Cool Hand Luke seems to have the experience for the job, being in the project since almost the beginning. But looking at his responses to the questions, it seemed way too controversial, including one statement in which he will desyrop a admin working for the OTRS if he wheel-wars and another which says that he wants to abolish [[WP:SOCK]]. Other replies to questions are just as poor. Those kind of statements will if a voter will even look at the questions first before voting. This one has been the shocker candidacy so far, what do you guys think.

I may as well "spam" my reply to your threads.

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 generally 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 provides 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. This circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.

If people can't see this, then I suggest that they are so addicted to this crap they've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.

Well this certainly ups the drama - Neil, One, either of you care to comment?

I'd like to see a little more evidence than just that comment. Neil - I'm sure you're already certain, but One already dealt with hearsay damage during his campaign so I'd like a little more detail and can't just accept that, sorry.

If One/CHL indicates, I'm happy to post the entire email, but to do so in public without his okay would be bad form.

The email is a standard Wiki-email, and the bottom states "This e-mail was sent by user "Cool Hand Luke" on the English Wikipedia to user "Fish and karate". "

Alison, if you have an email address handy I can forward it you (I already forwarded it to sarcasticidealist).

I've posted some comments here. I think Neil might have overstated the severity of the content, but it's still a little sneaky and backroomish on Luke's part.

Font trickery, perhaps?

No. And the above text was a direct copy and paste from the email footer, so you can judge that for yourself. If Alison wants to check, the email was sent 04 December 2008 01:08 (yes, I don't check my wikipedia inbox very often at the moment)

Not exactly sure what you mean by that, but the originating e-mail address was also Luke's actual e-mail.

He means the likes of using a lower case L to look like an upper case i, and that kind of thing, or even fancier stuff with unicode.

Uni-what?
What-code?
What-what?

Man, I'm so easily deceived. How'd I ever get to be an administrator?

I don't edit Wikipedia, so I've never seen what those emails look like. I wasn't sure if it's possible to "forge" by the same method that people sometimes use for impersonating account names, like alternate characters and such. I thought maybe someone had created an impersonation account and used it to send email, intending to frame CHL.

EDIT: Gah, beaten to the punch.

Ali can you check sent emails please?

Neil, Sarcasticidealist, did either of you check the actual headers (not just the From address) to verify this was sent through wikimedia servers? The footer and originating email address can be faked, the headers (well, the specific headers I have in mind anyway) can't.

CHL, can you permit it to be forwarded to me (or posted here) so I can check this? [If it wasn't sent by you, I'd say that whoever _did_ sent it doesn't really have anything to say about it]

Select "forward as attachment" or just view source in thunderbird / view original in gmail

Does WP:CANVASS actually apply when the vote is a vote and not a !vote?

Anyway, what's more distasteful - asking one person to ask one person to change their vote, or creating a persona on WR who those on the 'pedia think is trying to kill criticism?

WP:CANVAS is one the bulwarks of reaction and maintenance of the the dysfunctional social networking community on Wikipedia. To the extent that the "community" has any ability to carry out basic reforms (not much at all if you ask me) that ability would reside least in the geek-wonk kool-aiders that frequent non-mainspace discussion and most in the moderate editors who occassionally work on articles and don't get over-involved drama and politics. Any activity that would get these "moderate" Wikipedians involved would almost certainly result in violations of WP:Canvassing. Without these types of violations any "election" or "consensus" on WP will remain in the hands of the most over-involved and whoever wanders in.

Of course engaging these potentially more progressive voters is not what One has done here. He has only asked via email at least one of the most ardent kool-aiders who already voted to re-vote tactically in a manner that would benefit himself. This might violate WP:CANVAS but not in the progressive manner I described. Oddly this might actually amount to some kind of defense in bizarro world of Wikipedia

One has shown himself to be...well...very motivated to get his butt on ArbCom. I believe that this accounts for his "WR is dead...long live One's New Review" thread that he recently started. This is the incident that lead to my "Fucking Ingrate" comment that One finds now so very useful to include in his WR sig. He has also found recent occasion to revisit on this forum pro-Wales comments he made. This is useful to him because he will need to gain Mr. Wales trust in order to secure the "blessing of the god-king" that is the final hurdle assuring that anyone getting on ArbCom is completely useless. I am not surprised to see that he might have played fast and loose with some internal rule of Wikipedia.

I agree with you, as I've suggested above, but my hope remains CHL/One is merely pretending to be a model Wikipedian in order to get elected, then will revert to his true, unblinkered and very able colours.

GBG, I'm sincerely unhappy with the way the site is currently run. If it was ever politically opportune to attack WR, it was last week when I was swimming in anti-WR votes. I'm going to keep pushing you on this matter, because in spite of what you say, it's not pandering. If you would like me to remove the quote, all you have to do is ask.

No, it's an actual email. Because Neil gave me the permission here, I've posted it there, along with an explanation.

Incidentally, I never did understand why Littleunknownadmin was unhappy with my answers. The WP:SOCK thing, for example, was in response to a question about what policy I would remove if I could. I'm not sure what policy would make him feel more comfortable, especially because I explained that I dislike SOCK because I think it's too much of a pro-sock policy.

Nor did I understand why "being in the project since almost the beginning" would qualify anyone for the office. If it did, AnthonyQBachler and the incumbents would be faring better. Finally, Feb 2004 is three years from the site's beginning, so I find that characterization to be an exaggeration (although I understand it's earlier than most users).

Littleunknownadmin posted this before I was "out," and I didn't want to bump it, to say the least.

What I find more disappointing is that someone has attempted an "October surprise" in another effort to torpedo this candidacy through a politically explosive allegation that doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. Neil, the responsible thing to do would be to retract your vote now before it potentially has an effect on the outcome.

Entering into that house of mirrors is not for the faint of heart. I mean once you start thinking like that how do you know where to quit off, especially if you're in Mr. Wales' shoes? How could he even know that the whole Anti-WR Mini-Putch and resulting vitriolic exchanges weren't manufactured by mutual consent of all involved? It wasn't, but what good would my saying so do? Or that leaking the email without a very good case against One was meant to create sympathy for his candidacy? Wales might well want to err on the safe side in such a situation.

He might. I've criticized his role several times here. One of my campaign promises is directed squarely at him. As I said on his talk page, he should get out of the business of holding veto over ArbCom elections. And there's this answer to Rootology where I say that ArbCom should be accountable to the community and WMF, but not to Jimbo and former arbitrators.

It just so happens that I think he's generally been a moderating voice on images. On this issue I agree with him--and always have, since this account was three days old. I've posted this autofellatio thing like six times in the past year, and you've only called it pandering now.

These are all my sincere views, and voters can take them or leave them.

And you're free to assume it's pandering, just like you're free to ignore these obsessed new users. But I think you're wrong on both.

Yes and now you have re-posted it at least four times in the past 24 hours. The pandering comes in not in the original formation of the opinion, which is wrong but maybe sincere, but in the current beating it to death. Wales certainly is on the wrong side when it comes to child protection issues on WP. He was only doing his usual dance of manipulation in the removal of that one image that was done for public relations damage control.

How many times do you suppose I would have posted it, if you didn't call it pandering?

The post you replied to above made no reference to your deep admiration for Mr. Wales' principled concerns how the content of Wikipedia might harm children, yet you still got it in. You also got it in, in response to nothing at all, in your very first Post WR Putch post outside of that thread itself.

GBG: I can't figure out what really irks you the most here.

Because, at least to me, anyway, someone who seems to have a good grasp of the problems facing WP, the right approach to fixing them, and the will to tackle the task (which will not be easy) strikes me as just the sort of candidate that we should be electing to ArbCom.

Unless of course, you actually just want WP to fail rather than reform.

Those who want WP to fail clearly ought to be working against candidates that might make things better, and for those who will hasten the day. You know, kinda like what John Galt did in that story that we all like to make fun of... knock the clueful productive sorts out of the system. Hmm... maybe Kurt is WP's Francisco d'Anconia??? ... nah.

This exchange also speaks for itself.

What irks me here is One's willingness to disrupt this forum to advance his candidacy. As I am certain you must understand by now that I do not believe that ArbCom has any role whatsoever in reforming Wikipedia. I don't care about Wikipedia's internal politics and would no longer support or oppose any candidate for any community office (WMF B/D might be different). My critique of Wikipedia at least attempts to view it completely from the outside and address the concerns of those impacted by the site's irresponsibility.

GRAWP as Ragnar Danneskjöld.

Heh. I always hoped that reading that book would be useful one day.

Anyhow, I'll be mostly offline for a few days due to finals.

Also known as the "Jimbo Fade."

Nod... Well, you know, Ragnar did have a massive...















ship.

But no, I think of Grawp more as the central character in Night of January 16th... because when I think of Grawp and his claim to fame, I think of... matchsticks. *

But I digress.

* - for those that maybe didn't read as much Rand and criticism thereof as some, Bjorn Faulkner was supposedly modeled after Ivar Kreuger, the Match King...


{{citation needed}}... I'm not seeing the disruption, sorry.

Convenient. But I think you're wrong about ArbCom's potential role in reform.

I see no evidence that One is disrupting this forum. You, on the other hand....

It depends on how you define "disruption," but a certain amount of controversy is probably inevitable, and not entirely his fault. Mr. One/CHL clearly wants to help reform Wikipedia, but in order to avoid the Dreaded Hypocrite Tag™ (DHT), he had to identify himself and be open about his WR participation - that's presumably not in dispute, and it was commendable of him, but there was also no way his WR participation wasn't going to become an issue for the hard core of WR-haters over there. That core may be dwindling in size, and of course it has plenty of DHT-carriers of its own, but there are probably still enough of them to torpedo an ArbCom candicacy.

Furthermore, if anyone thinks there hasn't been plenty of WP:CANVASSing going on against Mr. One/CHL, they're probably delusional.

Finally, everyone please bear in mind that we hadn't seriously considered this possibility - that a WR member with lots of posts and a generally fair-minded attitude towards us would run for ArbCom and actually have a chance of making it, with or without the DHT. Things like this can get messy - there are still people on Wikipedia who think we're all raving lunatics who want to axe-murder them in their sleep. (Admittedly, I can think of one or two... ) Remember, if he wins, that's probably good for everyone, even if the ArbCom itself is something of a white elephant at this point.

A Boston Yankee in King Jimbo's Court

Hollywood-scripted soap operas may or may not have happy endings (if they have any closure at all). More often than not, the storytelling process fades like the Cheshire Cat leaving the audience to make up their own fantasized endings.

Political theater is more like Greek Tragedy, for obvious reasons. Hubris, hamartia, and delusional beliefs are the basic ingredients for the fallen angel food cake, burbling wildly in an overheated oven.

Candidates like One/CHL keep the drama interesting. After all, who's gonna pull up a lawn chair to watch a tug-of-war where one side routinely overpowers the other?

The real tragedy is the lamentably arrested rate of learning in a project that purports to represent the sum of all human knowledge.

Oh crap, I am going to axe-murder myself in my sleep. I am so screwed.

On a more serious note, regardless of the intent this was not a particularly bright move on CHL's part. We at WP have our collective panties in a knot about the whole canvassing thing, and it's too likely stuff like this can get blown way out of proportion, no matter now good (or, in this case, neutrally) intentioned. It's best to stay away from asking people to change their votes, and especially from asking people to ask people to change their votes.

This is just silly drahmahz that no one will remember next week (but will remember in three years if CHL runs again).

He just got opposed by an Azerbaijani editor. Bunch of these accounts which disappeared only to reappear for these elections, as discussed in another thread.

Amusingly, in the time since Neil made this allegation, he has gotten more additional oppose votes than CHL has.

Neils allegations do not stack up to reality. The allegations are full for rhetoric/and spin that is quickly dispelled when you actually look at what the email said and why it was sent/who sent to.