Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comments moved from voting page

Moved per Wikipedia: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".

[edit] Iridescent

Support absolutely. Giano is argumentative, disruptive, pompous[1], 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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 against 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)

[edit] W. Frank

Strenuously oppose. He's a useful irritant for keeping the "open spirit" of Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 (Avillia me!) 01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Comments

[edit] 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 account 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Note to authorized election monitor

I believe that User:Save Us 229 probably does not have a franchise[2]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Would jim approve?

Would jim approve? 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 Wikipedia 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:
Save_Us_Click here: Jim disproves of Giano_229
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)

If one considers the major reasons for the oppose votes; rude, overly vocal, given to drama, and too fond of ones own opinion, isn't he the ideal replacement for Fred Bauder - and thus likely to get on famously with Jimbo? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Fred more of a yes-man for Jim though? It is only natural that Jim will gravitate and support those who support his world view. Sociology tells us that there is going to be much, much, much more purging on Wikipedia in the next few years.
User:LessHeard vanU I laughed so hard at your response. I have had little contact with Fred except in Arbcoms. I haven't had enough contact with him to know if he is rude, he is incredibly articulate and frighteningly smart though. He made one of my arguments look ridiculous in less than two sentences, and I was at a loss about how to respond.
I will let you in on a little secret, I have learned from User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters that you can insult someone pretty much anyway you want on Wikipedia as long as you do it in a academic and intelligent manner. Travb (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected canvassing

Resolved. No evidence of canvassing is apparent. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of Suspected Canvassing 

[edit] 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)

Y 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 Claims ~ 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)

[edit] Another one

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

You beat me to it, Giano: his stats[4]. As I have already voted, I will ask another editor to please verify and address. Risker 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) }

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

Is this legit what is going on here [5] 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 (talk) 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 Claims ~ 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)

[edit] 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 (Avillia me!) 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 Wikipedia values. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
Giano has no understanding of truth. Alternatively he wholly ignores it. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I've had my problems with Giano's brusqueness, but to take such an accusatory tone seems a bit over the top to me. Giano may not abide fools gladly, but truth seems to be all he cares about. You'd do well to "refactor" as many are fond of saying, Brewster. Mr Which??? 14:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mr Which but I am trying to discourage responses to comments such as that in an effort to keep the page on subject. Thanks. Giano (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If you have a question or a comment for me to respond to Kittybrewster perhaps you would like to make it here [6]. This is not the page for allegations and accusations. Or long argumentative threads. Thanks. Giano (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I will bet money that there are more admins and arbcoms in the oppose group than in the support group. I believe this vote is a small example of future trends on Wikipedia. Travb (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. Wikipedia has devolved to a state of permanent internecine warfare. People complain about "drama" but the sad fact is that people here like drama. They love the petty intrigues, "stickin' it to 'da man," and so on. By putting Giano on Arbcom, they have a fighting chance of extending the drama, vindictiveness, and immature squabbling into yet another venue. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope that nobody supporting my candidacy will respond to this thread. So far the election has been quite conflict and stress free. Let's try to keep it this way. Thanks Giano (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Comments should remain civil and constructive. Perhaps by assuming, accusing, and talking so much about drama, we are being dramatic ourselves? Let's focus on the elections. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 11:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many support votes Giano still needs

I just figured it out, to meet the typical 80% bar for being an arbcom (as per Decmeber 2006 arbcom), the opposes will have to stay at 184 and the supports will have to be 736 votes, for a total of 920 votes.

Currently there are 255 support votes, meaning that Giano needs 481 more support votes to reach the typical 80% needed for arbcom.

The realistic option is a lot of people need to be persuaded to change their oppose vote

For example of how this is done:

  1. JoshuaZ's User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!--he later e-mailed opposed votes this link, and
  2. Rebecca keeps updating her candidate statement [there is no rule against modifying your candidate statement Giano, to address the concerns of those opposed].)

....or 481 supporters need to appear, which is highly unlikely. T (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • People know the facts, they know me, this election is not about the Durova affair, it is about who is best to serve on the Arbcom and Wikipedia. Nothing has changes, people are quite intelligent enough to decide these things for themselves. I am certainly not going to enter into an unseemly scramble for votes. Giano (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Clarifying your position and emphasizing your strengths as other candidates have done is perfectly acceptable and welcome. I bet there are some people who have misconceptions of who you really are which you can clarify. A large part of being arbcom is being articulate: clearly stating your position and your views. Just some free advice from a supporter, probably worth what you paid for it.  :) T (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no "bar" for election to the arbitration committee. Moreover of the candidates in this election only two currently have more than 80%. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It is, however, a fact that, concerning last year's elections, all of the nominations to the ArbCom that succeeded had over 80%, and all of those that failed had below 80%. Thus, the 80 line must be given some weight in estimation. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't understand this 80% thing. Are we saying that a candidate with 100 for and 40 against (+60) has a better result than one with 200 for and 81 against (+119)? (Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
No, Sarah777. It refers to the number of support votes divided by the total number of votes (support and oppose) for a candidate. So if a candidate had 100 votes total, and 70 of those votes were support votes, they would have 70% rating. Hmmm...there is probably a math article somewhere that could explain this better. Risker (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Percentage? Mattisse 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The maths aren't a problem to my little mind, but the concept is. In my example the candidate with 200 pro-votes and +119 net gets 71.1% - and loses. The candidate who gets 100 pro-votes and +60 net scores 71.4% and wins! Nowhere else on Planet Earth would you find an "election" like that!
I can see why one candidate got so irate that User:Gentgeen voted against everybody because someone with relatively few votes and even fewer net positive votes could still hope to become members of the Pickedocracy. Another Wikisystem that needs radical reform it would appear! (Sarah777 (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
Most elections indeed work by percentage of the vote rather than absolute numbers of votes cast. There are a few exceptions, such as provisions for cloture in the U.S. Senate. (There's also the U.S. presidential election of 2000, but let's not go there.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't bother trying to understand it, it is all worked out for you here [7] where I an currently comming 10th. Giano (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson Number ONE; Negative votes outweigh positive votes

Yeah. You are behind at least two folk with much smaller net positives and behind eight candidates with less pro-votes! (In one case you are trailing a candidate with one third of the pro-votes and a third of the anti-votes that you have; almost as per my example. In fact if Newyorkbrad had only 60 votes (instead of his 467 at last count) but instead of the 9 people who voted against him only one did, he would still lead the field by an even greater margin! This system gives tremendous power to even ONE negative vote. Time I got busy I guess!! (Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

  • No, I don't think it is time to get busy. I've always had a problem with maths, never progressed much further than my 7 x table, I can get as far as 7 x7 = 49 but after that it becomes very stressful. one thing I do know for sure though is that wingeing about the voting system aint gonna help now. A few more supports would be nice but at the end of the day it is going to be one man's choice (unless, God forbid, he consults "others") so lets just enjoy how this is going - which I think is quite well. Giano (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... I don't to even make the appearance of speaking on behalf of Giano - but I hope we are not voting for Giano at the expense of other candidates. Some of the other candidates will make excellent ArbCom members, and perhaps one or two will cause a change in direction (or at least correct the drift) that ArbCom is going through currently. I voted only for Giano because I hope he recognises the flaw in the election system and would try to work on sorting it out if a member (where he might have more influence), but there is only one candidate to ArbCom who I would have actively opposed - and a few who would have also got my vote.
The major factor in supporting Giano's candidature is to make clear that there is a considerable grouping of concerned Wikipedians (some of whom are long term contributors and some already trusted members of the community and others simply committed editors) whose backing for one candidate who appears to both address and represent those concerns is representative of a majority of Wikipedians... As long as the supporters of Giano is in the majority then it cannot be argued that the points raised and arguments made by those who share Giano's passion for an open and transparent community is a minority special interest group with no appeal to the rest of the community.
I would love Giano to be appointed; but it isn't going to happen - and never was - without the personal intervention of Jimbo... The irony of which is not lost on me. The opposers who cite Giano's "lacks" forget one thing, it is the ArbCom who collectively decide on matters by majority. One maverick will not corrupt ArbCom, but will bring in a different perspective. So I say to Jimbo, "Appoint Giano! Appoint the voice that internally challenges the ArbCom to justify its decisions!" and fuck the count and the percentages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Heck Giano...I can only give you one vote! Remember Durova and the secret sock sniffer -:) (Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
I'm kinda curious as to what the "got busy" comment was about... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a statement of intent to increase ones activity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU, your ability to understand simple English is astonishing -:)!! And the activity I was considering was maybe voting against some of Giano's closest rivals. Is there a WikiRule against tactical voting? (Sarah777 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC))
LHvU, you crack me consistently up. Sarah, I've seen voters doing that very thing without challenge, so I don't think it's prohibited, and my fool's analysis is that the system would be more responsive if everyone did that. Of course, given all the heat that has plagued Giano's candidacy (often despite his noblest efforts), it's anyone's guess how it would be perceived. ==>buttingoutagain sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No, there is nothing in the rules against tactical voting - and this system, as you have pointed out, rewards a negative vote to a factor of five - but it is a question of principles. I only voted, and just the once, after registering my distaste for a system which still requires the voters choice to be vetted by a "higher authority". Had I participated fully I believe I would have only voted for the half a dozen or so candidates I would have liked to see become arbcom members and against one candidate only (because they are running a fairly succesful campaign - I'm not interested in opposing candidates with little chance of succeeding). In other words I would only vote according to my choices for and against and would not tactically vote. However, I have no problem with other people either casting their ballots in such a way, nor to commenting on their ideas on the the practice. I think Risker's comment (below) represents my personal feelings in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC) ps. Thanks sNkrSnee!
A lot of us who've voted for Giano have voted against certain candidates en masse anyway I suspect- not as a tactical manouvre but because we dislike their attitude etc, or how they acted in the Durova debacle.Merkinsmum 02:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it would be concerning to think that people were opposing candidates whom they felt would make good Arbcom members for some sort of perceived "strategic" effect. Risker (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet another argument for approval voting. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at this guy - he's not kidding. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Nor is this one.[8] Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Opposing good candidates with higher margins is an inherently negative energy, anti consensus building thing. There are things that can be done that are more positive energy, consensus building spirited. I suggest that folks identify oppose voters known personally to them, and try, politely and with sound arguments, and (very important) in a non badgering way, to address their concerns and ask the voter to consider changing their vote to neutral or support. This is something I've done myself elsewhere to some considerable positive effect (acknowledging the points raised is mandatory in my view, they're valid points). It needs to be very respectful of the person's right to have whatever view they want for whatever reason they want, but if one spots something that is perhaps not 100% correct, perhaps pointing it out may be helpful. Giano could do this himself if he chooses (I suspect he won't, though), or supporters could do it. Remember, non badgering, respectful, not pushing the point if it's not welcome. Rather than countering negative with negative, be positive and work to change the negatives to positives. Hope that is of some help. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson Number One Confirmed

If proof be required how silly this system is just look at the table now - Shell Kinney 88-63 (+25) is now in 10th place ahead of Giano with 305 positive votes and +85! So the candid with over three times the number of votes and over three times the net support is trailing someone who got few votes but slightly less opposes.(Sarah777 (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

So go identify some of the negatives that you might have some influence with and try to persuade them, politely and reasonably, to change their vote. It's not easy, and you won't always succeed, but it seems more empowering and collaborative than going to vote negative on every other candidate. Maybe I'm all wet, I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 12:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't vote against all the others. But this is a bad system and actually encourages negativity. On this one thing at least I agree with User:Swatjester. In fact this system invited me to vote against the rather stern Mr Swat - but votes cast in anger are a negative thingy - so I'm off to fix that. (Sarah777 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
For that matter, someone with 33 total votes and only 3 opposes would have a net votes of +30, and would be in 2nd place by percentage. Total votes should also be considered, even if tangentally, and that's why vote totals are listed on the table. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course the percentages, or total supports, or the averages are merely considerations that inform the powers that be when they decide to flip the coin on the more difficult decisions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If the results table is only an aid then why the heck call the process an election if it is merely a selection? (Sarah777 (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
Indeed...(although I admit it is a pretty strong indicator of opinion which probably does persuade Jimbo et al to follow the communities wishes. I think my coin remark was slightly flippant.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
What seems a pity to me is that the bot things count my opposes as betwen one and two higher than they are, not that ot makes a lot of difference. Whatever Jimbo decides I have been quite happy with the election anyhow it's "not over 'till the fat lady sings". Giano (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia'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)
If the other Arbitors are getting it wrong how else can they be corrected? The reason we need folk like Giano is precisely to bring a more balanced view to proceedings. IMHO. (Sarah777 (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
If Giano's very vindictive, unkind, hurtful, and untrue remarks about myself in The Troubles ArbCom and his jumping on the they-are-altogether-in-a-cabal-bandwagon are an indication of his "balanced view" then I am a banana. David Lauder (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
How long does it take to hunt and peck all of those keys!? SashaNein (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No please, I appreciate the sentiment but don't respond to this sort of comment. If is bcomes so bad it is an attack, an admin will deal with it. Thanks. Giano (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Just making light of things, nothing was serious. Comment gone. Good luck with the arbonanza 07. SashaNein (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Very possibly David. Thank you for sharing that with us. However, this is not a page for more conflict but discussing voting etc. If you have any questions or comments for me the candidates' question page is the place for them [9] I will be more than happy to respond to you there. Thanks. Giano (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but take that as my "explanation of my vote". Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are ALL candidates support votes being so scrutinized?

I notice that Giano's supports are being parsed with a fine-toothed comb, looking for those that "do not have suffrage." I haven't checked all the other candidates, but the ones I have checked don't seem to be having the same treatment for their support votes. Just an observation... Mr Which??? 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that many of the non-suffrage issues have been brought forth by editors supporting Giano's candidacy, I think the transparency is not really a problem here. There are some independent admins and editors who will no doubt be reviewing in greater detail later in the election. Risker (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed. I plan to review the process once we're halfway through. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No, 'cause Giano's candidacy is spumoni-laden. ;) I think everyone who doesn't have suffrage will be discounted in the end, no worries. David Fuchs (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry David, like many of the candidiates in previous elections, I will not be commenting on, or voting for, or against, other candidates. So I'm unable to comment on your point. Giano (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Sensible. Not like I was really saying much, anyhow :) David Fuchs (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Any vote that comes from a user who doesn't have suffrage or already voted is indented. The fact that it seems like more are indented here is a function of the fact that there are more votes for this candidate than any other, save one. I plan to evaluate indented votes by candidate, and I believe the percentages will end up similar across all candidates. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is the canidate with more votes? Travb (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad. See User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections. Dragons flight (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
451 support votes. My god, that has got to be a record. He has less than a .01% oppose rate. Anyone who ever wants to be an Arbom should study Newyorkbrad's rise to the top and commit it to memory. Travb (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You have the right sentiment, but for the record 8 opposes on 460 votes is 1.7%. Dragons flight (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Dragon, how exactly is that list generated? It says Javascript must be enabled, but is it drawing from the actual page data, or somewhere else? (just interested) David Fuchs (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a bot generated list. The reference to javascript is just about the little icons that make the table sortable. Dragons flight (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, nifty. Thanks. David Fuchs (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
He he, thanks. 0.1% sounds better though right? LOL. T (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Other

Restored to vote page, per User_talk:Secret#Giano.27s_Arbcom_vote_page --Dweller (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My oppose

I do not believe this administrator has the temperament nor the objectivity to establish Arbcom cases. Per incivility, stance in The Troubles (taking the side of renouned edit warriors and sockpuppeteers, though the other side is wrong, shows poor judgment); polemic and borderline anti-US rhetoric (from a non-American) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive330#Durova_needs_to_be_desysoped is unacceptable for someone who will be deciding many national disputes (especially when dealing with good faith comments like Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles'). The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well one thing I must correct you on is that Giano is not an administrator. — Save_Us_229 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No anti-US rhetoric at all. I often think in military terms. I also just happen to know better than most how important it is for military officers to be cool, calm and 100% in command of correct facts and orders before they take action, as should all people whatever their actions. Giano (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Suffrage

Could someone check this out [10] 4 editors removed for lack of suffrage. I think some of them at least are elligible to vote! Giano (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do some maths in about an hour. Risker (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

::If they are wrong, suggest you check who did the indents. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Ooops! I think it is ZZ and Secret who do the indenting. Just observing the Precautionary principle, aka Paranoia! Sarah777 (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see the same amount of scrutiny for other candidates--at least not yet. Mr Which??? 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad has just had 5 votes indented - not that it makes much difference except that he is on the cusp of 500. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

It looks like the indents are correct. Gentleness has 103 total edits as of today, EconomicsGuy had his 150th mainspace edit on 1 December 2007, Relata refero had their 150th mainspace edit on 5 November 2007, and SGT Tex had their 150th mainspace edit on 13 November 2007, all per Milestone. Every vote is being checked, for all candidates - and, if these users voted elsewhere, those votes are or will be indented as well. Though there are volunteers assisting with the running of the election (Myself, Mtlemendez, Secret, Mailer Diablo, and others), any editor can indent a vote for lack of suffrage, provided that the voter does indeed lack suffrage. Again, I have to believe it's the high volume of votes here that inflates the number of indents - there were several on NewYorkBrad's page right as he hit WP:500, bringing him back down. It's not just one candidate. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought ST47 was being naughty, but he clearly wasn't. Those were some close calls. I told him I was sorry for reverting him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's all good - you were trying to keep the election fair. No blood, no foul. Thanks, by the way, for helping out. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a crock anyway. Last year the threshold was 100 mainspace edits. On November 1st, I had more than 100, but less than 150. I didn't find out you needed 150 until after November 1st. Who knew there was so much red tape to support someone? Whatever. Good luck Giano. --SGT Tex 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No problems SGT Tex , I appreciate the sentiment of your support if not its reality. You can support me in a few years time when I have to be re-elected again ;-) Giano (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's m'boy Giano!! - Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

How does "I am not an admin and have no authority, or wish to have it, to impose my advice on anyone" fit in with seeking this position? --John (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom members alone have no more power than any other ordinary editor. They are just in a position to profer an opinion when required. Giano (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are successful in this election, will you stir things up by making provocative comments, then absolve yourself of responsibility and walk away, as you rather seem to have done here? --John (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you will find I have ever walked away from anything! To what are you referring? Giano (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looked to me like you intervened (in one direction) on behalf of a problematic user. You supported mentorship for the user, I think. Then when you were asked about it later, you gave the non-committal answer I highlighted. I like some aspects of your approach (and have supported you in the election), but I wonder sometimes if you are one of these people who "talks a good fight" as we say where I come from. In other words, making great-sounding statements which are not then followed up with action. --John (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What "action" do you want to see? I did support mentorship for all sides. The Arbcom in their wisedom decided against that possibility. I cannot be an official mentor to anyone, I'm not an admin. Giano (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That's entirely up to you, and I can even see an argument for no action at all on your part. I just thought your comment in the diff above seemed disingenuous (in view of your prior involvement) and puzzling (in view of your running for arbcom). It seemed like it might have been an ideal opportunity to show off your crisis resolution skills; instead you seem to have absolved yourself of responsibility in the matter. I love the idea of someone outspoken and essentially trustworthy getting onto Arbcom and shaking things up there, but I fear greatly the prospect of someone in this position who thinks it is ok to stir things up and then walk away leaving others to clear up the mess. --John (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find if you speak to those involved I am still very much there. Giano (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it; as I said I think I do trust you (else I would not have voted for you) and I thank you for the reassurance. --John (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you - but you don't have to take my word for it, just ask about! Giano (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I could envision a mentorship done as a partnership between an admin and a non admin who know and trust each other well, ... the non admin mentors and if there ever is any enforcement needed, asks the admin to do it, giving the cites to justify it. (the admin then takes it to AN/I or to wherever the place to record actions for the mentorship is (arbcom case page perhaps, whichever) This would work in cases where the admin was too busy to do the detail work and the bond of trust between the two was very high. Acknowledging in advance what was going on (a partnership) would be mandatory... consider this a muse out loud. For the record I've come to realise I don't have time for mentorships myself, but there are a few non admins I trust enough to be willing to do this with. Giano is first on that list. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four opposes show up in one hour?

That's certainly an interesting occurence. Probably coincidence, but I just found it ... interesting. Mr Which??? 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it interesting, if it's fourty then it's suspitious ;P Secret account 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I found it interesting is that it is very late in the game for votes to come that fast. It's no big deal, actually. Jimbowales wouldn't appoint him if he had 80%, so what's four more opposes, really? Mr Which??? 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
An announcement was made that the election ends today. I suspect the surge has more to do with that than with any conspiracy. Dragons flight (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that well could be. There are other explanations I could think of, if you put a gun to my head, though ... ;) Mr Which??? 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please tell what explanation would make such a thing "interesting", clearly there is something you are trying to imply, so why not simply explain what. Rockpocket 22:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rock! The definition in Chambers something which arouses attention and curiosity seems to fit the bill here. No issue - unless you are trying to imply something. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
(To Rockpocket) No need to explain anything. My "interest" was aroused only because of the closeness together of the votes, this late in the game. As I have no proof of anything untoward, "explaining" what interests me about it any further would simply be speculation that I'm not interested in making, as I can't prove anything. It's all academic anyway, as Jimbowales wouldn't appoint Giano if he had 900 support votes. Mr Which??? 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I tweaked the announcement in the watchlist around 21:00 UTC so it would show up for those users who had previously dismissed the message, and make the announcements for both this and the stewards election bold to try and attract attention to the fact both votes are closing today. That, and the fact that the elections do close in just over an hour is most likely responsible for the increase in votes. It wouldn't surprise me if comments are being made about the closure and votes are being sought by supporters, but I've no reason to believe the candidates are canvassing for votes and that there is anything improper going on. Nick (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Added to which is the matter of timezones - some people possibly are only just logging on and getting the message, and want to make their decision known. I believe that it is possible that 10% of the final vote may come in this last hour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised it's only four. We have thousands of editors here and that multiple people voting on things at the same time is statistically guaranteed to happen. Never mind the fact that the announcement that voting is closing just got bolded, and also the dreaded pile-on effect. GlassCobra 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Almost all the candidates have seen a slight uptick in votes on this last day of voting. 9 - 12 for Giano is a bit more negative, but not by much, than he had seen earlier. Let me take a moment to congratulate Giano. Not for winning (I doubt he will be promoted), but for giving all of WP some thins to think about Jd2718 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment Jd2718. However, can we stop this discussion now. I have never been one greatly interested in post mortems especially when they concern me. I doubt there is any conspiricy taking place on IRC or elsewhere to increase the opposes and if there has been well there is not much one can do about it. "Onwards and upwards" if you are all bored you can go take a look at my current page on FAC. Giano (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote cast after election closed

  1. Support From my readings, this editor clearly has great passion and integrity, which manifests in being open, frank, and fearlessly honest; there is no subterfuge here, and he doesn't pull any punches. Besides these qualities, he has been right on the issues, in standing up and calling a spade (or abusive admin) as such. Lastly, his edits and dedication to Wikipedia content have been excellent.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)