Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote

message: Will Beback has modified his statement. This should be reflected on this page. Tra (Talk) 17:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Conti|✉ 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement modification 

message: Can I vote for more than one candidate? This isn't very clear on the page. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 00:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: Should ineligible votes be removed or should I strike them out when I find them? --Conti|✉ 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strikeout seems best, to be safe. They can always be removed later. -Amarkov blahedits 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The method used last year was to indent, and add a comment.  For example, see Ineligible user's vote in the below scenario:
# Support.  Ral315 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Using both strikeout and indenting would be good. The reason indenting is used is so that the numbering is correct; in the example above, you can see that the vote of "Fake" is correctly numbered as #2. --bainer (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is a user's vote cast before a one year ban ineligble ? The vote was 8 days before the ban. Haphar 15:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ineligible votes

message: While I understand people not wanting to be harsh, brief reasons with votes, especially oppose votes, would generally be helpful for other voters. Otherwise, the question one asks oneself when seeing an oppose is: "Was there something I missed, or is he voting oppose based on something that did not bother me?" With supports, one can at least assume that the voter has no major problems with the candidate. —Centrx→talk • 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Give brief reasons with votes

message: I have been shifting neutral votes and other corollary discussion to the discussion pages of the individual votes, as provision is only made for support and oppose votes in the ArbCom elections. - Mark 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral votes 

message: A little question - why do you have to have 150 edits to vote? Surely a user's dedication and trustworthiness is based on quality, not quantity? It's ard to measure how 'good' a user is - even time isn't really important. Scenario: candidate registers new account before 1 October 2006, makes 150 minor edits, and votes. Is there a better way? Just wondering. Dr Santa 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's impractical, if not impossible, to judge each voter's dedication and trustworthiness. 150 edits is an arbitrary threshold, but it's also a low one. SuperMachine 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also helps to prevent sockpuppet voting. It's very easy for a user to register a bunch of new accounts and have them all vote the same way but it's much harder to have each one of them accumulate 150 edits before the vote starts. As for choosing a numerical measure, it's easier to just count a voter's edits than it is to look at each one and evaluate it for quality, plus this is subjective and people might disagree on whether the edits have sufficient quality to be able to vote. Tra (Talk) 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "150 votes" 

message: I believe voters were not supposed to leave lengthy comments; I've got a few four- or five-liners, and one user that left an entire essay in her vote. Could someone neutral please take a look and move those to the talk page if appropriate? (Radiant) 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the longest comment to the talk page, and left a note linking to it. The other ones don't seem so bad, so I've left them there. --bainer (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy comments 

message: From the above comments ("The script I'm using to check for suffrage checks for duplicate votes. — Cryptic 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm checking once a day or so, by reading and parsing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=150&go=first&target=Whoever, with a supplementary check to the new user log if the user's first edit is after the October 1 cutoff.  I paste the results into the voting pages as I find them. —Cryptic 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking votes 

message: Look at the page 'Category:Rouge admins'. On that list are the ArbCom candidates Alex Bakharev, FloNight, Geogre, JzG, and Samuel Blanning. There are also the candidates Freakofnurture, Starblind, and Blnguyen, who associate with them. Also, look at the votes of the rouge admins JzG (signs as 'Guy'), Geogre, Crazyrussian (signs as 'crz'), AlexBakharev, Nightstallion, Glen_S, Jaranda, Duja, and KillerChihuahua, and known rouge admin associates Zscout370, Newyorkbrad, Khoikhoi, JoshuaZ, Starblind, Giano, Ghirlandajo, Irpen, and Bishonen. There are many of them, and they support their own, so much so that their votes constitute a significant portion of the support votes for their candidates. They even constitute about one-quarter of JzG's support votes.
I also noticed that the listed rouge admin Ral315, and his associates Coredesat and Chacor, mostly voted AGAINST the rouge admins. I wonder what the cause of that schism is.
Hearse Monoplane 10:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm a "known rouge admin associate"? What the heck does that mean? And, is it good or bad? :)  And P.S., who is Hearse Monoplane the rest of the time?  Newyorkbrad 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm disappointed that I'm not a "known rouge admin associate"  ;-)  TheronJ 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like you've uncovered a shocking conspiracy. How can we repair the damage? —Centrx→talk • 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel a bit left out.  But then I agree with the Marxist view of clubs.Groucho, not Karl, that is. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable pattern: It's a rather 'rouge' election 

message: As there are only a few days left, I thought it was possible that some people who might be blocked for a week or a few days (or even for 24 hours close to the end of the election) would be unable to vote (if they have not done so already). Is this a problem, or is it a case like that of criminals being unable to vote? ie. If you are blocked, you can't vote until the block ends, and if your block runs until the end of the election and you haven't voted yet, tough. I would say that if a particular user seems reasonable and regrets the actions leading to a block, and wants to vote, and asks to be unblocked, it seems reasonable. ie. Treat on a case-by-case basis. Sorry if this is a solution looking for a problem! :-) Carcharoth 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are blocked for the duration of the election you can't vote because blocked users are not allowed to edit.Geni 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Quick question then- what of a user who has voted before a year long ban ? The ban starts before end date of election, but the user has voted before being banned, does this vote count ? Haphar 15:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: de jure yes. De facto up to Jimbo.Geni 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked people being unable to vote 

message: A user whom I'm in dispute with () and who has been attacking me in edit summaries () has made this campaigning message about me . The message is mostly neutral but the intent is clearly not. FYI. (Radiant) 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that as well. I was fooled into thinking he was asking people to vote for you. I see from the evidence you've provided that the opposite might have been the intent. Hmm. Carcharoth 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've not seen any significant campaining in IRC. The different vote totals are to a large degree to do with the name reconition.Geni 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose 'Can't sleep, clown will eat me' is recognisable! :-) Though that can, of course, work both ways. Carcharoth 14:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Rumours, Carcharoth? Cite reliable sources! Silliness aside, campaigning doesn't seem to be a big deal around here. Sure, there's been some user page endorsements, not to mention the issue Radiant! mentioned, but I haven't yet seen "Lorem Ipsum Vote for Arbcom Candidate! 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I should cite where I read that. Give me a moment... Ah. Here we are: . The full discussion is here. I've never used IRC for any Wikipedia-related purposes, so I don't know what really goes on there. I guess I should probably just take a look to see what really does happen. If that was just an isolated incident, then fine. Carcharoth 11:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't stop people from talking about the elections, if that's what they want to do. It would also be difficult to draw a line between endorsements and campaigning, so I think there's really nothing that can be done about it (if anything even should be done about it). I'm in favour of letting the voters apportion scorn to those who display excessive hubris during election season. --bainer (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What do people talk about on IRC? sex mostly. Copyright law a bit.Geni 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okey a bit more seriously whatever people feel like talking about at the time #wikipedia tends to be pretty offtopic.Geni 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaigning 

message: Please excuse me, gentlemen, but how many seats upon the Arbitration Committee are "up for election?"--Anglius 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least six. See #Expansion, above. -Will Beback · † · 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I thank you, sir.--Anglius 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Seats

message: Is someone ready to protect them all? Do we protect the talk pages as an archive as well, or else let them run free even after the election has closed? Do we discount votes after the deadline (and rollback), or do what happens at RfA and leave them? Just a few questions, as it is getting "tight-at-the-top", so to speak. Even though Jimbo isn't proscribed to take the top candidates, tradition says he probably will (the only time he doesn't is to reappoint, and no outgoing ArbCom members ran this year). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm preparing to protect them all in about 42 minutes when voting ends. There's no reason they should be editing once voting is over, and there is always the talk page if discussion is necessary. --bainer (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some double votes or non-franchise votes to be cleaned up before the tally is final. -Will Beback · † · 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no unmarked non-suffrage votes that I see, other than the two reinstated by the candidate in this edit.  The only double votes remaining are Bubba ditto's on Blnguyen's candidacy and Kiwidude's on Will Beback's; each is a split between support and oppose, and so should have no net effect. —Cryptic 00:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for monitoring the votes. -Will Beback · † · 01:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time, Jimbo appointed based on percentages, didn't he? So wouldn't the split support/oppose votes only not have an effect if the voting was 50/50? If the voting was, say 3 in favor and 2 against, the percentage is 60%. If User:Lorem Ipsum adds a support and an oppose, then it becomes 4 and 3, or 57%. Therefore, resolution of split votes is needed, is it not? Picaroon 02:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be absolutely true if there were just a handful of people voting, but with most of the candidates having had a total of 200-300 votes cast, the issue is not realistically going to matter as much. As a tangentially relevant aside on parliamentary double-voting in the real world, see . Newyorkbrad 03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geogre's vote now is 182 - 106, or 63.19%. Had you snuck in an extra support and an extra oppose at the wire, his percentage would have fallen to 63.10%, hardly enough of a difference to make a difference. Better to get it right, of course, but no need to worry too much over this one. Jd2718 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am dismayed to see that the method of calculating the final result has not been explicitly discussed prior to the election. I assumed that this was a simple arithmetic result: Support votes minus Oppose votes equals the candidate's score. The candidate with the highest score wins. Axl 08:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was explicitly stated: see here, where "same as last year" is expanded to say: "All candidates with more 'support' votes than 'oppose' votes were eligible for the ArbCom. If there are more approvals than seats available, Jimbo will either expand the size of the committee or choose among the community approved candidates. Jimbo appointed candidates mostly in the order of the percentage of approval in the community." Note particularly that last bit: in the order of the percentage of approval in the community. Carcharoth 10:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting pages 

message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/2006 ArbCom election should be changed to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/January 2006 ArbCom election. jp×g 01:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: but  I've unprotected the page so it may be edited as appropriate now. — xaosflux Talk 15:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPER