Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 4 December 2006

Talk archive 1, Talk archive 2, Talk archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18: Lots of heat Archive 19: After the fire, before the pan Archive 20: After the pan, before the vote

List of things with gaps

It's new! It's exciting! It's an idea whose time came months ago: The Tags and Boxes Player's Guide Continuation: The Demotion Idea. If RFA is "broken," let's not make it FUBAR: The RFA Derby

New Messages

"Real life" and "bias"

I'm annoyed by the assumption that a person's actual political affiliations are supposed to be read. I'm even more annoyed by people who try to live their personal political affiliations on Misplaced Pages. Can a member of the Communist Party be fair in editing the article on David Stockman? Sure.

However, I have decided to list my personal memberships: Amnesty International. Other than that, I used to be in Greenpeace, USPIRG, I think, and I gave $15 to the Wobblies and $20 to the ACLU some years ago. My most active memberships come in the form of several scholarly organizations with dastardly plans for promoting two-day luncheons and Christmas fund raisers and the International Philologist agenda. Obviously, I bring a strong pro-buffet lunch bias with me to my editing. (I told you that I'm boring.) I don't blog about myself, don't write essays about myself, don't talk to myself, and try not to look at myself. (Hence I can't imagine why anyone else would want to, either.) Geogre 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom

On Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first, and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom vote page

Threaded discussion is not supposed to be part of the ArbCom voting pages; please keep all discussion on the talk page. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• If that were the case, Ral315, it would be possible for me to go to Oppose and simply malign without basis to whatever degree I wished. There was no discussion that I offered. There was a correction of a matter of fact and no invitation for there to be any discussion. As top vote, having an outright misstatement is pretty out of the question. I should much prefer that we strip all reasoning from votes altogether, as no good and much bad will come from voting rationales. Geogre 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let me explain: the moment we have voting rationales, we have threaded discussions. This is the secret to RFA as well. The moment someone does "oppose because," we have an argument made. If we strip all of that and just have people list names (which is what all the candidates themselves have been doing, except in one case for me), we'll have an accurate vote. Instead, though, we are seeing the "oppose" votes in particular get into threaded discussions by means of the votes. We can't have one foot on the boat. If there is a choice between no correcting of outright misrepresentations and no rationales, I'd far rather have no rationales. In fact, that's how it really ought to be all the way anyhow. Nothing but argument and hard feelings will result from all of this soap boxing. Geogre 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. There are enough places for discussions already. How about if someone just said: "Oppose"? — Sebastian (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would love that. One of the reason that "RFA is broken" is that the voting rationales (developed for AfD and other discursive pages) cause cascades of votes among those who don't really click or who, because they link after reading the charge, have their reading of the link colored by the characterization that took them there. With AfD, people debate vigorously. With RFA, their hands are more tied. On the ArbCom elections, that kind of crowd dynamic can really be worrisome. Geogre 10:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom voting

"I had planned only to vote in favor of people." What happened Geogre? It's not even a day into the elections yet and you've already managed to change your position.

"I would like for each candidate to refrain from campaigning against people, too." What happened there? You've already campaigned against Kelly in a very mean-spirited fashion. The point of my question was not to leash you from attacking other candidates; it was actually to help you. I'm sure you can already see in the election that your negative comments about other candidates in this election are costing you dearly.

And Geogre, life isn't always fair. If you are getting some unpleasant oppose votes, maybe there's a reason for that. Others don't seem to have that sort of problem. But the correct solution isn't for you to violate the rules and start turning ArbCom votes into threaded discussions. Rules are rules. Going through the ArbCom vote pages, you are the only candidate who has violated the rules of the election. It makes you look bad; it also gives the appearance that you care more about trying to save your hide than abiding by the rules. That's not the kind of quality people are looking for in an arbitrator. --Cyde Weys 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you use quotation marks to say that I said something I never did. That's a lie, not an unpleasant vote. Lies of that nature should be removed, but it's enough that I make the truth accessible. Further, you must have known that you were lying or had too dim a memory to remember what you had just read, and yet you used quotation marks, and that makes you look criminal. I provided a link. If that makes me look better or worse is up to the reader, whom you seem to want to ice to the vote page. Please do not try to pick fights any more than you already have. Your temperament is shockingly inappropriate. Geogre 10:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note for anyone else reading this, that I do not think the exchange in question does evidence incivility, so I'm not in a hurry to hide it. I have offered and continue to offer an explanation for any honest questioner. I have too many reasons to think that Cyde is not honest in inquiry to answer anything from him in this case. (It nullifies the question, if the questioner does not want an answer.) No one has asked, but they've voted anyway, so I'm not very sure that the substance of the comments was the determining factor. Geogre 10:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I hope you don't mind me also asking why you voted when you said you wouldn't. I was pleased when I saw that you had said you wouldn't vote for or against other candidates, but surely if your "dog in a manger" comment is correct (and I do find the comment interesting), then you've just fallen into the very trap you pointed out. By getting this response from you, this candidacy has stirred things up again and, well, you can see the results for yourself. I understand that this is a matter of principle for you, but would you consider striking your vote and/or comment? That candidacy was unlikely to succeed anyway, so who can claim the pyrrhic victory? (Yes, I know Misplaced Pages isn't meant to be a battleground, but elections often are). Carcharoth 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Are you speaking of Kelly Martin? I voted for several, and I voted against two. What I had said was that I had not planned to vote against anyone. I hadn't. At that point, Kelly Martin was not running. It is a matter of principle for me, because of Kelly's statements and actions in the past. She has enunciated very clearly a view that ArbCom is the real power of Misplaced Pages, and the single issue that frames my candidacy, from beginning to end, is that there is no power on Misplaced Pages, that we are equals. I will vote against the notion of power, against the notion of unilateralism, and, with nothing being said by her that distances herself from her previous statements and actions, that means that it would be hypocritical of me to be silent on her candidacy. The other exception, and one that I might well strike, is Kylu, and that is on one issue. I had to think about it very long and hard, too. I have no vote against her, but only against a vision of Misplaced Pages that she has announced that I think would lead us to paralysis, and that is a preference for IRC and untraceable communications. Again, I felt that I had to vote against that view, not that person.
• You are correct, of course, that I would have fallen into the trap, but I also think that no trap was necessary, that Cyde, for example, and Ideogram, for another, had never entertained voting any other way (and this is because of the history of the Giano RFAR and no other interactions). As it is, Cyde has claimed that a use of "he" had to be... something. Had it not been that, he may well have clipped from the RFAR comments or somewhere else, and, in the end, when I told him flatly that he was wrong, that I was not making any allegation about Kelly Martin's sex or gender, he actually said something that was flatly untrue. I have never called Kelly Martin a "wolf." I have not called her names, and those who don't click through won't be swayed in any case.
• Cyde's campaigning vote with its misrepresentation came before I even knew voting was open, so I don't think my vote and it are at all causally linked. However, you are correct: the candidacy of Kelly Martin had an extremely slim chance from the beginning -- so slim, based on her past campaigns and the fact that nothing has been resolved since -- that, when asked, I tried to guess what the motivation could be. Other than turning up the heat, I cannot think of any. Perhaps that's just a failure of imagination on my part, though. Geogre 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You've repeated that false statement several times now, Geogre. You made that pledge after became I was a candidate. Repeating falsehood over and over again will not make it true, whether they be falsehoods about your own actions (see below) or falsehoods about my beliefs (see my responses to your questions on my candidate question page, which repudiate some of the statements you make above)—even though that appears to be your main strategy these days. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 23:37, 1 December 2006, in which I declare my candidacy
    • 20:40, 2 December 2006, in which Geogre pledges not to oppose anyone
• Why are you here? Shouldn't you be concerned with making yourself instead of trying to prosecute me? Do you have an agenda in this? I did not know that you were running at the time that I said that I did not plan to vote against people. I changed my mind. If a person can change his mind about being at Misplaced Pages at all and decide to suddenly desire to be an arbitrator, then I suppose it's alright if I change my mind about voting to oppose people. Please, go play "gotcha" elsewhere. Geogre 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am here (on Misplaced Pages) for the reasons detailed in my candidate statement and elaborated on my candidate questions page. It pains me that you are unwilling to credit enough good faith to accept that the statements I have made in those locations are truthful representations of my intentions and beliefs, and definitely, in my mind, calls into question whether you should be an Arbitrator, or in fact have any role on Misplaced Pages other than author.
  • I am here (on your talk page) because you are once again running about Misplaced Pages spouting off falsehoods as if they are truths. The falsehood (which you have at least admitted on this page, but not, as far as I know, in the other places where you have presented it) about the timing of your pledge is merely one of the more minor of your misrepresentations; your persistent misrepresentations of my positions and my actions (as evidenced by your hostile and offensive questions on my candidate questions page) are far more serious. It is my considered opinion that a person who will stoop to misrepresentation because the truth is inconvenient is not the sort of person who should be serving on the Arbitration Committee. Neither is someone who would brazenly assume bad faith of another Wikipedian, as you did in your communications with Cyde a day or so back. And on this latter issue, especially, I believe you will find that Jimbo concurs with me.
  • You are certainly free to change your mind; you are not free to do so and then pretend that you didn't, and you are not free to use false statements as justification for why you should not be considered to have changed your mind. That privilege is apparently reserved to your not-quite-namesake in the Oval Office.
  • Some free advice, Geogre: make a more concerted effort to concern yourself with that which is actually true, and less of an effort convincing yourself (and others) of the truth of falsehoods. You'll benefit from it in the short, and the long, run. And people might not be so inclined to call you a liar. I need not remind you of the Latin legal maxim, "falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus". Kelly Martin (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Geogre's reply to me: Yes, Geogre, I am talking about Kelly Martin. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Also, I see that I was wrong to say that you didn't intend to vote, and that in fact you only intended not to oppose. Having thought about this a bit more, I see that you are of course perfectly entitled to change your mind. I see that at the moment (well, as of mid-day when the bot last updated) you, Kelly and UninvitedCompany have the largest number of total votes, whatever that means. Carcharoth 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)