Election results, Voting has begun Options

[Sceptre]

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

Excuse me?

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

[Rootology]

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

[CharlotteWebb]

And who the hell is Roger Davies?

One of the drummers for Spin̈al Tap.

[CharlotteWebb]

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...)

[Kato]

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.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

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.

[Peter Damian]

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

[The Wales Hunter]

Sam Korn has withdrawn:

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

[Rootology]

Gwen is out:

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

[Derktar]

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.

[Cla68]

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: Tue 2nd December 2008, 1:17am

[Giggy]

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".

[Alex]

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).

[Obesity]

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: Tue 2nd December 2008, 1:47am

[Giggy]

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.

[The Wales Hunter]

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.

[Viridae]

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

[Cla68]

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.

[Obesity]

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.

[One]

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.