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.

Ah, but sadly it seems that Bishzilla has withdrawn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...lla_withdrawing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

Catherine de Burgh is Giano's sock, right?

"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?

Which would have created the same clutter I'm trying to eliminate.


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.


I typically do.


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.

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.

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 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.


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

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.

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.

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.

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?



I tend to read it as a parody of Colbert-style "why do you hate America?"

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.

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!"

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.

It's enough for me to wonder if any of my socks is eligible to run; the added lulz would be more than worth it in the end.

Since David tried to pull the "talk to arbcom" bit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...k_of_User:Giano

Especially with Flo and others jumping in on this, I don't think it's going to last very long.

I would support a community ban of David Gerard at this point.

Well, David could use a good drubbing. Really, it's time he moved on to disrupt some other internet forum; you'd think by now he have recognized that he's wasted enough time on Wikipedia.

While I think this is spectacularly bad judgment and I really would support removing his admin bit, admit it Kurt, you only want to community ban him because he wanted to take it to ArbCom, right?

Ehh...a lot of times when I do stuff like that it's just posturing.

But not always.

Someone frame that last quote from Kurt, please? Before it disappears?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'll be supporting seven people, since that's the number of seats supposedly open. Everyone else I'll be opposing. I have stated I would oppose some people, but may be changing my mind due to the number of poor candidates running. There are a few gems in there though who will be getting my strong support.

Welcome to WR Littleknownadmin.

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.5D

No surprises there.

Giano

Isn't that what many said about a certain Barack Obama not too long ago?

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.

( 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.

Maybe your votes in last year's election?

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.



I still think the clerks lost out when you made the step up to Arbcom

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.

I went to bed musing on this whole civiilty 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 posotive 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

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.

Well, I guess waht I also mean is situations of 'upping the ante' and recognising that as a problem, and also inciting others. Anyway...still need to check archives

Weeklong IRC blocks without warning or discussion should be controversial…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160459355