Kurt...!, going after Kelly Martin's record Options

[Shalom]

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Shalom: Tue 2nd December 2008, 8:04pm

[Anonymous editor]

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

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

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Tue 2nd December 2008, 8:25pm

[Giggy]

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

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

[Newyorkbrad]

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

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

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

[Eppur si muove]

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

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

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

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

[Newyorkbrad]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

[Newyorkbrad]

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

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

I may be off by a few months, but you had pretty much stopped being a regular Wikipedia "user" around more-or-less the same time we started chatting regularly, so this theory doesn't stand up.

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

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

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

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

[Newyorkbrad]

I may be off by a few months, but you had pretty much stopped being a regular Wikipedia "user" around more-or-less the same time we started chatting regularly, so this theory doesn't stand up.

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

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

I largely agree with this. But in this instance, I was using the word "'user'" -- in quotation marks -- in the sense that you had used it earlier in this thread.

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