Election results, Voting has begun Options

If anyone is interested in following the results as the votes roll in, here's a constantly updated table. So far it appears that six different people have a fair shot at the seventh spot.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

That Gurch is a clever fellow.

There are at least 49 people who hate Wikipedia.

There are at least 49 people who hate Wikipedia.

So far. It's early yet.

Shalom's predictions are holding up pretty well. He picked 15 to be in the top ten, and of the current top 13, he picked twelve (only missed Wizardman). The other three of his 15 picks are underperforming his prediction, and I find it surprising in at least one case.

Great comment: ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Great comment: ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Odd that he would say that, then oppose Kurt Weber, who basically advocates the same thing.

Great comment: ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Odd that he would say that, then oppose Kurt Weber, who basically advocates the same thing.

He opposed everyone.

Great comment: ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Odd that he would say that, then oppose Kurt Weber, who basically advocates the same thing.

He probably did not know what Weber was professing, his intention was to oppose every candidate to make a point. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Reminds me of booty who would oppose any request for adminship.

Great comment: ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Odd that he would say that, then oppose Kurt Weber, who basically advocates the same thing.

He probably did not know what Weber was professing, his intention was to oppose every candidate to make a point. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Reminds me of booty who would oppose any request for adminship.

Actually, it turns out that he (Bstone) did support one candidate (Privatemusings).

Will Beback is my favorite admin. He effortlessly combines the stubbornness of a grumpy old man, the humor of a cardboard box and the intellect and reasoning of a brick.

This exchange between he and Blnguyen, over the latter's opposition of ArbCom candidate Coren, is vintage Beback:

YellowMonkey: Oppose - too much of a enforcer mentality. I did a CU Sfacets once, which came back on opposite sides of the world, but Coren said it was him anyway

Will Beback: Sfacets said that he frequently traveled between Australia and Europe.

YellowMonkey: Not within 3-4 hours.

pwned!

Casliber and that Rlevse guy, who are both getting votes, gave poor responses to Lar's questions.

Casliber and that Rlevse guy, who are both getting votes, gave poor responses to Lar's questions.

How many people do you think are even reading questions?

Damn. White Cat is beating Charles Matthews.

Good how civility goes out of the way during elections, Mr Obesity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255130295

# Can I say no fucking way under any condition should this user be an admin let alone ArbCom member, refuses to maintain a reasonable size for his talk page among other issues. βcommand 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Casliber and that Rlevse guy, who are both getting votes, gave poor responses to Lar's questions.

Who cares, answering questions is not what matters, it's like a dumb population who vote according to the presidential debate in the US.

Having good answers does not show someone is up to the task, it shows that they can please others with good answers. That's all.

Rlevse was the guy whose pictures of boy scouts, uploaded in innocence, found their way onto Wikia's Spanking Fetish site amidst various sexualized drawings of children, in one of the most depraved incidents Wikipedia has ever thrown up.

Rlevse ended up on Jimbo's talk page demanding that he act to remove them. Jimbo and the Wikia crowd deleted the whole site after WR made a fuss. Wikipediots were furious, claiming we were "attacking freedom and free culture", by opposing their "right" to take pictures of other people's children and post them on another of Jimbo's sites in a sexual context.

Damn. White Cat is beating Charles Matthews.

Lol! And so it should be IMHO (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Rlevse was the guy whose pictures of boy scouts, uploaded in innocence, found their way onto Wikia's Spanking Fetish site amidst various sexualized drawings of children, in one of the most depraved incidents Wikipedia has ever thrown up.

Rlevse ended up on Jimbo's talk page demanding that he act to remove them. Jimbo and the Wikia crowd deleted the whole site after WR made a fuss.

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.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

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 couldn't give a shit who votes for who and who is on Arbcom - I don't edit WP. I just said that those two guys gave poor answers to Lar's questions in my view. They seemed naive and dogmatic about key BLP issues.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

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?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

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:

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif). I think it's foolish for OIC and Giggy to give him moral support, when he himself has no morals (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

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:

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:

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Excuse me?

I think it's foolish for OIC and Giggy to give him moral support, when he himself has no morals (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Excuse me?

Stop raping the high horse you're riding. You know why I'm saying that.

Can both of you trolls please take your bridge elsewhere than this thread?

And who the hell is Roger Davies?

One of the drummers for Spin̈al Tap.

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.

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.

Actually what worries me is the logorrheic tendencies he is beginning to exhibit. Must be sippin' on some new kinda kool-aid which makes people not want to shut up.

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.

Sorry, why do you doubt this is already the case?

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.

I don't find this surprising at all. But then I will ask where the fuck are the support votes for Rlevse coming from?

We must agree to disagree (but I still would like to know...)

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.

Sorry, why do you doubt this is already the case?

This is small scale stuff. Last year David Gerard played Karl Rove to FT2's Bush II. This year we've had Durova and Slim hitting their rivals, and Ryan Postlethwaite trying to discredit people he doesn't like. But still small scale.

Next year it will be a lot nastier, I guarantee it.

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

I'll be done in whatever manner that allows Jimbo to promote his cronies.

There's never been a solid methodology. They've gone by % support, net votes in the past, or when the actual results in his favor, he cherry picks.

But then I will ask where the fuck are the support votes for Rlevse coming from?

That astounds me. RLevse, even judging from my limited contact with him, comes across as one of the stupidest people I have ever come across.

How many people remember his reaction to the 'boy scouts are for spanking' episode where he couldn't see a problem with a picture of 4 little 'cubs' he had taken being used in one of Jimbo's semi-pornographic child-spanking Wikia sites? It is now closed down, but someone really had to spell it to RL before he understood the implications.


Giano he say:

::A very quick cursory glance at the polling in the current Arbcom elections suggests that the present Arbcom and those hangers on also on their list are being sent a very firm and clear message. Hopefully they will heed it, enabling those of us that feel as I do, to be able to retire gracefully to writing pages and amusing ourselves elsewhere. I am very hopeful of change. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255215044

Sam Korn has withdrawn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255290672

Gwen is out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255292521

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?

I do hope Ryan answers this question, he's making himself look like an utter dolt. I'll probably use this space to highlight a few of the dumber/funnier opposes I come across as well.

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.

Ryan, you opposed CoolHandLuke (CHL) for "outing" Coredesat? I just looked at CHL's Q&A page and neither you or anyone else asked him about that to get his side first. Then, you cricitize him for making 1051 posts here at WR? What does what he do in his spare time have to do with anything? Atrocious mendacity Ryan. Absolutely contemptible. It could be that you're trying to sink CHL's candidacy to help the chances of other candidates you support, like Coren, but, if so, your methods are unethical.

Oh yes, same thing with your comments on Neil's (Fish and karate) page.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

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?

I do hope Ryan answers this question, he's making himself look like an utter dolt. I'll probably use this space to highlight a few of the dumber/funnier opposes I come across as well.

Not likely. He persisted with four replies which could all be summed up as "no, you outed Coredesat, regardless of the facts" on the vote talk page. I would mention AGF, but who am I kidding?

That said, this is the best vote ever, and perfectly sums up the stupidity of certain "experienced members of the community".

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?

I do hope Ryan answers this question, he's making himself look like an utter dolt. I'll probably use this space to highlight a few of the dumber/funnier opposes I come across as well.

Not likely. He persisted with four replies which could all be summed up as "no, you outed Coredesat, regardless of the facts" on the vote talk page. I would mention AGF, but who am I kidding?

That said, this is the best vote ever, and perfectly sums up the stupidity of certain "experienced members of the community".

Never thought much of Stifle myself, and before anyone says anything, he knows the way I feel from when I commented on his OTRS request. From his bizarre RFA voting habits, to diffs like that, it's stupidity all the way (Zomg I agree with Giggy).

SlimVirgin contradicts her lackeys and offers support to one of her harshest critics.

Most of you will decry her manipulative, shrinking violet tactics, but I think she sincerely wants the world to see her new conciliatory side--or at least wants to form a shrewd strategic partnership/voting bloc among opposing camps who loathe ArbCom with equal intensity: those who complain the Committee was too nice to SV this year and those who think they were too harsh.

Skeptics laugh, but I rather approve of this new image. Now if only those friends of hers would stop behaving so predictably.

Crum375, for example, called the WR a "hate" site. Funny; in the Obesity household, we are feeling oddly hate-free.

This post has been edited by Obesity:

Obesity, however, is feeling oddly hate-free.

At WR our hearts are filled with hate and anger. Your generous amounts of blubber are preventing you from feeling this way.

If SV was standing for ArbCom, I'd vote for her.

I'd like to see an ArbCom with both Fat Man and SlimVirgin on it.

Shameless plug for my own support in the cool hand luke vote page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb.../Cool_Hand_Luke

SlimVirgin contradicts her lackeys and offers support to one of her harshest critics.

Most of you will decry her manipulative, shrinking violet tactics, but I think she sincerely wants the world to see her new conciliatory side--or at least wants to form a shrewd strategic partnership/voting bloc among opposing camps who loathe ArbCom with equal intensity: those who complain the Committee was too nice to SV this year and those who think they were too harsh.

Skeptics laugh, but I rather approve of this new image. Now if only those friends of hers would stop behaving so predictably.

Crum375, for example, called the WR a "hate" site. Funny; in the Obesity household, we are feeling oddly hate-free.

SV also voted for SirFozzie and he has criticized her fairly severely in the past.

If SV was standing for ArbCom, I'd vote for her.

I'd like to see an ArbCom with both Fat Man and SlimVirgin on it.

The "scales" of justice would never be more skewed.

The "scales" of justice would never be more skewed.

Could always use a see-saw--you just need to sit close to the middle.

At any rate, SirFozzie and I have similar platforms. I'm not surprised that users who have been dealt rapid or secret hearings are interested in genuine reform from relative outsiders.

I get the feeling that CHL would be elected easily if he weren't a member here.*

The opposes seem to be based on him being a WR member and him allegedly outing someone.

This was alluded to by Kato, but it bears repeating.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

I get the feeling that CHL would be elected easily if he weren't a member here.*

The opposes seem to be based on him being a WR member and him allegedly outing someone.

Just wait until they find out we came close to making him a moderator! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Edit: But remember, we denounced him as too nice and too Wikipedian to be a mod! Huzzah!

yeah, I remember that. Would've been an extremely easy auto-oppose:

"Candidate is a staff member on noted hate site Wikipedia Review."

Painting every member of WR with a broad brush is a bit more difficult, considering how many respected Wikipedia editors have posted here at one point or another.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

Joy, you just sabotaged his election. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Joy, you just sabotaged his election. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

What CHL needs is The Shit Sandwich Defense:

Endorse. Other users have said CHL likes shit sandwiches. Here at WR we know for a fact he will not even touch bread.

(...that should help)

Hilarious

Painting every member of WR with a broad brush is a bit more difficult, considering how many respected Wikipedia editors have posted here at one point or another.

Evidently, it's not that difficult. He went from top four 24 hours ago to languishing in eighth now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Hilarious

Grace Note really needs a carrot.

Hilarious

The Force is strong with you, young Luke, but you are not a Jedi yet!

Joy, you just sabotaged his election. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

They would have found the discussion eventually. Besides, mods, staff, and old timers like me soundly rejected him for being too Wikipedian! He's like Ronald Reagan trying to tell the Communist Party to be less Communist. He failed. Wikipedians should be hailing him as the Hero of the Wiki for standing against the menace that is WR and trying to repent our evil ways!

Don't vote for Luke, Wikipedia! He is too much like you all! We Reviewers denounce him as a traitor to the Revolution!

Do ya think that'll get him back in their good graces? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Hilarious

The Force is strong with you, young Luke, but you are not a Jedi yet!

I fear for Luke and the temptations of the Darkside. I imagine a fight scene between Luke and Jimbo, with light sabers over a precipice, and Jimbo imploring Luke to "join with him". You Star Wars nerds can fill in the rest - I was always more of a Italian neorealism (T-H-L-K-D) kind of guy.

One thing to note is that Casliber, who leads the polls, has been a member here longer than Luke.

With the way SV was depicted here, I'm surprised she supported him and even saying it's time for a change.

With the way SV was depicted here, I'm surprised she supported him and even saying it's time for a change.

No matter how pro-status quo you might be, being on the wrong side of an ArbCom case will change your tune very quickly.

For some strange reason I expected all the hubbub about me to happen. I suppose if you leave due to being unable to deal with drama due to outside reasons, it's pretty much certain that you yourself must be a cause of drama. It's sad that this has to come back to haunt me after eight months of not having to worry about anything, but oh well.

For the record, no, I'm not returning to Wikipedia or here, but I figured I might as well say something. Besides, I'm enjoying retirement too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by Coredesat:

With the way SV was depicted here, I'm surprised she supported him and even saying it's time for a change.

No matter how pro-status quo you might be, being on the wrong side of an ArbCom case will change your tune very quickly.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend? By the way, I wonder if she's worried about how well John Vandenberg's candidacy is going right now, considering this and this.

With the way SV was depicted here, I'm surprised she supported him and even saying it's time for a change.

It might seem that way at first glance, but remember, SlimVirgin is about as smart as a Wikipedian can get (putting aside the usual complaints about her tactics and agendas and so forth). CHL and SirFozzie were probably the two WP'ers who were most instrumental in finally demonstrating, with lots and lots of evidence, that Mantanmoreland (T-C-L-K-R-D) really was a sock-master, not to mention that he was Gary Weiss, and supporting their ArbCom bids now is a good (and inexpensive) way for Slimmy to show that she's let go of that whole business and that there's no hard feelings (or at least no public hard feelings). What has she got to lose, really? She knows they're both fundamentally decent people. (And I should also point out that Grace Note (T-C-L-K-R-D) is fundamentally not-so-decent, to say the least! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) )

It's certainly what I would have done, and of course, anything to keep 'em guessing is usually good when playing the WP political game at such a high level.

For the record, no, I'm not returning to Wikipedia or here, but I figured I might as well say something. Besides, I'm enjoying retirement too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Ber - muuuuuuu - daaaaaa....
As I recall, you were one of those folks who'd included a reference to your WP account in a web page (site?) that you created yourself that had your name on it, so you're in what we call "Category D." Not that this makes you a bad person or anything like that, of course... to the contrary! But just so everyone understands, the "D" stands for "Doesn't," as in "Not our job to protect his anonymity if he Doesn't protect it himself," yada yada yada.

Anyway, it is always nice to see you drop by. Hope the weather is nice, wherever you are...

For some strange reason I expected all the hubbub about me to happen. I suppose if you leave due to being unable to deal with drama due to outside reasons, it's pretty much certain that you yourself must be a cause of drama. It's sad that this has to come back to haunt me after eight months of not having to worry about anything, but oh well.

For the record, no, I'm not returning to Wikipedia or here, but I figured I might as well say something. Besides, I'm enjoying retirement too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Very meaningful vote there. Should change the minds of some of the people whose reaction was "OMG Outing! Must oppose!"

It was only right that I do so. I did this with the hope that people can let some things in the past stay in the past and look toward the future. I'm sure not everyone agrees that's possible (I'm not sure it'll happen either), but it doesn't hurt.

For the record, no, I'm not returning to Wikipedia or here, but I figured I might as well say something. Besides, I'm enjoying retirement too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Ber - muuuuuuu - daaaaaa....
As I recall, you were one of those folks who'd included a reference to your WP account in a web page (site?) that you created yourself that had your name on it, so you're in what we call "Category D." Not that this makes you a bad person or anything like that, of course... to the contrary! But just so everyone understands, the "D" stands for "Doesn't," as in "Not our job to protect his anonymity if he Doesn't protect it himself," yada yada yada.

Anyway, it is always nice to see you drop by. Hope the weather is nice, wherever you are...

Yeah, I know. Since then I've associated myself with far more constructive things, and most people don't associate me with Wikipedia anymore. I'm glad; things have been much easier since then.

This post has been edited by Coredesat:

I didn't trumpet it to the crowds, but SV and I had a long ranging chat about a lot of different things a while back, and hashed out any bad feelings we were nursing against each other, so I appreciate the vote.

Not going to react to the two rather inflammatory opposes, because I think that's what they want, to prove their point.

With the way SV was depicted here, I'm surprised she supported him and even saying it's time for a change.

SV is striving to be Talleyrand, but I think she'll find that she's actually Philippe Égalité.

This post has been edited by Wikignome Liberation Front:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255385058 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I feel sorry for Ryan. He was so determined to believe that CHL had done Big Bad Things here, and to have NYB and Coredesat tell him he was wrong must have been difficult.

I'm sure a nice dose of kool aid could cheer him up, though. The badsites meme is still going strong, evidently.

Interestingly, opposing Cool Hand Luke and other WR members has tempted Crum375 out of inactivity for some drive-by opposes (aside from a smattering of pottering about).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255385058 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I feel sorry for Ryan. He was so determined to believe that CHL had done Big Bad Things here, and to have NYB and Coredesat tell him he was wrong must have been difficult.

I'm sure a nice dose of kool aid could cheer him up, though. The badsites meme is still going strong, evidently.

Yeah, I'm suffering too. I have some interesting questions from ElinorD which I don't quite get the thinking behind.

Very meaningful vote there. Should change the minds of some of the people whose reaction was "OMG Outing! Must oppose!"

Yeah, if any of them bothered to go back and read the talk page after they've already put in their vote.

If SV was standing for ArbCom, I'd vote for her.

I'd like to see an ArbCom with both Fat Man and SlimVirgin on it.

Good grief, I wonder what their kids would look like...

For some strange reason I expected all the hubbub about me to happen. I suppose if you leave due to being unable to deal with drama due to outside reasons, it's pretty much certain that you yourself must be a cause of drama. It's sad that this has to come back to haunt me after eight months of not having to worry about anything, but oh well.

For the record, no, I'm not returning to Wikipedia or here, but I figured I might as well say something. Besides, I'm enjoying retirement too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Coredesat, I just woke up to another chilly Chicago morning and flipped on my laptop.

A lot of my support votes have well-thought out rationales, and I appreciate all of the support I've received, but right now yours means the most to me. I cannot fully express my thanks.

Coredesat, I just woke up to another chilly Chicago morning and flipped on my laptop.

A lot of my support votes have well-thought out rationales, and I appreciate all of the support I've received, but right now yours means the most to me. I cannot fully express my thanks.

I've considered opposing you on the principle that it'll get you supports, but of course that strategy usually backfires. Sadly, I think Ryan's depth charge will kill your chances. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Coredesat, I just woke up to another chilly Chicago morning and flipped on my laptop.

A lot of my support votes have well-thought out rationales, and I appreciate all of the support I've received, but right now yours means the most to me. I cannot fully express my thanks.

I've considered opposing you on the principle that it'll get you supports, but of course that strategy usually backfires. Sadly, I think Ryan's depth charge will kill your chances. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Even Wikipedia Review hater David Shankbone has come out in heavy support of Cool Hand Luke. Defending him vigorously wherever he can - which is a mixed blessing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Nevertheless, Luke being defended by NewYorkBrad, supported by the moderates, and endorsed by people like SlimVirgin and Shankbone as well as impressing Reviewers like me, makes Luke the Unity Candidate, the Candidate for Change and Reform. At this stage, he is the best candidate of the bunch.

(dammit what am I saying - I think this whole election is a waste of time)

Nevertheless, Luke being defended by NewYorkBrad, supported by the moderates, and endorsed by people like SlimVirgin and Shankbone as well as impressing Reviewers like me, makes Luke the Unity Candidate, the Candidate for Change and Reform. At this stage, he is the best candidate of the bunch.

(dammit what am I saying - I think this whole election is a waste of time)

Thank you.

For whatever it's worth, I think Wikipedia would benefit if the editors put partisanship behind them.

There are a several votes in my oppose column that seem to have believed Ryan's accusation. If anyone in my support column has a genuine working relationship with these editors (please don't send spam), I would greatly appreciate if they could send an email pointing out that Coredesat himself has now supported me.

I'm asking because I do not personally know many of the oppose votes (or the supporting ones for that matter). Please be tasteful. It's laudable that editors protect each other from harassment. I believe that Ryan and others have simply made a good faith mistake. Thank you.

As for the pure WR opposition votes, that's a tougher issue. It might just be too early--I knew it going in. However, I think revealing my account was the right thing to do, even if politically disastrous. Arbitrators should have candor and integrity. That's what I hope to bring to ArbCom.

Cool Hand Luke

This post has been edited by One:

For whatever it's worth, I think Wikipedia would benefit if the editors put partisanship behind them.

Of course it would. But most of the people who participate in elections on Wikipedia are there specifically for the partisanship. They care less about the encyclopedia than they do about the political gaming, and so there's very little hope of them putting the partisanship behind them; you might as well ask a cat to stop being a carnivore. It's what these people do.

Now you are having a chance again, 8th placee.

Interestingly, opposing Cool Hand Luke and other WR members has tempted Crum375 out of inactivity for some drive-by opposes (aside from a smattering of pottering about).

And it has lured Grace Note back from whatever socks he is using on WP these days to do the same (he hasn´t shown himself since he drove-by opposing EveryKing´s RfA.)

Eeeeck, look at all these creeply-crawlies coming out of the wood-work (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

Now you are having a chance again, 8th placee.

But now CHL, Wizardman and WJBscribe are all tied for 7th on 69%. I.m not working out the decimal places as it is close enough for the casting vote to come from on high.

Now you are having a chance again, 8th placee.

But now CHL, Wizardman and WJBscribe are all tied for 7th on 69%. I.m not working out the decimal places as it is close enough for the casting vote to come from on high.

I thought that WJBscribe guy was an accomplice with FT2 on that whole "over sighted edits" thing? How come he's picking up votes? He seems to be just another meddling drama junkie.

Nevertheless, Luke being defended by NewYorkBrad, supported by the moderates, and endorsed by people like SlimVirgin and Shankbone as well as impressing Reviewers like me, makes Luke the Unity Candidate, the Candidate for Change and Reform. At this stage, he is the best candidate of the bunch.

(dammit what am I saying - I think this whole election is a waste of time)

Thank you.

For whatever it's worth, I think Wikipedia would benefit if the editors put partisanship behind them.

There are a several votes in my oppose column that seem to have believed Ryan's accusation. If anyone in my support column has a genuine working relationship with these editors (please don't send spam), I would greatly appreciate if they could send an email pointing out that Coredesat himself has now supported me.

I'm asking because I do not personally know many of the oppose votes (or the supporting ones for that matter). Please be tasteful. It's laudable that editors protect each other from harassment. I believe that Ryan and others have simply made a good faith mistake. Thank you.

As for the pure WR opposition votes, that's a tougher issue. It might just be too early--I knew it going in. However, I think revealing my account was the right thing to do, even if politically disastrous. Arbitrators should have candor and integrity. That's what I hope to bring to ArbCom.

Cool Hand Luke

Good for you, but....

"There's nothing more useless than a dead liberal." --Lyndon Baines Johnson

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I will be commenting on John Vandenberg's candidacy since you brought it and since John reply to the AA opposition in my point of view is very dishonest and more reason to oppose him. Lar brought John contribution on Wiki source so I'll take the occasion to bring it forth and explain John involvements.

John main interest for a while there was to work on the legislations concerning copyright laws instored in Azerbaijan, under which term about anything could be brought on Wikipedia from Azerbaijan and I will tell how this matters just now.

A group of lobbiest run by Adil Baguirov (the main cause of the Armenia-Azerbaijan I&II arbitration cas and the Ehud Lesar case) have decided to use Wikipedia to counter what they consider a massive control of encyclopedia content by the all powerful Armenians. You will find the conspirationist theories at a speech Adil Baguirov gave to the first Annual Azerbaijani American Youth Forum here. For those too lazy to read, Adil Baguirov explains with good ''diplomatic terms'' how Western encyclopedia articles about the region are written by the bad bad Armenians. He then tell that in those works Caucasian Albanian scholars are being passed as Armenians (you'll see in a better light then how John helped push fringe theories).

He claims that Azerbaijani's were late at making their voice heard, basically it echo's Adil and his team need to make Azeris voice been heard. (nothing wrong there one would believe)

In case of Wikipedia, it would mean introducing materials which many are written in Azerbaijan. Since Azerbaijan's copy right laws are poorly understood, Wikipedia policies concerning free use as well as the use of copyrighted materials would have been a problem unless Azerbaijans legislations about copyright are introduced. I’m still assuming ‘good faith’ right? I am still not claiming collusion but just saying that John work on copyright in Azerbaijan on Wikisource is exactly what Adil Baguirov friends needed.

I am not going to develop more on this given the fact that he is not here and can’t reply directly. The last thing we need is him answering me from there and I from here. But of course I have many many things to say about his involvement on issues and his claim to have created articles without the help of anyone. I will not also venture on the creation of this article particular article for example.

Lets just say that it would be irresponsible to give him CU access as well as access to the mailing list. On another matter which has nothing to do with AA, it will be sufficient to oppose any candidate who oppose most others. It’s claiming being better than others, those others who according to him, do not fit as arbitrators (some of whom will become his colleagues if he’s elected).

With the way SV was depicted here, I'm surprised she supported him and even saying it's time for a change.

No matter how pro-status quo you might be, being on the wrong side of an ArbCom case will change your tune very quickly.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend? By the way, I wonder if she's worried about how well John Vandenberg's candidacy is going right now, considering this and this.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

Yeah, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but on having done some research, wasn't that WJBScribe guy described as a "meatpuppet" for Elonka for months? Showing really poor judgment, and cronyism in abundance? As well as getting mixed up with the FT2 oversighted edits? I thought you voters were looking for a fresh break from all that stuff?

Now you are having a chance again, 8th placee.

But now CHL, Wizardman and WJBscribe are all tied for 7th on 69%. I.m not working out the decimal places as it is close enough for the casting vote to come from on high.

I thought that WJBscribe guy was an accomplice with FT2 on that whole "over sighted edits" thing? How come he's picking up votes? He seems to be just another meddling drama junkie.

He was but even I give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. See his reply to my question as 'The Land Surveyor' on his questions page.

I accept his claim that he gave up at the point the oversights happened as 'too difficult'. He just left it to FT2 and Jimbo and Cary to sort out, and stepped away. So he didn't do anything bad, he just didn't do anything. He panicked. He is very young and I don't know what I would have done in such a situation, at his age.

Yeah, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but on having done some research, wasn't that WJBScribe guy described as a "meatpuppet" for Elonka for months? Showing really poor judgment, and cronyism in abundance? As well as getting mixed up with the FT2 oversighted edits? I thought you voters were looking for a fresh break from all that stuff?

Nonetheless he has behaved magnificiently in the past year - his account of the oversighted edits in May was very detailed and honest, and his defence of Giano against 'the man' brave and principled. In some cases we have to forgive and forget.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

Now you are having a chance again, 8th placee.

But now CHL, Wizardman and WJBscribe are all tied for 7th on 69%. I.m not working out the decimal places as it is close enough for the casting vote to come from on high.

I thought that WJBscribe guy was an accomplice with FT2 on that whole "over sighted edits" thing? How come he's picking up votes? He seems to be just another meddling drama junkie.

He was but even I give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. See his reply to my question as 'The Land Surveyor' on his questions page.

I accept his claim that he gave up at the point the oversights happened as 'too difficult'. He just left it to FT2 and Jimbo and Cary to sort out, and stepped away. So he didn't do anything bad, he just didn't do anything. He panicked. He is very young and I don't know what I would have done in such a situation, at his age.

Yeah, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but on having done some research, wasn't that WJBScribe guy described as a "meatpuppet" for Elonka for months? Showing really poor judgment, and cronyism in abundance? As well as getting mixed up with the FT2 oversighted edits? I thought you voters were looking for a fresh break from all that stuff?

Nonetheless he has behaved magnificiently in the past year - his account of the oversighted edits in May was very detailed and honest, and his defence of Giano against 'the man' brave and principled. In some cases we have to forgive and forget.

OK. But what about his judgment? It was so poor it made the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technolo...5wikipedia.html

But the broad group of Wikipedia users was not so supportive. Mounting anger was expressed in public forums like the user pages of Mr. Wales and Essjay. Initially, a few people wrote to express support for Essjay, along the lines of WJBscribe, who left a message saying: “Just wanted to express my 100 percent support for everything you do around here. I think you were totally entitled to protect your identity. Don’t let all the fuss get you down!”

By Saturday, the prevailing view was summarized in subject lines like Essjay Must Resign, and notes calling Mr. Jordan’s actions “plain and simple fraud.”

Coredesat, I just woke up to another chilly Chicago morning and flipped on my laptop.

A lot of my support votes have well-thought out rationales, and I appreciate all of the support I've received, but right now yours means the most to me. I cannot fully express my thanks.

You're welcome. Even if it doesn't change the outcome (although at this point, it looks like there's a pretty decent chance you'll pull through), it still had to be done, and I think it was definitely an important thing to say.

Unfortunately, the anti-WR votes disturb me. Yeah, I used to be one of the haters back in the day, but reading this place changed my outlook on it. It's not evil, Wikipedia needs a decent source of criticism. It's a double standard to vote against you for being here, yet not vote against or actually vote for someone else who does post here. If I'd been here in 2006, I doubt I'd ever have become an admin, and I only have 12 posts here.

This post has been edited by Coredesat:

Some are saying that having a WR account is "prima facie" evidence of bad faith when in reality opposing someone just for having a WR account is the epitome of bad faith.

Very meaningful vote there. Should change the minds of some of the people whose reaction was "OMG Outing! Must oppose!"

Yeah, if any of them bothered to go back and read the talk page after they've already put in their vote.

That's why, if Ryan has any integrity, he'd message every one of them with a link to the talk page.

Seraphimblade (T-C-L-K-R-D) is currently opposing Cool Hand Luke both because he apparently isn't strict enough about people's privacy and because of his apparently strict BLP views. Makes lots of sense.

Now you are having a chance again, 8th placee.

But now CHL, Wizardman and WJBscribe are all tied for 7th on 69%. I.m not working out the decimal places as it is close enough for the casting vote to come from on high.

I thought that WJBscribe guy was an accomplice with FT2 on that whole "over sighted edits" thing? How come he's picking up votes? He seems to be just another meddling drama junkie.

I hope people don't vote based on that perception of him. I think everyone knows that I would never support that type of candidate, while I have given WJBscribe my strongest possible support. He is a very reasonable and fair person and there is every reason to think he would be a good arbitrator.

This post has been edited by everyking:

link

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

who is Wizardman anyway?

Nevertheless, Luke being defended by NewYorkBrad, supported by the moderates, and endorsed by people like SlimVirgin and Shankbone as well as impressing Reviewers like me, makes Luke the Unity Candidate, the Candidate for Change and Reform. At this stage, he is the best candidate of the bunch.

(dammit what am I saying - I think this whole election is a waste of time)

Thank you.

For whatever it's worth, I think Wikipedia would benefit if the editors put partisanship behind them.

There are a several votes in my oppose column that seem to have believed Ryan's accusation. If anyone in my support column has a genuine working relationship with these editors (please don't send spam), I would greatly appreciate if they could send an email pointing out that Coredesat himself has now supported me.

I'm asking because I do not personally know many of the oppose votes (or the supporting ones for that matter). Please be tasteful. It's laudable that editors protect each other from harassment. I believe that Ryan and others have simply made a good faith mistake. Thank you.

As for the pure WR opposition votes, that's a tougher issue. It might just be too early--I knew it going in. However, I think revealing my account was the right thing to do, even if politically disastrous. Arbitrators should have candor and integrity. That's what I hope to bring to ArbCom.

Cool Hand Luke

Good for you, but....

"There's nothing more useless than a dead liberal." --Lyndon Baines Johnson

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

You're probably right.

It wasn't so much idealism--I knew there would be resistance. I just demanded of myself the openness I would hope for in an arbitrator. I still think it was the right thing to do. I might have doomed my campaign for it, but there was no other honest path for me.

As for the pure WR opposition votes, that's a tougher issue. It might just be too early--I knew it going in. However, I think revealing my account was the right thing to do, even if politically disastrous. Arbitrators should have candor and integrity. That's what I hope to bring to ArbCom.

Cool Hand Luke

If the Damian account is unblocked then you will have my support, though that may surprise you.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

Some are saying that having a WR account is "prima facie" evidence of bad faith when in reality opposing someone just for having a WR account is the epitome of bad faith.

At the last count, some six months ago, there were over 70 known admins who were members here, within that were numerous arbitrators and bureaucrats. There are probably around 10-15 more now at least.

UninvitedCompany (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who tried and failed dismally to set up Wikiback as rival to WR, opposed Luke on the basis of "WR activity". Yet even he is a member here. As is Eric Moeller and a whole bunch of other pro-Wikipedo extremists.

There are well over a hundred administrators with accounts here. If you only go with the admins who were bold enough to use their actual names when registering, the number is significantly less, of course.

Some are saying that having a WR account is "prima facie" evidence of bad faith when in reality opposing someone just for having a WR account is the epitome of bad faith.

At the last count, some six months ago, there were over 70 known admins who were members here, within that were numerous arbitrators and bureaucrats. There are probably around 10-15 more now at least.

UninvitedCompany (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who tried and failed dismally to set up Wikiback as rival to WR, opposed Luke on the basis of "WR activity". Yet even he is a member here. As is Eric Moeller and a whole bunch of other pro-Wikipedo extremists.

I don't think you can say he is a contributor, wasn't his presence here mostly to promote Wikiback?

Well Jossi has opposed Cool Hand Luke for being a WReview contributer with the reasoning:

WR posters do not get my support, sorry

Never one to let a blatant contradiction pass, Jossi went on to support WReview posters Wizardman, Sir Fozzie and Casliber, the latter two having been members longer than Cool Hand Luke. So Ryan Postlethwaite (himself a member here) has really worked the hypocritical smear job on this one.

Well Jossi has opposed Cool Hand Luke for being a WReview contributer with the reasoning:

WR posters do not get my support, sorry

Never one to let a blatant contradiction pass, Jossi went on to support WReview posters Wizardman, Sir Fozzie and Casliber, the latter two having been members longer than Cool Hand Luke. So Ryan Postlethwaite (himself a member here) has really worked the hypocritical smear job on this one.

Perhaps he means *prolific* posters. Afterall, One probably has more posts here than any (known) admin ever.

Perhaps he means *prolific* posters. Afterall, One probably has more posts here than any (known) admin ever.

No. Alison has more.

Yeah One definitely posts a lot more than I do and hasn't been here as long. That doesnt make his contributions bad by any stretch of the imagination.

This post has been edited by Viridae:

Perhaps he means *prolific* posters. Afterall, One probably has more posts here than any (known) admin ever.

Alison

Perhaps he means *prolific* posters. Afterall, One probably has more posts here than any (known) admin ever.

No. Alison has more.

Well let's not deny it, he's very prolific all the same.

Perhaps he means *prolific* posters. Afterall, One probably has more posts here than any (known) admin ever.

No. Alison has more.

Well let's not deny it, he's very prolific all the same.

Alison 1,089 posts
One 1,061
Random832 921
Lar 801
Viridae 799
Giggy 705
Amarkov 646
Alex 623
SirFozzie 592
Firsfron of Ronchester 372
LessHorrid vanU 356
sarcasticidealist 311
Neil 294
Newyorkbrad 294

Perhaps he means *prolific* posters. Afterall, One probably has more posts here than any (known) admin ever.

No. Alison has more.

Well let's not deny it, he's very prolific all the same.

Alison 1,089
One 1,061
Random832 921
Lar 801
Viridae 799
Giggy 705
Kelly Martin 681
Amarkov 646
Alex 623
SirFozzie 592

Ah he's second, by 28 posts. I was close enough! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Perhaps he means *prolific* posters. Afterall, One probably has more posts here than any (known) admin ever.

No. Alison has more.

Well let's not deny it, he's very prolific all the same.

Alison 1,089 posts
One 1,061
Random832 921
Lar 801
Viridae 799
Giggy 705
Amarkov 646
Alex 623
SirFozzie 592
Firsfron of Ronchester 372
LessHorrid vanU 356
sarcasticidealist 311
Neil 294
Newyorkbrad 294

Giggy and Amarkov are not admins, but it's not for lack of trying. (If I were as facile in making hyperlinks as Eva or some other folks, I would hyperlink the words in the previous sentence to Giggy's and Amarkov's RFAs.)

By number of words his first by far though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

By number of words his first by far though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I don't know, I read one New York Brad post a while back which required toilet breaks and half-time sandwiches. I think the Monks are still finishing off the final chapters as we speak.

By number of words his first by far though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I don't know, I read one New York Brad post a while back which required toilet breaks and half-time sandwiches. I think the Monks are still finishing off the final chapters as we speak.

It's a fair cop. On the other hand, I'm not the worst offender.... Sometimes I think that FT2's role on ArbCom is to make me look succinct.

Wow...

Three more posts and NYB will find himself in wordiness hell as he plunges headlong into The 300 Club.

Moulton, I noticed a question posed of Charles Matthews by the improbably named Gastrin Bombesin that had a familiar air to it. In amongst the usual fare about "bill of attainder" and Hammurabi", this Gastrin character used the term "Jimbonic practice" which made me laugh out loud.

Anyway, Matthews (quite rightly) took a dim view of Gastrin's use of the word "us" when launching into some blurb about "moving governance structure to at least catch up to where Thomas Jefferson and the Founders took us when they wrote into the US Constitution". Probably best to take the Apple Pie out of your arse before you address 95% of "us", because you'll likely get the same pissed-off reactions as you did from Matthews with stuff like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

You will find the bio on Gastrin Bombesin here.

Thomas Jefferson may have been a Colonial Founder, but his contributions to political thought belong to the world as much as those of Stephen Langton, Mohandas K. Gandhi, or Thich Nhat Hanh.

Incidentally, the term "Bill of Attainder" was also in use in Monarchial England, and the practice was similarly abolished there as well.

It will be interesting to see how many of the candidates give some serious thought to those questions, without finding some lame excuse to sweep them aside.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Wow...

Three more posts and NYB will find himself in wordiness hell as he plunges headlong into The 300 Club.

Moulton, I noticed a question posed of Charles Matthews by the improbably named Gastrin Bombesin that had a familiar air to it. In amongst the usual fare about "bill of attainder" and Hammurabi", this Gastrin character used the term "Jimbonic practice" which made me laugh out loud.

Anyway, Matthews (quite rightly) took a dim view of Gastrin's use of the word "us" when launching into some blurb about "moving governance structure to at least catch up to where Thomas Jefferson and the Founders took us when they wrote into the US Constitution". Probably best to take the Apple Pie out of your arse before you address 95% of "us", because you'll likely get the same pissed-off reactions as you did from Matthews with stuff like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Wow...

Three more posts and NYB will find himself in wordiness hell as he plunges headlong into The 300 Club.

Moulton, I noticed a question posed of Charles Matthews by the improbably named Gastrin Bombesin that had a familiar air to it. In amongst the usual fare about "bill of attainder" and Hammurabi", this Gastrin character used the term "Jimbonic practice" which made me laugh out loud.

Anyway, Matthews (quite rightly) took a dim view of Gastrin's use of the word "us" when launching into some blurb about "moving governance structure to at least catch up to where Thomas Jefferson and the Founders took us when they wrote into the US Constitution". Probably best to take the Apple Pie out of your arse before you address 95% of "us", because you'll likely get the same pissed-off reactions as you did from Matthews with stuff like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I must note that "us" doesn't necessarily mean "Americans" in that context. He could be referring to the US constitution in broad terms as representing a step forward in the political thought or progress of humanity as a whole.

This post has been edited by everyking:

Back on topic:

Only twelve candidates are safely above 50% after two days. The Fat Man just snuck over 50% but I think his numbers will come down below the halfway mark.

The first six candidates look pretty safe.

1. Casliber
2. Risker
3. Roger Davies
4. Rlevse
5. Jayvdb
6. Vassyana

The seventh spot could go to any of the next six candidates. I tried to project who is most likely to make it, but honestly, I have no idea.

7. WJBscribe
8. Wizardman
9. Cool Hand Luke
10. Carcharoth
11. SirFozzie
12. Coren

If the "WR is bad" meme peters out, Cool Hand Luke has a great chance. Otherwise, WJBscribe's overall name recognition is likely to see him through with later voters. But I won't be surprised if Carcharoth makes it in. I'm still not seeing Wizardman as a winner, but I could be wrong.

The foregoing rankings are by percentages, which was the metric used last year. By net vote (support minus oppose), WJBscribe and Cool Hand Luke make it ahead of Vassyana.

The three most opposed candidates, both by gross and net votes, are Kmweber, Jdforrester, and Charles Matthews. I'm not at all surprised by that. I'm a little surprised to see AnthonyQBachler so high on that list.

The fewest total votes are for Hemlock Martinis, Lifebaka, and Lankiveil: candidates who are neither very good nor very bad. I sense a lot of voters chose to abstain on those candidacies.

Ignore the Fat Man at your peril.

Wow...

Three more posts and NYB will find himself in wordiness hell as he plunges headlong into The 300 Club.

Moulton, I noticed a question posed of Charles Matthews by the improbably named Gastrin Bombesin that had a familiar air to it. In amongst the usual fare about "bill of attainder" and Hammurabi", this Gastrin character used the term "Jimbonic practice" which made me laugh out loud.

Anyway, Matthews (quite rightly) took a dim view of Gastrin's use of the word "us" when launching into some blurb about "moving governance structure to at least catch up to where Thomas Jefferson and the Founders took us when they wrote into the US Constitution". Probably best to take the Apple Pie out of your arse before you address 95% of "us", because you'll likely get the same pissed-off reactions as you did from Matthews with stuff like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I must note that "us" doesn't necessarily mean "Americans" in that context. He could be referring to the US constitution in broad terms as representing a step forward in the political thought or progress of humanity as a whole.

Yes, remember that the drafters of the US Constitution believed that they were doing something for humanity as a whole, not just for people living on the North American continent.

Anyway, to get back to the subject of this thread, I notice that Ryan and the others who opposed CHL for WR participation are taking a pounding on the talk page. A year and a half ago who would have thought that this would happen?

Back on topic:

Only twelve candidates are safely above 50% after two days. The Fat Man just snuck over 50% but I think his numbers will come down below the halfway mark.

The first six candidates look pretty safe.

1. Casliber
2. Risker
3. Roger Davies
4. Rlevse
5. Jayvdb
6. Vassyana

The seventh spot could go to any of the next six candidates. I tried to project who is most likely to make it, but honestly, I have no idea.

7. WJBscribe
8. Wizardman
9. Cool Hand Luke
10. Carcharoth
11. SirFozzie
12. Coren

If the "WR is bad" meme peters out, Cool Hand Luke has a great chance. Otherwise, WJBscribe's overall name recognition is likely to see him through with later voters. But I won't be surprised if Carcharoth makes it in. I'm still not seeing Wizardman as a winner, but I could be wrong.

The foregoing rankings are by percentages, which was the metric used last year. By net vote (support minus oppose), WJBscribe and Cool Hand Luke make it ahead of Vassyana.

The three most opposed candidates, both by gross and net votes, are Kmweber, Jdforrester, and Charles Matthews. I'm not at all surprised by that. I'm a little surprised to see AnthonyQBachler so high on that list.

The fewest total votes are for Hemlock Martinis, Lifebaka, and Lankiveil: candidates who are neither very good nor very bad. I sense a lot of voters chose to abstain on those candidacies.

I think only the current top three are genuinely safe. The next three have been trending down.

It would be too soon then to har and congradulate Wikipedia to elect as an arbitrator a member who's the pet of an interest group who is on Wikipedia for the sole purpuse of pushing fringe theories.

I think only the current top three are genuinely safe. The next three have been trending down.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

Yes, remember that the drafters of the US Constitution believed that they were doing something for humanity as a whole, not just for people living on the North American continent.

Maybe people as far away from N. America as Cuba's Guantanamo Bay? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) Then whence the idea that US constitutional protections should not necessarily apply to dealings between the US government and anybody not a US citizen?

I wasn't sure whether to make this another thread, but is there a way of using tactical voting in these elections? For instance, vote for someone solely for the purpose that someone else doesn't get in etc? I'm thick so I'd benefit from having the method spelled out to me:)

I wasn't sure whether to make this another thread, but is there a way of using tactical voting in these elections? For instance, vote for someone solely for the purpose that someone else doesn't get in etc? I'm thick so I'd benefit from having the method spelled out to me:)

You've got a Tory council locally, there's no way I'm going to help you vote tactically (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

One school of thought is that there may be a huge switch around on the final day to force Jimbo between a rock and a hard place. Not sure how much credibility that has, but there have been whispers.

In any case, keep an eye on the final day and change around then - should have the most impact.

You've got a Tory council locally, there's no way I'm going to help you vote tactically (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

No matter how hopeless our government is, I just couldn't bring myself to vote Tory. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I wasn't sure whether to make this another thread, but is there a way of using tactical voting in these elections? For instance, vote for someone solely for the purpose that someone else doesn't get in etc? I'm thick so I'd benefit from having the method spelled out to me:)

Oh sure. Suppose you prefer Carcharoth ahead of WJBscribe and Wizardman, even though you would be willing to support any of them. In that case, you can vote to support Carcharoth and oppose WJBscribe and Wizardman, even if on a metric of "yes or no" you would vote "yes" to all three.

I wasn't sure whether to make this another thread, but is there a way of using tactical voting in these elections? For instance, vote for someone solely for the purpose that someone else doesn't get in etc? I'm thick so I'd benefit from having the method spelled out to me:)

Oh sure. Suppose you prefer Carcharoth ahead of WJBscribe and Wizardman, even though you would be willing to support any of them. In that case, you can vote to support Carcharoth and oppose WJBscribe and Wizardman, even if on a metric of "yes or no" you would vote "yes" to all three.

My personal rule of thumb is that if my opinion on someone is more or less neutral, I will abstain from voting unless they are standing in the way of someone who I support, in which case I will oppose them. Such is the case for Vassyana, for example--I don't feel strongly about that candidate, but there are some excellent candidates just a few percentage points behind.

GurchBot appears to be down.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

My personal rule of thumb is that if my opinion on someone is more or less neutral, I will abstain from voting unless they are standing in the way of someone who I support, in which case I will oppose them. Such is the case for Vassyana, for example--I don't feel strongly about that candidate, but there are some excellent candidates just a few percentage points behind.

I definitely understand why you would do this. It shows that ArbCom elections are prone to strategic gamesmanship. I'm all in favor of open voting for transparency, but the downside is that people vote strategically instead of voting for the best candidates. I also think the personal attacks against some of the candidates are way over the top. On balance, for drama reduction purposes, I would support a system more similar to Special:Boardvote. I think this question has been brought up already but has not gotten a full range of opinions.

Edit: Actually, I just changed my mind. Special:Boardvote is prone to technical glitches (one of which I uncovered and reported this year on my meta account), and there's a benefit to maintaining tradition.

This post has been edited by Shalom:

It would seem that this years elections have been so tarred with lies and smear jobs, the Secret BoardVote would be the only option. When someone like Ryan Postlethwaite can write a load of bullshit about Cool Hand Luke "outing" someone on WR, to scupper his bid - and onlookers who don't know any better have taken the bait - the process is completely screwed.

# Oppose I just saw what Ryan had said and I have to oppose. Sorry! iMatthew 20:38, 2
# Definitely not. I have nothing against people who write on WR for that reason (I like some WR posters and don't like others), but the allegations against you specifically, per Ryan in particular and your insufficient defence against them on the talk page of this page, are enough reason to strongly oppose this nomination. Orderinchaos 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
# Oppose the WR incident is disturbing. Dreadstar † 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
# Oppose - whatever the details of the events on WR, it was a mess, and suggests to me a misjudgement, however well intentioned. Warofdreams talk 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Ryan Postlethwaite is making some points which I do find very disturbing. One wouldn't believe an editor would act like that, certainly not somebody I would like to see on ArbCom. --Kanonkas : Talk 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Oppose per the WR matter and Ryan's take on it. An arbcom member cannot have even the slightest whiff of controversy surrounding them in such matters, and this is much more than a whiff. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Per Prodego and Ryan P - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Really sorry, but based on Ryan's evidence, I can't trust you with checkuser data and private correspondence. Sceptre (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Strong Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. No way. Sarah 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But there is little chance of Wikipedia changing this and adopting the same ballots they have for WMF elections. There is too much Drama and Revenge in this current Arbcom voting system for Wikipedos to scrap it. Drama and Revenge is the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and they pay for Jimbo's gold plated washing machines.

For those on Wikipedia who are checking in, few things.

I hope the election votes on Jayvdb will be serving as a warning sign that English Wikipedia is composed also of very significant number of users who live in non-English countries you never knew about before.

A warning sign about the issue of content which should be taken care of with more seriousness even though no candidates have ever really addressed it beyond BLP (Joachman recent case involving cold fusion is the only example). BLP is an individual problem for the victims who are victims, but equally disturning and problematic is the issue regarding fringes and minority position which includes fringe theories in the domain of science but my main interest concern the reason why Jayvdb is opposed by those alien users comming from moon.

We'll see now if AA issues will be still labelled as ethnic conflict to make anyone uniterested with the case, when behind it there was a much more important issue which the arbitration has refused to deal with in three different cases. The issue of interest groups use of it's popularity to push positions.

Jayvdb answers at his page about AA are so ridiculous but so convincing for those who totally ignore the subject, I invite him to register here and confront those allegations.

For those who are really tired with all those problems comming on the enforcement page, which obviously include those administrators who have to go through and read all the junk, you will vote on a capable arbitrator who won't need to recuse and deal with the situation.

When someone like Ryan Postlethwaite can write a load of bullshit about Cool Hand Luke "outing" someone on WR, to scupper his bid - and onlookers who don't know any better have taken the bait - the process is completely screwed.

It's the anti-intellectualism at work (no references, nothing, from RP -- just the tip of his worthless poison pen). Bad enough bullshit like this is mangling the encyclopedia proper. But one might think the jokers would care a tiny bit more about this problem during their elections...

It's the anti-intellectualism at work (no references, nothing, from RP -- just the tip of his worthless poison pen). Bad enough bullshit like this is mangling the encyclopedia proper. But one might think the jokers would care a tiny bit more about this problem during their elections...

If you want real ACE2008-related anti-intellectualism (in its purest tl;dr sense) check out these rockheaded rationales from Will Connolley and Misza18.

And if you think I'm sore b/c they voted against TFMWNCB, it's simply not so. TFM (so he tells me) appreciates votes from people who actually read his answers to questions.

It's the anti-intellectualism at work (no references, nothing, from RP -- just the tip of his worthless poison pen). Bad enough bullshit like this is mangling the encyclopedia proper. But one might think the jokers would care a tiny bit more about this problem during their elections...

If you want real ACE2008-related anti-intellectualism (in its purest tl;dr sense) check out these rockheaded rationales from Will Connolley and Misza18.

And if you think I'm sore b/c they voted against TFMWNCB, it's simply not so. TFM (so he tells me) appreciates votes from people who actually read his answers to questions.

Obesity, it is the negative stereotyping of large or big-boned people what is teh probelm, now if your chum TFMWNCB were called ''I look and sound like George Clooney, srsly'', an teh voters could have imagined the suave mellifuous tones of the cool ER doc/Ocean dude carressing their questions, you'd have been a shoo-in (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ~~~~

I enjoyed the signing of your post, Casliber.

ChrisO comment on Jayvdb page is incredibly stupid, making it appear that the opposition against him is due to some conflicts between Azeri and Iranian users. Just because he had some problem with some Iranian users he's making an ignorant and misleading comment. Well ChrisO, if you happen to read here, ask John what was behind his work on legislations regulating copyright in Azerbaijan on Wikisource. Ask him why he killed a formal mediation between a group of users, or his ''innocent'' contributions about Caucasian Albanian matters in support of a documentable lobbying organization established on Wikipedia. Invite him here at WR so that he dare making the claims he makes on his page about AA affairs and see how he's been dishonest.

If you are really fighting to have accurate content on Wikipedia you will put aside your personal vendetta's and search the real rational behind the opposition.

If you check, you will see the oppositions comming from Armenian, Assyrian, Persian, Kurdish and Greek etc. members, because he had acted hand in hand with an ultranationalist Azerbaijani organization who is pushing fringe theories over Wikipedia. You're voting to give such a user access to the arbitration mailing list as well as CU access.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

ChrisO comment on Jayvdb page is incredibly stupid, making it appear that the opposition against him is due to some conflicts between Azeri and Iranian users. Just because he had some problem with some Iranian users he's making an ignorant and misleading comment. Well ChrisO, if you happen to read here, ask John what was behind his work on legislations regulating copyright in Azerbaijan on Wikisource. Ask him why he killed a formal mediation between a group of users, or his ''innocent'' contributions about Caucasian Albanian matters in support of a documentable lobbying organization established on Wikipedia. Invite him here at WR so that he dare making the claims he makes on his page about AA affairs and see how he's been dishonest.

If you are really fighting to have accurate content on Wikipedia you will put aside your personal vendetta's and search the real rational behind the opposition.

If you check, you will see the oppositions comming from Armenian, Assyrian, Persian, Kurdish and Greek etc. members, because he had acted hand in hand with an ultranationalist Azerbaijani organization who is pushing fringe theories over Wikipedia. You're voting to give such a user access to the arbitration mailing list as well as CU access.

There appears to be some canvassing going on among a certain group of editors trying to sink John's candidacy. Seven editors showed up today to oppose who didn't meet the eligibility criteria. That's a smoking gun.

My experience with Eastern European nationalists (no matter what the stripe) is that they view promoting the superiority of their own national creed to be of such great importance that it abrogates lesser rules. They will therefore blithely disregard rules that stand in the way of doing so, while at the same time manipulating such rules to the detriment of their identified enemies. Every Eastern European nationalist I've encountered doing this is flatly and utterly convinced that their actions (no matter how outrageous they might seem to one not committed to their cause) are absolutely beyond reproach. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply a shill for the opposition.

I'm reasonably convinced that's what's going on here. This is one of Wikipedia's unsolvable problems, in that solving it requires banning, quite frankly, most of Eastern Europe (and a good fraction of expats from Eastern Europe), which simply isn't going to happen.

For a good time, try reading one of the Wikipedias in one of the national languages from one of these countries. You'll get a really interesting twist on "neutral point of view", especially on the projects where admins are empowered to decide content disputes and block people who come out on the wrong side thereof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...om_elections.3F

Someone's having a great vacation.

A chart of the vote, generated by ST47:

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/ACE2008.jpg/600px-ACE2008.jpg)

My experience with Eastern European nationalists (no matter what the stripe) is that they view promoting the superiority of their own national creed to be of such great importance that it abrogates lesser rules. They will therefore blithely disregard rules that stand in the way of doing so, while at the same time manipulating such rules to the detriment of their identified enemies. Every Eastern European nationalist I've encountered doing this is flatly and utterly convinced that their actions (no matter how outrageous they might seem to one not committed to their cause) are absolutely beyond reproach. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply a shill for the opposition.

I'm reasonably convinced that's what's going on here. This is one of Wikipedia's unsolvable problems, in that solving it requires banning, quite frankly, most of Eastern Europe (and a good fraction of expats from Eastern Europe), which simply isn't going to happen.

For a good time, try reading one of the Wikipedias in one of the national languages from one of these countries. You'll get a really interesting twist on "neutral point of view", especially on the projects where admins are empowered to decide content disputes and block people who come out on the wrong side thereof.

Kelly, I am preparing an answer to the concerns raised and will be posting it soon. I just assure that after readers see what John has done they will stop claiming this to be an ethnic conflict. Just wait.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

PART I

I will be answering this and what has been addressed on WP because this is becoming rather intimidating. The ''Armenian Block'' claim is totally ridiculous, over half of those users already knew even before John was to run that he was going to run and were waiting to oppose. Both Iranian opposes and Armenian opposes have nothing or very little thing to do with each others.
On the CU request, those who are close to the topics know that most users there are legitimate (I cannot say all, because I didn<t know the existance of many of them), rejecting members just because they happen to be Armenian, Iranian, is the very same reason why this has degenerated this far, because the problems concerning those issues have been very badly handled and tagged by the ethnicity of the contributors.

I had decided to not dig John participation because I did not want others to think that that was vendetta but the way things are handled as if this is a baseless concern force me to.

See this edit here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=156399477

John is requesting to throw the article for deletion or redirecting it(which in this case will be equivalent to delete). Let’s see when he requested it; this was the state of the article when he requested it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=157370321

The 19 footnotes in question were in reference to his ethnicity. If you check the history of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history You will find out the several socks (organized by Adil Baguirov) who fought on this claiming him to be Albanian. As a result 19 sources were provided to stop the edit war. After providing that much references, not only does John request it deletion by also claim to write ‘’Armenian or Albanian’’. The period which he wrote (the author which the article is about) Albanian (Caucasian Albania, nothing to do with current Albanians) was indicative of the region of Albania rather than an ethnicity. John other contributions suggest that he knew that, the article created about Caucasian Albanians shows this. The article was created by Haji, while there were some legitimate concerns about the article itself given the hasty way it was build, the subject was legitimate and Haji was working on it to address those issues. Grandmaster comes and continues the vote, 14 minutes later John vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...asian_Albanians

A group of users which Grandmaster is part of have done everything to prevent any articles about the term Caucasian Albanians which would require to add about the fact that after the 5th century the term Albanian was rather referred to individuals from the region of Caucasian Albania than an ethnicity. They rather created articles about the Udi, they even forked the article and created nearly two identical articles about the same thing. When one of the two copies was posted for deletion they opposed in mass. An administrator deleted it obviously because it was a copy.

The request for deletion which John engaged in, and his comment there shows a particular understanding from his part of the position of the lobbying group run by Adil Baguirov and another member (name to be disclosed privately) of Wikipedia, Atabek. See more here his reply. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=165621208

Those who don’t know the subject will find nothing here, but this is on the surface. What is behind that reveals more. The same lobbyist group advance the theory that all Albanian books (to explain why those books were written in Armenian during that period) were destroyed and burned after being translated in Armenian. Probably the last volume was written by another person indeed. But the fact is his knowledge of this particular information which is used by the lobbying group to question the original language and the person why wrote it. First part, written mostly by an ethnic Albanian, then an Armenian taking the first part translating it, destroying the original and finishing it. That basically sums the claim.

There are many things which links John with this group (which presence like I repeat is documentable). For now I don’t have time to type the rest, I will be doing it bit by bit, including why Iranian members oppose John (concerns which are legitimate too)

I advice those who throw stones and make baseless charges to wait... before throwing stones.

I will also ask to ChrisO to step down at commenting about something which he totally ignore about and not make this as vendetta because he had conflict with Iranian users. The reason those users oppose to John, has nothing to do directly with articles or actions by John directly relating to their contribution.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

If any candidate I have already supported (or indicated I would support but haven't yet done so) asks me to change my support of them to an oppose of them in order to counteract this sort of skewing that they consider unfair to other candidates, and to keep the relative standings properly balanced, I will do so (marking my oppose as an offsetting one done at request of the candidate I'm opposing). And... respect them a great deal to boot. It would send a strong message to those block voting that elections should be carried on the strength of the candidates, not on ethnic rivalries or BADSITES dramas. Anyone else willing to do so, or is this a crazy idea? ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading this stupid answer comming from Lar, an alleged respected member of the community I rest my case. I won't continue posting anything else about the subject.

Just for your information, I have emailed two members who had something against him to oppose. That's all the canvassing I did, a huge sin, since I have no right to vote.

Abusive Sockpuppeteer and known canvasser JoshuaZ proposes that email checks be made on the accused.

This may be a bad idea but I thought it should be at least put up for consideration: As I understand it, it is now possible to verify which Wikipedia email user functions were recently used with whom. Could the people with that capability (checkuser or maybe just developers?) look at that and see if there is any evidence of using it directly to canvass to these users? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. That is a bad idea.

Why can't they just accept that a bunch of people didn't like a decision this guy made, for whatever reason, and voted oppose. As is apparently their right? Jayjg has been orchestrating these kinds of things all over the site for years, with impunity and under everyone's nose. That is the system you operate in - like it or leave it.

I mean, it isn't anywhere near as bad as those Cool Hand Luke opposes, which came from people being duped by a malicious smear attempt by Ryan Postlethwaite.

They can use any tools they want on my account and check if I ever sent anything to anyone beside two emails which I don't remember if they were sent through Wikipedia.

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list. Lar is actually proposing to undo users vote by supporting someone that they don<t want to support, while opposers really wanted to oppose him.

Abusive Sockpuppeteer and known canvasser JoshuaZ proposes that email checks be made on the accused.

This may be a bad idea but I thought it should be at least put up for consideration: As I understand it, it is now possible to verify which Wikipedia email user functions were recently used with whom. Could the people with that capability (checkuser or maybe just developers?) look at that and see if there is any evidence of using it directly to canvass to these users? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. That is a bad idea.

Why can't they just accept that a bunch of people didn't like a decision this guy made, for whatever reason, and voted oppose. As is apparently their right? Jayjg has been orchestrating these kinds of things all over the site for years. That is the system you operate in - like it or leave it.

I mean, it isn't anywhere near as bad as those Cool Hand Luke's opposes, which came from people being duped by a malicious smear attempt by Ryan Poslethwaite.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list.

I expect some people will say exactly the opposite... that the CHL opposes are good faith concerns and the Jayvdb opposes are vendettas.

I expect the truth is that there is some of each motive present for opposes of both candidates.

As for my suggestion, I don't think you've quite gotten the point of it yet.

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list.

I expect some people will say exactly the opposite... that the CHL opposes are good faith concerns and the Jayvdb opposes are vendettas.

I expect the truth is that there is some of each motive present for opposes of both candidates.

As for my suggestion, I don't think you've quite gotten the point of it yet.

Well I did, I just believe the analogy is not quite there. Several of the users there knew before the presentation of the candidates that John will present himself. After fixing the Azerbaijan's copyright issue he came here to ''fix'' policy. His platform include many issues which will make it hard to address real things. An example being that before accepting a case the scope should be made clear This way of reducing the scope was what was the main problem with AAI, AAII and Ehid_Lesar. I provided those things and several others to the two members I ''canvassed''. Those who opposed know why they opposed. They do not trust him access to CU and arbitrators mailing list, if he can become an arbitrator without such access, I can tell you that some members I know could change their votes. But brushing away votes this way just does not do it.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list.

I expect some people will say exactly the opposite... that the CHL opposes are good faith concerns and the Jayvdb opposes are vendettas.

I expect the truth is that there is some of each motive present for opposes of both candidates.

As for my suggestion, I don't think you've quite gotten the point of it yet.

I wonder what Jayvdb's motives were for opposing his closest rival's bids and then voting for Jehochman? The first seems like poor sportsmanship, the second like poor judgment. It has also been suggested that it was the opposition of potential rivals that spurred his downward spiral, not these phantom Eastern European canvassers.

And the guy didn't even bother answering your questions Lar - so there is no clue as to what he thinks about the crucial issues of Wikipedia. Rather than moaning about some phantom opposers on admin pages, why isn't he spending time answering them?

The guys crucial issues have nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list.

I expect some people will say exactly the opposite... that the CHL opposes are good faith concerns and the Jayvdb opposes are vendettas.

I expect the truth is that there is some of each motive present for opposes of both candidates.

As for my suggestion, I don't think you've quite gotten the point of it yet.

I wonder what Jayvdb's motives were for opposing his closest rival's bids and then voting for Jehochman? The first seems like poor sportsmanship, the second like poor judgment.

And the guy didn't even bother answering your questions Lar - so there is no clue as to what he thinks about the crucial issues of Wikipedia.

It looks like at least some of this election is going to descend into outright farce. I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.

It looks like at least some of this election is going to descend into outright farce. I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.

Mass canvassing will be easier this way. This kind of things should not be repeated, but people must understand that what is going on here has nothing to do with editing conflict. He said he will recuse in AA matters, and he could for other matters. It is a question of trust on his access to the arbitration mailing list and CU.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

ChrisO comment on Jayvdb page is incredibly stupid, making it appear that the opposition against him is due to some conflicts between Azeri and Iranian users. Just because he had some problem with some Iranian users he's making an ignorant and misleading comment. Well ChrisO, if you happen to read here, ask John what was behind his work on legislations regulating copyright in Azerbaijan on Wikisource. Ask him why he killed a formal mediation between a group of users, or his ''innocent'' contributions about Caucasian Albanian matters in support of a documentable lobbying organization established on Wikipedia. Invite him here at WR so that he dare making the claims he makes on his page about AA affairs and see how he's been dishonest.

If you are really fighting to have accurate content on Wikipedia you will put aside your personal vendetta's and search the real rational behind the opposition.

If you check, you will see the oppositions comming from Armenian, Assyrian, Persian, Kurdish and Greek etc. members, because he had acted hand in hand with an ultranationalist Azerbaijani organization who is pushing fringe theories over Wikipedia. You're voting to give such a user access to the arbitration mailing list as well as CU access.

There appears to be some canvassing going on among a certain group of editors trying to sink John's candidacy. Seven editors showed up today to oppose who didn't meet the eligibility criteria. That's a smoking gun.

Were they Caucasian Albanians or Baltic Albanians? Or Armenians? Wait-- it's got to be those heavily-Russified Caucasus Germans still living in Azerbaijan. There's nothing like the ultranationalist Russified CaucasioGerman-Azerbaijani. If you haven't experienced it, you don't want to. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Were they Caucasian Albanians or Baltic Albanians? Or Armenians? Wait-- it's got to be those heavily-Russified Caucasus Germans still living in Azerbaijan. There's nothing like the ultranationalist Russified CaucasioGerman-Azerbaijani.

Well, you shouldn't confuse Armenians with Muslims, Slavic or otherwise. That's just wrong!

I mean, you might as well confuse Iowans with these so-called "people" from Missouri. Sheesh!

Were they Caucasian Albanians or Baltic Albanians? Or Armenians? Wait-- it's got to be those heavily-Russified Caucasus Germans still living in Azerbaijan. There's nothing like the ultranationalist Russified CaucasioGerman-Azerbaijani.

Well, you shouldn't confuse Armenians with Muslims, Slavic or otherwise. That's just wrong!

I mean, you might as well confuse Iowans with these so-called "people" from Missouri. Sheesh!

True, they're Raelian.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

Haha, I just tried voting in the elections and had all my votes removed as I voted from a different account (I don't remember the password; sue me). Apparently as the vote counters are too lazy to confirm this via email I'm banned from voting. Regardless of the fact that I've helped write featured articles, GAs, etc, I get told in IRC not to 'bother' them with it. And I got reverted by a user that does nothing but use bots. I suddenly realise how Peter Damian must have felt. WP really does not give a shit about you or your contributions. It's like.. a revelation to me. You give hours and hours of your time and effort to the project and it's like.. you're not even worth the two seconds it would take to confirm you have suffrage to vote in the elections for the de-facto governing body?

I was half-minded to begin writing articles again (my main intention in registering an account), but stuff like this is just a complete slap in the face. Basically what I'm trying to say here is: Fuck you, Wikipedia.

I have better things to do with my time. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Haha, I just tried voting in the elections and had all my votes removed as I voted from a different account (I don't remember the password; sue me). Apparently as the vote counters are too lazy to confirm this via email I'm banned from voting. Regardless of the fact that I've helped write featured articles, GAs, etc, I get told in IRC not to 'bother' them with it. And I got reverted by a user that does nothing but use bots. I suddenly realise how Peter Damian must have felt. WP really does not give a shit about you or your contributions. It's like.. a revelation to me.

dah!

Haha, I just tried voting in the elections and had all my votes removed as I voted from a different account (I don't remember the password; sue me). Apparently as the vote counters are too lazy to confirm this via email I'm banned from voting. Regardless of the fact that I've helped write featured articles, GAs, etc, I get told in IRC not to 'bother' them with it. And I got reverted by a user that does nothing but use bots. I suddenly realise how Peter Damian must have felt. WP really does not give a shit about you or your contributions. It's like.. a revelation to me. You give hours and hours of your time and effort to the project and it's like.. you're not even worth the two seconds it would take to confirm you have suffrage to vote in the elections for the de-facto governing body?

I was half-minded to begin writing articles again (my main intention in registering an account), but stuff like this is just a complete slap in the face. Basically what I'm trying to say here is: Fuck you, Wikipedia.

I have better things to do with my time. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Or, in other words, "No worries"?

Or, in other words, "No worries"?

What I am talking about is what happened afterwards when I joined IRC to look at the live data. Someone immediately asked me if I had joined to talk to him about removing my votes. I was like ? and then I noticed that he was currently removing my votes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255798636

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255799019

I offered to confirm it via email and was told that the vote counters are too busy to write an email, and to not 'bother them with it'.

C'est la vie. I won't be bothering the so-called 'community' again.

What I am talking about is what happened afterwards when I joined IRC to look at the live data. Someone immediately asked me if I had joined to talk to him about removing my votes. I was like ? and then I noticed that he was currently removing my votes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255798636

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255799019

I offered to confirm it via email and was told that the vote counters are too busy to write an email, and to not 'bother them with it'.

C'est la vie. I won't be bothering the so-called 'community' again.

I wasn't around in the channel when this happened, but would have called out all the people that blew you off if I were. In lieu of that, I've smacked around a couple folks who thought "the bot says no!" is a legitimate reason to disenfranchise somebody. I also saw to it that your votes were put back; let me know if you run into any more nonsense.

I wasn't around in the channel when this happened, but would have called out all the people that blew you off if I were. In lieu of that, I've smacked around a couple folks who thought "the bot says no!" is a legitimate reason to disenfranchise somebody. I also saw to it that your votes were put back; let me know if you run into any more nonsense.

Aren't the ultras going to regard this as a disaster? An issue is raised about the evil admins and then someone goes and fixes it. Could someone please go and block the user for forum shopping (and worse to the big bad WR) just so that everyone's belief systems can be saved? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I wasn't around in the channel when this happened, but would have called out all the people that blew you off if I were. In lieu of that, I've smacked around a couple folks who thought "the bot says no!" is a legitimate reason to disenfranchise somebody. I also saw to it that your votes were put back; let me know if you run into any more nonsense.

Welcome, East.718

I wasn't around in the channel when this happened, but would have called out all the people that blew you off if I were. In lieu of that, I've smacked around a couple folks who thought "the bot says no!" is a legitimate reason to disenfranchise somebody. I also saw to it that your votes were put back; let me know if you run into any more nonsense.

Welcome, East.718

He's been around for a while.

And thank you, East.

Edit: Although, the votes I linked above have not actually been restored (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

He's been around for a while.
And thank you, East.

Oh yes (Nov 2007, not 2008).

I'm actually testing my new signature.

How's that working out?

I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.

While I approve entirely of secret balloting in ArbCom elections, I do not understand why people are so upset about canvassing. It's an election! Of course there will be canvassing!

Just how far up your collective asses do you Wikipedians have your collective heads stuck?

I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.

While I approve entirely of secret balloting in ArbCom elections, I do not understand why people are so upset about canvassing. It's an election! Of course there will be canvassing!

Just how far up your collective asses do you Wikipedians have your collective heads stuck?

I think being elected to arbcom is supposed to be like being elected Pope.

BTW, I just realized that if you ever became a celebrity the tabs would refer to you as K-Mart.

This post has been edited by Heat:

BTW, I just realized that if you ever became a celebrity the tabs would refer to you as K-Mart.

I've been subjected to that nickname both here and at ED for some time now. It's kinda odd that Kellie Martin isn't subjected to it; then again, she's not a very high drama celebrity.

I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.

While I approve entirely of secret balloting in ArbCom elections, I do not understand why people are so upset about canvassing. It's an election! Of course there will be canvassing!

Just how far up your collective asses do you Wikipedians have your collective heads stuck?

I've been puzzled by this as well - you have candidates who make statements about how they will reform government to serve the people. Then franchised individuals vote (and not a wikipedian !vote either) in a tactical manner to get their people in. It's a straight political process (well except for the bent godking bit at the end), how can you not expect canvassing in any political process?

BTW, I just realized that if you ever became a celebrity the tabs would refer to you as K-Mart.

I've been subjected to that nickname both here and at ED for some time now. It's kinda odd that Kellie Martin isn't subjected to it; then again, she's not a very high drama celebrity.

K-Mart would probably object to having their trademark diluted.

Welcome, East.718

Shouldn't I be welcoming you, since I've been around longer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

He's been around for a while.

And thank you, East.

Edit: Although, the votes I linked above have not actually been restored (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Someone else in the IRC channel (surprise!) didn't notice me chewing everyone out and decided to reindent the votes again. It should be fine now. I think it's pretty demeaning to not take the two minutes required to ensure the suffrage of somebody that's donated enough of their time to have written featured articles, but that just might be me.

While I approve entirely of secret balloting in ArbCom elections, I do not understand why people are so upset about canvassing. It's an election! Of course there will be canvassing!

Just how far up your collective asses do you Wikipedians have your collective heads stuck?

Basically agreed. The issue with canvassing on Wikipedia is in small, localized discussions with a large suffrage base; the presumption is that participants in these small discussions are representative of The Community as a whole (or whatever portion of The Community can be expected to have views on whatever issue is being discussed), and canvassing disrupts that. It would be roughly analogous to juries consisting not of twelve randomly selected citizens but of whoever happened to show up; absent external pressures, you could possibly expect that these juries would be roughly the same as randomly-selected ones, but once canvassing enters the picture that ceases completely to be true. So if Wikipedia's going to run itself on its current basis (and, to be honest, I think its current basis works well-ish for small, localized, relatively non-controversial decisions, though not at all for other kinds), canvassing has to be minimized.

But Arb Comm elections aren't intended to be small, localized discussions. They're not supposed to be decided by a representative subset of The Community, but by The Community as a whole. The reasons to minimize canvassing are completely inapplicable.

While I approve entirely of secret balloting in ArbCom elections, I do not understand why people are so upset about canvassing. It's an election! Of course there will be canvassing!

Just how far up your collective asses do you Wikipedians have your collective heads stuck?

Basically agreed. The issue with canvassing on Wikipedia is in small, localized discussions with a large suffrage base; the presumption is that participants in these small discussions are representative of The Community as a whole (or whatever portion of The Community can be expected to have views on whatever issue is being discussed), and canvassing disrupts that. It would be roughly analogous to juries consisting not of twelve randomly selected citizens but of whoever happened to show up; absent external pressures, you could possibly expect that these juries would be roughly the same as randomly-selected ones, but once canvassing enters the picture that ceases completely to be true. So if Wikipedia's going to run itself on its current basis (and, to be honest, I think its current basis works well-ish for small, localized, relatively non-controversial decisions, though not at all for other kinds), canvassing has to be minimized.

But Arb Comm elections aren't intended to be small, localized discussions. They're not supposed to be decided by a representative subset of The Community, but by The Community as a whole. The reasons to minimize canvassing are completely inapplicable.

You have a good point. And the vetting criteria already prevent going outside the pre-existing community for the sudden purpose of this election, anyway. So "canvassing" is already restricted to people who've been editing awhile and have every right to vote. And who should be just as subject to "voter turnout drives" as anyplace else where voters are "canvassed" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) on the basis that they "reside" in the place which is being represented by the people standing for office! So long as nobody's being bussed in to vote, fair is fair.

For an encyclopedia with 1600 odd admins and thus probably 10-20 times as many users... there sure are few votes flying around... wjscribe had the most votes cast at 311 (for and against) the next is sub 300...

So basically only the prolific are voting?

Where's the "Vote for Arbcom" banner? So even those editors that never drama monger can vote... or wait... those votes would be too down to earth (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What an ignorant remark, activist groups or interest groups will have more easiness in having administrators vote by the help of what they are good at. Diplomacy.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If he passes over a successful candidate, the community is going to scream bloody murder and may very well strip him of his self-proclaimed right to make these appointments.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If he passes over a successful candidate, the community is going to scream bloody murder and may very well strip him of his self-proclaimed right to make these appointments.

The "community" can go and wank. Nobody is stripping Jimbo of anything unless you get the WMF board to agree. They legally control the private property which is the hardware. From thence, all power flows. End.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If he passes over a successful candidate, the community is going to scream bloody murder and may very well strip him of his self-proclaimed right to make these appointments.

The "community" can go and wank. Nobody is stripping Jimbo of anything unless you get the WMF board to agree. They legally control the private property which is the hardware. From thence, all power flows. End.

He doesn't have any formal role as project leader, bestowed upon him by the WMF. He just asserts that he is the boss, and the community goes along with it because "it's always been that way". If the community gets fed up with him, it's not going to let him keep these special self-declared powers he has.

It would be interesting to see how everyone compares if only votes from admins are counted. Is it an easy thing to calculate with some form of bot? May have to post this on WP:ACE page......

The "community" can go and wank. Nobody is stripping Jimbo of anything unless you get the WMF board to agree. They legally control the private property which is the hardware. From thence, all power flows. End.

Jimbo asserts that his authority over the English Wikipedia does not come from the WMF, but instead flows from his role as Founder, and therefore the WMF has no authority to strip it from him. In any case, the WMF takes a "hands-off" position toward governing the projects, mainly because Jimbo has long insisted that that is the proper course to follow. Jimbo effectively controls the WMF too so it's a moot point.

The fact remains that the community could throw him out by choosing to disregard his authority, but I suspect that it appeared that that was happening Jimbo would have his Tories throw the revolting colonists into Boston Harbor.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

This is the kind of stupidity -- in effect, he is saying that non-admins might as well not vote -- that blind ballots go a big step towards curing.

The "community" can go and wank. Nobody is stripping Jimbo of anything unless you get the WMF board to agree. They legally control the private property which is the hardware. From thence, all power flows. End.

Jimbo asserts that his authority over the English Wikipedia does not come from the WMF, but instead flows from his role as Founder, and therefore the WMF has no authority to strip it from him. In any case, the WMF takes a "hands-off" position toward governing the projects, mainly because Jimbo has long insisted that that is the proper course to follow. Jimbo effectively controls the WMF too so it's a moot point.

The fact remains that the community could throw him out by choosing to disregard his authority, but I suspect that it appeared that that was happening Jimbo would have his Tories throw the revolting colonists into Boston Harbor.

He might attempt to, but THAT final scene would go down a bit like the end of the movie Robocop, where the corporate Board fires the bad CEO, and 5 seconds later, the corporate-controlled killer robot ED 209 blasts him out the boardroom window.

The SF police are bound to follow the CEO and board, as to who legally physically accesses the server building. And the programmers are hired and fired by the foundation, and they damn-well do what the board says. Jimbo can file all the lawsuits he likes (on his own nickel) but in the end, the board rules and will rule. (Of course, in San Francisco, the police would politely take Jimbo in yellow-gloved hand, and escort him out of the purple WMF building and maybe buy him a latte).

Founder, flounder, bounder, whatever. Jimbo is not an owner, by his own choice (to avoid taxes and maybe even screw another early Bomis investor), and in a society where the notion of "property" still exists, the Golden Rule is that: him who has the gold (or control of it) makes the rules. That's not Jimbo. In typical fashion he wants the power without any of the responsibility, but this will catch up with him eventually when the bloom wears off, as it does to everyone.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

This is the kind of stupidity -- in effect, he is saying that non-admins might as well not vote -- that blind ballots go a big step towards curing.

Jimmy has long weighted votes in the elections; he has made it clear that he will reject a candidate who does well overall but is opposed by his close circle.

This is definitely a very strong argument for the election being a secret ballot; the community should absolutely demand this for the next election.

The SF police are bound to follow the CEO and board, as to who legally physically accesses the server building. And the programmers are hired and fired by the foundation, and they damn-well do what the board says.

As far as I know, the servers are still in Florida and there are no plans to move them.

Jimbo has never understood that he doesn't own Wikimedia. He believes that it's his personal property to use and control; the WMF thing is just a legalistic dodge that doesn't alter his moral right of control. The concept of "fiduciary duty" is completely lost on him, as is the concept of "charitable organization". It's pretty clear that the only thing preserving his control over Wikipedia is the fact that most of the Wikipedia community is teenaged boys who have an innate need for defined hierarchy and clear leaders. Jimbo fills that need for them; he pretends to be their leader and they support him in that role. As long as Wikipedia continues to primarily recruit from that demographic, I don't see this changing.

The SF police are bound to follow the CEO and board, as to who legally physically accesses the server building. And the programmers are hired and fired by the foundation, and they damn-well do what the board says.

As far as I know, the servers are still in Florida and there are no plans to move them.

Doesn't matter. There are apparently 5 different IT managers distributed geographically all over. The headquarters where orders are given, is in SF. The 400 servers are mostly in a server farm in Tampa (you're right), but they sound like they're rented. Fine. They do what the IT people (run by Brion Vibber) tell them, and the IT people answer to WFM, which is run by the CEO, which answers to the board.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...54&pageNumber=1

Jimbo has never understood that he doesn't own Wikimedia. He believes that it's his personal property to use and control; the WMF thing is just a legalistic dodge that doesn't alter his moral right of control. The concept of "fiduciary duty" is completely lost on him, as is the concept of "charitable organization". It's pretty clear that the only thing preserving his control over Wikipedia is the fact that most of the Wikipedia community is teenaged boys who have an innate need for defined hierarchy and clear leaders. Jimbo fills that need for them; he pretends to be their leader and they support him in that role. As long as Wikipedia continues to primarily recruit from that demographic, I don't see this changing.

No doubt. But the question is: how do you keep it from changing? It only takes a one-time collusion of a majority of the WMF board to change everything, forever. For as long as they want. I suppose Brion and Co. could declare loyalty to Jimbo and sabotage the software or in some way stage a passive-aggressive "strike." But strikes can be broken, and it only takes one IT person to defect, also. This whole thing is massively unstable, due to the fact that it's not owned by Jimbo, and is therefore entirely driven by the willing-suspension of disbelief, by the board-audience in their chosen "actor." But an audience is a treacherous thing, as any actor (or speaker) can tell you. Lose your audience, and you're dead, dead, dead.

the IT people answer to WFM, which is run by the CEO, which answers to the board.

From what I've heard, the CEO (Sue Gardner) does not answer to the board at all, and in fact the board is effectively powerless over her, in part due to a golden parachute in her employment agreement (basically, firing her would bankrupt them). The WMF board is an essentially powerless entity.

It only takes a one-time collusion of a majority of the WMF board to change everything, forever.

Unlikely to happen; nobody gets on the WMF board now without getting personally approved by both Jimmy and Sue. Elected seats now comprise a tiny minority of the board, with the remainder appointed through mechanisms that are entirely controlled by either Jimmy or Sue. In my opinion, this was done in response to the near-coup late last year, in which a vote to "pack" the board with people unfriendly to Jimbo (and which would likely have been followed by a vote to eject Jimbo from the board) failed by a single vote.

For as long as they want. I suppose Brion and Co. could declare loyalty to Jimbo and sabotage the software or in some way stage a passive-aggressive "strike." But strikes can be broken, and it only takes one IT person to defect, also.

Brion is not going to revolt as long as they continue to pay him, and I suspect he'd even remain loyal even if not paid for a while. Just not the sort of person he is. Whatever feelings Brion has on the social and political issues, he keeps very much to himself.

Jimbo has never understood that he doesn't own Wikimedia. He believes that it's his personal property to use and control; the WMF thing is just a legalistic dodge that doesn't alter his moral right of control.

That's a riot. Especially considering that Wikipedia wasn't even Jimbo's idea, and when Sanger proposed it Jimbo had reservations. (looking for the link now)

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

That's a riot. Especially considering that Wikipedia wasn't even Jimbo's idea, and when Sanger proposed it Jimbo had reservations. (looking for the link now)

Yes, but when Wikimedia took off Jimbo considered it his property, inasmuch as it grew out of Bomis, which was also "his property" even though he was a tiny minority shareholder in the company, which he subsequently looted by transferring its only valuable assets (a few servers and the Wikipedia name) to the newly-minted WMF, just in time to avoid having them attached by looming litigation.

the IT people answer to WFM, which is run by the CEO, which answers to the board.

From what I've heard, the CEO (Sue Gardner) does not answer to the board at all, and in fact the board is effectively powerless over her, in part due to a golden parachute in her employment agreement (basically, firing her would bankrupt them). The WMF board is an essentially powerless entity.

And good heavens, who voted Gardner such a package, when the board members themselves have nothing of the sort? They really must be idiots.

It only takes a one-time collusion of a majority of the WMF board to change everything, forever.

Unlikely to happen; nobody gets on the WMF board now without getting personally approved by both Jimmy and Sue. Elected seats now comprise a tiny minority of the board, with the remainder appointed through mechanisms that are entirely controlled by either Jimmy or Sue. In my opinion, this was done in response to the near-coup late last year, in which a vote to "pack" the board with people unfriendly to Jimbo (and which would likely have been followed by a vote to eject Jimbo from the board) failed by a single vote.

Very interesting. Well, board members can still be bribed by outsider take-over foundations with money. If WMF pays them little and Gardner a lot, again that's very unstable as soon as everybody realizes how they're being screwed.

For as long as they want. I suppose Brion and Co. could declare loyalty to Jimbo and sabotage the software or in some way stage a passive-aggressive "strike." But strikes can be broken, and it only takes one IT person to defect, also.

Brion is not going to revolt as long as they continue to pay him, and I suspect he'd even remain loyal even if not paid for a while. Just not the sort of person he is. Whatever feelings Brion has on the social and political issues, he keeps very much to himself.

And he's famous for editing WP rarely (45 edits last year, 29 this year). Not the admin with fewest edits of all, but second-place. So you can't smell the sewer if you refuse to raise the manhole cover.

It would be interesting to see how everyone compares if only votes from admins are counted. Is it an easy thing to calculate with some form of bot? May have to post this on WP:ACE page......

I agree, this would be a neat calculation. Giving my own votes a cursory glance, I don't think they'd change that much but they could for other editors.

Edit: I bet they'd especially change for Jayvdb, because that'd pretty much chuck out most of the A-A voter bloc.

This post has been edited by Hemlock Martinis:

Jehochman quits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256346518

My candidacy is causing more heat than light at this point. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 03:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, the CEO (Sue Gardner) does not answer to the board at all, and in fact the board is effectively powerless over her, in part due to a golden parachute in her employment agreement (basically, firing her would bankrupt them). The WMF board is an essentially powerless entity.

Such an arrangement, if it actually really existed, would likely cost the WMF it's 501 ( c ) (3) status. It could be hidden I suppose and only spring into public existence when the relationship ruptured. This would be a very bad business with consequences all around. Non-Profits are required to disclose the existence and terms of "highly paid individuals." If this was hidden in a "golden parachute" someone might go to prison. No responsible foundation would make a grant to an entity that would be forced down the drain if it had to change CEOs and not disclosing this would look a lot like fraud.

If anyone is interested in following the results as the votes roll in, here's a constantly updated table. So far it appears that six different people have a fair shot at the seventh spot.

Use this link instead.

Kelly Martin's votes are worth a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/Kelly_Martin

Kelly Martin's votes are worth a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/Kelly_Martin

That didn't take long. I couldn't bring myself to vote on every candidate; some of them just aren't interesting enough.

Kelly Martin's votes are worth a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/Kelly_Martin

That didn't take long. I couldn't bring myself to vote on every candidate; some of them just aren't interesting enough.

I enjoyed the ones along the lines of "Support: Should be ineffectual".

Kelly Martin's votes are worth a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/Kelly_Martin

Clicking each diff.... That is (taken as a whole) the most cynical and sarcastic set of votes I've ever seen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

My... goodness. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Clicking each diff.... That is (taken as a whole) the most cynical and sarcastic set of votes I've ever seen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

My... goodness. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

And I've already been threatened with a block for "gross personal attacks" by that holy defender of virtue, TenOfAllTrades. So much for "assuming good faith", eh? Only took him 56 minutes.

Clicking each diff.... That is (taken as a whole) the most cynical and sarcastic set of votes I've ever seen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

My... goodness. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

And I've already been threatened with a block for "gross personal attacks" by that holy defender of virtue, TenOfAllTrades. So much for "assuming good faith", eh? Only took him 56 minutes.

Must be a faithful reader here.

Oh, and jd2718 has suggested that an "edits within the past year" requirement should have been included -- about two hours after I cast my votes.

Oh, and jd2718 has suggested that an "edits within the past year" requirement should have been included -- about two hours after I cast my votes.

It's not all you. There have been similar proposals due to apparent ethnic block voting.

User:iridescent writes:

The usual suspects at WR had some kind of Grand Master Plan where they'd all switch their votes around midway through the elections. I can't quite remember what, if anything, it was supposed to achieve, but it may be something to do with that. Or it may not. – iridescent 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What's this? Did I miss a meeting of "the usual suspects"? Either that or iridescent has an overeager imagination. Any explanations for this crazy talk?

User:iridescent writes:

The usual suspects at WR had some kind of Grand Master Plan where they'd all switch their votes around midway through the elections. I can't quite remember what, if anything, it was supposed to achieve, but it may be something to do with that. Or it may not. – iridescent 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What's this? Did I miss a meeting of "the usual suspects"? Either that or iridescent has an overeager imagination. Any explanations for this crazy talk?

I can't imagine how anyone could believe we're so coordinated and disciplined. I mean, is there any set of two users here who would agree on all the candidates, let alone agree to act in coordination as part of some strange vote-switching exercise?

Clicking each diff.... That is (taken as a whole) the most cynical and sarcastic set of votes I've ever seen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

My... goodness. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

And I've already been threatened with a block for "gross personal attacks" by that holy defender of virtue, TenOfAllTrades. So much for "assuming good faith", eh? Only took him 56 minutes.

I wouldn't block you for it, but I would strike out votes if they were clearly intended to be sarcastic and insincere, supporting people because you dislike them and opposing people because you like them. I also agree that users with no (other) edits in the calendar year of the election should not be allowed to vote.

I wouldn't block you for it, but I would strike out votes if they were clearly intended to be sarcastic and insincere, supporting people because you dislike them and opposing people because you like them. ...

Well, she does imply it's for my own good.



Incidentally, if anyone here was contemplating some last-minute vote switching with the aim of creating drama, please don't do it on my putative behalf. I would like to win (or lose) this election fairly.

User:iridescent writes:

The usual suspects at WR had some kind of Grand Master Plan where they'd all switch their votes around midway through the elections. I can't quite remember what, if anything, it was supposed to achieve, but it may be something to do with that. Or it may not. – iridescent 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What's this? Did I miss a meeting of "the usual suspects"? Either that or iridescent has an overeager imagination. Any explanations for this crazy talk?

I made a comment about it somewhere, but I was basing it on Wikipedia talk page comments. I assume it's tongue-in-cheek, as iridescent is a regular here.

User:iridescent writes:

The usual suspects at WR had some kind of Grand Master Plan where they'd all switch their votes around midway through the elections. I can't quite remember what, if anything, it was supposed to achieve, but it may be something to do with that. Or it may not. – iridescent 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What's this? Did I miss a meeting of "the usual suspects"? Either that or iridescent has an overeager imagination. Any explanations for this crazy talk?

I made a comment about it somewhere, but I was basing it on Wikipedia talk page comments. I assume it's tongue-in-cheek, as iridescent is a regular here.

(waves) I'd hope noone would take my comment seriously. I've yet to see most people here agree on, well, anything. Even if WR did wield a block vote, it's hardly going to be big enough to sway the election. Nor is who wins really going to make much difference to anything.

(waves) I'd hope noone would take my comment seriously. I've yet to see most people here agree on, well, anything. Even if WR did wield a block vote, it's hardly going to be big enough to sway the election. Nor is who wins really going to make much difference to anything.

If everyone here agreed on everything, it would save a lot of time. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Apropos of that, I have to disagree with you when you say " Nor is who wins really going to make much difference to anything." ... gosh I hope you're wrong.

Apropos of that, I have to disagree with you when you say " Nor is who wins really going to make much difference to anything." ... gosh I hope you're wrong.

To be more accurate, "who wins among the candidates with a chance of winning won't make much difference". An Arbcom including Kurt, White Cat, Privatemusings, TFMWNCB and Gwen Gale would obviously make a difference; whether it's WBJScribe or Jayvdb, less so.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

Kelly Martin's votes are worth a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/Kelly_Martin

That didn't take long. I couldn't bring myself to vote on every candidate; some of them just aren't interesting enough.

I guess I'll make lemons from lemonade and just be glad you didn't think I'd be ineffectual, just dramatic. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

CHL just edged Rlevse for fourth place. The excitement builds!

I noticed something on the talk page of Rlevse's election page:

I have recused myself for voting for Rlevse due almost fully to my extensive prior involvement with him. We converse frequently on ArbCom Clerking and administrator matters, and I would probably agree that he is as much a friend as a colleague. (Offering my support to him, therefore, could be easily coloured as cronyism, which would reflect poorly on his candidacy as well as on me.) I do wish to note for the record my agreement with what seems to be the consensus of a sizable majority of the community: Rlevse would make a very good Arbitrator, and is an excellent choice this election. Good luck, Rlevse. AGK 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It really struck me how rare this kind of self-aware, honorable behavior was on Wikipedia. Which is rather like that discussion I had with Brad about the conspicuous lack of resignations that go on among the power seekers at WP compared to the real world. So if David Gerard screws up and bans half of Utah by mistake, he carries on with impunity and without apology. Meanwhile, the dysfunctional community takes any opportunity to pile on and indulge in the most naked display of cronyism since the days of the Medicis in Florence. So I just thought that stance by AGK showed an uncharacteristic flourish of class for a Wikipedian.

Out of curiosity, would you consider AGK's "recusal" necessary of this was a secret ballot? I don't disagree with your criticisms of the lack of accountability for fuckups at Wikipedia, but I've never seen it suggested that you should recuse yourself from elections if a friend's running. If AGK's personal ethical code demands it, then power to him for doing it, but I don't think it was necessary.

the conspicuous lack of resignations that go on among the power seekers at WP compared to the real world.

Whilst I support your desire for more honourable behaviour from the Wiki powers that be, I find your description of the real world strange coming from someone who lives in New Labour Britain. Have I got that wrong?

the conspicuous lack of resignations that go on among the power seekers at WP compared to the real world.

Whilst I support your desire for more honourable behaviour from the Wiki powers that be, I find your description of the real world strange coming from someone who lives in New Labour Britain. Have I got that wrong?

Well I suppose I was thinking more about media people like Greg Dyke and Lesley Douglas than New Labourites like Peter Mandelson, who has resigned three times only to return each time. There have still been serial resignations under New Labour, the most admirable being Robin Cook - and the most unseemly by Tony Blair who should done it much earlier. The funniest resignation may be Plaid Cymru Welsh minister Rhodri Glyn Thomas, who resigned because he walked into a bar with a lit cigar, and also according to the BBC "considered his position unsustainable following an earlier gaffe when he named the wrong winner of a book prize"!

Anyway, my point is that Checkusers, Arbitrators and Admins generally don't give up their tools even after they've been publicly found to have misused them. Nor do many hardcore Wikipediots decline the offer of exploiting hideous cronyism or blatant conflicts of interest whenever they can. This was a rare surprise.

I noticed something on the talk page of Rlevse's election page:

I have recused myself for voting for Rlevse due almost fully to my extensive prior involvement with him. We converse frequently on ArbCom Clerking and administrator matters, and I would probably agree that he is as much a friend as a colleague. (Offering my support to him, therefore, could be easily coloured as cronyism, which would reflect poorly on his candidacy as well as on me.) I do wish to note for the record my agreement with what seems to be the consensus of a sizable majority of the community: Rlevse would make a very good Arbitrator, and is an excellent choice this election. Good luck, Rlevse. AGK 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It really struck me how rare this kind of self-aware, honorable behavior was on Wikipedia. Which is rather like that discussion I had with Brad about the conspicuous lack of resignations that go on among the power seekers at WP compared to the real world. So if David Gerard screws up and bans half of Utah by mistake, he carries on with impunity and without apology. Meanwhile, the dysfunctional community takes any opportunity to pile on and indulge in the most naked display of cronyism since the days of the Medicis in Florence. So I just thought that stance by AGK showed an uncharacteristic flourish of class for a Wikipedian.

I've always looked up to AGK on Wikipedia. He's one of the Wikipedians I trust the most. Whether he had to do what he did or not, it, I think it was an honorable thing to do.

the conspicuous lack of resignations that go on among the power seekers at WP compared to the real world.

Whilst I support your desire for more honourable behaviour from the Wiki powers that be, I find your description of the real world strange coming from someone who lives in New Labour Britain. Have I got that wrong?

Well I suppose I was thinking more about media people like Greg Dyke and Lesley Douglas than New Labourites like Peter Mandelson, who has resigned three times only to return each time. There have still been serial resignations under New Labour, the most admirable being Robin Cook - and the most unseemly by Tony Blair who should done it much earlier. The funniest resignation may be Plaid Cymru Welsh minister Rhodri Glyn Thomas, who resigned because he walked into a bar with a lit cigar, and also according to the BBC "considered his position unsustainable following an earlier gaffe when he named the wrong winner of a book prize"!

Anyway, my point is that Checkusers, Arbitrators and Admins generally don't give up their tools even after they've been publicly found to have misused them. Nor do many hardcore Wikipediots decline the offer of exploiting hideous cronyism or blatant conflicts of interest whenever they can. This was a rare surprise.

This may need splitting, but just a very quick comment.

One thing that has struck me under New Labour is how civil servants are now named, shamed and expected to resign. The age-old tradition was for the Minister to take the blame if something went wrong in his department, but this motley lot just blame the officials and get them to quit. Perhaps one of the more dishonourable developments since that sad day in May 1997.

Well I suppose I was thinking more about media people like Greg Dyke and Lesley Douglas than New Labourites like Peter Mandelson, who has resigned three times only to return each time. There have still been serial resignations under New Labour, the most admirable being Robin Cook - and the most unseemly by Tony Blair who should done it much earlier. The funniest resignation may be Plaid Cymru Welsh minister Rhodri Glyn Thomas, who resigned because he walked into a bar with a lit cigar, and also according to the BBC "considered his position unsustainable following an earlier gaffe when he named the wrong winner of a book prize"!

Anyway, my point is that Checkusers, Arbitrators and Admins generally don't give up their tools even after they've been publicly found to have misused them. Nor do many hardcore Wikipediots decline the offer of exploiting hideous cronyism or blatant conflicts of interest whenever they can. This was a rare surprise.

I think Douglas jumped before she was pushed. Paul Gambaccini was doing the media round putting the blame fairly and squarely at her door. I think he said he had warned her against hiring Brand. There were also stories that she had moved away several producers who had tried to edit Brand's show during its run time. I think with the pack baying for blood, then Thompson or the BBC Trust would have sacked her.
But I suppose your point would be that Jimmy Wales doesn't get put in the same position as Thompson and the BBC Trust were in very often and therefore it is very rare that any strong action is taken in Wikipedia or that people feel obliged to ackowledge their mistakes.

I suppose I should update this thread with a note that voting has now closed and the seven winning candidates are Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse, Jayvdb, and Vassyana, in that order.

How does everyone feel about these results? I'm pretty satisfied with how things turned out. While I only have a definitively positive opinion about one of the seven (CHL), none of the others have given me any particular reason to think they won't perform well, and I'm optimistic that we're going to see a much improved ArbCom.

could've been worse. Obviously not all of them are perfect or even desirable, but given the candidates, I couldn't have expected a much better result.

The candidates I really objected to will not be appointed.

Going by percentages, the top 5 differentiated themselves, but Vassyana, Jayvb, Carcharoth, and Wizardman were pretty tightly bunched.

Lifebaka received 116 votes, Laniveil 117.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

I suppose I should update this thread with a note that voting has now closed and the seven winning candidates are Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse, Jayvdb, and Vassyana, in that order.

How does everyone feel about these results? I'm pretty satisfied with how things turned out. While I only have a definitively positive opinion about one of the seven (CHL), none of the others have given me any particular reason to think they won't perform well, and I'm optimistic that we're going to see a much improved ArbCom.

CHL had my strong support, no huge issues with most the others except to say that Vassyana is apparently a Prem Rawat Kool Aid drinker which is a pretty big negative IMO. Jayvdb I was going to support wholeheartedly but some things like not answering all the questions right until the end and some charges of being inclined to favour his friends in disputes while trying to keep the appearance of being neutral stopped me from doing so. SirFozzie and The Fat Man I also supported strongly but neither of them made the cut. The only other support I gave was for Kurt - for the lulz.

could've been worse. Obviously not all of them are perfect or even desirable, but given the candidates, I couldn't have expected a much better result.

The candidates I really objected to will not be appointed.

Going by percentages, the top 5 differentiated themselves, but Vassyana, Jayvb, Carcharoth, and Wizardman were pretty tightly bunched.

Lifebaka received 116 votes, Laniveil 117.

I don't know that Vassyana should be appointed. S/he finished 7th in the %support metric by a mere 0.9% over Carcharoth. In the other 2 measurable metrics (raw support and net support), Vass didn't even finish 8th. S/he was all the way back in 9th in those, while Carch was the clear #7 in both. If this were the BCS (I know, it's not, it's the JWCS), Carch would be the clear choice.

could've been worse. Obviously not all of them are perfect or even desirable, but given the candidates, I couldn't have expected a much better result.

The candidates I really objected to will not be appointed.

Going by percentages, the top 5 differentiated themselves, but Vassyana, Jayvb, Carcharoth, and Wizardman were pretty tightly bunched.

Lifebaka received 116 votes, Laniveil 117.

I don't know that Vassyana should be appointed. S/he finished 7th in the %support metric by a mere 0.9% over Carcharoth. In the other 2 measurable metrics (raw support and net support), Vass didn't even finish 8th. S/he was all the way back in 9th in those, while Carch was the clear #7 in both. If this were the BCS (I know, it's not, it's the JWCS), Carch would be the clear choice.

Who knows, I suggested to Jimbo that maybe appointing an extra arb or two maybe a good idea if the results were close...

CHL had my strong support, no huge issues with most the others except to say tat Vassyana is apparently a Prem Rawat Kool Aid drinker which is a pretty big negative IMO.

Wait until you try to track down all his aliases (e.g. "Gregori Kampf"). Then tell me how strange this is.

No one asked the most obvious question:

"Who are you?"

No one asked the most obvious question:

"Who are you?"

That was in Lar's questions.

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)

No, but I would reveal my real name if elected and it is clearly desired by the community. I am considering revealing my real name regardless. I do not believe it should be a requirement for arbs to reveal their personal identity. The vast majority of people on the project are normal everyday people. ArbCom work exposes arbs to a lot of potential harassment and serious threats. I would not be comfortable with forcing someone in that position to reveal their private information.

I suppose I should update this thread with a note that voting has now closed and the seven winning candidates are Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse, Jayvdb, and Vassyana, in that order.

How does everyone feel about these results? I'm pretty satisfied with how things turned out. While I only have a definitively positive opinion about one of the seven (CHL), none of the others have given me any particular reason to think they won't perform well, and I'm optimistic that we're going to see a much improved ArbCom.

CHL had my strong support, no huge issues with most the others except to say that Vassyana is apparently a Prem Rawat Kool Aid drinker which is a pretty big negative IMO.<snip>

I had no idea who Casilber, Risker, or Cool Hand Luke was before this election. I'd never heard of them before, so really can't say how I feel about them. Heard of Jayvdb, never interacted with them. As for Rlevse and Vassyana, I know both of them reasonably well (Vassyana even more so). They've both got good heads on their shoulders. I disagree that Vassyana is a "Prem Rawat Kool Aid drinker". I managed to dig this up and I think that it was more an issue of wanting a pair of fresh eyes rather than "OMG he's biased etc". And if Vass is a prem rawat kool aid drinker....what does that make me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)



This post has been edited by Steve Crossin:

could've been worse. Obviously not all of them are perfect or even desirable, but given the candidates, I couldn't have expected a much better result.

The candidates I really objected to will not be appointed.

Going by percentages, the top 5 differentiated themselves, but Vassyana, Jayvb, Carcharoth, and Wizardman were pretty tightly bunched.

Lifebaka received 116 votes, Laniveil 117.

I don't know that Vassyana should be appointed. S/he finished 7th in the %support metric by a mere 0.9% over Carcharoth. In the other 2 measurable metrics (raw support and net support), Vass didn't even finish 8th. S/he was all the way back in 9th in those, while Carch was the clear #7 in both. If this were the BCS (I know, it's not, it's the JWCS), Carch would be the clear choice.

You again lol. What about raw oppose and net oppose? And 0.9 percent is nearly a whole percent ahead.

And if Vass is a prem rawat kool aid drinker....what does that make me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

I dunno. An owl?

And if Vass is a prem rawat kool aid drinker....what does that make me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

I dunno. An owl?

My avatar is NOT a personal photo (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

And if Vass is a prem rawat kool aid drinker....what does that make me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

I dunno. An owl?

My avatar is NOT a personal photo (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Impersonal then? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

And if Vass is a prem rawat kool aid drinker....what does that make me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

Someone who uses a screen name that looks like a real name but is actually a fake name? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)