Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee/Elections July 2007

Number of Edits?

I realise that I can not run for Arbitration Committee at this time; however, I do noticed differences between the email sent to the Wikinews-I list by BrianNZ and listed here. I assume we are following this page, and you must have 250 edits in the main userspace, correct? terinjokes | Talk 11:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why can't you run? Thunderhead 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Thunderhead, I misread the page the first time around. Yes, I can run for ArbCom (I misread the part about oversight). terinjokes | Talk 19:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I was wondering why :) Thunderhead 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My Mailing list message was correct, however, Thunderhead| has since changed this page. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Election Committee

I assume everyone remembers the problem we had with verifying the votes last election in January, and we had administrators struggling to verify the votes. Should we set up an impartial committee to verify the results? Members on the committee cannot vote or run for office. Maybe three people, and at least 1 with checkuser privs? Thunderhead 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am on the arbcom atm (my seat is at this election a 'safe seat') thus, I will be willing to assist (I have assisted in the first 2 elections we have had). I also have the CU if needed Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 03:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not planning on running, won't have seas of time but enough for the job I think.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm too busy.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I should be able to help, if required (but may be busy for the first 3 days of the election)(will not be busy :)) 06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC). Martinp23 18:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add yourself if you want, if you want to, but then you'll have to come to all the cabal meetings :-) Thunderhead 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

*pokes his lack of adminship and the protection of the page*. :-). Oooh cabal :D Martinp23 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It expires on July 11 at 22:00, but if you wanna make a change lemme know, and I'll unprotect it for you. Yep, special cabal. [IRC channel and all :) Thunderhead 23:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)q

(deindent) Grr - that channel doesn't exist! Anyway - I would have just added myself to the Election Committee member listing (perhaps you could do it?). Thanks, Martinp23 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are joining? Welcome to the team, Martin. Thunderhead 15:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - thanks :) Martinp23 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Now get to work! :) Thunderhead 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you need any further help, I'm happy to help out. My holidays started as of an hour ago, so my activity should be much higher than it has been in the last couple of weeks. I use IRC, as Daniel-Bryant, if you need to contact me (that, or email). Cheers, Daniel 05:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So if Thunderhead, Martinp23 and Daniel, run the election, and just call me in, if you need checkuser or anything. The election will go smoothly here, the main thing to worry about will be getting enough people willing to put there name forward. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No self noms

The rule against self noms is bizarre, pointless, and counter productive. It unfairly penalizes people who do not hang out in IRC. There is no problem that disallowing self noms serves. If we want to limit it to qualified candidates create a list of qualifications and use them, or even better just let the voters decide. --Cspurrier 00:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is in lieu of an endorsement period. Nominators are welcome to nominate as many users as they want, and this ensures that there is already community support for the users being nominated. :) Thunderhead 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would we need an endorsement period? And what does this solve that a normal vote would not? --Cspurrier 00:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note about my self-nomination: That rule was not listed on the project page when I did that. --SVTCobra 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, my fault concerning that. Please excuse me. Thunderhead 02:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just restrict candidates to those who have made 250 edits and been here since [whatever the date was]? And then they can nominate themselves? This isn't going to be a huge election, so I can't really see a point in culling candidates just because they don't meet the initial popularity level required even to get a start in the election. More candidates in an election so small will probably be better, in fact. Daniel 05:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a small election, no need for an endorsement period or restrictions on self-nominations. Self-nominations are very important I think: alternatively, I'll be happy to nominate any editor in good standing who asks me :-).--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Like the voting below, this might as well be changed. Daniel 02:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting find in the "FAQ"

“Each non-nominated user may vote for 3 users.”

This creates an incredibly flawed election process. Rather then allowing a person to cast their vote for the people they believe are best, they must vote for the three candidates who they think have the best chance of being elected or their vote becomes worthless.

I also rather dislike that this process is being dictated by a page that is linked only from user space and has been unreviewed by the community and is not linked from the election page. Unless someone can think of some particularly good reason for it the election should proceed using the rules that were on the election page when it was opened. --Cspurrier 01:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I would find it better to allow users to vote for as many candidates as they like. There seems no real reason not to allow this to happen. Daniel 05:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. --+Deprifry+ 08:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

True, we should be able to vote for all suitable candidates. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So would I, personally. But that portion of the FAQ was written by and consulted on by Brianmc. I'll go ahead and change it, since we agree. Thunderhead 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)