ArbCom elections 2019

[CrowsNest]

On Timmy! You are so ridiculous.

The real count now, at a nominal 22 candidates, for non-insane people looking for a democratic means to express their will, the choice is now anywhere between ten and thirteen viable candidates (given the entirely predictable late trend for last minute semi-reluctant candidacies), and a token women, for eleven vacant seats.

To show my working, here are now the latest entrants are classified....

The Rambling Man - the Trump candidate, so tired of winning he is up for becoming a loser a second time. Although this time around, he seems to be more accepting of his status as a joke candidate.

Kudpung - in the Laser Brain group

SoWhy - in the Rich wales group

Maxim, NewYorkBrad*, David Fuchs*, Beeblebrox*, Llywrch - in the Cas Liber group.

* - could easily be placed in the Xeno group.

People aren't stupid, they can see how fucked up this election is. The announcement of the NewYorkBrad candidacy, is the clearest sign yet of absolute desperation. He said so himself.....

As many of you know, I've served several prior terms on the ArbCom. I was a member from 2008 to 2014, and again in 2017 and 2018, making me one of the two longest-serving arbitrators in the Committee's history. I voluntarily retired as an arb in 2014 and again in 2018. Both times, I thought I had made my contributions, and that it was time to move on and allow others to serve. For the same reasons, I was not planning to run again this year. However, within the past few weeks, several editors I respect have suggested that I should consider becoming a candidate this year, in light of the unusually high number of seats to be filled in this election and the events of the past few months. After much thought, I've decided to give the community the choice.

This is pathetic.

Now I'm thinking about it, the very specific problem that arises now, with seemingly enough for it to seem like a choice to dimwits, but not enough for discerning voters to pick eleven using philosophies and records as a guide, we could see at least one, perhaps more, absolutely ridiculous outcomes. I think even you can figure out the embarrassing possibilities.

[CrowsNest]

Hey Timmy, who is this guy over at the central.......?

I think the guts of the ballot this year is 15 to pick 11.

Does math work differently on that other site? Because I could have sworn 15<19.

[JuiceBeetle]

Because I could have sworn 15<19.

15 is still more than 11, so you're laughing at yourself. Don't be pathetic.

[CrowsNest]

Two last minute candidates DGG and Enterprisey means only one thing.

There is only one woman standing. And she is standing for re-election.

So whatever else happens, one thing that is definitely taking a nose-dive this year, is Wikipedia's ability to say they care about gender equality.

At most, there can only be two members who are prepared to identify as women, on next year's committee of fifteen. And it could very well be one, since Katie was silly enough to come out and say, hey guys, I'm standing because I am a woman and we need more women in this thing.

In that regard the women haters at least have a choice. If you don't want two women, at least now you have the luxury of picking from a pool of 23 men for eleven seats. It's a secret ballot, so you can bet your life they've realized they can do it and suffer no consequences at all. Not that the women haters of Wikipedia have been very shy, neither historically or of late.

After the events of this year, the media won't need to look too far to understand why the flavour of this year's selection, is decidedly sausage.

Wikipediocracy has certainly triumphed. If they want to argue they aren't at least partially responsible for this lurch back to the stone age, well, let them try. I'm ready and willing to laugh my ass off.

[CrowsNest]

Because I could have sworn 15<19.

15 is still more than 11, so you're laughing at yourself. Don't be pathetic.

Don't defend two faced asswipes.

[Carrite]

There is only one woman standing. And she is standing for re-election.

So whatever else happens, one thing that is definitely taking a nose-dive this year, is Wikipedia's ability to say they care about gender equality.

No, actually one thing is definitely taking a nose-dive this year is the percentage of Arbcom members who are women.

Black candidates? probably zero. Hispanic candidates? Probably zero. Candidates from the Asian continent? Zero.

Are you going to rail about that, too, now that you're in Identity Political Agitator mode? Or just pick the spot where you're most apt to gain traction?

Arbcom is not the perfect assemblage of genders and skin tones that one might expect if one were casting a big budget Coca-Cola commercial.

Them's breaks.

No matter what combination of names is elected from the short list of those with an actual chance of winning, I am sure that fully 13+ out of 15 members of the next committee will "care about gender equality."

RfB

[CrowsNest]

Carrite, just stop. I'm embarrassed for you.

Why not try an easier task, reputation management wise. For example, explaining how Beeblehrox isn't just flat out lying here in this answer......

I'm always careful not to say anything [on Wikipediocracy] that would violate the access to nonpublic information policy (despite being asked/pressured to do so on many occasions).

....given his actual posting record over there includes gems like this......

I can't say who on this committee would have the guts to do it, but yeah, a leak would be more than morally and ethically justifiable at this point

Does he get cut from the viable candidate list for such blatant dishonesty, or do the voters just sit back and act cool at the prospect that next year we'll know for sure who has the "guts".

Scummy candidates. Total sausage fest. Sham election.

[Carrite]

...explaining how Beeblehrox isn't just flat out lying here in this answer......

I'm always careful not to say anything [on Wikipediocracy] that would violate the access to nonpublic information policy (despite being asked/pressured to do so on many occasions).

....given his actual posting record over there includes gems like this......

I can't say who on this committee would have the guts to do it, but yeah, a leak would be more than morally and ethically justifiable at this point

.

Do you understand the difference between getting stoned and expressing the view "I think marijuana should be legal"???

You are very dull, in both senses of the word.

Keep on spinning, cotton crotch...

RfB

[JuiceBeetle]

given his actual posting record over there includes gems like this......

I can't say who on this committee would have the guts to do it, but yeah, a leak would be more than morally and ethically justifiable at this point

Yet again you don't provide the evidence:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10443&p=249854#p249854
http://archive.ph/O7ybF

[CrowsNest]

Do you understand the difference between getting stoned and expressing the view "I think marijuana should be legal"???

Do you understand the difference between committing a crime, soliciting a crime to be committed, and advocating for a change in the law?

Here is the difference....1. Illegal. 2. Usually illegal 3. Not illegal

For more context.....1. Cannot be a police officer. 2. Cannot be a police officer. 3. Can be a police officer.

Do you ever actually get the art of an analogy right?

Because that's what is truly dull, having to read this tripe, and realize you either believe you're making sense, or you're knowingly talking shite. I always genuine do wonder which one you would prefer me to think.