2013 ArbCom candidates

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elonka/ACE2013
Code: Select all
# {{usercheck|Beeblebrox}} • [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions|questions]] 
#: '''Weak oppose.''' Has administrator and oversight access. I opposed him last year due to lack of experience in dispute resolution, and insufficient content work (no FA or GAs). Has a few DYKs. He's done a lot of good work on the project, but also appears to be somewhat controversial. I looked a bit into the situation where [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeeblebrox he was blocked on Meta] and do have to admit concern with some of his statements there.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=3473569] He seems to have an interesting combination of both qualities that would make a great arb, and qualities that give me concern.
Elonka, I'm not sure how much you know about what happened at Meta, but do you understand that the persons responsible for the block, WizardOfOz and Nemo bis, were awful sysops and neither of them should have blocked Beeblebrox? WizardOfOz couldn't handle criticism over the block, so he or she had his or her account temporarily globally locked during a temper tantrum. WizardOfOz failed to have his or her former sysop rights restored to him or her, and Nemo bis lost his or her sysop rights a year later.

In addition, Nemo bis was clearly baiting Beeblebrox in that diff that you provided, and Beeblebrox had fair reason to be upset after all the grief and abuse Nemo bis and others gave him or her.

People should admire, or at least appreciate, what Beeblebrox did at Meta. He or she was a stranger in a land that was somewhat hostile to strangers, especially strangers from enwiki, yet he or she wasn't afraid to speak his or her mind, make comments about right and wrong, and stand up to abuse and injustice.

oh please, don't make a hero from Beeblebrox. He was blocked on English Wikipedia as a compromised account over this thing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ed_account

"FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT"

Of course as soon as they realized the account was not really compromised Beeblebrox was unblocked.

Beeblebrox is a laughable idiot, and this qualification of course makes him the right candidate for the arbcom.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:34 pm

Uh ... just weighing in here ... doesn't matter a whit who's elected to arbcom (except for the hilarity quotient). The culture of wikipedia is sordid and dysfunctional and this election won't change that. Only large scale purges and structural changes in wikipedia's core rules and the WMF could have any possible effect, and even that is debatable. Wikipedia's pathology has actually increased in recent years (including paid PR editing). Things like BLP abuses, a complete lack of quality control, and the project pages (like ANI) being overrun by pompous, bombastic, batshit insane nutcases exemplify this. Arbcom makeup has about as much chance of improving Wikipedia as a rusty old barge has morphing into a ballerina. The cycle of dysfunction has long past the point of criticality whereby competent and hard working writers are repulsed and the emotionally troubled attracted by diversion and entertainment.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:26 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:Uh ... just weighing in here ... doesn't matter a whit who's elected to arbcom (except for the hilarity quotient). The culture of wikipedia is sordid and dysfunctional and this election won't change that. Only large scale purges and structural changes in wikipedia's core rules and the WMF could have any possible effect, and even that is debatable. Wikipedia's pathology has actually increased in recent years (including paid PR editing). Things like BLP abuses, a complete lack of quality control, and the project pages (like ANI) being overrun by pompous, bombastic, batshit insane nutcases exemplify this. Arbcom makeup has about as much chance of improving Wikipedia as a rusty old barge has morphing into a ballerina. The cycle of dysfunction has long past the point of criticality whereby competent and hard working writers are repulsed and the emotionally troubled attracted by diversion and entertainment.

That's what makes it so hilarious!!

It's like the internet's answer to Jerry Springer.

You can always feel better about yourself by comparison by looking at wikipedia's "elite".

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:21 pm

Courcelles, GregJackP, Kevin Gorman, Secret are no longer in the race. 22 are left

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:42 am

neved wrote:Courcelles, GregJackP, Kevin Gorman, Secret are no longer in the race. 22 are left

Congratulations to all of them for doing the right thing.

Mr. Gerard, the taxi is waiting...

RfB

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:51 am

Vigilant wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:Uh ... just weighing in here ... doesn't matter a whit who's elected to arbcom (except for the hilarity quotient). The culture of wikipedia is sordid and dysfunctional and this election won't change that. Only large scale purges and structural changes in wikipedia's core rules and the WMF could have any possible effect, and even that is debatable. Wikipedia's pathology has actually increased in recent years (including paid PR editing). Things like BLP abuses, a complete lack of quality control, and the project pages (like ANI) being overrun by pompous, bombastic, batshit insane nutcases exemplify this. Arbcom makeup has about as much chance of improving Wikipedia as a rusty old barge has morphing into a ballerina. The cycle of dysfunction has long past the point of criticality whereby competent and hard working writers are repulsed and the emotionally troubled attracted by diversion and entertainment.
That's what makes it so hilarious!!

It's like the internet's answer to Jerry Springer.

You can always feel better about yourself by comparison by looking at wikipedia's "elite".

Lol, yes. My science writing is awful, takes some serious pre-pub editing, but in comparison to Wikipedia's made up information, my unedited blog is fine. I love the en.Wikipedia editors who write or comment that I missed a space, used "copyright violation" instead of "plagiarism," have ill-formatted links.

I am NOT making up science! Let us put the shame at the right door.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:51 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =582978138

EatsShootsAndLeaves/Bwilkin wrote:Sorry, but I've written literally thousands of articles, hundreds of which have appeared in newspapers we consider [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].

Lol, no you haven't. There isn't one article with your real name in the byline found in the Google news archives. Wikipedia, where lying returns no consequences.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sun Nov 24, 2013 11:54 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/David_Gerard/Questions&diff=583146889&oldid=583144927:

Newyorkbrad wrote:Do you consider it appropriate to have overtly promoted your candidacy in this election today on your Twitter feed?

https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/404691757050249217:

David Gerard wrote:Wikipedia editors: Arbitration Committee elections open tomorrow. My answers to questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/David_Gerard/Questions … How-to-vote coming.

Emphasis mine. Gerard has over a thousand Twitter followers.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:12 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
David Gerard wrote:Wikipedia editors: Arbitration Committee elections open tomorrow. My answers to questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/David_Gerard/Questions … How-to-vote coming.
Emphasis mine. Gerard has over a thousand Twitter followers.

A very motley bunch, of Wikipedia insiders and "influential people" in various corners, especially other language Wikipedias.

I figured he would do that. "Election" my ass. These "elections" don't mean very much, any more than when Jimbo appointed arbitrators himself.

drg55 · Unread post by **drg55** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:27 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:...

David Gerard wrote:Wikipedia editors: Arbitration Committee elections open tomorrow. My answers to questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/David_Gerard/Questions … How-to-vote coming.

Well here's an omission:

Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
I have a day job, which I'm not naming here because I actually have crazy stalkers who would love to mess up my life (see Outing question below). I can't see that coming to a case though.

He has been a rabid critic of Scientology for 2 decades and will use his Arb Com position to continue to run propaganda. Its like having somebody from the KKK on the committee.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:31 am

Will Gerard be disqualified? He more or less announced his intentions to publish "how-to-vote" instructions on Twitter. Isn't that considered "off-wiki coordination" (aka "canvassing")? Cheaters shouldn't be allowed to win.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:26 am

drg55 wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:...

David Gerard wrote:Wikipedia editors: Arbitration Committee elections open tomorrow. My answers to questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/David_Gerard/Questions … How-to-vote coming.

Well here's an omission:
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
I have a day job, which I'm not naming here because I actually have crazy stalkers who would love to mess up my life (see Outing question below). I can't see that coming to a case though.
He has been a rabid critic of Scientology for 2 decades and will use his Arb Com position to continue to run propaganda. Its like having somebody from the KKK on the committee.

Oh, those poor oppressed scientologists......

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:32 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Will Gerard be disqualified? He more or less announced his intentions to publish "how-to-vote" instructions on Twitter. Isn't that considered "off-wiki coordination" (aka "canvassing")? Cheaters shouldn't be allowed to win.

You make the unlikely assumption that Gerard's Twitter followers are laughing with him and not at him.

RfB

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:44 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:Will Gerard be disqualified? He more or less announced his intentions to publish "how-to-vote" instructions on Twitter. Isn't that considered "off-wiki coordination" (aka "canvassing")? Cheaters shouldn't be allowed to win.
You make the unlikely assumption that Gerard's Twitter followers are laughing with him and not at him.

RfB

One can cheat and still end up losing, and a cheater who loses is still a cheater. Something should be done regardless of whether his scheme fails or not. Gerard is supposed to be a sysop, yet he's undeserving of that role / responsibility.

In addition, three people retweeted Gerard's tweet. One of these persons (edsaperia) has over a thousand followers, while another (rosefox) has over 3,900 followers. It adds up, and if you haven't noticed, some people are blind to Gerard's wrongdoings and made their support of Gerard clear.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:20 am

Gee, I didn't know GorillaWarfare had an ED article, complete with badly-shopped nude photos.

She is, comically, something of a "sex symbol" on WP amongst the nerds. Apparently due to having her photo used in a fundraising banner in 2012. There's a Reddit thread. She's already answered a bunch of questions, but no one asked her why a bot-driving patroller/gnome who has written almost no real content (and that she did write was trivial) should be an arbitrator. Most of her history in the past few years has consisted of talkpage posts, patrolling (semi-competently), and general crap. Plus, she disappears for days at a time. I was under this impression that to be a "great Wikipedian" one had to be totally consumed by it.

Does this look like the work of a "great arbitrator" to anyone else?

03:55, 19 November 2013 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Asdfghjkltay (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandalism-only account)
03:55, 19 November 2013 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Walnuts go kapow (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandalism-only account)

22:51, 22 November 2013 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) unblocked Asdfghjkltay (talk | contribs) (Mistaken block)
17:13, 22 November 2013 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) unblocked Walnuts go kapow (talk | contribs) (Mistaken block)

And why did she delete her Facebook and Twitter just before nominating herself?

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:50 am

I hereby endorse David Gerard for the arbcom, with great vigor and mirth.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:40 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:I hereby endorse David Gerard for the arbcom, with great vigor and mirth.

And, seriously,

, awaiting breathlessly for the answers to NYB´s questions here:

*You allege in your candidate statement that current arbitrators have engaged in the "abuse of powers (including oversight) to suppress criticism of their decisions." I am unaware of anyone attempting to "suppress criticism" of the ArbCom, nor of any arbitrator deluded enough to imagine that this were possible, let alone desirable. What are you talking about?

*Do you think that the level of civility and decorum you have maintained in discussing Wikipedia-related controversies both on- and off-wiki over the past several years is consistent with your former role as a "functionary" and the position you seek as an arbitrator?

*Do you consider it appropriate to have overtly promoted your candidacy in this election today on your Twitter feed?

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:22 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Will Gerard be disqualified? He more or less announced his intentions to publish "how-to-vote" instructions on Twitter. Isn't that considered "off-wiki coordination" (aka "canvassing")? Cheaters shouldn't be allowed to win.

It looks like "WP:CAN" (canvassing) is the applicable guideline. The particular words Mr. Gerard used are neutral, that is to say he's notifying, not issuing a "vote for me, go here" statement. He's apparently not doing prohibited "spamming, campaigning, vote-stacking, or stealth canvassing."

Is he *implicitly* canvassing because his Twitter followers are likely to be favorable to him? You could argue that, but it would be an argument. Those people who follow his "vote here" link are going to look at the other candidates too. He may have some followers who actually dislike him, too.

I think he should not be disqualified unless he gets more overtly "vote for me" about it.

EDIT: Hence I disagree with Newyorkbrad that Gerard's tweet is overt canvassing. It's neutral in tone. "Wikipedia editors: Arbitration Committee elections open tomorrow. My answers to questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Questions … How-to-vote coming."

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:44 am

tarantino wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =582978138
EatsShootsAndLeaves/Bwilkin wrote:Sorry, but I've written literally thousands of articles, hundreds of which have appeared in newspapers we consider [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].
Lol, no you haven't. There isn't one article with your real name in the byline found in the Google news archives. Wikipedia, where lying returns no consequences.

In his questions, he was finally forced to articulate a policy explanation for his "EatsShootsAndLeaves" alternate account, which looks, smells, and acts like a sockpuppet, but he apparently did some token notification somewhere months ago that he expresses shock 95% of people are unaware of, as well there's an unmarked hyperlink on ESL's userpage if you go through it clicking them all.

His belated policy explanation is that he started "EatsShootsAndLeaves" in 2008 as a privacy-oriented account where he could edit articles that might have an effect on his real life. This is indeed in principle a usage allowed by the sockpuppetry policy. But then he says, paraphrase, "I decided not to use it for that, and then it became convenient for me to use it as my admin vacation account," by which he means he just wanted to lay down those awesome administrator powers and responsibilities a bit. Rather than just not using the tools as "Bwilkins" (not his real name) he wants to give that account a rest, and use ESL. In the meantime he's hyperactively at WP:AN/ANI as always, and at Jimbo's page too, interacting with the same other regulars as always, except most of them unaware it's the same person. This strange usage is definitely not among those authorized exceptions enumerated at WP:SOCK. Hence "EatsShootsAndLeaves" is a sock that should be blocked by the next passing administrator or arbitrator.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:55 pm

drg55 wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:...

David Gerard wrote:Wikipedia editors: Arbitration Committee elections open tomorrow. My answers to questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/David_Gerard/Questions … How-to-vote coming.

Well here's an omission:
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
I have a day job, which I'm not naming here because I actually have crazy stalkers who would love to mess up my life (see Outing question below). I can't see that coming to a case though.
He has been a rabid critic of Scientology for 2 decades and will use his Arb Com position to continue to run propaganda. Its like having somebody from the KKK on the committee.

No, the comparison fails, badly and offensively. There is no way that being rabidly critical of a cult is like being rabidly critical of black Americans having civil liberties, jobs, and lives.

Still, rabid critics and supporters cannot contribute to an article on the topic as Scientology is a topic in turmoil, and it is an obvious recruisal which should have been seen and admitted by a thoughtful, electable candidate, and this incompetency should be pointed out and questioned.

drg55 · Unread post by **drg55** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 4:13 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:
drg55 wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:...

David Gerard wrote:Wikipedia editors: Arbitration Committee elections open tomorrow. My answers to questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/David_Gerard/Questions … How-to-vote coming.

Well here's an omission:
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
I have a day job, which I'm not naming here because I actually have crazy stalkers who would love to mess up my life (see Outing question below). I can't see that coming to a case though.
He has been a rabid critic of Scientology for 2 decades and will use his Arb Com position to continue to run propaganda. Its like having somebody from the KKK on the committee.
No, the comparison fails, badly and offensively. There is no way that being rabidly critical of a cult is like being rabidly critical of black Americans having civil liberties, jobs, and lives.

Still, rabid critics and supporters cannot contribute to an article on the topic as Scientology is a topic in turmoil, and it is an obvious recruisal which should have been seen and admitted by a thoughtful, electable candidate, and this incompetency should be pointed out and questioned.

At times Gerard sounds reasonable, at others just a pimply faced immature youth: is this wit or just being stupid? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3ADavid_Gerard/old

He was PR officer for Wikimedia UK http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_room

and: "Wikipedia user and Scientology critic David Gerard commented to The Daily Telegraph in 2006 that some articles were neutral due to a requirement to reference stated facts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_ ... _Wikipedia

In fact Gerard is cited in ARB:SCI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... cientology
"Administrator conduct
8) Scientology-related articles have been under article probation since September 2007 (RfAr/COFS). Administrators are expected to set an example, and more so under such circumstances, and not contribute towards making the environment in Scientology more hostile. Examples include:
A) David Gerard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) focused on the person and not the content in opposing deletion at WP:AFD for a series of seven Scientology-related articles.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] already on article probation.[47] Although David Gerard later apologised, his remarks had already influenced the tone of the debate.[48]"

Gerard is frankly delusional if he thinks quoting from anti Scientology sources is Neutral Point of View.

Disinformation, misrepresentation, prejudice against religions have been going on since the early Christian Church described gnostics as libertines (page 198 "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman Oxford University Press). Here's a more recent example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Monk. I accept that religion can be criticised but it has to be done carefully because of a very long history of the opposite. Most people do not have insight into their own prejudices and of course like Gerard think their views are rationality. Anyhow his answer to the question on conflicting interests that might require him to recuse (disqualify himself from hearing a case) (above) was completely non-sequitur and meaningless, displaying a cavalier attitude to the process.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:26 pm

drg55 wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:
drg55 wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:...

David Gerard wrote:Wikipedia editors: Arbitration Committee elections open tomorrow. My answers to questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/David_Gerard/Questions … How-to-vote coming.

Well here's an omission:
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
I have a day job, which I'm not naming here because I actually have crazy stalkers who would love to mess up my life (see Outing question below). I can't see that coming to a case though.
He has been a rabid critic of Scientology for 2 decades and will use his Arb Com position to continue to run propaganda. Its like having somebody from the KKK on the committee.
No, the comparison fails, badly and offensively. There is no way that being rabidly critical of a cult is like being rabidly critical of black Americans having civil liberties, jobs, and lives.

Still, rabid critics and supporters cannot contribute to an article on the topic as Scientology is a topic in turmoil, and it is an obvious recruisal which should have been seen and admitted by a thoughtful, electable candidate, and this incompetency should be pointed out and questioned.

At times Gerard sounds reasonable, at others just a pimply faced immature youth: is this wit or just being stupid? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3ADavid_Gerard/old

He was PR officer for Wikimedia UK http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_room

and: "Wikipedia user and Scientology critic David Gerard commented to The Daily Telegraph in 2006 that some articles were neutral due to a requirement to reference stated facts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_ ... _Wikipedia

In fact Gerard is cited in ARB:SCI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... cientology
"Administrator conduct
8) Scientology-related articles have been under article probation since September 2007 (RfAr/COFS). Administrators are expected to set an example, and more so under such circumstances, and not contribute towards making the environment in Scientology more hostile. Examples include:
A) David Gerard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) focused on the person and not the content in opposing deletion at WP:AFD for a series of seven Scientology-related articles.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] already on article probation.[47] Although David Gerard later apologised, his remarks had already influenced the tone of the debate.[48]"

Gerard is frankly delusional if he thinks quoting from anti Scientology sources is Neutral Point of View.

Disinformation, misrepresentation, prejudice against religions have been going on since the early Christian Church described gnostics as libertines (page 198 "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman Oxford University Press). Here's a more recent example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Monk. I accept that religion can be criticised but it has to be done carefully because of a very long history of the opposite. Most people do not have insight into their own prejudices and of course like Gerard think their views are rationality. Anyhow his answer to the question on conflicting interests that might require him to recuse (disqualify himself from hearing a case) (above) was completely non-sequitur and meaningless, displaying a cavalier attitude to the process.

Okay; I'll generally buy this.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:03 pm

EricBarbour wrote: And why did she delete her Facebook and Twitter just before nominating herself?

Because she is not stupid. Gerard might have more success if he did the same.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:15 pm

Gerard is (trying not to strangle myself as I choke this out) right:

Q: Do you consider it appropriate to have overtly promoted your candidacy in this election today on your Twitter feed?

A: This is the election of the governing body for the #6 website in the world; it is a matter of public interest, and should be more widely known; it arguably should have been publicised.

The "canvassing" rule is right up there with "AGF" and "consensus" in the idiocy stakes at Wikipedia.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:12 pm

DanMurphy wrote:The "canvassing" rule is right up there with "AGF" and "consensus" in the idiocy stakes at Wikipedia.

Remember, Gerard was partly responsible for some of those "policies". And for breaking them repeatedly in the past.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:39 pm

neved wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elonka/ACE2013
Code: Select all
# {{usercheck|Beeblebrox}} • [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions|questions]] 
#: '''Weak oppose.''' Has administrator and oversight access. I opposed him last year due to lack of experience in dispute resolution, and insufficient content work (no FA or GAs). Has a few DYKs. He's done a lot of good work on the project, but also appears to be somewhat controversial. I looked a bit into the situation where [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeeblebrox he was blocked on Meta] and do have to admit concern with some of his statements there.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=3473569] He seems to have an interesting combination of both qualities that would make a great arb, and qualities that give me concern.
Elonka, I'm not sure how much you know about what happened at Meta, but do you understand that the persons responsible for the block, WizardOfOz and Nemo bis, were awful sysops and neither of them should have blocked Beeblebrox? WizardOfOz couldn't handle criticism over the block, so he or she had his or her account temporarily globally locked during a temper tantrum. WizardOfOz failed to have his or her former sysop rights restored to him or her, and Nemo bis lost his or her sysop rights a year later.

In addition, Nemo bis was clearly baiting Beeblebrox in that diff that you provided, and Beeblebrox had fair reason to be upset after all the grief and abuse Nemo bis and others gave him or her.

People should admire, or at least appreciate, what Beeblebrox did at Meta. He or she was a stranger in a land that was somewhat hostile to strangers, especially strangers from enwiki, yet he or she wasn't afraid to speak his or her mind, make comments about right and wrong, and stand up to abuse and injustice.
oh please, don't make a hero from Beeblebrox. He was blocked on English Wikipedia as a compromised account over this thing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ed_account

"FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT"
Of course as soon as they realized the account was not really compromised Beeblebrox was unblocked.

Beeblebrox is a laughable idiot, and this qualification of course makes him the right candidate for the arbcom.

I'm with Vigilant; this could be a hilarious group.

so, Beeblebrox is fundamentally incompetent with basic account security? Well, Arbcom it is!

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:43 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:I'm with Vigilant; this could be a hilarious group.

so, Beeblebrox is fundamentally incompetent with basic account security? Well, Arbcom it is!

No, worse. Beeblebrox was blocked because the behavior of his account was so foul, they thought his account was compromised...

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:50 pm

Zoloft wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:I'm with Vigilant; this could be a hilarious group.

so, Beeblebrox is fundamentally incompetent with basic account security? Well, Arbcom it is!
No, worse. Beeblebrox was blocked because the behavior of his account was so foul, they thought his account was compromised...

Color me skeptical, but I think Bwilkins (T-C-L) knew perfectly well that Beeblebrox was just being himself, and thought it would be funny to block him as a "compromised" account just to see what he'd say. Which it was, so, you know, mission accomplished!

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:51 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013&diff=583284865&oldid=583233170:

It has recently been brought to the Election Committee's attention that the SecurePoll was improperly configured. We apologise for this oversight, but can confirm that WMF are working on fixing it as we speak. As a consequence, voting is currently suspended and all votes already made will be struck and will have to be re-cast. Again, apologies to all. On behalf of the Election Committee, [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013&diff=583290969&oldid=583290323:

Yes. Since all previous votes will be lost, we are going to start the voting period with the full 14 days. The new timeframe will be 00:01, 26 November to 23:59, 9 December.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:39 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013&diff=583284865&oldid=583233170:

It has recently been brought to the Election Committee's attention that the SecurePoll was improperly configured. We apologise for this oversight, but can confirm that WMF are working on fixing it as we speak. As a consequence, voting is currently suspended and all votes already made will be struck and will have to be re-cast. Again, apologies to all. On behalf of the Election Committee, [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013&diff=583290969&oldid=583290323:

Yes. Since all previous votes will be lost, we are going to start the voting period with the full 14 days. The new timeframe will be 00:01, 26 November to 23:59, 9 December.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess they were too busy fooling around with VE and Flow to keep up with current needs.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:04 am

"Withdrawn before voting" got my support. I opposed everyone else.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:14 am

The Joy wrote:"Withdrawn before voting" got my support. I opposed everyone else.

Not an entirely bad vote. In fact, you've matched me more than 50%.

I was very impressed with Kww's very brusque and right-on opinions about ArbCom cases.

I voted to oppose the two Arbs seeking reelection on general principles. This ArbCom has been a 12 month train wreck. The only one with teflon is New York Brad. And maybe Salvio.

As for Gerard, if he gets in you'll know for sure that WP is a corpse given the illusion of life by sock puppets. I expect he and the Enemy of the State TDA and The Pie Lady will finish neck-and-neck-and-neck (buttocks-and-buttocks-and-buttocks???) at the bottom...

RfB

Addenda: With all the Gerard Un-Love™ being shown in the voter guides, etc., I wonder if the wimps at ArbCom are second guessing their decision to give him a slap on the wrist in the aftermath of The Case of Private Manning's Privates...

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:38 am

Mason wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:I'm with Vigilant; this could be a hilarious group.

so, Beeblebrox is fundamentally incompetent with basic account security? Well, Arbcom it is!
No, worse. Beeblebrox was blocked because the behavior of his account was so foul, they thought his account was compromised...
Color me skeptical, but I think Bwilkins (T-C-L) knew perfectly well that Beeblebrox was just being himself, and thought it would be funny to block him as a "compromised" account just to see what he'd say. Which it was, so, you know, mission accomplished!

You do not have to look far to see this is sorta true, although not, I think, out of humor.

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:44 am

Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:58 am

EricBarbour wrote:Does this look like the work of a "great arbitrator" to anyone else?

Actually, the one thing I noticed about her comments was that her response on the Sandifer question was to say she would have preferred to see them open a full case to consider a ban rather than handle it by motion. I think that speaks volumes about how prepared she is for the role.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:24 am

Alison wrote:Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote

Username: Superflat Monogram
First edit: Apr 24, 2013 17:34:54
Unique pages edited: 21
Average edits per page: 6.43
Live edits: 135
Deleted edits: 0
Total edits (including deleted): 135

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:36 pm

Alison wrote:Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote

Oh, I am eligible to crawl out.

They are all so repugnant, though.

86Mookie · Unread post by **86Mookie** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:48 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:
Alison wrote:Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote
Oh, I am eligible to crawl out.

They are all so repugnant, though.

You can vote 'oppose' on everyone. That's what I'm doing.

Except Gerard. He gets a 'support'.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:05 pm

86Mookie wrote:You can vote 'oppose' on everyone. That's what I'm doing.

Except Gerard. He gets a 'support'.

heheh

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:59 pm

Everyone here should start a fresh new account, get the requisite 500 or whatever edits and vote support on David Gerard.

Starbucks is a great place for untraceable wifi for this purpose.

Bottled_Spider · Unread post by **Bottled_Spider** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:18 pm

Alison wrote:Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote

Someone should write some kind of script that chooses one of the names randomly (complete with animated flashing buttons that whizz up and down the names and eventually settle on one with a "roulette" kind of sound effect) and then sends in the vote for you. It would be as good a method of voting in this charade as any other.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:39 pm

(T-H-L)

TungstenCarbide wrote:
86Mookie wrote:You can vote 'oppose' on everyone. That's what I'm doing.

Except Gerard. He gets a 'support'.
heheh

Well, it reminds me that Cicciolina (T-H-L) did get elected, apparently because Italian voter were sending a signal to their politician about what they thought of them...

I don´t know if the cat got elected, though it´s slogan was quite nice:
'Tired of voting for rats? Vote for a cat'

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:55 pm

Alison wrote:Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote

I thought there was some sort of tiny eligibility threshold (50 edits in the past 12 months or something). You can just stack up the socks and let fly? What fun!

Bielle · Unread post by **Bielle** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:13 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
Alison wrote:Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote
I thought there was some sort of tiny eligibility threshold (50 edits in the past 12 months or something). You can just stack up the socks and let fly? What fun!

Voting eligibility (so you don't waste time knitting socks for this election, though you could get them set up for the next one.)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013 (T-H-L)

Voting period (from Tuesday 00:01, 26 November until Monday 23:59, 9 December, UTC) → eligible voters can vote on the candidates, using the SecurePoll system. An editor is eligible to vote who:

(i) has registered an account before 28 October 2013
(ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits by 1 November 2013 and,
(iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Wow:

(i) has registered an account before 28 October 2013

It is a modern mystery how these clowns get taken so seriously.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:52 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Wow:

(i) has registered an account before 28 October 2013
It is a modern mystery how these clowns get taken so seriously.

I don't follow. Those three conditions are AND, not OR...

RfB

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:31 pm

Bielle wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
Alison wrote:Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote
I thought there was some sort of tiny eligibility threshold (50 edits in the past 12 months or something). You can just stack up the socks and let fly? What fun!
Voting eligibility (so you don't waste time knitting socks for this election, though you could get them set up for the next one.) Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013 (T-H-L)

Voting period (from Tuesday 00:01, 26 November until Monday 23:59, 9 December, UTC) → eligible voters can vote on the candidates, using the SecurePoll system. An editor is eligible to vote who/b]

(i) has registered an account before 28 October 2013_
(ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits by 1 November 2013_ and,
(iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote.

Wow!

Even for a Wikipedia document, an impressive misuse of:
(i) a colon and,
(ii) commas.

The redundant repetition of "eligible voters" will help the editors with ADD.

The superfluous singular "their" is just showing off!

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:55 pm

The Joy wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz's
Meatpuppets' Guide to the
2013 ArbCom Elections
with naked pictures!
Dude.

No.

We don't want any naked pictures of wikipedians.
Have you seen these people?!
Think of the children.
Most of them are children.

So upload it to Commons, then?

Unread post by **tarantino** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:30 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
Alison wrote:Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote
I thought there was some sort of tiny eligibility threshold (50 edits in the past 12 months or something). You can just stack up the socks and let fly? What fun!

The fifty-sixth person to vote, Gerard spouse Arkady Rose (T-C-L), has made only 52 edits in in the last 6 years.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:57 pm

tarantino wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
Alison wrote:Interesting to note some of the characters that are coming out of the woodwork to vote
I thought there was some sort of tiny eligibility threshold (50 edits in the past 12 months or something). You can just stack up the socks and let fly? What fun!
The fifty-sixth person to vote, Gerard spouse Arkady Rose (T-C-L), has made only 52 edits in in the last 6 years.

Only 128 edits to mainspace, career, so that vote won't count if the vote counters are doing their job.

Which is less than a sure thing, come to think of it.

RfB