that in these elections, the votes are cast publicly? Um, are you aware that oversight has a serious capability for abuse? Alex was right. Goodbye.
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
Can we talk about the arbcom elections please.
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
Kurt stop trolling, this isn't wikipedia, we are trying to have a decent conversation about the elections.
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 24th November 2008, 8:39pm) Question posted to Kurt on his election page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253847960QUOTE You indicated today on Wikipedia Review here that if you lose the AC election, it is rigged, and even went so far as to say that User:Newyorkbrad was in on some scheme. Can you elaborate here on how the present AC election is rigged against you, when all votes are public? rootology ©(T) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC) He'll likely remove that question like all the others. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 24th November 2008, 8:39pm) Question posted to Kurt on his election page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253847960QUOTE You indicated today on Wikipedia Review here that if you lose the AC election, it is rigged, and even went so far as to say that User:Newyorkbrad was in on some scheme. Can you elaborate here on how the present AC election is rigged against you, when all votes are public? rootology ©(T) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Like he's going to answer that. You've probably just exposed yourself as part of the conspiracy. Obviously, you and NYB are going to oversight all the legions of pro-Kurt edits, and if anyone complains about it, they'll be banned and have their edits oversighted. It's really quite simple, and your question only proves your intent to deceive. Tarpit is due. This post has been edited by One:
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
Ok back to elections.... I want to see more opinions of all the candidates running so far.
|
|
|
|
Littleunknownadmin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 29
Joined:
Member No.: 9,036
|
QUOTE(Rootology @ Mon 24th November 2008, 8:49pm) QUOTE(One @ Mon 24th November 2008, 12:42pm) You've probably just exposed yourself as part of the conspiracy.
I'd love for Kurt to name me of all people as part of some intra-WP "conspiracy". I double dog dare him to do it and then provide a rationale beyond "because he said so". create a new post, stop feeding the trolls (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
You people are wasting your time talking about Kurt. Ignore him, except to devote a moment or two to cast a vote against him in December. Anyway... QUOTE(Littleunknownadmin @ Mon 24th November 2008, 9:47pm) Ok back to elections.... I want to see more opinions of all the candidates running so far.
Seriously looking at the list for the first time, I see only three candidates that I am certain or quite likely to vote for: Carcharoth (certain), Wjbscribe (certain), and Fish and karate (likely). There are also a few candidates I would not vote for under any circumstances whatsoever: Charles Matthews, James F., Sam Korn, Shell Kinney, and Secret (and of course Kurt). Making a decision about the remainder of the candidates will require some research and will may involve strategic voting based on how the tallies are looking. The top priority must be to keep out Matthews, James F., and Sam Korn. This post has been edited by everyking:
|
|
|
|
JoseClutch |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 603
Joined:
Member No.: 2,078
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 24th November 2008, 3:58pm) You people are wasting your time talking about Kurt. Ignore him, except to devote a moment or two to cast a vote against him in December. Anyway... QUOTE(Littleunknownadmin @ Mon 24th November 2008, 9:47pm) Ok back to elections.... I want to see more opinions of all the candidates running so far.
Seriously looking at the list for the first time, I see only three candidates that I am certain or quite likely to vote for: Carcharoth (certain), Wjbscribe (certain), and Fish and karate (likely). There are also a few candidates I would not vote for under any circumstances whatsoever: Charles Matthews, James F., Sam Korn, Shell Kinney, and Secret (and of course Kurt). Making a decision about the remainder of the candidates will require some research and will may involve strategic voting based on how the tallies are looking. The top priority must be to keep out Matthews, James F., and Sam Korn. If Sam Korn deserves to be lumped into that group, it could use a more detailed reasoning.
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Mon 24th November 2008, 10:15pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 24th November 2008, 3:58pm) You people are wasting your time talking about Kurt. Ignore him, except to devote a moment or two to cast a vote against him in December. Anyway... QUOTE(Littleunknownadmin @ Mon 24th November 2008, 9:47pm) Ok back to elections.... I want to see more opinions of all the candidates running so far.
Seriously looking at the list for the first time, I see only three candidates that I am certain or quite likely to vote for: Carcharoth (certain), Wjbscribe (certain), and Fish and karate (likely). There are also a few candidates I would not vote for under any circumstances whatsoever: Charles Matthews, James F., Sam Korn, Shell Kinney, and Secret (and of course Kurt). Making a decision about the remainder of the candidates will require some research and will may involve strategic voting based on how the tallies are looking. The top priority must be to keep out Matthews, James F., and Sam Korn. If Sam Korn deserves to be lumped into that group, it could use a more detailed reasoning. Sam is a former arbitrator with a record of supporting admin abuse. He did nothing to improve the ArbCom's performance or break the mold.
|
|
|
|
Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(One @ Mon 24th November 2008, 3:38pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 24th November 2008, 9:32pm) Sam is a former arbitrator with a record of supporting admin abuse. He did nothing to improve the ArbCom's performance or break the mold.
In other words.Indeed, everyking's grudge with smoddy is rather personal. That said, I've not been impressed with the smodster either. He's not on the level of Charles Matthews or James Forrester (each of whom is bad in his own particular way), but I'd have to agree with everyking that smoddy is someone who is not fit to serve on ArbCom. Of course, I think Wikipedia is best served by electing bombastic, erratic firebrands, rather than clear, calm, rational thinkers, because that path will hasten the death of the project. Unfortunately, smoddy fails in this regard too; he (like James) tends to only get involved occasionally. He's better off running around pissing people off as an ordinary admin, unfettered by the need to behave in an Arbitratorial fashion.
|
|
|
|
Steve Crossin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 25
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 8,557
|
It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned. This post has been edited by Steve Crossin:
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(Steve Crossin @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 7:54pm) It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned. I'm not a mod, so I'm not supposed to do this, but... Welcome, Steve Crossin! Another banned user!
|
|
|
|
Alex |
|
Back from the dead
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined:
Member No.: 867
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Thu 4th December 2008, 1:11am) QUOTE(Steve Crossin @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 7:54pm) It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned. I'm not a mod, so I'm not supposed to do this, but... Welcome, Steve Crossin! Another banned user! OMG revert his edits! Delete his articles! Remove all memory of him! Seriously though, Wikipedia reminds me of Orwell's 1984; a banned user is an unperson, and all traces of them must be removed. Welcome Steve! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
|
Newyorkbrad |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
|
QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 8:17pm) QUOTE(Shalom @ Thu 4th December 2008, 1:11am) QUOTE(Steve Crossin @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 7:54pm) It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned. I'm not a mod, so I'm not supposed to do this, but... Welcome, Steve Crossin! Another banned user! OMG revert his edits! Delete his articles! Remove all memory of him! Seriously though, Wikipedia reminds me of Orwell's 1984; a banned user is an unperson, and all traces of them must be removed. Welcome Steve! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I thought the usual complaint is that Wikipedia retains too much information concerning the doings of the banned user.
|
|
|
|
The Wales Hunter |
|
Hackenslasher
Group: Regulars
Posts: 869
Joined:
Member No.: 4,319
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Thu 4th December 2008, 1:11am) QUOTE(Steve Crossin @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 7:54pm) It's all a conspiracy! Everyone knows that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Personally, if I could, I'd definitely vote for Vassyana, WJB, Wizardman, and Rlevse. I couldn't support Charles Matthews or Privatemusings. I don't think Kmweber should be opposed. I think he should be banned. I'm not a mod, so I'm not supposed to do this, but... Welcome, Steve Crossin! Another banned user! Another banned user who has run to Simple English Wikipedia because he wasn't mature enough for the real one. Alex is the only serious participant in Wikipedia for Dummies who can actually hold his own on the "proper" version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |