ArbCom nominations begin, Two weeks left to draft Wesley Options

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.

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Ah, but sadly it seems that Bishzilla has withdrawn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...lla_withdrawing

Personally 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=252424152

and this one wants to be a less than constitutional Queen. They should plead for Bishzilla to return better the monster you know.

Giano

Drama warming up - Lar calls Kurt on his novel approach to candidates' questions (if in doubt, delete).

and this one wants to be a less than constitutional Queen. They should plead for Bishzilla to return better the monster you know.

Giano

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

Catherine de Burgh is Giano's sock, right?

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.

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?

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.

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.

voters are not going to check edit histories of the Q&A pages, are they?

I typically do.

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.

I have to admit that refusing to answer a question from NewYorkBrad is not going to play well with just about every Wikipedia demographic.

Kurt's candidacy is just another demonstration of Wikipedia's fundamental vulnerability to trolls.

I have to admit that refusing to answer a question from NewYorkBrad is not going to play well with just about every Wikipedia demographic.

Kurt's candidacy is just another demonstration of Wikipedia's fundamental vulnerability to trolls.

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.

I have to admit that refusing to answer a question from NewYorkBrad is not going to play well with just about every Wikipedia demographic.

Kurt's candidacy is just another demonstration of Wikipedia's fundamental vulnerability to trolls.

My reading was that NYB was giving Kurt the opportunity to modify his position. (I know NYB can well talk for himself). I'd be pretty offended if a fellow member of WR stated unequivocally that I did not have the best interests of WR at heart, and given the chance to clarify or retract his views he clearly stated he would not do so. Bannable? Well, one would assume that Wikipedia is a big enough place for all sorts of views to survive, so I don't see why - but suited for high office, clearly not (wearing my non-cynical, rational hat for the moment).

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.

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.

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 would probably take you a little more seriously if you weren't so full of yourself. I'm sure you have in mind what you think is best for Wikipedia, but seriously, you aren't the best thing that ever happened to it, and to say so yourself simply sounds weird. Nobody is the best thing that happened to it. You aren't so great you know.

That's what I gathered from it too; but my position hasn't changed.

I take that to mean that you still think NYB "hates Wikipedia." Fine.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?"

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.

Objectivist thinking on display, above. And some of you probably thought I was exaggerating in my comments in the thread I recently started on the matter.

Catherine de Burgh is Giano's sock, right?

Apparently so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=252651797

Shit meet fan.

Oh god. This is not going to be fun :/

EDIT: I should say if you're on Wikipedia, it's not going to be fun. For your average Wikipedia-Watcher, it's "Get out the Popcorn time!"

This post has been edited by SirFozzie: Tue 18th November 2008, 10:03pm