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

message: :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".
===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)
thread_title: Comments moved from voting page

message: 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)
thread_title: Iridescent

message: 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)
thread_title: LessHeard vanU

message: 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)
thread_title: Merkinsmum

message: 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)
thread_title: JzG

message: 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)
thread_title: W. Frank

message: 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)
thread_title: R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

message: 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)
thread_title: Avillia

message: <S>Which Arbcom canidates supported Durova in the witchhunt? I know User:JoshuaZ did, who else? Travb (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Exactly I do not see the relevance of this in the elections This is a Secret account 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind then. :) Travb (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. LessHeard vanU 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Arbcom canidates supported Durova

message: Here is my rationale: User:Lar/ArbCom2007/Giano. I welcome comments. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, really well thought out. RxS 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for telling us.  For the record, any user including yourself could've indented it.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, I tried but kept buggering up the numbering.  sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that used to get me too.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, I'll take care of it.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, much better.  sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i voted in error 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  Claims ~ Evidence  15:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  Claims ~ Evidence  04:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspected canvassing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is this legit what is going on here  Giano 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: User eligibility has already been confirmed. Please see earlier in this talk page. KTC 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I had already outdented and reverted the strikethrough by the time I posted the above. KTC 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for an uninvolved editor to deal with a vote.  

message: Does this yser have suffrage ? Giano 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this legit what is going on here  Giano 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: User eligibility has already been confirmed. Please see earlier in this talk page. KTC 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lesson Number One Confirmed

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How long does it take to hunt and peck all of those keys!? SashaNein (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Just making light of things, nothing was serious. Comment gone. Good luck with the arbonanza 07. SashaNein (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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  I will be more than happy to respond to you there. Thanks. Giano (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but take that as my "explanation of my vote". Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eluchil404's explanation of his vote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Confirmed. I plan to review the process once we're halfway through. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sensible. Not like I was really saying much, anyhow :) David Fuchs (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Who is the canidate with more votes? Travb (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newyorkbrad.  See User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, nifty. Thanks. David Fuchs (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He he, thanks. 0.1% sounds better though right? LOL. T (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are ALL candidates support votes being so scrutinized? 

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

message: 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%27_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)
replies: text: Well one thing I must correct you on is that Giano is not an administrator. — Save_Us_229 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  My oppose 

message: Could someone check this out  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)
replies: text: Will do some maths in about an hour. Risker (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are wrong, suggest you check who did the indents. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. Tex15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's m'boy Giano!! - Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffrage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you - but you don't have to take my word for it, just ask about! Giano (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

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

text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Four opposes show up in one hour? 

message: #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)
thread_title: Vote cast after election closed