ArbCom elections 2019

[JuiceBeetle]

Here's a chance to reclaim a little bit of the cred you squandered in the Bat-Cow fiasco...

It's like you don't even realize this is complete horseshit.

It's more like Crow lost the bet by a thousand miles, then didn't keep up his end of feeding the puppies and tried to sneak his way out by calling Tim a liar, which backfired, so now he says it's horseshit.
Real man own their mistakes and feed twice as many puppies to reclaim their cred.

[Carrite]

Here's a chance to reclaim a little bit of the cred you squandered in the Bat-Cow fiasco...

It's like you don't even realize this is complete horseshit.

It's more like Crow lost the bet by a thousand miles, then didn't keep up his end of feeding the puppies and tried to sneak his way out by calling Tim a liar, which backfired, so now he says it's horseshit.
Real man own their mistakes and feed twice as many puppies to reclaim their cred.

He didn't take the first bet, being unwilling to put small money where his big mouth is.

I'll give him another 24 hours from this post to accept the current proposition: I say that he is (once again) running his mouth and completely wrong — that there will be 12 or more administrators stepping up for the 11 vacant seats on Arbcom.

Of course, his squishy little penna is so flaccid that he can smoosh it on the Sunday comics page and peel off a picture of Garfield — so I expect no action, only dull noise, from his camp.

RfB

[CrowsNest]

It's like you don't even realize this is complete horseshit.

It's more like Crow lost the bet by a thousand miles, then didn't keep up his end of feeding the puppies and tried to sneak his way out by calling Tim a liar, which backfired, so now he says it's horseshit.
Real man own their mistakes and feed twice as many puppies to reclaim their cred.

He didn't take the first bet, being unwilling to put small money where his big mouth is.

I'll give him another 24 hours from this post to accept the current proposition: I say that he is (once again) running his mouth and completely wrong — that there will be 12 or more administrators stepping up for the 11 vacant seats on Arbcom.

Of course, his squishy little penna is so flaccid that he can smoosh it on the Sunday comics page and peel off a picture of Garfield — so I expect no action, only dull noise, from his camp.

You can expect exactly what I gave you....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 993#p15993

You'll get nothing more, not you or your Princess bride, unless you come out of your Fairy castle and take a good hard dose of reality, like real men.

Now excuse me while I pound on Kumioko a little bit. You two clearly aren't up to it. Would expect nothing less from people who would rather prolong the lives of unwanted pets, rather than do the decent thing and take them to the nearest river and see if they can swim in a sack.



Greta judges you, for your needless waste of precious resources.

[CrowsNest]

Yep I sure deserved to get banned for a talk page comment on my talk page.

Yes you did. At the very basic level, someone who did what you did, can't be considered WP:COMPETENT. What possible reason could anyone have for letting you ignore your unblock conditions straight off the bat? Because you're special? Or rather, incapable? I genuinely want to know, how does letting you of all people think you can keep whining even when told specifically to stop whining, benefit Wikipedia?

Cause banning people indef over talk page comments after spending years and hundreds of thousands of edits is how Wikipedia justifies getting rid of a critic.

In English please, FFS.

Aside from that stupid notion by crowsnest

What "stupid notion"? I specifically said it can't be blamed on you. It isn't hard, reading what people say and responding accordingly. A basic skill required of Wikipedia editors. As demonstrated by your failure to do so.

, the real reason there aren't many candidates is that people don't respect the arbcom or their process.

and that has arguably been the case for years and years. Doesn't remotely explain the collapse of even the basic idea this is supposedly about the community choosing from a healthy slate of viable candidates, which has played out over recent years, as any serious critic would appreciate.

They have shown the community they can't be trusted and the community has finally shown they don't need or want them.

Eh? Does that really make sense, to you? That the community would express these things through every single one of them unilaterally choosing not to stand? No, not even remotely plausible. Hundreds of editors demanded Fram's case be handled by ArbCom, just months ago. Liiterally smashed shit up to get it. So there is clearly a need and desire for it to exist and be useful. Far more plausible that virtually all viable candidates don't need or want to be the elected representatives of a bunch of unruly gangsters and downright evil stalkers, which is basically what large sections of the community have become unafraid to be seen as these last couple of years, outgrowing their previous reputation of merely being a bunch of closed shop assholes.

I for one sincerely hope this year sees the collapse of the arbcom.

Well, they say it's the hope that kills, so.......

[Kumioko]

Traditionally a lot of the candidates wait until the very end to apply anyway in order to reduce the the time for criticism or questions so we won't really know the full story till the last few hours. Also, as we've seen the last couple years, there are less people interested in doing it, that's verifiable and really I can't blame them. The arbcom really does do a lousy job and the last 3 or 4 especially have been particularly worthless.

[CrowsNest]

On all measures except one, this year's election is showing an ever decreased general lack of interest.....

Only one NOTYET?

Only one wholly divisive candidate?

Only one person standing just to fix the supposed errors of last year's Committee?

Only one person standing to keep an eye on them bastards at the WMF, in case they want to TEK UR GUUUNS

Only one person standing just as a reluctant make weight?

Only one person who thinks WP:CIV is merely the no nasty words policy?

No women?

No minorities?

No DISBAND ARBCOM WE DON'T NEED IT candidates?

Without you going back to check, I'm pretty sure even at this time last year, which was itself a thinly attended election, they were doing better than this in all these categories, at this stage of nominations. Not that you want any of the last group, but one can argue having them standing is a sign of interest at least. A sign of hope from the disenfranchised.

It's a dead process, for a dead community. By their candidates, ye shall know them. Suffocated by its own toxic stench and sheer arrogance.

You know what category is living up to expectations? The number of sad old re-treads. The old timers from prior Committees appealing to pathetic notions of institutional memory and a steady hand at the helm, like that has ever helped the Committee come to effective decisions.

Fucking joke of a process. And an absolute joke that this forum doesn't respect people who are this good at Wikipedia criticism.

[Kumioko]

Yeah I agree with all that, which is just a more verbose way of saying what I did. The community is showing their lack of interest and need for the arbcom; no one wants to do it; those who do want to do it are the wrong people that should be doing it and that's all largely due to the history of the arbcom making bad decisions on cases in the past.

[CrowsNest]

The number of candidates has actually been slightly increasing in the last three years, from 11, to 12 and then 13 last year. The issue is the cliff edge that low level represents from the 20+ slates of years past, and the impact that has when it is not much more than the number of seats needing filled, but still contains as many if not more completely unviable or divisive candidates as in the previous years.

Even if they have fourteen candidates this year, due to the higher number of vacancies, and the likely number of completely unviable candidates in that fourteen (easily at least three), we're still basically looking at the prospect of an election that isn't a choice, but merely a case of saying yes, we need eleven seats filled, these are the only eleven people who volunteered won't do something completely stupid, a couple of whom you're probably only even just hoping in that regard, so put aside the fact this doesn't give you any kind of democratic choice over picking candidates with your preferred philosopies and approaches, and just coronate them, so we can all move on, pretending like this is autonomous self governance in action.

It isn't. It is a sham election, for a sham community, to oversee a sham project.

[CrowsNest]

Ladies and gentlemen, a veteran Wikipedian.....

Six down, five to go...

I actually put myself in the position of attempting to make one of my big $5 charity bets with a certain loud and abusive individual who is (thrice) banned at Wikipediocracy that there would be "twelve or more" administrators running for the eleven open seats. Thus the actual number I'm rooting for is six more for bragging rights and a chance to render mockery...

Yes, you I did do that.

And so now we all know what you think is going to be worth bragging about. An outcome where the people voting for the most important office on Wikipedia, have to be happy with a choice of twelve Administrators, to fill eleven vacant seats. They just have to be Administrators, any old Administrator will do, even ones as divisive as Hawkeye, as partizan as Cas Liber (and an enthusiastic supporter of the harassment site Wikipediocracy to boot), even ones who absolutely don't want to be elected and plan to get the fuck out of there as soon as eleven better names are on the ballot (so doesn't that actually mean you're only at five down?).

Any old shit from the Admin corps will do - and boy is there some stinky shit even in that supposedly vetted user group - and just so you can feel like you have participated in an election, not a coronation, you, you lucky old voter, get to choose one of the twelve who doesn't get a seat! Pick the one with the worst sounding name, it'll have as much impact as any other means you use. A couple of years it'll be a woman hating jock called "Girth", because Timmy is the sort of person who decides such things.

-> <-

Oh Timmy. You make it so easy. You gotta see someone about that gamblng addiction of yours. Get back on an even keel of just being a daft Wikipedian whose limited measure of success was having a website with some shit on it, some of it even being true, and calling it an encyclopedia.

Good times. Back when you had hope, I assume.

[Carrite]

Five days to the deadline and only four viable candidates for eleven seats, one of whom has already said he will withdraw if eleven better people stand.

Certainly can't pin that absolute failure of the Wikipedian's supposed ability to be autonomous and self-governening on Kumioko and his reign of terror with his socky wocky army, since one of them is 'ole backstabber Dave. Soft touch that he is.

Could blame it on the vocal efforts of certain prominent Wikipedians, with the assistance of harassment site Wikipediocracy, to undermine and nullify anyone who stands for the role and doesn't intend to view their duty as doing anything and everything the mob wants.

(yawn.)

Okay, Chickennest, let's gamble.

I will bet you five quid to the charity of your choice against five dollars to the charity of my choice that there are at least 12 administrators running for the 11 vacant seats this year.

That's a bit of a stretch, I'd actually take the under on that proposition in most cases, but you're such a bigmouth and a coward with an itty bitty little peenee (Hi, GS!) that I'll put my wallet at risk to make a point.

Here's a chance to reclaim a little bit of the cred you squandered in the Bat-Cow fiasco...

Do we have a bet?

tim

P.S. You're welcome.

So you don't really think that the sky is falling, that self-governance is collapsing, and that there won't be fewer administrators running PLUS ONE than the number of open seats? Just need to clarify that your "sky-is-falling, self-governance-is-collapsing, there-are-clearly-gonna-be-insufficient-candidates" shriekfest was nothing more than Tuesday's spin, to be conveniently filed and forgotten in time for the next day's Twitter feed, errrrrr, spamming of the Wikipedia Sucks site. In short: that it was yesterday's malarkey, to be replaced by today's malarkey, to be replaced by tomorrow's malarkey.

Just so we're clear, coward!

RfB