OK, I thought I'd create a new thread, to discuss all the nominations in one convenient place, now that the final lot are in.

The list is as follows:

AnthonyQBachler
BillMasen
Carcharoth
Casliber
Charles Matthews
Cool Hand Luke
Coren
Dream Focus
Fish and karate
George The Dragon
Gwen Gale
Hemlock Martinis
Hersfold
Jayvdb
Jdforrester
Jehochman
Justice America
Kmweber
Lankiveil
Lifebaka
Privatemusings
Risker
Rlevse
RMHED
Roger Davies
Sam Korn
Secret
Shell Kinney
SirFozzie
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back
Trojanpony
Vassyana
White Cat
WilyD
Wizardman
WJBscribe

I've already chosen who I will be voting for.

It might be useful to list the folks who realistically have no shot.

"Never heard of him:"

AnthonyQBachler
BillMasen
Dream Focus (note the meager Wikipedia-space contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=...&year=&month=-1 )
Justice America
Trojanpony

Joke nominations:
George the Dragon
Kmweber
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Too much history:
Privatemusings (Arbcom case)
RMHED (failed RFAs)
White Cat (Arbcom case)
Secret (long inactivity this year; unlikely to remain active for a full ArbCom term)

Failed in last year's elections:
Hemlock Martinis (54 support, 78 oppose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...emlock_Martinis )
Shell Kinney (91 support, 73 oppose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...te/Shell_Kinney )

Currently on the committee:
Charles Matthews
Jdforrester

That leaves 20 remaining candidates who have at least an outside shot of winning. I think Hemlock and Shell will do better than some of these, but they won't finish in the top seven. All 20 of the names below are administrators, as best I can recall. It should be noted that no non-admin has won election to the Committee, and it is not likely to happen in the future unless the non-admin is especially respected for other reasons and chooses not to run for RFA. With 7 spots for 20 bona fide candidates, I'll give each of these about a 1 in 3 chance of making it. I may make a more specific prediction later.

Jayvdb is a former ArbCom clerk, and has oversight; Coren and Rlevse are current ones. Rlevse is also a bureaucrat and checkuser. Sam Korn is a former arb, with all the privs that go with it; WJBscribe is MedCom "chair", and a bureaucrat.

I'll provisionally knock out the kids (users who are definitely or probably less than 24 years old) and some of the newer admins who might not rate high enough on the experience metric. That takes care of Gwen Gale, Hersfold, Lifebaka, WilyD and Wizardman (who also failed last year for inexperience, and I should have listed him earlier). Regarding Wizardman, see his failed RFB which got about 3/4 (75%) support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...tship/Wizardman

That leaves the following fifteen names. I project that the seven top names, and at least nine of the top ten, will be on this list.




Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm almost certain WJBscribe and Rlevse will make it, but I don't want to play the game of assigning two seats to them and guessing who will get the other five. I'm just trying to see who's got a chance.

Here are the absolutely definite, 100% guaranteed, head down to your bookie and make a ton of cash, results for this year's election;

WJBscribe
Rlevse
Sam Korn
Carcharoth
Vassyana
Casliber
and 50 / 50 between Risker and Jayvdb for 7th or 8th....

The results are helpfully in the finishing order too - if anyone will pay more than 12 to 1 on this being accurate, I'll paypal them $10 by return :-)

watch the ex-arb.s closely though (I guess I mean Charles Matthews and Jdforrester), because if they scrape 50% (and I think Charles has a good shot) expect to see them on the committee at some point :-)

That's the skinny from me :-)

What in his Candidate statement makes you think the Fat Man is kidding? He is surprisingly (though inexplicably) popular among a diverse assortment of established editors/administrators. You might begin to take him slightly more seriously once you see who's voting for him.


That was unnecessary.

PM, if you've just put the kiss of death on my nomination, you can shout me a few beers at the next Sydney meetup

It's interesting that you're so certain about that list, but I agree that it seems entirely plausible. It would be a moderately positive outcome, although I think having Sam Korn on the ArbCom again would be terrible. I have never even heard of Vassyana before, and I know next to nothing about Casliber, so I'm hoping someone will give me a brief summary of what they're about (maybe Casliber can write a summary for himself).

I've just sent PM a PM with my PayPal addy, I'll cover that bet. No way is that the list and especially no way is that the order... Easiest 10 bucks I ever made.

That’s interesting that Jayvdb is running. Few facts about this individual.

This individual is one of the responsible of the second Armenian-Azerbaijan arbitration case, when he helped kill an undergoing mediation over an article by coming in support of a disrupter few days after my ban, after the mediator said the obvious, which was that the suggested change was inappropriate. This killing caused a revert war which lasted months.

This user was also involved in the harassment of a user, who actually left Wikipedia when he came and voted minutes after the harasser to have his article redirected. 1 (not to include his unjustifiable reverts of that users edits)

He also proxied for the harasser in commons and requested checkusers to have one of the harasser foe banned from English Wikipedia.

I’m not going to provide the various other diffs, of his reverts (without justification) of articles related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan case.

He also influenced the course of the Ehud Lesar arbitration case (related to Armenia-Azerbaijan), to have an obvious sockpuppet of a banned user reinstated.

But I guess it won’t be the first time involved parties to arbitration cases will run as arbitrators if that happens.

If you need someone to provide escrow services, look no further--I heard this PM is a very slippery fellow.

Not that it really matters, but I'll probably be giving a support vote to more than seven people, because there are a lot of people on that overall list that I respect.

it's winging it's way to you now Lar :-) - and I'll even accept the 12 to 1 offered, despite asking for more (I knew I shouldda held out for at least 20...... dammit!)

@everyking (and just generally) - I'd hope it was at least fairly clear that I'm not really at all confident that this is how things will work out (and would likely offer 15 to 1 if anyone wants to paypal me any money! Gotta love a good hedge!)....

My ordering is a combination of what I expect, and what I would like, to be honest - and we'll see how it goes.....

(ps, have folk noticed the latest trend in arb election subpages - they're springing up all over the place! - I'm not sure if Lar's canvassing on my behalf is heartfelt, or if he's trying to win the bet by getting me elected? We'll see!) - Vote Privatemusings!

That's the safe squad; guaranteed no scary change. And if you add Charles Matthews you're done.


Laugh now, buckos.

I got it, thanks. So much for thinking you were skint. Or likely to stiff me. (well, actually I got a PROMISE from PayPal since you apparently don't have 10 USD in that account yet... so who knows)

Heck, I'm so sure I won't be sending any of it back, I'll give you 14:1 instead of the offered 12:1 The ordering sealed the deal, no WAY can you predict it that accurately.

As for canvassing on your behalf? You're up to your usual misinterpretation of the words of others, I'd wager.

Er, say.

I already tossed an oppose your way, after all! But I'm glad to see the "this is my opinion, so there" thing is catching on, we're now up to 5.

that credit card is sure to work! It was freshly stolen only this morning :-) (actually the bastards have already taken my money, no doubt they're busy lending it to fictional people to buy fictional houses... I just hope the US dollar is still worth something by the time it gets there.......)

my 'usual misinterpretation' is a kinda mean way of describing tongue in cheek commentary - but I take it your comments about me on your subpage weren't an attempt to appease the fat man by working on your satire chops.... my bad....I accept full personal responsibility for that error. :-)

On the other hand, there's just a possibility that some folk read this more than some wiki pages, so you needn't be coy about your support for me - I don't think it'll harm your chances of gaining adminship somewhere down the line, and everyone loves an underdog, right?

I agree with you about the opinion subpages thing, mind - it's good to see folk sharing their thoughts, hopefully more will trundle along....

a propos nothing in particular, the odds on my gaining a seat on the committe just shortened considerably with the publication of my 5 big ideas - if folk do take a look, they'll see that credit is due to many folk around here (both WR and wiki types) for most of them - and I really hope they get some attention.

It's with that hope in mind I'm running to be honest, so we'll see if they get any attention at all.....

Let's compile a sub-list of candidates who are members of the Review. Their membership gives their candidacies far greater credibility to my mind.

I'll need some help here; SirFozzie is here under his WP moniker. Fish and Karate is here as Neil; is the Fat Man he whom we know as Obesity?

Yep, The Fat Man ... = Obesity. Also Cool Hand Luke = One (see his question page). George The Dragon = The Wales Hunter. Kmweber = Kurt M Weber. Privatemusings, Casilber, Jehochman and Wizardman are all here under the same name.

Damn I forgot to put my nom in. Totally too busy IRL.

Yeah, I am here he is me, I am him, we too are one....

.....everyking, I thought you would have noticed another inclusionist as they are as rare as hen's teeth at AfD ( I think apart from us, Alansohn, and DGG and...)

Nuts, erm, my userpage lists most of the stuff I have been doing on WP, and SandyGeorgia asked me and a few other FA writers to do something for the signpost (hang on, I will rummage round for the link in a few min...)

I believe Charles Matthews is also competitive. He's gotten praise here.[1][2][3] Content contributor. Not a statement on the candidate either way, just an observation about his competitive electability.

If it weren't for legal and ethical problems, I would cover as much of PM's 12-to-1 as he'd allow, especially as he seemed to be offering a trifecta to the sixth place (and only two possibilities for the seventh). Such a bet should accurately have a payout in the hundreds.

My candidacy is most assuredly quite serious.

Your classification of me as someone who "realistically [has] no shot" is probably correct, but that doesn't make it a joke.

... or thousands. Which is why I covered it. And in offering to cover it, warned him I'd be lobbying for a different outcome... he sent me the funds anyway. Sucker. Assuming the payment clears (not yet a foregone conclusion), you just don't MAKE easier money than that.

Now, on the other hand, PM thinks his odds improved a lot with his platform planks being revealed... I happen to agree. I think they got better by at least 3 orders of magnitude... all the way to 1:1,000,000,000 or so. One or two of those planks actually aren't cockamamie ideas.

If anyone is foolish enough to offer 1:1,000,000 odds on PM getting elected. I've got a buck I'll put down against a payout of a million , just for the humor value. But I ain't holding my breath. (you'd probably need to get the million to Obesity, my designated escrow agent, just to be unfair, since I didn't send my 150 to him to cover PM, LOL)

(as a note, this is why I am a LP member... not because they win elections, but because their ideas sometimes have some small influence for the better)

Lar

There is no way Private Musings' odds are bad at the billion to one level. The odds of enough other candidates withdrawing or being run over by buses gives him a better chance than that. The "probably not" candidates still have something like a ~0.1% change of getting elected. Even PrivateMusings, Kmweber and them have to be at the >0.001% of getting elected.

Those wouldn't necessarily contribute to PM's chances of winning, depending on how winning is defined - "finishing no worse than 7th" is one definition, yes, but "finishing no worse than 7th, getting more supports than opposes, and not being vetoed by Jimbo" is one that's perhaps a closer model of reality.

Of being a top seven vote getter maybe. but considering Jimbo decides who iz and who izznt, I think I'll take Lar's side on that.

Having contested elections in the real world, I would suggest there is no such thing as a "joke" nomination, especially given the current opinion sections of the community has of the ArbCom right now.

A real improvement requires real changes to the system, and that's something the three of us would bring to the table. Many of the other candidates are just copies of the same.

Two editors, myself included already withdrew, Hersford is the other one.

I assumed all bets would be for finishing in the top 7 with more than 50%. Betting does not normally take into account acts of God(king).

The 50% criteria absolutely kills Kurt's chances--if he were the last candidate standing, he would just get more opposition votes.

That said, Kurt's desire to destroy ArbCom is sincere, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to try to sort "joke" from non-joke candidacies. The Fat Man is not certainly not running a joke campaign in my view, and I think some might wonder whether Trojanpony is by the username alone. Making these value judgments serves no purpose.

Charles Matthews is the most likely of the two standing candidates to win.

Also note I'm most likely to do a detailed subpage describing all the candidates and why I'm voting for them or not.

Any remaining sense that Kurt was running a sincere campaign for reform is, to my mind at least, negated by his answer to Rootology's question on his question page on-wiki.

On a different note, I'd argue that all candidates should make a full disclosure of their real life identity and background before even standing.

Is it not farcical that an election is being held for wacky screen names?

Well, in fairness I don't think he ever intended reform so much as harm. I'm surprised he answered it. Obesity once doubted Kurt was a "troll" because he supposedly believes what he says. At this point, there can be no doubt.

Odds that Jimbo dies in the next month are much, much higher than a billion to one.


Wacky screen names voting for wacky screen names seems exactly right to me.

I've never considered The Fat Man's campaign as a "joke"; he has always seemed quite serious (aside from his username) and forthright in his criticisms. The only reason people consider him a joke is the username and the fact that his viewpoints are so discordant with the party line.


Kurt's campaign is serious only in Kurtworld, and the intersection of Kurtworld and the real world is very minimal indeed.

"Joke" here is used to mean "has no chance of winning", not "candidate is not serious".

Oh, I'm quite sincere in my aims.

Making jokes during a campaign does not make the campaign itself a joke.

You would do well to learn the difference.

That might be true for some people, but that definition is unfamiliar to me. And also to Shalom, apparently. "Joke" is one subheading of Shalom's list of "folks who realistically have no shot."

My modest point is that it's probably not worthwhile to label candidate intentions.

I do not mean it *should* be used that way. But that is pretty clearly what it means to call The Fat Man a "joke" candidate, for instance.

The Fat Man would make a decent arbitrator, I'll vote for him - he can edit without having his head so far up his own backside that he can't see what he's doing!

Elonka's reason for opposing me:

Wants to ban all users under the age of 18.[3]



The quote was:

"Though, for the record, if it were my choice (which it never will be!) I'd ban users under 18 and demand full disclosure of real-life identities of all admins as a bare minimum."

And I think what I actually meant was ban under 18 admins, but I can't actually remember my thought process.

It comes down to my view that if a real-life person is damaged by the actions of an admin, they should be able to take full legal action against them.

You weren't on Alex' original list, at least under the name "Jaranda," but now the point is moot. Here are the active candidates who are members here;

SirFozzie
Fish and Karate AKA Neil
Fat Man AKA Obesity
Cool Hand Luke AKA One
George The Dragon AKA The Wales Hunter
Kmweber AKA Kurt M Weber
Privatemusings
Casilber
Jehochman
Wizardman

Please make corrections if necessary.

Actually, she said:

"No, not an admin. August 2008 RfA tally: (11/16/5)[2] Wants to ban all users under the age of 18.[3]"

Frankly, that's more reason she's given for opposing you than almost anyone. Most candidates just have "No." Elonka highly values formal dispute resolution experience. Nothing personal, I suspect.

It's Casliber, not Casilber.

The three folks whose candidacies I labeled as jokes have all replied on this thread to challenge my assertion. If you took offense at my remarks, I apologize. I did not intend to hurt either your feelings or your chances of gaining votes in the election.

I consider a candidacy a "joke" if its purpose is other than for the candidate to serve a functioning role on the Committee in its tasks of resolving disputes on Wikipedia. George The Dragon wants to make a POINT about Jimbo's excessive authority, so he's not primarily interested in serving on the Committee. Kurt wants to dissolve the Committee, which he hopes to accomplish by sabotaging it from the inside. The Fat Man actually intends a serious campaign, but his humorous tone makes him sound like a joker even when he intends something seriously, so his campaign is a joke in my admittedly biased eyes.

So even if you all really want to win the election, and really think you have a chance, that doesn't really change my evaluation. That being said, I accept One's comment that I should not try to guess people's unstated intentions.

I think it's funny that people are using my "block log" as a reason to oppose me, when it is clear that none of those blocks were legitimate or valid, as evidenced by the simple fact that none of them held up when the community was made aware of them.

Kurt is a funny guy.


By the way, I'd bet a lot of money against privatemusing's order.

Wait, voting started? I thought voting isn't until december?

Voting hasn't started, but candidates can no longer nominat themselves.

I could name over eighteen admins whom I believe should be banned, but I won't.