Election results, Voting has begun Options

I was not saying he should be supported, what I am saying is more general, just that it is dumb to support or oppose someone just because they gave good or bad answers.

Rlevse was the innocent victim (alongside the kids in the photos) of that incident, and he reacted correctly by demanding the photos be removed. Other Wikipediots covered themselves in shame.

I forgot about that case, can you provide me the thread?

Another good one.

This post has been edited by Xidaf: Mon 1st December 2008, 3:23am

I was not saying he should be supported, what I am saying is more general, just that it is dumb to support or oppose someone just because they gave good or bad answers.

Rlevse was the innocent victim (alongside the kids in the photos) of that incident, and he reacted correctly by demanding the photos be removed. Other Wikipediots covered themselves in shame.

I forgot about that case, can you provide me the thread?

Another good one.

I've given you the links above in this post.

What the heck is going on with Neil's and Jehochman's vote pages? Where are all these oppose votes coming from? I'm surprised at the level of opposition for those two.

What the heck is going on with Neil's and Jehochman's vote pages? Where are all these oppose votes coming from? I'm surprised at the level of opposition for those two.

Jehochman's connection to Durova during the secret mailing list scandal may be a factor. Some people never forgive or forget.

The sitting arbitrators are crashing and burning, a sure sign of the community's rejection of the ArbCom's current ways of doing business--and yet Sam Korn, a former arbitrator who represents the very same thing as Charles and James F., is doing relatively well. When voting on current and former arbitrators, please also bear in mind that these candidates would be the most likely to benefit from any "bonus" appointments by Jimbo, so it is important that they get thoroughly trounced in the election (below 50% support). Right now Sam is in ninth place.

Jehochman's vote pages?

Jehochman has managed to earn the ire of Durova partisans, anti-Durova partisans, the cult of SlimVirgin and several lesser cliques. He's not going to level up when he's KOS with all those factions.

Damn. White Cat is beating Charles Matthews.

Lol! And so it should be IMHO

Why? Wasn't White Cat's whitewash propaganda book as good?

I take it all back, this election is hilarious and I'm gripped. There are massive divisions now, and WP has become significantly more political than it was 12 months ago. Nobody is picking up the 90%+ percentages people like Krill and Brad were getting in the past.

If Wales had any sense he'd abolish the whole election thing because this is only going to get worse. By next year's election they'll be all kinds of dirty tricks campaigns and a major implosion in the community. The resentment coming out of this one will rip through WP's Ruling class like a Siberian Wind.

I mean, look at this from Durova on Jehochman:

Strongest possible oppose Jehochman has a long history of what could be termed dispute enhancement: passing out pitchforks and lighting torches. Most recently he did that with the banned sockpuppet that was spreading rumors about FT2, Giano, and Oversight. Jehochman even cross posted the troll’s claims to AE under the subthread heading ‘Conspiracy?’. A couple of weeks earlier Jehochman was the sole certifier for the unpopular RFC initiated by Charles Matthews on Slrubenstein. Jehochman was the one who initiated the controversial Elonka recall drive. In the leadup to the unfortunate Zeraeph arbitration he started a community ban proposal on her while other editors were seeking to deescalate. This is pattern behavior that Jehochman has demonstrated in a lot of other situations also: turning up the heat when it isn’t necessary, then after dozens of other people make the difficult decision to come down on one side or another he acts conciliatory and bows out of the resulting mess. Few administrators could be less suitable for arbitration than someone who does this habitually. DurovaCharge! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UT

and the follow up kick in the nads from Elonka:

Strong oppose. I concur with Durova's assessment, and would add IRC admin-shopping and a history of on-wiki harassment to the list of concerns about Jehochman's behavior. He is absolutely not someone who should be on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Further comments and diffs, as well as Jehochman's rebuttal, are available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

..."history of on-wiki harrassment?"

I take it all back, this election is hilarious and I'm gripped. There are massive divisions now, and WP has become significantly more political than it was 12 months ago. Nobody is picking up the 90%+ percentages people like Krill and Brad were getting in the past.

If Wales had any sense he'd abolish the whole election thing because this is only going to get worse. By next year's election they'll be all kinds of dirty tricks campaigns and a major implosion in the community. The resentment coming out of this one will rip through WP's Ruling class like a Siberian Wind.

I mean, look at this from Durova on Jehochman:

Strongest possible oppose Jehochman has a long history of what could be termed dispute enhancement: passing out pitchforks and lighting torches. Most recently he did that with the banned sockpuppet that was spreading rumors about FT2, Giano, and Oversight. Jehochman even cross posted the troll’s claims to AE under the subthread heading ‘Conspiracy?’. A couple of weeks earlier Jehochman was the sole certifier for the unpopular RFC initiated by Charles Matthews on Slrubenstein. Jehochman was the one who initiated the controversial Elonka recall drive. In the leadup to the unfortunate Zeraeph arbitration he started a community ban proposal on her while other editors were seeking to deescalate. This is pattern behavior that Jehochman has demonstrated in a lot of other situations also: turning up the heat when it isn’t necessary, then after dozens of other people make the difficult decision to come down on one side or another he acts conciliatory and bows out of the resulting mess. Few administrators could be less suitable for arbitration than someone who does this habitually. DurovaCharge! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UT

and the follow up kick in the nads from Elonka:

Strong oppose. I concur with Durova's assessment, and would add IRC admin-shopping and a history of on-wiki harassment to the list of concerns about Jehochman's behavior. He is absolutely not someone who should be on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Further comments and diffs, as well as Jehochman's rebuttal, are available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

..."history of on-wiki harrassment?"

You aren't usually allowed to say things like that about someone in Wikipedia unless they're a candidate for some kind of elected position, like admin, arbitrator, or bureaucrat. In those cases, though, you're often free to let loose. In all seriousness though, Elonka needs to stop falsely accusing Jechochman of harassment. Elonka's starting to sound like someone else, and I think we know who I'm referring to.

Anyway, I thought it was funny that someone above used the phrase "level up" to describe running for ArbCom. Along the same lines, someone needs to develop a tool, like the edit count calculator, to define each editor's total charisma, hit, attack, and cabal points to help them decide if their RfA or whatever will be successful before they decide to run.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 1st December 2008, 7:14am

Anyway, I thought it was funny that someone above used the phrase "level up" to describe running for ArbCom. Along the same lines, someone needs to develop a tool, like the edit count calculator, to define each editor's total charisma, hit, attack, and cabal points to help them decide if their RfA or whatever will be successful before they decide to run.

I know, I got a good chuckle out of that one...

I take it all back, this election is hilarious and I'm gripped. There are massive divisions now, and WP has become significantly more political than it was 12 months ago. Nobody is picking up the 90%+ percentages people like Krill and Brad were getting in the past.

Kunt has 90% opposing him, if that's any matter . I think it's foolish for OIC and Giggy to give him moral support, when he himself has no morals

Scribe is doing well as the obvious 'most trusted candidate'. To his credit, he answered my question. I'm not sure what to make of the answer.

[Question from The Land Surveyor (Damian)]

User:Smith, who has edited prolifically since the beginning of the project and is generally well-respected as an editor, makes an apparently serious allegation against a member of the Arbitration committee (Jones), regarding edits that (according to Smith) are highly slanted, and are of such a nature as are likely to bring the project into disrepute. You ask Smith for diffs to these supposedly slanted edits, which he sends. You look at the diffs, which (to you) seem of a relatively harmless nature and unlikely to offend. However, the next day Smith contacts you by email and claims that the edits in question have been 'oversighted' i.e. deleted from the Wikipedia server. When you look again, indeed the edit indeed seem to have disappeared. What do you do?

(A) Ignore the whole issue. The deletion of evidence you found utterly unpersuasive does not concern you much and others are better placed to investigate the matter.

(B) Take the matter up with Jimbo and other checkusers, to find out why the edits were 'oversighted'.

© Other (please specify).

Before dealing with your hypothetical scenario, I will comment on the incident that inspired you to ask it. I realise that at the time it was the single most important thing that concerned you. With respect, it wasn't for me. I have to prioritise how I spend my time like anyone else and had plenty of other things - both connected to Wikipedia and not - occupying my time. For me to look into a possibly inappropriate use of oversight was not to my mind a good use of my time. Without the right, I was not in a position to even confirm that an edit had indeed been oversighted. I could only speculate as to this. I did not have a particularly clear recollection of the edit in question. I recalled that I had not thought it to be persuasive evidence of the misconduct you then were alleging and did not remember thinking that it contained material that should oversighted. However, sometimes the privacy implications of a post are not apparent to someone without an additional piece of information. In my opinion, there were others in a far better position to look into the matter. I had contacted Jimbo Wales and he had indicated a willingness to look into what you were alleging. I had made him aware that an edit which you had previously cited no longer appeared to be in the database and therefore appeared to have been oversighted. Given he was ultimately responsible for appointments to ArbCom, he seemed the best person to hear you out. It was your choice not to avail yourself of that opportunity. Each of the people who had oversight at the time (or have obtained it since) have been far better placed to look into the matter than me, as they would have been in a position to consult the oversight log. You had yourself advised me not to involve myself further in the matter in a email sent at 11:49 on Saturday 8 December 2007.
Now the above being said, I would approach the matter differently were I an arbitrator for two reasons. Firstly, because as an arbitrator I would have a duty to look into possible misuse of access such as oversight. And secondly, because I would have that right myself, I would be able to access the log. The person who oversighted the edit would be more able to explain the situation to me, rather than feeling constrained by the privacy policy in discussing it with someone not trusted with that right.
So to turn to your hypothetical question. Were this to happen now, I would recommend that they do (B) - assuming you meant other oversighters not other checkusers - as they are better placed to explain their concerns. Once I knew they were in touch with someone able to investigate the matter for them, I would leave it in that person's hands. In particular, I tend to assume that edits are oversighted for good cause and don't routinely second guess such actions. Were I an arbitrator, I would opt for ©. I would review the oversighting of the edit myself. Were I to have concerns about the use of oversight in that case - taking into account the nature of the material deleted and the reason given in the summary - I would take them up with the person who performed the oversight. Were I to remain unsatisfied, I would raise the matter with other arbitrators for further investigation. If it were agreed that the oversight had been improper, I would then contact a developer to have the edit restored and propose action be taken against the oversighter - up to removing the access were there to have been previous problematic instances or an unwillingness to agree that the action was wrong and agreement not to oversight similar edits in future.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 1st December 2008, 10:54am

Strong oppose - Luke is "One" on WR - he outed Coredesat (whatever his intentions were, that's what the effect was) over on the site leading to Coredesat leaving (See his post, much of it is now removed [1]). I don't want any editors doing things like that, let alone an arbitrator. 1051 posts on WR in the last year? You should have come over to WP to solve any problems you had rather than playing out the Wikipedian on WR. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Aw. I'm disappointed.

And who the hell is Roger Davies? Missed that one. In the top 5. From the comments, looks like the candidate everyone put as 7th choice, and no one opposed. Another NYB?

[edit] Clarify: Davies is in the top 5 of % of support/oppose. Too early to say.

[edit] Question: how actually do they calculate the votes?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 1st December 2008, 12:47pm

And who the hell is Roger Davies? Missed that one. In the top 5. From the comments, looks like the candidate everyone put as 7th choice, and no one opposed. Another NYB?

He's actually a very sound chap and a co-ordinator of the military history wikiproject. Very much a content contributor and stays out of the politics for most of the time, but when he does comment, he's spot on.

And who the hell is Roger Davies? Missed that one. In the top 5. From the comments, looks like the candidate everyone put as 7th choice, and no one opposed. Another NYB?

He's actually a very sound chap and a co-ordinator of the military history wikiproject. Very much a content contributor and stays out of the politics for most of the time, but when he does comment, he's spot on.

OK I would have voted for him had not been banned. Meanwhile, how are the votes scored? e.g. If I have 10 people vote for me and no oppose, which is 100%, does that count? Or not? Thanks

And who the hell is Roger Davies? Missed that one. In the top 5. From the comments, looks like the candidate everyone put as 7th choice, and no one opposed. Another NYB?

He's actually a very sound chap and a co-ordinator of the military history wikiproject. Very much a content contributor and stays out of the politics for most of the time, but when he does comment, he's spot on.

OK I would have voted for him had not been banned. Meanwhile, how are the votes scored? e.g. If I have 10 people vote for me and no oppose, which is 100%, does that count? Or not? Thanks

It's the highest percentage that gets it. In theory, it often causes a few problems after the election because some people with large amounts of opposition from the community have got in because overall their percentage is high, whilst people will low levels of support have got in because their opposition is low making their percentage high. Obviously, there's the Jimbo veto that can be used, but I doubt that would ever need to happen.

It's the highest percentage that gets it. In theory, it often causes a few problems after the election because some people with large amounts of opposition from the community have got in because overall their percentage is high, whilst people will low levels of support have got in because their opposition is low making their percentage high. Obviously, there's the Jimbo veto that can be used, but I doubt that would ever need to happen.

Why are you hurling garbage claims and smear accusations at people, on the voting pages?

You weren't Sarah Palin's speech writer were you, Ryan?

Some of the opposes (ignoring those based on WR membership for now) are shocking. Cool Hand Luke/One seems to have been opposed for supporting BLP too much, I've been opposed for incompetence (impotence would be fairer), and Fat Man/Obesity is basically being opposed for not being another faceless wonder in a grey suit.

I think it's foolish for OIC and Giggy to give him moral support, when he himself has no morals

Excuse me?