Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote

message: 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)
thread_title: Attribution

message: The instructions state:
In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least <B>150 mainspace edits</B> 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 <B>number of edits in your user preferences.</B>
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)
replies: text: I've updates it to a link to Special:Contributions including all filters except username. — xaosflux Talk 03:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better - but it doesn't report a number. So a user either needs to count them or to see if the (Older 150) text is a link to determine if they've reached the 150 post point. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't have to count, just look for (older) suppose we could make it 149 edits in the filter to be exact.  There are not any other on-wiki methods to determine this, and linking everyone to external edit counter tools doesn't seem to be the answer either, any suggestions for improvement? — xaosflux Talk 04:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - no good suggestions.  The tool here looks fast  but cumbersome to explain.  Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainspace vs total edits

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't believe so. Let's wait until the elections to start the full discussion on the candidates. Right now, we're making sure everything is in place for the elections, and discussion should not deviate from this. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't really see the harm in it, but I ended up just writing what I wanted to say as a user subpage and linking to that instead. Seemed to work OK so no worries. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: Its usually people with the highest percentage of support votes. Last election he literally picked the top 7 candidates by % - Can't sleep, clown will eat me got the most supports but too low a % to be appointed for example. The previous elections he appointed 11 candidates in more or less that way but favoured some of the previous arbitrators who were running again, appointing 1st-9th, 12th (Fred Bauder) & 15th (Jayjg) placed people. So generally its the top people by vote percentage but Jimbo may exercise some discretion around that. WjBscribe 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Cla68 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote results

message: 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... Grandmasterka 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be the one you are looking for.  Risker 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! Though, I think the one before was sorted by percentage support, rather than alphabetically. This will certainly do the trick though. Thanks. Grandmasterka 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just realized it's customizable... Even better! Grandmasterka 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot-generated table 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, and I addressed it in my voting talk page. The tough part is that if you defend yourself, you sound like you are bitter or you are grandstanding, but if you don't then those people will never know how bad they sound. A Catch-22 for sure. Monsieurdl 14:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Opposing is (of course) fine, being unnecessarily rude is most definitely not. JavaTenor 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: 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)
replies: text: Click on the Support or Oppose this candidate link below Giano's statement. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) I can reach it fine here. Perhaps the problem has cleared up? --健次(derumi)talk 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sub-page not accessible 

message: 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)
replies: text: He/she does not. The votes have been reverted by Tim. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: suffrage

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historical Signpost Coverage Arbcom Elections 

message: I should explain in brief why I regard OTRS membership with caution : 
*Both OTRS and ArbCom are heavy and responsible jobs. Can they be reasonably handled at the same time?
*OTRS exposes one to a steady stream of petitions of the form: I don't want this detrimental information about me in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is verifiable and reliably sourced; these will be as heartrending as the complaintant, or her public relations people, can make them. This demonstrably tends to foster a disregard for our core principles and to entrench the view that  WP:BLP is the Most Important Thing, to be defended at any cost to the encyclopedia or to civility.
*Even if the candidate has not fallen into this trap, others have; and ArbCom is our only line of defense against overbearing OTRS members. An arbitrator with a fellow-feeling for these people, who are some of our least desirable admins, should be avoided. 
**When I wrote this, I had not seen Phil Sandifer's automatic supports for any OTRS candidates. Those would be in themselves reasons to oppose. Heedless votes of trust for officers above the rules are irresponsible, especially in a native of the twentieth century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment belongs in all candidate vote talk pages you voted in, not here. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, it should either be on each candidate's page, or on your own page for linking purposes. R. Baley 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree, moving it would be more trouble than it is worth.  --Iamunknown 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The irony of this is the fact that OTRS agents are not obliged to disclose their participation, so there's every chance that Pmanderson has supported someone who is actually an active OTRS respondent. Daniel 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I am seriously considering supporting an avowed OTRS; but this is a general argument, which I bear into consideration there as elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am forced to point out that, as OTRS is maintained by the Foundation, in the end, OTRS > Arbcom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Foundation > OTRS. The Foundation is also  > ArbCom, if it wishes to be; a prudent Foundation will not. But if OTRS is incommeasurable with ArbCom, this only increases the importance of keeping our existing partial check independent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean when you say that the two are incommensurate? In what way? --bainer (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incomparable might have been clearer: If A > B, and A > C, but B is neither > or < C, then B and C are incommeasurable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You still misunderstand - OTRS is a Foundation group. Its functions are all conducted on wikimedia domains. The English arbcom is a product of one particular Foundation project - the English Wikipedia. Though OTRS takes a limited role and cedes authority to the local rules of the project (as OTRS does work on all WM projects), it still trumps the arbcom in that it is the first line of Foundation action to maintain what it will and will not host on its servers. In practice, were OTRS and arbcom to actually be opposed on an issue the issue would be elevated beyond OTRS and onto second and third lines of Foundation action, but the point remains - OTRS is the first line of the thing that oversees the arbcom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well stated argument. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OTRS

message: 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? AvruchTalk 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Avruch seems to have already discovered, the original discussion and some additional discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007.  Eluchil404 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suffrage 2

message: (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)
thread_title:  Enough already! 

message: 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)
replies: text: "not including Neutral or Moo votes" ... heh – Gurch 13:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think ST47 was doing a daily breakdown of trends in voting, and I'd be curious to see if he continued it after the first few days. ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indented Vote Analysis