This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FayssalF (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 10 December 2007 (Reply to Paul). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:51, 10 December 2007 by FayssalF (talk | contribs) (Reply to Paul)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Assuming good faith
Obviously people can !vote how they like but I'm a bit surprised that bad faith is explicitly being assumed because of FayssalF's late entry. --ROGER DAVIES 12:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand those votes. It shouldn't matter how close to the deadline someone announces their candidacy; deadlines are deadlines. Why imagine another before the real one? If someone announced their candidacy at the first opportunity, it's not going to guarantee someone's support. --健次(derumi) 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. There've been several of these votes against both Rebecca and Fayssal, and they seem seriously thoughtless. Shem 07:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- The elections are decided by Jimbo, he'll consider those votes and make the appropriate judgment. - Mtmelendez 11:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks guys for your concerns. FYI, i've already explained the situation to some users. -- FayssalF - 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- On a related note, I'm also a bit surprised by the way your statement about a belief in transparency has been assumed to mean that you will release confidential information if elected. --ROGER DAVIES 18:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Going even more unrelated, I see that someone is actually claiming he may be a sockpuppet. One vote against because he is naive, one vote against because he is too eager to get into hot debate (hm, seem to cancel each other out , do they not). More specifically, the candidate also got three votes against him because of his casual involvement in the Digwuren affair, and yes have a good look at the last chapter. Three votes may not seem like much, but it means that he needs 12 votes to offset those to reach 80%. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concerns Paul. Actually, you were very correct in assessing the votes. For the Digwuren case, i must say that the ArbCom decided to ban Digwuren and Petri Krohn for one year. I had blocked both of them for 1 week back on July. So i must say that my blocks were totally appropriate. As for the sockpuppet case, i believe that Ynhockey's vote is a bit weird... An ArbCom member candidate w/ a sockpuppetry case?! -- FayssalF - 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Going even more unrelated, I see that someone is actually claiming he may be a sockpuppet. One vote against because he is naive, one vote against because he is too eager to get into hot debate (hm, seem to cancel each other out , do they not). More specifically, the candidate also got three votes against him because of his casual involvement in the Digwuren affair, and yes have a good look at the last chapter. Three votes may not seem like much, but it means that he needs 12 votes to offset those to reach 80%. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)