Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote

message: I think that the creation of this page was a bit previous. Would it not be better to use the existing candidate statement pages, such as Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Filiocht, instead? Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking we could have another subpage for each candidate's vote so that the transclusion would be easier and the statements and questions wouldn't clutter up the page. We could use the statement pages, though - perhaps use  <noinclude>  to make only a brief statement appear? Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I changed it over to point to this since this is the logical way to do things, the page move seems to have broken everyone's subpages though. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-vote comments 

message: someone should remember to add a link to this vote page to the top of the watchlist notice at 00:01 so that people know that voting has started and they know where to go vote. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll do that (I'll probably still be around) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remember 

message: I going to be inactive and I don't want to run anymore, and I even opposed myself, could anyone withdraw my statement as I been wanted to withdrawl., Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've protected the page, added comments indicating your withdrawal, and stricken out your links. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawl 

message: Why is the voting separate from the candidate statements?  Either this page or the voting subpages should have a link to the statements for each candidate, too. — Omegatron 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They do.Geni 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...   that's...  very strange.  Nevermind. — Omegatron 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements 

message: I'm not crazy about the following sentence, but I'm not an admin so I can't edit it: You may vote in favour of, in opposition to, or abstain from (i.e. not voting) for any number of candidates.  How about this: You may vote in favour of or in opposition to any number of candidates.  Not voting for a candidate is equivalent to an abstention.  Thanks, Chick Bowen 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Chick Bowen 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence 

message: For what it's worth, there are mostly real-time statistics at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/arbcom.  --Interiot 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG! That's awesome. —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like it caught a case of gremlins and stopping working. I may be able to fix by repairing the offending page. – ClockworkSoul 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This would be great if it worked: only a couple entries upfront are currently displayed properly.  Keep it up!  E Pluribus Anthony 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, technical details, the text of the pages are no longer available directly from the database.  Should be fixed tonight or first thing tommorow morning.  --Interiot 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Great.  I wonder why the candidates are ordered so. E Pluribus Anthony 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sorted them now as Interiot, by percentage of support votes over total votes. I also fixed a bug which was counting neutral votes as oppose, and the bot will upload the new results soon. Seems that my bot's information is a bit more up-to-date than Interiot's tool for the moment, I guess because of the slow server. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought so; looks good.  The more information, the better. :) E Pluribus Anthony 06:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Mine's working now.  It's now subject to the cache that logged-out users use, but it's not too bad.  --Interiot 09:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks great! E Pluribus Anthony 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Can we vote to get this annoying thing off the Special:Watchlist and instead, put it on the Special:Recentchanges?  ⇒  JarlaxleArtemis 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote would be no, actually.  We want as many people to be aware of it as possible--fewer people check recent changes than look regularly at their watchlists.  Chick Bowen 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Chick Bowen. The watchlist is exactly the right place. The most visible page for editors, and rather invisible to people who do not contribute. About the recent changes, unless you are a vandal fighter, I don't know why you would want to see the recent changes to the last almost one million articles on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with these two. Personally, it doesn't bother me, but it might mobilize some people to vote that wouldn't otherwise. And we're looking for the voice of the community here. —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it on, and keep changing the colour (every day?) ... it will incite Wikipedians to vote who might otherwise be unwilling or unknowing ... strabismus notwithstanding. E Pluribus Anthony 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist 

message: All these newcomer candidates makes me think that perhaps I should have thrown my hat into the ring? Oh, well, there's always next year. – ClockworkSoul 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't that new buddy, so if that's the main reason, then you are out. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh. Well, I figure I could have made it into the top 10 simply by virtue of the fact that I've been here long enough to know my way around, but not so long as to make too many enemies. – ClockworkSoul 07:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All these brand new candidates 

message: Someone added an excessive, and inappropriate, comment to Kelly Martin's vote page.  I'd move it though feel I'm not in a position to do so ... in any event, someone should move it to the talk page. E Pluribus Anthony 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving comments to talk page 

message: Z.Spy has withdrawn his candidacy per this edit in response to a message on talk from freestylefrappe. Is there some special procedure in place for withdrawals, as in should it be done by an admin who has not voted? - BanyanTree 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delt with.Geni 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Z.Spy]] has withdrawn 

message: how many people will be in the arbcom? My voting behaviour will depend on that. If the arbcom is large, I will concentrate on opposing people I don't want to see in the arbcom. If it is small, I will concentrate on supporting people I do want to see on the arbcom. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that rather a difficult question to answer while there are 5/6 seats (I can't remeber the exact number off hand) up for election the rate of drop outs that we are likely to get means that all of the top ten have a good chance of ending up on arbcom at some point.Geni 10:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to focus on where you'll make a difference then I suggest you vote for or against everyone between 5 and 15, as appropriate.  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: where do you get these numbers, short of looking at 65 subpages? Yes, it would make sense to enlarge the arbcom, seeing their backlog. Arbitration is scaleable, you just form several "courts" that take up cases according to  their capacity, it wouldn't hurt to have 15 arbitrators, provided they are 15 good, trusted people. dab (ᛏ) 18:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have been looking at 65 subpages, before I noticed that two people have written scripts to do it! (see above). In fact it's interesting to compare what would have happened if the election had been on the old system, when you could only vote in favour of candidates, not against them. One particular candidate, who has a majority against her at present, is in eighth position on the total number of votes in favour. As for enlarging ArbCom, a higher power will take that decision after the election finishes, as I understand it. David | Talk 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: prospective size of the arbcom

message: Those who are able to edit the article, please add links to the dates.
*The election will run from 9 January 2006, 00:01 until 22 January 2006, 23:59 UTC Midnightcomm 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Why do these elections not run from 9 January 2006, 00:00 until 22 January 2006, 24:00 UTC? Since the 24-hour notation is perfectly able to distinguish between midnight at the start and at the end of the day, there is no need to use an off-by-one-minute kludge that is only needed for the U.S.-style 12-hour clock notation. Markus Kuhn 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time: What is wrong with midnight? 

message: I'd like to float the suggestion (albeit it may not be in the right place) that for future large candidate list elections such as this, that the name-order be randomised rather than alphabetical. I'm basing this on my own growing fatigue at reading through each of the candidates' statements/questions one after another-- which means the lower down, the more likely the candidate is to be given short shrift-- but also on the real-world research which shows that there is positional bias in elections for candidates with names near the top. California court, for example, held that alphabetical listing was unconstitutional, and the state legislature enacted a requirement for randomisation in 1975.  (California Election Code Section 13112)
*Name order matters in recall election
*New Research Shows Candidate Name Order Will Matter - Ohio State University Research
*Positional Voting Bias Revisited - Electoral Reform Society, UK
*Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment, Princeton paper examining effect of California's candidate order randomisation
—LeFlyman 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above all apply to situations where you can only vote in favor of the candidate. There doesn't appear to be much of a correlation between alpha bet position and the amount of support you recive at present.Geni 19:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thank you for pointing out the significant difference. However, the core of my contention is that the order candidates are placed results in decreasing attention for those lower down the list. The Princeton paper noted above found that even randomized, the candidate nearest the top would gain more support/votes, due in part to what they called "cognitive cost": "Our results are largely consistent with... a simple cognitive cost model of voting, where ballot order effects are due to cognitive costs of processing each candidate." Randomization would reduce the benefit of having a Wikipedia moniker which comes earlier in the alphabet-- although it wouldn't answer the benefit of being earlier in a list of candidates. To see if the cognitive cost is an issue here, we would merely need to wait until final results and count the amount of support/opposition comments each candidate has, with a focus principally on "unknown" candidates, and compare those to name position. —LeFlyman 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *:Actually, the user with the most votes right now is Mindspillage who is about halfway down the list if not further. —Ilyanep (Talk) 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *:*The concern would be most visible in lesser known candidates (as I noted above). Wikipedians will naturally respond first to those whose monikers they recognise, and then move onto those whose they don't. Now, whether this really matters (i.e. in terms of "fairness") is certainly a viable question; perhaps unknown candidates don't deserve recognition and no matter how the list is structured, they're not going to get votes anyway. But one might just as well say that this could be likened to a popularity contest, rather than an election based on qualifications, with an intent that all candidates receive equal attention/opportunity.--LeFlyman 20:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random candidate order for future elections

message: Interiot's tool shows some users that may not have suffrage; could some people check up on that? —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through and marked some that the tool had red-flagged. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users Without Suffrage 

message: User:blankfaze have posted a statement of withdrawal on his voting page. Can an admin please update Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote and his voting page. -- KTC 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dealt with. —Nightstallion (?) 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:blankfaze]] withdrew 

message: I think that it may be helpful to make a list of the inexperienced cadidates, when they joined, the number of edits they had (as of 1/1/06), and the votes that they are getting.  I have been thinking of a standard recently of 1 year and 2,500 votes as a qualification for this post.  It may be on the high side, but I think that it would be helpful to list all of the current candidates who would fail to fit that bill (as of 1/1/06) and are running.  I think that it would do a lot to quantify the need for a standard and help to determine what the standard should be.
I will start the list, but I am looking for the help of others in completing it.  Even now I am putting more time into Wikipedia than I should.  --EMS | Talk 04:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Z.Spy withdrew.[[User:Geni--EMS | Talk 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, but it seems to me that including the withdrawn candidates will add data and help to make the case.  Z.Spy is very much a part of the pattern that I am trying to document. --EMS | Talk 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that what you have done is to demonstrate that there is not a need for the standard that you suggest.  Since at least a substantial portion (if not the vast majority) of the votes so far were cast before you posted your table, and the candidates with the lowest number of edits were (and are still) being overwhelmingly defeated, it looks like the "voters" are fully capable of figuring out for themselves who is qualified and who isn't.  Just my opinion.   6SJ7 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are missing the point.  It is work to go through all of these candidates, and I have been tempted to stop dealing with them.  It takes time from other things, after all.  Indeed, I am sure that there are others who have given up early or just not bothered with ruling on 68 candidates.  That is not good for the process.  If there is a rule such that it is a given that someone who does not meet those requirements will be defeated, then those people should not be allowed to run.  This makes the process more efficient and encourages greater participation. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Awfully quick to judge, sir. What's your definition of inexperience? Your first edit is 3/22/05 (according to editcount) with only 645 article edits since. There are users in your "inexperienced" list with less time on Wikipedia and far more non-social (editing) contributions. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a salient analysis and evaluation can and should occur after the election, not amidship. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of inexperienced candidates 

message: From what I am seeing, the number of edits is more important than time in Wikipedia, although a shorter presense is a genuine hinderance.   There is a gap between having 600 edits and having almost 2,000.  The editors below this gap are all being totally panned.  OTOH, the editors above the gap are generally doing much  better, having a significantly higher percentage of support.  (The exception, Terenceong1992, is a 13-year-old who could not make up his mind about running.)  However, even the people above the gap are not serious contenders for "winning" this election, and all are losing support due to the brevity oftheir time in Wikipedia.  --EMS | Talk 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A preliminary analysis 

message: Mindspillage, one of the most popular candidates, joined Wikipedia on 22 June 2004, and had ~7,500 as of 1/1/06.   IMO, this argues against an edits threshhold higher than 2,500 edits, although addition qualifications (such as a age-of-account and/or having admin status) may be appropriate. --EMS | Talk 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comparison point 

message: I'd propose to not only strike them out and replace their candidate statements, but also place them on the very bottom of the table and page. Your thoughts on this? —Nightstallion (?) 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, but right now there are only 5 such candidates out of the 68 who started out in the race.  I don't see a whole lot of value in the change at this time, but if people keep dropping out it will become helpful. (One suggestion though.  I would but the withdrawn candidates in a seperate list just below the primary one to make in clear what thier status is.) --EMS | Talk 16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do this, then, since you are in favour and noone seems to be against it. —Nightstallion (?) 08:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance of recording when each person dropped out? I come back to the vote page occasionally, and for the life of me I can never remember which 'drop out' notices I'd looked at before. Purely for 'soap opera' value, of course! --kingboyk 21:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are. Scroll down to the bottom of the main vote page (with the listings of all the candidates), and you'll come to the section for withdrawn candidates. Although they're listed alphabetically, the dates in which each one withdrew are listed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. I also realised I could use the Page History. Doh! --kingboyk 09:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawn candidates

message: Candidate have withdrew. KTC 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the links and such have been taken care of. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mikkalai]] withdrew 

message: Should candidates be able to alter their candidate statements on the voting pages now that voting has commenced?  I'm talking about substantial edits, changes in viewpoint, etc, not just a comma here and a spelling correction there.  If so, should there be a notice that the candidate statement has been significantly altered? Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT> 21:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is too late to say no.Geni 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; this is a wiki, after all.  And if changes are substantial, hopefully Wikipedians will ID them and decide accordingly ... and this includes Jimbo.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with ^^. I think that if someone totally changes viewpoints they'd get quite a few oppose votes for that ("what are you hiding/trying to do?"). —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidates revising their own candidate statements during voting 

message: My interest in ArbCom was from the standpoint of editorial challenge of reconciling differing viewpoints to produce a quality multi-faceted article. It is my impression that I grossly underestimated the social and political aspects of ArbCom as well as grossly overestimated the aforementioned editorial drive for quality encyclopedia above all else. As such, I am no longer interested in the position and wish to withdraw my candidacy.
I appreciate the support votes as well as all the feedback from oppose votes -- it really helped me understand where my opinions fit in the Wikipedia community. Apologies if my editorial activism and anti-free speech abuse conservatism have offended anyone. Good luck all! - Emt147 Burninate! 06:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. —Nightstallion (?) 07:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdraw 

message: In the light of future elections, could someone please create statistics as to how many people vote on each day of the election, and how the candidates change? It seems to be the case that the results do not significantly change after the first day. Not that I would recommend holding an election for a single day, but it may be interesting to know whether there's actually a point in using two weeks rather than one (and I seem to recall some people suggesting the election last even longer). Radiant_>|< 17:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The election has already been open several days and as I've only managed to view and vote on ~43 of 68 candidates (users Ajwebb - Maywither, inlcuding all but one of the now-withdrawn users in this range) and I'm spending about 50-75% of my Wikipedia time on this. And I shouldn't have spent as much time on it at work as I have. Also, remember Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ta bu shi da yu 2 - things can change. IMHO 9 days starting on a Saturday is the minimum time we should have - allowing a full week and two weekends when many people will have more time. Thryduulf 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: while I don't think anyone has crossed the 50% barrier there have been a fair number of chnages in position at the top.Geni 09:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the viable candidacies, a couple have changed by greater than 5% during the last 72 hours, which as Geni points out does lead to some shuffling of the order.  Dragons flight 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can compare the order using the Mathbot results table archive. David | Talk 16:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote duration

message: I've made well over 150 edits, but only created my account on November 13. Does this REALLY mean I'm barred from voting, because I do want to vote!--M W Johnson 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting Restrictions

message: So that people don't have to keep opposing me and can concentrate their reading on people who might actually win, I shall withdraw from the race. It has been a beneficial experience. Thanks everyone for the comments. --Dogbreathcanada 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dogbreathcanada withdraws 

message: Interiot's Tool flagged an interesting case: . This user had less than 150 edits as of the start of the election (00:01 January 9) but made 34 edits during the day, starting at 02:31 and ending at 03:30. Those edits brought him/her across the 150 edit threshold. While the rules/instructions seemed pretty explicit (number of edits at the start of the elections), I'd thought I would bring it up here. I've tagged all her votes for now. Thoughts on this? My personal opinion is to not grant suffrage, as the instructions say at the start of the election. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes valid?

message: I finally have a complete set of statistics.  What I did was to take the mathbot results as of 1/13/06 11:00am EST, and added in the data found in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-01-09/ArbCom_update articles.  The resultant table is:
I did a several analyses on this data, looking for a criteria that would eliminate non-contenders fairly quickly.  Interestingly, the one that really leaps out is Radiant's suggestion to require that candidates already be administrators.  That would eliminate 29 candidates right off the bat, including the last 27.  The highest ranked non-admin is ranked 34th in approval out of 68.  So this looks like a very viable criteria.
A variation on this is to require that a candidate be three months an admin.  That would eliminate 34 of the 68 candidates, with the highest ranked user affected being Tznkai, currently ranked 30th with 33.8% support.  However, I would not go higher than 3 months for administrator experience, since you start working your way rapidly up the rankings after that.
I thought about other types of restrictions to use in addition.  The ones that were attractive to me are time on Wikipedia and number of edits.  However, the criteria I would use in those cases (6 months is the Wikipedia and 2,500 edits) seem to corrolate with being an admin for 3 months anyway.  Indeed, there are several examples of non-admins who meet the other criteria but have < 15% support.
I plan to update this table after the election are closed.  However, I don't expect the gist of it to change.  One final note:  In hindsight, what got to me in this process was not there being 68 candidates, but hitting person after person who obviously did not deserve a chance at the job.  That kind of thing discourages participation, which is why establishing some kind of prerequisites for candidacy is so important. --EMS | Talk 05:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great table! Technical question: did you do some kind of scripting wizzardry to add the extra data to the table, or was it done by hand? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was done by hand.  Scripting was tempting until I found out about the Signpost articles. With the data readily available I concluded that it was less work and bother than scripting (although I should at some point try my hand at it since I am a software engineer by trade).  Note the since I used the Signpost, the data in as of 1/1/06 as I aimed for above.  Obviously a script would be able to give me those numbers. --EMS | Talk 17:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete candidate statistics 

message: People interested in more statistics can take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Progress, which shows the MathBot results for each day and is thus useful for finding out how support for candidates has waxed or waned during the progress of the election. Feel free to edit it if you e.g. wish to boldface major changes, or strikeout withdrawn candidates. Radiant_>|< 15:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone else here from Oxbridge who thinks that the order could interestingly be displayed rather as the results of the bumping races are? David | Talk 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that what Dbiv is talking about, for those of us to whom it's not obvious, is something like this: .  However, I can make neither head nor tail of that chart, so lord knows.  Chick Bowen 23:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They do spend a term teaching you how to understand them, you know ;-) David | Talk 00:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think he is simply refureing to a scatter plot of percentage against time for each candidate.Geni 23:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow...that chart makes sense! It'd take forever to make though. — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progression 

message: A candidate with 100 votes and 80% support has 80 supporters. A candidate with 200 votes and 70% support nearly twice as many supporters.  Because the usual charts seem to emphasize proportion of vote, but the only important cut-off seems to be number of votes, I produced an alternative listing that lists candidates in descending order of votes, for those candidates with more than 50% of votes for support.  I sorted scraped the screen from interiot's page at around 0400, Jan 15 (lag was at that time said to be about 12 hours) and then sorted them numerically and applied the cutoff by the following shell command:
$  sort -r -n -k 6 -t '(tab)' votes |awk -F'(tab)' '{if ($5 >= 50) print;}'
(tab) above represents the ascii HT character.
The results. compiled for the fun of it:
interiot	Candidate       	Support	Oppose	% support	Total
14      	Fred Bauder     	209    	77    	73.08    	286
1       	Mindspillage    	247    	16    	93.92    	263
16      	Jayjg           	175    	82    	68.09    	257
3       	Charles Matthews	207    	22    	90.39    	229
2       	Filiocht        	189    	13    	93.56    	202
12      	James F.        	145    	49    	74.74    	194
18      	Merovingian     	125    	61    	67.20    	186
6       	Dmcdevit        	151    	30    	83.43    	181
4       	SimonP          	162    	18    	90.00    	180
13      	Ilyanep         	127    	43    	74.71    	170
11      	Dbiv            	124    	41    	75.15    	165
19      	Kim Bruning     	95     	69    	57.93    	164
21      	Phroziac        	87     	66    	56.86    	153
60      	Redwolf24       	100    	51    	66.23    	151
9       	Jpgordon        	104    	31    	77.04    	135
10      	Improv          	103    	32    	76.30    	135
5       	Morven          	112    	17    	86.82    	129
8       	Sam Korn        	97     	28    	77.60    	125
17      	Nandesuka       	84     	41    	67.20    	125
22      	Ral315          	64     	51    	55.65    	115
15      	Golbez          	79     	36    	68.70    	115
23      	Mailer diablo   	56     	56    	50.00    	112
7       	Mackensen       	78     	21    	78.79    	99
20      	PZFUN           	47     	35    	57.32    	82
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 January 2006
*I believe Jimbo will be the final judge of who "the winners" are, previously indicating a general desire to "to always appoint candidates approved by the community as a matter of convention, while reserving the right to refuse to seat any particularly problematic candidates."  I'd imagine that all of the candidates who've garnered supermajorities of support have also garnered (or will, by election's end) a considerable number of votes (100 or more) ... far more than any RfAdmin.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *BTW, why does it say 'interiot' in the column header over the position numbers? — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Probably to distinguish it from the other online tool used to exhibit vote statistics. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In the previous election, there were no 'Oppose' votes and candidates were chosen in order of the number of positive votes they got only. It's interesting to note that Kelly Martin, who has withdrawn, would probably be among the winners if this system had continued. David | Talk 10:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How does one judge "the winner"?

message: Could Danny and so forth tell us whether the result was fairly unchanged after the first few days in last year's election, or whether it was not. Could they also tell us whether most voters voted on the first day, or whether it was spread out fairly evenly across the election?
I.e. how does non-secret voting (as this year) compare to secret ballot (as last year)?
Are there any conclusions we should draw from this (whatever it turns out to be)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Ril- (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 January 2006
::I signed below, if you notice. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think analysis of this is premature seeing as the elections are still ongoing. Once the elections are complete I think looking at the voting patterns would be very interesting - graphs of voting rate would be interesting, as well as support:oppose ratios for people over time (I'm assuming that's what you man by "fairly unchanged"). Interiot's written a useful script which shows the current vote count already and I'm sure further such analysis will be done. I'm not sure how you would compare secret voting and public voting simply; without asking people whether they refrained from voting because it was open (I know UninvitedCompany has already made a statement announcing he's not voting because of the procedure) it's going to be difficult to do this. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but there was discussion somewhere above that the election seems somewhat staid after the first day or so. I was wondering whether the fact that people can see the votes that have already been made had anything to do with this, an effect that many pundits view certain real-world elections to suffer. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative Statistics

message: Can an admin move the Svartalf to the withdrawl section.  He's retracted his nomination.  Superm401 | Talk 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take care of it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Svartalf 

message: For whom should I vote? There's so many! Can we do a poll on whom gets my vote? --Dangherous 14:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You can trim the list someone by cheacking to see which candidates have a reasonable chance.Geni 14:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree with Geni here. The poll way is the only way. freestylefrappe 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course it is.  BTW, have you not noticed with the "Dangherous" becomes if you drop the "h"? ;-) --EMS | Talk 04:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and my name is the reason why I'm not running for arbcom - people will get the wrong idea. ems57fcal, have you noticed that if you drop the "erous" from my usename, you get my initials (almost)? --Dangherous 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For whom? 

message: I'm not sure whether I can vote or not, probably not because I am recent in terms of formal registation.  I have no way of knowing what the candidates actually do.  The process could be as simple as clicking a button, but instead involves an unfamiliar edit.
The process is also is also open to hijack.  There are more than 800,000 registered users, but from the number of votes that seem to have been cast, anyone who could organise a few hundred voters could get control, at least of the Arbitration Committee.
--GwydionM 18:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With due respect, but if you are unfamiliar with the edit button, you should definitely not vote in this election. That because editing pages is the only way of communicating on Wikipedia, besides being the only way of contributing to articles. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is pretty much imposible to organise wikipedians (which is why the final final version of the voteing page was sorted out in the half hour leading up to midnight). You would also have the problem of trying to organise that many wikipedians without me finding out about it.Geni 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct. With such a diverse worldwide community, organising wikipedians is even more difficult than herding cats (and I have tried to herd cats on some occasions). The chance of doing it without someone finding out and reporting it is practically zero. David | Talk 00:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrote this before an edit conflict with Geni.  We are in agreement. Chick Bowen 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too complex a process 

message: I noticed one or two of these which came in at 00:00. I wonder if they are allowed to stand on the basis of the "standing in line when voting ended" rule which is sometimes used in public elections? Or are they barred on the grounds of strict deadlines? David | Talk 00:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I'm going to go ahead and protect all the voting pages now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. All voting pages are now protected. For any votes that were after the deadline, I would just say to tag them. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say let the 0:00 ones through, assuming in good faith that the "save page" key was hit at 23:59:59. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, must have misread that comment - I thought it said that it came in after the deadline, like at 00:15 or something. My bad. :-) 00:00 seems fine; we should just leave them. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes just past the deadline 

message: I know the voting is closed (I don't think I have enough edits anyway), but I wanted to check out the 'questions' page I'd read was available for each candidate. I've been searching for about 20 minutes but I can't find them, is there a trick to getting there?--Anchoress 15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote, go to each candidate section, click on the link to their voting page. Top of that page is their candidate statement again, then a link to their Questions page. Should be mostly (all?) of the form Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/*** -- KTC 16:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I had been to all the pages you identified (except the Questions pages) but somehow I missed the linked text, 'Questions'. Thanks again.--Anchoress 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about Questions