Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:53, 5 December 2007

Comments moved from voting page

Moved per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote by uninvolved user (in turn derived from consensus on election talk pages): "Users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should made at each candidate's vote talk page".

Iridescent

Support absolutely. Giano is argumentative, disruptive, pompous, arrogant and spectacularly annoying, and I rarely agree with him on anything. But I'd far sooner have someone with his impressive ability to consistently say the right thing in the wrong way than one of those all-too-frequent characters who always manage to say the wrong thing in the right way. I trust his opinion; his sense of fairness; his ability to understand what the key issues are in a dispute & which editors are capable of being turned around; his ability to stay neutral in the face of trolling & provocation from both sides; his understanding of when the sarcasm should stop & the constructive comments start; and above all his understanding of where things are going wrong & dedication to keeping the project on course to what it could one day be, more than I'd trust any dozen "All hail to the wisdom of the glorious First Citizen Jimbo" self-appointed Defenders of the Wiki. — iridescent 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU

The election of the Arbitration Committee is flawed; in that a candidate with a vast majority of support from the community may not be given the opportunity to serve by decision of the Trustees. This is inappropriate in this medium, and thus I shall only be voting once - despite some other fine candidates. My one vote thus goes to Giano, who is relentlessly fair and fearless in the pursuit of the truth. Support LessHeard vanU 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Merkinsmum

Support Is a person of integrity, who from what I have seen remains remarkably civil in all circumstances, and will not allow any of the corruption and cliquey-ness that anti-wikipedians, along with many in the community, fear is a risk in Arb-Com and Misplaced Pages as a whole. He also knows about the grassroots reality of editing and so will be truly aware of the experience of editors and responsive to their needs.Merkinsmum 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jzg

Oppose, sorry. I was all set to support, but Giano's refusal to accept policy on posting of private email, coupled with the appearance of grudge-bearing agains certain individuals, means I cannot have confidence in Giano maintaining the requisite level of discretion as an Arbitrator. Giano writes great content. That doesn't mean he'd be a great arbitrator. Put simply, I do not trust Giano with the sensitive private data that ArbCom members get: CheckUser, Oversight and so on. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

W. Frank

Strenuously oppose. He's a useful irritant for keeping the "open spirit" of Misplaced Pages but spectacularly lacking in common sense and human empathy. Intellectually dishonest and sloppy in his judgements of motivation and use of sources. Lacks the judicial temperament to start with an open mind and come to a conclusion based on the evidence presented but instead starts with his gut feeling and is then aggressively unable to change his opinion once formed. A good thief taker but not the sort of personality for our "court"s bench.  W. Frank talk ✉  13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Forte Supporte! Giano and I did not get off to the best of starts...but we soon sorted that out:) Over the years I've come to trust his judgement, his integrity and good sense. I've also come to value his strong desire for fair play and his wry wit. No one here can seriously doubt his absolute commitment to the project! And I have no doubt he will make a great judge. Besides, he's had more experience with the ArbCom than almost any candidate in the current field. As some of my colleagues have already stated; he's just what the community and the committee needs-the right man at the right time, so let us put him in the right place! GIANO FOR JUSTICE! GIANO FOR ARBCOM!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Avillia

Support Giano has, overtime, shown an increasing trend towards civility. His transgressions are still, admittedly, less than ideal at times --- but, regardless of the execution, his judgement remains rather sound on major issues. Thankfully, as an arbitrator, he'll be commenting on these issues alone. He'll have to take a bit more of a back seat when it comes to politics, but I think it'll work out well on the whole. Although, I must say, I can't help but believe this might now be all for show...--Avillia 01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Comments

Which Arbcom canidates supported Durova

Which Arbcom canidates supported Durova in the witchhunt? I know User:JoshuaZ did, who else? Travb (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance of the above to this election or candidate. Would you please refactor or explain your question in relation to Giano's candidature? LessHeard vanU 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly I do not see the relevance of this in the elections This is a Secret 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind then. :) Travb (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. LessHeard vanU 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For reference

Here is my rationale: User:Lar/ArbCom2007/Giano. I welcome comments. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, really well thought out. RxS 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to authorized election monitor

I believe that User:Save Us 229 probably does not have a franchise. I do not want to disrupt anything here, so will leave it to a disinterested party to take whatever action is appropriate. Risker 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I indented it and left him a comment on his talk page. If an admin feels I erred, feel free to undo it. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 05:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's completly ludacris. I've had an account long before November 11th, in fact I've had an account since 2005 and have been a member of this community since 2004, regardless of whether or not this account is a new one. — Save_Us_229 05:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You should let someone who can verify that know. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 05:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And what do you propose be verified, that I own the account? I don't have access to it anymore. — Save_Us_229 05:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the instructions on the main elections page:

You must have registered account with at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2007 to vote. You may only vote once per candidate, and you may not vote for yourself. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite, and do explain why their vote has been indented.

You can vote from that account, or you can make a note on your old account's user or talk page linking the two accounts, but this account does not have suffrage. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I lost my ID, they wouldn't let me vote in real-life elections either. That's just life. Zocky | picture popups 05:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider your suffrage provided. — Save_Us_229 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all that convincing, but Moe Epsilon does have e-mail enabled, so resetting the password is an option, which would clear up any doubts. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Read my lips, I no longer have access to my old account. Try Special:Emailuser/Save Us 229. — Save_Us_229 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Read my lips, yes you do since e-mail is enabled (unless you are not Moe). -- Ned Scott 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No ding dong, e-mail me, this = this. Same e-mail account. i.e. I don't want access to my old account, I could care less about it personally. — Save_Us_229 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

1196581961053, *sigh* Now will you get off my back? — Save_Us_229 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I sent that number to Moe's e-mail address. Good enough for me. No hard feeling's 229, and good to see you back. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• yeah, I can confirm that the two are the same. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

i voted in error

Having now read the requirements, it seems I'm not covered by the franchise, and shouldn't have voted. Can the election monitor please correct that? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 06:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us. For the record, any user including yourself could've indented it. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I tried but kept buggering up the numbering. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that used to get me too. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to also bracket link to this comment from the mainpage (my indent)? I don't want people thinking I tried to cheat. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take care of it. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, much better. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no way in hell Jim Wales would ever approve Giano II for Arbcom is there?

There is no way in hell Jim Wales would ever approve Giano II for Arbcom is there? I still strongly support his nomination, just wondering. Travb (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a question only he can answer. Giano 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano, you already got your answer from him a few days ago. You're close to getting banned from Misplaced Pages according to Jimmy Wales, not close to getting access to deleted edits, Oversight/CheckUser access or other information that is consider confidential in some circumstances. — Save_Us_229 11:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And if Giano gets banned and the drama continues (because it's not really Giano fuelling the drama) - what then? Will Jimbo climb down and admit his mistake? Simply because someone says Giano is causing harm doesn't make it true. Even without Giano, the impression I get from the support he has received is that there would be many people prepared to adopt the same principled stances. The real way to get the "Giano-drama" to stop is to tackle the root causes. Take those away and there would be nothing for people to get upset about. Carcharoth 11:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that from past arbcoms, reading the talk pages, Jim Wales usually approves arbcoms based on percentage approval, but sometimes he doesn't in a couple of cases. Save Us, thanks for reminding us, once again, of that diff. Maybe you should somehow add it to your signature, so even more people well read it, how about this:

Please take this in stride :)

All of the really bad comments that the oppose camp put up for Giano here on this arbcom are so incredibly mild and are not violations of any rule I can think of. Travb (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, because making posting private e-mails, making personal attacks, being incivil and edit warring are all key qualities we need in an arbitrator. — Save_Us_229 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whereas "Jimbo likes him" is crucial? ;) Zocky | picture popups 12:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like the signature, Save_Us. If there is anything else I can do to spice up your signature, let me know. :) User:Zocky, Jim acts as gatekeeper, so I think it is crucial. Travb (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspected canvassing

These three users voted one after the other. They are on the other side of The Troubles ArbCom to Giano. This is W.Frank's first edit since 11 September, so that seems beyond coincidence.

76 Oppose - wrong temperament, too quick to condemn, and prone to unjust extreme solutions. A bad judge. David Lauder 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

77 --Counter-revolutionary 12:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

78 Strenuously oppose. A useful irritant to keep "open" the "spirit" of WP but spectacularly lacking in common sense & human empathy. Lacks the judicial temperament to start with an open mind and come to a conclusion based on evidence...comments moved to talk page. W. Frank talk ✉ 13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius 15:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as they are not socks of each other and have suffivient suffrage, I'm not bothered by their presence here. Giano 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There do not appear to be any talk page comments or edits from or to any of the three that would indicate on-wiki canvassing. Can't confirm or deny anything beyond that, but it'll be looked into, I'm sure. ZZ ~ Evidence 15:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, while this may be true and there's no way of ascertaining it, they still do have the right to vote here. Have to say, I'm surprised to see Frank here given he had vanished as soon as the Troubles arb got underway - Alison 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone really expect anything else? I'm sure this day was marked on Frank's diary the moment Giano announced his candidacy! Rockpocket 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally it is considered questionable if dormant editors suddenly reappear in close support of friends and allies in these circumstances. Something anatidean comes into it. Tyrenius 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Weren't we all canvassed, by a quite prominent note on our watchlists? ;) They have as much suffrage as you or I, even though I disagree with their votes. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. All sorts of people are coming "out of retirement" to both support and oppose candidates (see Bdj and Yomangani for examples). Rockpocket 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see we are suffering from a lack of good faith here. I was not canvassed by anyone to vote. I cannot account for how others vote or when they do. I find this sort of thing most offensive. It ranks as a personal attack, I would suggest. the answer is almost certainly that Users are looking at the contributions of others and following them. Something none of the complainants here would ever do. David Lauder 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I came here from seeing it mentioned elsewhere; can't recall where, but it wasn't in a "vote for me!" type of statement, but I think a discussion between two unrelated editors. You can always use "what links here" to find out where it's being discussed... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is no problem here, I know these editors they have a right to be here voting. It is true W Frank did leave in a hurry at the beginning of the "Troubles RFARB" but as far as I'm aware that does not preclude him from voting. Giano 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reality check: Guys, this is a once a year event that lasts for two weeks, whose results have the potential to affect Misplaced Pages, its users, and its policies and guidelines for the next three years. Some users who are retired or are full-time wikignomes understand the significance of the event, and therefore try to make a difference by voting. Let's try to assume good faith. As long as they are established and good faith editors, let's give them their rightful chance. - Mtmelendez 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly surprising that people involved in the Troubles arbcom are keen to vote here given his behaviour there. Astrotrain 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it is without doubt off canvassing - and probably because he did such a good job of standing up for me. I noticed that it was within an hour of me !voting support for Giano that they all piled in. It a bit sad and I thought that all this had been sorted out at the Troubles Arbcom after the evidence of their canvassing had been presented there! Is any action ever going to be taken against them?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks VK but they have a perfect right to vote as they see fit. Anyway I'm not doing too bad without them, it was a true pleasure for me to have your vote. Lets leave this one here now and not have any dust flying. Can we archive this thread now? Giano (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the rule is on archiving the voting talk page during voting - but I've marked the issue as resolved, since the accusations were without apparent evidence. Hope that takes care of that. ZZ ~ Evidence 04:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Need for an uninvolved editor to deal with a vote.

See this Kite is as far as I can tell correct. However, I already voted so I'd rather someone else deal with this and leave a note on Tory's talk page. Thanks. JoshuaZ 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I am leaving a note at the user's talk momentarily. The criteria is mainspace edits alone, not total edits - which may be the confusion here. ZZ ~ Evidence 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was confused about the mainspace edits vs. total edits thing, so I think it's understandable if some users believe they can vote when they're not supposed to. I was actually planning to vote until I saw all the talk about sufferage and looked at my mainspace edits. - Superlex 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another one

Does this yser have suffrage ? Giano 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it, Giano: his stats. As I have already voted, I will ask another editor to please verify and address. Risker 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) }

 Done. I'm posting at the user's talk page now. ZZ ~ Evidence 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this legit what is going on here Giano 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too, and saw that the account was created on the 11th of November of this year. I see it's been struck out now though. - Jeeny 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User eligibility has already been confirmed. Please see earlier in this talk page. KTC 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

EC - See the above discussion (Note to authorized election monitor). The editor apparently had another account, and confirmed that it was theirs. Ned Scott e-mailed a string of numbers to the e-mail of the old account, and the holder of the new account (with the same e-mail, being the same person) received the string and posted it, providing confirmation of ownership of the e-mail and, thus, the account. The vote was permitted to stand on that basis. I'll outdent, unless there are objections to that method. ZZ ~ Evidence 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I emailed the old account, and recieved a response saying the old and new accounts are the same person. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I had already outdented and reverted the strikethrough by the time I posted the above. KTC 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

300+ supports possible?

Could he be the first candidate to have over 300 supports and not be promoted to ArbCom? I realize his net won't be more than 60 or so, but wow! What polarization of the community! Mr Which 18:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course there won't be, it is already slowing down and we have not got to 200. Most of the wikipedians I have heard of and many more have already voted, there can't be many more left. I would have been more than happy with 100 supports, if we get to 200 I will be overjoyed. 300 won't happen! Giano 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And more informatively, last year Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me had over 300 support votes but was not appointed. Risker 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite, so lets stop counting unhatched chicks, or whatever that expresion is. Giano 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My fault. I'm new enough (even with my old account) that WikiPolitics are a bit of a mystery to me. I wasn't aware of Clown's run last year. Please forgive my ignorance. Mr Which 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi MW, in light of the above, I thought you might be interested in a post I just made about Signpost coverage of recent Arbcom elections and 'The history of Arbcom'. R. Baley 20:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the willowing of votes regarding lack of suffrage has begun - so 300 is receding somewhat but, hey, there is enough time for some more of those pesky article writer contributors to notice where the real action is...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Two hundred down, one hundred to go. Bring on the sockpuppets! --Avillia 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just reading the Jimbo comment on your page. Is that Kosher in the middle of an election? Seems a bit Putinistic to me. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Sarah777, to whom is that message directed? There are quite a few of us who have posted to this thread, and your spacing suggests you were referring to Avillia, who doesn't seem to have any Jimbo comments on his page. Risker (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a general rhetorical question to anyone reading this page. The intervention seems a bit unfortunate re the timing. (And I totally disagree with the allegations of trolling as I think Giano is a passionate advocate of fairness and truth). Things that manifestly are not core Misplaced Pages values. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Eluchil404's explanation of his vote

• My initial reaction to Giano's candidacy was rather negative, both because of his tendency to attract controversy and his reputation for incivility. However, on looking more in depth I see that he makes many good points and is generally perceptive and correct about his diagnosis of Misplaced Pages's problems. Still, I cannot support. I do not feel that Giano has an appropriate temperament for the ArbCom and would be too likely to get involved with disputes with the other Arbitors. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)