General rule: Any candidate that specificly states that they are particularly unbiased, and/or states that they have some particularly good and/or innocent generic intent, is likely to be the most biased of all. FYI: Ral315 is the most biased admin that I've seen.
I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors. Those disruptive behaviors are: selective information suppression and the related strawman tactics, pseudo-lecturing about wikipedia policies to people that have not violated them so as to falsely portray both themself and their target, otherwise using the trick of addressing one's enemy directly (as opposed to third parties, who are the real audience) while falsely portraying them so as to make one's false portrayal more convincing, false portrayal of objective acts and/or statements as being motivated by personal subjectivities, libel and otherwise discrediting opponents, false portrayal of truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks and/or violations of 'assume good faith', false portrayal of ones self as being particularly unbiased and NPOV when one is in fact the exact opposite, and engaging in conspiracies to commit any of the aforementioned offenses. I intend to ban any person that is subjected to an RfAr that commits such sick offenses.
You only have about 10 edits, all of which are to the arbcom election page. You have no userpage nor talk page. How can you call Ral315 biased, and why do you feel one should support you with this status? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree. Anyone without a talk page or a user page, and who displays an attitude that there is an "epidemic" on Wikipedia certainly doesn't have my vote! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI: I am a long-time wikipedia reader. Some of Ral315's actions have caught my attention for their bias. I was therefore alarmed when I saw that he is applying for arbitrator status. You both believe that if a person doesn't have a user page or a talk page, and isn't a regular edittor, that necessarily means that they haven't read much of wikipedia articles, policy, or disputes (and is therefore not familiar with them). That is logically false.
Ilyanep- first of all, I don't 'feel' thoughts, I think thoughts. To answer your question of why a person should support me with this status, that it what my candidate statement is for... but of course you are referring to my lack of edits, and therefore the lack of material from which my honesty or lack thereof can be judged. To answer that, I re-direct you to my reply to Aaron, below. LawAndOrder 16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?
-- HK 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Much of the code of conduct and bill of rights is common sense stuff that nearly goes without saying. I generally support both codes, though I suspect that they may contain elements that can be exploited for the purpose of abuse. I am definitely opposed to this 'everything is fair game' idea, as it gives arbitrators power that is particularly prone to abuse, i.e. an arbitrator can permanently ban a user for a relatively minor offense (such as cursing, for example), when that user opposes the arbitrator's POV. You've got to keep an eye out for these loop holes. LawAndOrder 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I must admit that, to me, your candidate statement reads like someone who is holding a major grudge, and I say that even though I tend to agree with some of your overall points about how easily Wikipedia policies can be and are misused in many cases. How can you assure us you will maintain true neutrality, if elected? -- Aaron 15:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
My only grudge is against malicious deceptive behavior itself. I'm a very empathic person, meaning that I am angered whenever I see such behavior done, as if it were done to myself, regardless of who it is done to.
As for me being trustworthy to uphold neutrality, I am trustworthy, but I need to show you that somehow. First of all, look at my candidate statement. I listed many sly malicious behaviors that most POV people would not mention, because it would allow others to better recognize their own dirty tricks. Beyond that, I can not prove to you that I am neutral. When you think about it, any candidate can feign neutrality in their pre-candidacy edits, and/or put on a sly facade of neutrality while supporting a POV as abusive users do (such that someone that shallowly skims their edits may be fooled), and then betray wikipedia after they are elected to power. We both know that there is only one definite solution to this problem, and that is to change the wikipedia policy so as to increase the ease and formality with which arbitrators are dismissed. I support such a policy. LawAndOrder 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
General rule: Any candidate that specificly states that they are particularly unbiased, and/or states that they have some particularly good and/or innocent generic intent, is likely to be the most biased of all. FYI: Ral315 is the most biased admin that I've seen.
I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors. Those disruptive behaviors are: selective information suppression and the related strawman tactics, pseudo-lecturing about wikipedia policies to people that have not violated them so as to falsely portray both themself and their target, otherwise using the trick of addressing one's enemy directly (as opposed to third parties, who are the real audience) while falsely portraying them so as to make one's false portrayal more convincing, false portrayal of objective acts and/or statements as being motivated by personal subjectivities, libel and otherwise discrediting opponents, false portrayal of truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks and/or violations of 'assume good faith', false portrayal of ones self as being particularly unbiased and NPOV when one is in fact the exact opposite, and engaging in conspiracies to commit any of the aforementioned offenses. I intend to ban any person that is subjected to an RfAr that commits such sick offenses.
You only have about 10 edits, all of which are to the arbcom election page. You have no userpage nor talk page. How can you call Ral315 biased, and why do you feel one should support you with this status? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree. Anyone without a talk page or a user page, and who displays an attitude that there is an "epidemic" on Wikipedia certainly doesn't have my vote! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI: I am a long-time wikipedia reader. Some of Ral315's actions have caught my attention for their bias. I was therefore alarmed when I saw that he is applying for arbitrator status. You both believe that if a person doesn't have a user page or a talk page, and isn't a regular edittor, that necessarily means that they haven't read much of wikipedia articles, policy, or disputes (and is therefore not familiar with them). That is logically false.
Ilyanep- first of all, I don't 'feel' thoughts, I think thoughts. To answer your question of why a person should support me with this status, that it what my candidate statement is for... but of course you are referring to my lack of edits, and therefore the lack of material from which my honesty or lack thereof can be judged. To answer that, I re-direct you to my reply to Aaron, below. LawAndOrder 16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?
-- HK 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Much of the code of conduct and bill of rights is common sense stuff that nearly goes without saying. I generally support both codes, though I suspect that they may contain elements that can be exploited for the purpose of abuse. I am definitely opposed to this 'everything is fair game' idea, as it gives arbitrators power that is particularly prone to abuse, i.e. an arbitrator can permanently ban a user for a relatively minor offense (such as cursing, for example), when that user opposes the arbitrator's POV. You've got to keep an eye out for these loop holes. LawAndOrder 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I must admit that, to me, your candidate statement reads like someone who is holding a major grudge, and I say that even though I tend to agree with some of your overall points about how easily Wikipedia policies can be and are misused in many cases. How can you assure us you will maintain true neutrality, if elected? -- Aaron 15:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
My only grudge is against malicious deceptive behavior itself. I'm a very empathic person, meaning that I am angered whenever I see such behavior done, as if it were done to myself, regardless of who it is done to.
As for me being trustworthy to uphold neutrality, I am trustworthy, but I need to show you that somehow. First of all, look at my candidate statement. I listed many sly malicious behaviors that most POV people would not mention, because it would allow others to better recognize their own dirty tricks. Beyond that, I can not prove to you that I am neutral. When you think about it, any candidate can feign neutrality in their pre-candidacy edits, and/or put on a sly facade of neutrality while supporting a POV as abusive users do (such that someone that shallowly skims their edits may be fooled), and then betray wikipedia after they are elected to power. We both know that there is only one definite solution to this problem, and that is to change the wikipedia policy so as to increase the ease and formality with which arbitrators are dismissed. I support such a policy. LawAndOrder 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)