Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote

Statement modification

Will Beback has modified his statement. This should be reflected on this page. Tra (Talk) 17:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Conti|✉ 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

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)[reply]

Yes, you can. One vote per candidate. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ineligible votes

Should ineligible votes be removed or should I strike them out when I find them? --Conti|✉ 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeout seems best, to be safe. They can always be removed later. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support. Ineligible user 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than 150 edits. Ral315 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fake 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Give brief reasons with votes

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)[reply]

Somehow giving brief reasons does make this election look like an RfA. Personally I decided not to; out of respect I don't want to express my choice words for certain candidates. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Albeit an RfA lacking in any discussion of the votes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the bot-update page with the tallies?

I'm sure somebody already thought of that... —Doug Bell ^talk 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections. Geni 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another at User:Mathbot/ArbCom Election December 2006. NoSeptember 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the tallies! ;) - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to add a check for possible duplicate voters, like the Tangobot RfA summaries do. Before long these lists of votes are going to be huge. NoSeptember 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The script I'm using to check for suffrage checks for duplicate votes. —Cryptic 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Btw, it is good we have 2 bots running. Gurch's page has not updated in about 4 hours now. NoSeptember 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note about Gurch's S-O column: though there was a lot of discussion about that last year, in the end Jimbo ignored it and went by raw percentages. It's still interesting to have both for comparison, of course. Chick Bowen 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections is seriously broken, at least in IE 6.02 on Windows XP. The page is blank and only contains the following:

<script type="text/javascript" src="/skins-1.5/common/sorttable.js"></script>

—Doug Bell ^talk 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works in Firefox. I'll let Gurch know. Chick Bowen 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the lack of update. I was asleep and it stalled. Working again now after 9 hours. I'm not sure why it doesn't work in IE... it does have the new sortable table feature, which is perhaps breaking in IE, I'll look into in. In the meantime, those who only have IE either use MathBot's page or get a better browser :) – Gurch 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just tested in IE7 and it works fine. If you're using IE6 that's your own problem :) – Gurch 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not by choice. I need IE 6 for compatibility testing with the development work I'm doing. Pretty sure since everything else here works with it that breaking it isn't a requirement. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now User:Mathbot/ArbCom Election December 2006 is doing exactly the same thing. Oleg, what did you change? —Doug Bell ^talk 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just used a sortable table. I removed it now. That Gurch has it is enough I guess. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this seems to be a problem of the user's monobook.js (or .css, I don't know), having some kind of conflict with the sortable table thing. I have the same problem as Doug Bell (using Opera), and it vanishes when I look at the page while logged out. I don't have a clue what part of my monobook.js is causing this tho, as I'm too stupid to know much JavaScript. --Conti|✉ 05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral votes

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)[reply]

"150 votes"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lengthy comments

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Checking votes

From the above comments ("The script I'm using to check for suffrage checks for duplicate votes. — Cryptic 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)") it seems that checking of votes is taking place. Is it possible to be reassured that such checking is indeed taking place, what it innvolves, and whether the results will be published? Thanks. Carcharoth 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable pattern: It's a rather 'rouge' election

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)[reply]

TINC. (Radiant) 12:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Radiant! -Looks like I missed one. Thanks for drawing my attention enough to notice.

[1] Funny.

Hearse Monoplane 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Keep in mind that in the coming year, due to the overall growth of wikipedia, we are likely to see a big expansion of the arbcom. This is not certain, but entirely possible. Therefore, people should (a) not vote strategically based on good people being very close to the top N and (b) not withdraw from the race with good scores just because you might not be in the top N. Anyone who has recently withdrawn on that basis might reconsider.--Jimbo Wales 19:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one candidate with more than 70% support has withdrawn: I hope the expanded ArbCom won't comprise members with less than 2/3 community support. Sandy (Talk) 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]