This page is for discussion of the Voting process only. Comments about individual candidates belong in their respective Voting talk pages. Any user may move such comments there at any time. |
The design of this page and process is extensively based on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote page. It's history can be found here. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The instructions state:
In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process 1 November 2007.
If you have multiple accounts, you may only vote with one. Voting with multiple accounts will result in all your votes being declared void and a possible block on all accounts.
To check when your account was created, go to the user creation log, and enter your username in the "User" field. To check your number of edits, see number of edits in your user preferences.
The number of edits in the user preferences is not the same as the number of mainspace edits unless a users edits only in mainspace and the check on number of edits using the instuctions above will not tell a user if they have the correct number of main space edits. Uncle uncle uncle ( talk) 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
First off, the first wording was completely my mistake, since I copied from last year's instructions which did not have the mainspace requirement. Second, I believe we can use external edit counters to aid us in this, preferably Interiot's tool. This might give us a general idea of the user. Yes, the tool is not as precise as we'd like, since there's always a difference between it and our preferences count. But it's a quick tool to determine user edit counts. Any close calls can be verified by manually counting the edits from the my contributions link suggested by Xaosflux above. It's not perfect, but I believe it is the best alternative. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 10:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Votes placed before the start of the election will be stricken. But each candidate's vote page will have a corresponding talk page. Is it OK to place things there in advance of the start of the vote?? Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
How are the "winning" candidates selected for presentation to Jimbo, is it by total net support votes vs oppose votes or the percentage of support to oppose, no matter the number of votes? Cla68 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I vaguely recall there were in previous years, and thought there is for this year, but I can't seems to find it anywhere. Is there a minimum support level required, or is that just 50%? (Note: I could simply be confusing this with the many other election / !election that we run.) KTC 12:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I distinctly remember having a handy little table for monitoring the support level of various candidacies last year, similar to the TangoBot RfA table. Will that be here this year? It would make things a little more organized for me, and it was fun to have... Grand master ka 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I, for one, am shocked at the amount of rudeness that people feel is appropriate to add to their 'oppose' votes.
Will Beback? No, Youwont. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Er, no. BLACKKITE 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose with a Red Flag and a side of Drama due to weird conspiracy theories, drama, etc.. Miranda 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) No, just no. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Hell no. Nick 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Good God, no. Qst 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Etc, etc.. it is as if people can't be satisfied with just opposing somebody, it is now required to pour salt on the wounds as well? Shameful. 86.137.31.5 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't get to the Giano voting sbpage (last ?30 mins); the other seem ok. But I notice others seem able to (I have it on my watchlist). Johnbod 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Last year wasn't there a bot that checked voter eligibility? Does this voter, for example, have suffrage? -- MPerel 19:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought people might be interested in past Arbcom elections -the process, how members were selected, etc. The Signpost has covered 2 past elections (Jan 2006 and Dec 2006). Was thinking maybe this should be linked on the main page, a little historical perspective never hurts. R. Baley 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
|
I should explain in brief why I regard OTRS membership with caution :
I place this here because it applies to several candidates, and I will link to it even when I have reason to support them anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
How was the requirement of 150 mainspace edits arrived at, since that isn't what it was last year? I apparently had 116 mainspace edits by Nov 1st, but thats if you exclude talk page edits and all other edits. I don't see why they must be 'mainspace' in order to count towards suffrage. Can this be explained, and the page where the requirement was discussed be linked? Avruch Talk 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(If this is not the appropriate venue, please move it to the appropriate one.)
I think it's fair to say EndlessDan is not going to be elected to the ArbCom. He's not even close. But before you vote for or against him, consider this: at the moment I write this, 219 people have voted on his candidacy, which is more than all but 7 of the 24 current candidates. How do you think those other 16 candidates, many of whom are quiet serious & capable about doing the job, feel coming in behind a joke candidate?
It's been fun, no animals or cold stones have been harmed in the election, but the joke is over. Let's move on. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have noted that votes of some editors are being struck on the grounds that the voter is under an indefinite block. I am not entirely certain that votes made prior to the block should be discounted in this way; at that time, the editor was free of any sanction. Is there a precedent for this? I note that this affects votes both supporting and opposing various candidates, and thus this is a general question. Risker ( talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Another way of doing things, rather than striking, would be to add a note below their votes mentioning they were blocked for attempting to disrupt the elections. Then let that be taken into account at the end, just a suggestion-- Cailil talk 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the voting pages for all candidates, and compared vote totals with the votes indented for lack of suffrage, duplication of votes, or sockpuppetry. On average, 4.35 votes were indented per candidate, with the most being Giano (10 for and 5 against, 15 total) and the fewest being Misza13 and Jeepday (0 total). By percentage (versus total votes counted), the most votes were indented for Endlessdan (4.12%), followed by Will Beback (3.24%) and Giano (2.77%). The average percent of votes indented was 1.46%. A complete analysis may be found here. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Also of note: Of 6099 total votes were cast, 3663 were in Support of candidates, and 2436 were in opposition of candidates. On average, 265 votes were cast per candidate, not including Neutral or Moo votes. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that about two thirds of the votes cast were cast in the first 48 hours of this election. So with the exception of late developing situations, we pretty much knew where we were at that point, with only a few candidates significantly drifting up or down the rankings.
NoSeptember 22:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added in the 11 candidates who withdrew during the election. The totals are now 7,276 votes cast for all candidates, with 4006 Support votes and 3270 Oppose votes. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is for discussion of the Voting process only. Comments about individual candidates belong in their respective Voting talk pages. Any user may move such comments there at any time. |
The design of this page and process is extensively based on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote page. It's history can be found here. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The instructions state:
In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process 1 November 2007.
If you have multiple accounts, you may only vote with one. Voting with multiple accounts will result in all your votes being declared void and a possible block on all accounts.
To check when your account was created, go to the user creation log, and enter your username in the "User" field. To check your number of edits, see number of edits in your user preferences.
The number of edits in the user preferences is not the same as the number of mainspace edits unless a users edits only in mainspace and the check on number of edits using the instuctions above will not tell a user if they have the correct number of main space edits. Uncle uncle uncle ( talk) 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
First off, the first wording was completely my mistake, since I copied from last year's instructions which did not have the mainspace requirement. Second, I believe we can use external edit counters to aid us in this, preferably Interiot's tool. This might give us a general idea of the user. Yes, the tool is not as precise as we'd like, since there's always a difference between it and our preferences count. But it's a quick tool to determine user edit counts. Any close calls can be verified by manually counting the edits from the my contributions link suggested by Xaosflux above. It's not perfect, but I believe it is the best alternative. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 10:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Votes placed before the start of the election will be stricken. But each candidate's vote page will have a corresponding talk page. Is it OK to place things there in advance of the start of the vote?? Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
How are the "winning" candidates selected for presentation to Jimbo, is it by total net support votes vs oppose votes or the percentage of support to oppose, no matter the number of votes? Cla68 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I vaguely recall there were in previous years, and thought there is for this year, but I can't seems to find it anywhere. Is there a minimum support level required, or is that just 50%? (Note: I could simply be confusing this with the many other election / !election that we run.) KTC 12:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I distinctly remember having a handy little table for monitoring the support level of various candidacies last year, similar to the TangoBot RfA table. Will that be here this year? It would make things a little more organized for me, and it was fun to have... Grand master ka 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I, for one, am shocked at the amount of rudeness that people feel is appropriate to add to their 'oppose' votes.
Will Beback? No, Youwont. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Er, no. BLACKKITE 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose with a Red Flag and a side of Drama due to weird conspiracy theories, drama, etc.. Miranda 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) No, just no. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Hell no. Nick 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Good God, no. Qst 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Etc, etc.. it is as if people can't be satisfied with just opposing somebody, it is now required to pour salt on the wounds as well? Shameful. 86.137.31.5 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't get to the Giano voting sbpage (last ?30 mins); the other seem ok. But I notice others seem able to (I have it on my watchlist). Johnbod 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Last year wasn't there a bot that checked voter eligibility? Does this voter, for example, have suffrage? -- MPerel 19:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought people might be interested in past Arbcom elections -the process, how members were selected, etc. The Signpost has covered 2 past elections (Jan 2006 and Dec 2006). Was thinking maybe this should be linked on the main page, a little historical perspective never hurts. R. Baley 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
|
I should explain in brief why I regard OTRS membership with caution :
I place this here because it applies to several candidates, and I will link to it even when I have reason to support them anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
How was the requirement of 150 mainspace edits arrived at, since that isn't what it was last year? I apparently had 116 mainspace edits by Nov 1st, but thats if you exclude talk page edits and all other edits. I don't see why they must be 'mainspace' in order to count towards suffrage. Can this be explained, and the page where the requirement was discussed be linked? Avruch Talk 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(If this is not the appropriate venue, please move it to the appropriate one.)
I think it's fair to say EndlessDan is not going to be elected to the ArbCom. He's not even close. But before you vote for or against him, consider this: at the moment I write this, 219 people have voted on his candidacy, which is more than all but 7 of the 24 current candidates. How do you think those other 16 candidates, many of whom are quiet serious & capable about doing the job, feel coming in behind a joke candidate?
It's been fun, no animals or cold stones have been harmed in the election, but the joke is over. Let's move on. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have noted that votes of some editors are being struck on the grounds that the voter is under an indefinite block. I am not entirely certain that votes made prior to the block should be discounted in this way; at that time, the editor was free of any sanction. Is there a precedent for this? I note that this affects votes both supporting and opposing various candidates, and thus this is a general question. Risker ( talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Another way of doing things, rather than striking, would be to add a note below their votes mentioning they were blocked for attempting to disrupt the elections. Then let that be taken into account at the end, just a suggestion-- Cailil talk 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the voting pages for all candidates, and compared vote totals with the votes indented for lack of suffrage, duplication of votes, or sockpuppetry. On average, 4.35 votes were indented per candidate, with the most being Giano (10 for and 5 against, 15 total) and the fewest being Misza13 and Jeepday (0 total). By percentage (versus total votes counted), the most votes were indented for Endlessdan (4.12%), followed by Will Beback (3.24%) and Giano (2.77%). The average percent of votes indented was 1.46%. A complete analysis may be found here. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Also of note: Of 6099 total votes were cast, 3663 were in Support of candidates, and 2436 were in opposition of candidates. On average, 265 votes were cast per candidate, not including Neutral or Moo votes. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that about two thirds of the votes cast were cast in the first 48 hours of this election. So with the exception of late developing situations, we pretty much knew where we were at that point, with only a few candidates significantly drifting up or down the rankings.
NoSeptember 22:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added in the 11 candidates who withdrew during the election. The totals are now 7,276 votes cast for all candidates, with 4006 Support votes and 3270 Oppose votes. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)