Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Iridescent

Below conversation taken from Iridescent's talk page
Iridescent, you've probably been dreading this question, but is your identity on a certain BADSITE and the comments made under it fair game to bring up on-wiki?  Skomorokh   18:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the statement - Iridescent mentions the fact she registered Eva Destruction here, and her account on the "bad site" is even linked back to here. AD 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, but wanted to know how Iridescent felt about the issue before dredging up dead drama to sate my own curiousity.  Skomorokh   18:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fire away; that I have a WR account is no secret. Yes, WR has some truly obnoxious people, but so does Wikipedia itself; I've never seen any reason to condemn everyone on that site just because they grudgingly tolerate the presence of a few obsessives. – iridescent  19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, added. I think most editors these days would agree with that stance on WR. Thanks for humouring my questions thus far, the responses have definitely been of interest.  Skomorokh   19:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________

Eva Destruction's (Iridescent) opinion of Newyorkbrad, as expressed on Wikipedia Review (23/02/10):

"Really? In my experience, Brad is a pompous obstructionist with a severe mote/beam differentiation issue; he divides the world into his friends who can do no wrong and whose most blatant abuses he'll explain away as "honest mistakes", and his enemies who can do no right and whose most trivial errors deserve the harshest punishment he can dish out. Of the current arbcom members he's probably the one whose opinion I'd trust the least. Someone like Luke/One or Kirill Lokshin I may disagree with on pretty much everything, but they'll take pains to explain how they reached whatever opinion they have; Brad, on the other hand, either backs up his real-life buddies come what may, or stays out of the decision making until it's obvious which way the wind is blowing, then wades in at FT2-like length to support whatever the consensus view is."

Does Iridescent still hold that opinion of Brad? Terrafermat (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In some ways yes; in some ways no. Brad has got a lot better than he used to be when it comes to wall-of-text pronouncements, but I still think his view of Wikipedia is diametrically opposed to mine; he sees Wikipedia's primary purpose as the advancement of the community with the improvement of the content secondary, while I see its primary purpose as the advancement of the content and the community side only important insofar as it advances that. It's not a case of right/wrong; we just are coming at Wikipedia from fundamentally different angles. – iridescent  00:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As Brad is likely to get re-elected, if you were also an Arb wouldn't you find it frustrating to work alongside him? Terrafermat (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This not being the place for threaded or inter-candidate discussion, I'd welcome if someone would post an individual question on my questions page asking for my comments on Iridescent's remarks. (Aspects of the response I intend might surprise many.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec; I'll post this reply as it's already written, but won't reply any further here) Not as frustrating as he'll find it to work alongside me… Seriously, no; while I doubt either of us will ever be top of each other's Christmas card lists, I think all the candidates are at least on speaking terms with each other. We may have completely different ideas on the best way to get there but we're both headed in the same basic direction. If everyone thought the same, we wouldn't need multiple people on Arbcom and could go back to the rule-by-decree days. – iridescent  01:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)