Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee/2009 elections

A few questions
The guide on this page isn't very clear on how the voting procedure itself will commence. I'd like some clarification on a few points, namely:

1.) Is this a support-only poll like the one we had last time, meaning that if you oppose a candidate you can't add oppose but simply don't vote at all?

2.) Can a candidate vote for other candidates, or is he/she prohibited from participating in the polls?

3.) Who can vote? Can any registered user vote, or do we set some limits based on number of edits, time registered etc.?

Tempodivalse [talk]  15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cirt (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Responses to above, per Arbitration Committee/Elections July 2008 and Arbitration Committee/Elections July 2008/F.A.Q.:
 * 1) Typically in the past, and also in the last most-recent election, it was by support only.
 * 2) Candidates were allowed to vote for other candidates. I don't recall candidates voting for themselves.
 * 3) I like the rules used previously, here: Arbitration_Committee/Elections_July_2008.


 * Thanks for the clarification, Cirt. Much appreciated. Maybe a note of all this should be made on the project page, to avoid any possible confusion. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a very good idea. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Computerjoe 's talk 19:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, looks good. :) Cirt (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused

 * 1) You must have at least 250 edits in the Main namespace before July 1, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC) in order to vote.
 * 2) Your first edit must have been made before June 1, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC) in order to vote.

Aren't these redundant? Or is there something I'm missing? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not really. It is possible to have 250 edits in the Main namespace before July 1, without any one of those edits being made before June 1. Why it is so written, I am not really sure. But it is not redundant, per se. --SVTCobra 00:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

user:James Pain's votes
According to the toolserver's edit counter, user:James Pain doesn't seem to meet the poll's suffrage requirements (he has less than 250 edits in the main namespace). Are administrators exempt to this rule, or should the vote still be discounted? Tempodivalse [talk]  22:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a decision for the people running the election. However, I don't think it is a bad-faith attempt to vote. Decision should be outwith the hands of candidates, so it may be a struck vote this time, but input case to future drawing up of suffrage requirements. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly feel suffrage should be such that he should be able to vote, but then I would say that, he voted for me. In the end, I'm with Brian that those running the show will have to make a judgement call without pressure from us. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although James hasn't reached the total required edits, as an administrator, his vote will count. Joe isn't here at the moment, so this is on behalf of the both of us.     Tris   23:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully defer to judgment of and  regarding . Cirt (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is disappointing to see it is considered appropriate to make up the rules as we go along. The requirements shouldn't be changed whilst the election is ongoing so these votes should be struck out. Adambro (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins with under 250 mainspace edits prior to June first:
 * User:Chris Mann,
 * User:James Pain,
 * User:Lankiveil,
 * User:Terinjokes, and
 * User:TheFearow.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, first off, cut the crap Adambro. Everyone knows suffrage is set at a level where most people expect it to exclude those who are determined to disrupt. There's a thumb-in-the-air X edits between A and B threshold, and we all take it as reasonable. Everyone associates a value to certain edits, so 250 spellchecks and minor copyedits is less noticeable than 20 x 5 minute audio uploads and associated scriptwriting. If someone's contributions seem notable to you it can be a surprise they are not as numerous as you might assume. However, you're right - the rules should not change... during the election. I'd like to see Tristan withdraw his assurance that James' vote will count, and for James to actually strike his votes to keep it all civil, then the election continues, and we can decide independent of the election where the balance on universal suffrage versus lunatic exclusion should be drawn. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to understand the apparent hostility Brian since it seems we both agree that rules shouldn't be changed whilst the election is in progress and so these votes should be struck. I fully understand the motivation of some kind of requirements for those taking part, and that not all edits are created equal so allowing admins to take part in future elections regardless of their edit count is a good idea. Where is the disagreement here? Where is the "crap"? Adambro (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see the argument here. I did this in, by no means, bad faith. I was prompted on the irc channel of Wikinews to go and vote, in my tiredness at the time I must have skimmed over the rules of voting, overlooking the minimum edit requirements. This was a fault of my own and I would be happy to withdraw my votes, I didn't even finish them......but alas, Tris, the administrator of this election, has allowed "Administrators on the Wikinews project, even if they don't meet the requirements" to vote. As I see, this is causing a bit of a controversy (well...more so then in the first place). So this puts me at a dilemma. In my opinion I wouldn't mind my votes stuck to save argument and allow people to get one with more important things but this has become something of a 'leader' vs 'the mob', Tris has made a decision and the majority (the ones I'm seeing anyway) disagree. ....right, I was going to let it be handled by the powers that be of this election but that's just going to continue arguments so after some thought I'm just going to withdraw my votes instead of sitting in a corner and letting you lot bicker about my votes. --James Pain (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tie?
Now that the polls have closed, it looks like there's a two-way tie for the sixth seat between and, who have eight votes apiece. How are we going to determine who gets the seat? Tempodivalse [talk]  00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Providing all votes are valid, I suggest splitting the term. I welcome Tristan's thoughts. Computerjoe 's talk 00:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't we check to make sure that all the votes are actually valid? terinjokes | Talk 04:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The officials may want to recheck, but I checked and it appears all current votes are valid. Van der Hoorn (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * - How about a run-off election with those two candidates for the remaining spot on the Arbitration Committee? Cirt (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any better way off hand, other than maybe a game of rock paper scissors. I'd say just toss the two up and run it real quick like. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 04:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object to a second round of voting for them, but I'm open to hearing some other options too.  hmwith τ   04:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think a run-off vote would be the best option. Tempodivalse [talk]  13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A second round of voting is a possibility but involves extra work. Computerjoe 's talk 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally think that a short run off vote is the best idea. If there is still a tie at the end; we split the term as Joe suggests.  Provided we keep it short; it'll be fine.  However; I'm going away tomorrow morning until Friday lunchtime-ish; so this would be putting more work on Joe.  If he's too busy and everyone is happy; I'm happy to do it when I get back.  However, if he's OK with it, then that's the best option I think.      Tris   18:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll go with that. Computerjoe 's talk 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have started a run-off election. Computerjoe 's talk 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you set up a runoff. By "not already voted for either candidate" I take it that means didn't vote for either in the original election? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Clarified. Computerjoe 's talk 20:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Results
- This is as per Arbitration Committee/2009 elections as of 18:35, 17 August 2009. Feel free to tweak if I got something incorrect. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks correct to me. Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  13:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these results are true and valid. We shall await Tristan's comments as to how to fix the tie before declaring any results. Computerjoe 's talk 17:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa
I accidentally closed the elections a day early. Complete human error; I was thinking today was Saturday (wishful thinking, eh?). Mea culpa! Computerjoe 's talk 01:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)