There are at least 49 people who hate Wikipedia.

Great comment: ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose.

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

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. Reminds me of booty who would oppose any request for adminship.

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.

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

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.

Damn. White Cat is beating Charles Matthews.

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.

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.

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 vote pages?

Lol! And so it should be IMHO

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

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)

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:



and the follow up kick in the nads from Elonka:



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

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 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.

[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.

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)

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.

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

Excuse me?

And who the hell is Roger Davies?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

::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

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