Wikipedia talk:Elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2004 elections[edit]

User:Danny and User:Imran have volunteered on the Wikipedia-l mailing list to administer the Board election. --Michael Snow 04:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This should be on meta. --mav

Maybe it should be on meta too, but it should definitely be here as well. Most Wikipedia users don't use meta. --Michael Snow 04:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
about half of wikipedia pages are not in english. We can perhaps presume that half of wikipedians are not english. So, while most wikipedia users don't use meta, I am not sure half wikipedians use english wikipedia; The choice of meta is not necessarily a practical one, but it is at least a good political move. Generally speaking :-) ::this said, that page should exist here as well :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing
That's why I posted to the mailing list about this page and invited people to translate it for the other Wikipedias. Meta is largely English-language as well, so it's not necessarily a better location. I don't object to anyone adding it to meta, but we need to advertise the election information as widely as possible, and I think most people will find that information through the regular Wikipedias, not meta. --Michael Snow 17:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Meta is neutral territory. And what about the other Wikimedia projects? Do Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikisource not matter? --mav
I don't think anyone objects to it being on meta. They just feel (as do I) that's it's good to have it here as well for visibility's sake. --Camembert

Also, info about arbcom and medcom are only relevant to en.wiki, since we don't rule on behalf of non-English folks. Martin 18:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then leave the en.wikipedia stuff here and point readers to the Wikimedia stuff on Meta. --mav
I don't mind providing a link to meta pages as well, if there are any, but there's no reason not to provide information directly on this page. It's not like this page will be used to administer the actual election; we don't even know how that's going to be handled yet. Besides, I haven't found anybody doing anything about this on meta yet - all I know of is an old Board of Trustees page, written when the bylaws were originally released, with nothing more specific about the elections than what we have here. --Michael Snow 01:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I added the relevant link on meta. Please discuss board elections over there. Specificities should be over there. FirmLittleFluffyThing 03:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Number of arbitrators[edit]

I thought 12 were appointed originally, unless you're not counting Erik based on his declining to serve. I would have made the page clearer, but I don't know if there's been a final decision on how many positions the Arbitration Committee will have on a permanent basis. --Michael Snow 18:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't counting Erik, because he declined. Seems more accurate that way. Martin 18:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay. Obviously before an election is held, the number of positions should be fixed more clearly, but there's still time for that. The Board election will come first anyway, unless Jimbo wants to wait a *really* long time to sign the bylaws. --Michael Snow 19:13, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election[edit]

I accept the principle that there should be some type of 'minimum service' requirement on voters, but would have to query the sole option selected of '90 days elapsed since registration' as there are people with fewer than 100 edits to their name on there (indeed I noted at least one in single figures!) whereas there are probably members who have a reasonable track record with more edits in a shorter timeframe. It would be wrong to change the process now, but just as some sort of 'heads-up' for the future maybe there should be a minimum time and minimum contribution together. --VampWillow 16:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It would be so easy to rack up a hundred edits if one needed to that this isn't all that strong a restriction. —Morven 17:02, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
Which therefore begs the question why users with fewer than a dozen edits to their name get to vote in an important election ... --VampWillow 17:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
It does indeed, but if we applied such a restriction, it wouldn't do any practical good; one could simply rack up a hundred typo fixes in an hour or two. —Morven 18:45, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
User contributions is difficult to gauge, too. Someone with less than 100 edits could have written 50 complete, new articles, which is just as useful a contribution as 2000 copyedits. --Chopchopwhitey 21:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Hey! Meelar 22:11, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Condorcet Voting[edit]

I strongly recommend that we should change from approval voting to Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, a Condorcet method, for the next elections. We can use Andrew Myers' Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS) to count the ballots.

Already during the last Arbitration Committee elections, it has been proposed by Johnleemk and Nat Krause to change from approval voting to Condorcet voting. But their proposal came to late. Markus Schulze 21 June 2005

Clarification[edit]

This "clarification" was "restored" to the page:

Note that "elections" to the Arbitration Commitee only advise Jimbo on who to appoint; it is not binding on him, and he is free to appoint others and not to appoint those "elected".

Since it was never there originally, I removed it again. I've seen this theory promoted a few times, but I think it's an interpretation, rather than a definitive explanation of the state of affairs. I think the notion of Jimbo rejecting properly elected candidates would bring Wikipedia dangerously close to a "constitutional crisis". In the last election, nobody waited around for Jimbo to approve the results; we simply sorted the new arbitrators into their terms and let them get to work. --Michael Snow 16:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

whodda thunk it.....[edit]

that what seems to me to be such an important page would in fact be such a backwater! I've been thinking about taking a look at some of these systems, with a view to trying to create some centralised discussion about the ways in which the elections for the arbcom at the end of the year might work. I'd like to ask an independent group to come in and make some recommendations (maybe from the foundation? maybe something like the election committee for the recent board of trustees elections? maybe just well clued up members of this or other wiki communities who might be willing to take a look?) - I think it pays to try and get our house in order well ahead of time, so all thoughts about how that might work would be most welcome... I also recognise that there could well be other discussions about this (or past discussions) in various corners of the wiki, so would welcome any assistance in gathering them together too! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications[edit]

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications[edit]

Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AUSC October 2009 elections: Vote now![edit]

The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 07:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent! Last call for votes: AUSC October 2009 elections[edit]

There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:

MBisanzTznkai;

  • Or go straight to your personal voting page:

here.

For the Arbitration Committee, RlevseTalk 17:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the Arbitration Committee elections, December 2009[edit]

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2009 (WP:ACE2009). In order to be eligible to run, editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits, be at least 18 years of age, and be of legal age in their place of residence; note also that successful candidates must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats. Nominations will be accepted from today, November 10, through November 24, with voting scheduled to begin on December 1. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidate statements page. The conditions of the election are currently under discussion; all editors are encouraged to participate. For the coordination cabal,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections: last calls for candidates, comments on process[edit]

This is a reminder that the nominations phase of the December 2009 elections to select new members of the Arbitration Committee, as well as the Request for Comment|Request for Comment on the conditions for the elections and the 2010 Committee, will close on November 24, in one day's time.

If you have been considering running as a candidate in this year's election to the Committee, now is the time to make the decision. It's worth noting that there are twenty-two candidates at the time of writing, six fewer than last year, and so with eight seats available the field is not as competitive as might have been expected. All editors who had made 1,000 mainspace edits by November 10, 2009, are over 18 years of age and of the age of majority in their nation of residence, and are willing to identify themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation are eligible to stand as candidates. You can declare your candidacy by following the instructions at the candidate statements page.

The Request for Comment on the Arbitration Committee covers the conditions for the elections and the Committee in 2010. Specific issues under debate include term lengths, number of seats, election methods, ballot transparency, the tranche system, threshold for successful candidacies and voter eligibility. If you want to participate in the discussion on any of these issues, you have less than a day to have your voice heard. For the coordinators,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder[edit]

Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections[edit]

This is a brief reminder to all interested editors that today is the final day to vote in the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. The voting period opened at 00:01 on UTC 1 December 2009 and will close at 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009 as initially planned. Updated 21:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballot, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please ask at the election talkpage. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.

Follow this link to cast your vote

For the coordinators,  Skomorokh  12:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections[edit]

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections.

The role of Arbitrator is important and demanding, there is a perennial need for new volunteers to step forward. This year, 7 arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Nominations are open to any editor in good standing over the age of 18, who is of legal age in their place of residence, and who has made at least 150 mainspace edits before November 1, 2011; candidates are not required to be administrators or to have any other special permissions, but will be required to make certain commitments and disclosures as detailed in the nomination instructions. Experienced and committed editors are urged to Consider standing.

Nominations will be accepted from today, November 12 through Monday, November 21 at 23:59 (UTC), with voting scheduled to begin on Sunday, November 27. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidates page and follow the instructions given. Good luck to all the candidates who decide to stand for election, Monty845 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Updates and other elections[edit]

I've done a bit of updating, but more is needed. I'm not convinced the AMA bit needs its own section - that is more footnote material. Also, are things like the Military History WikiProject (WP:MILHIST) process for selecting co-ordinators elections, or are they more like RfAs (which rightly got removed from here in a recent edit). Also, there should be a link to every SecurePoll election held, with its number, and the elections listed here that used SecurePoll should be identified as such and linked. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is open[edit]

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. Users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote. The election will run from November 27 until December 10.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz talk 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today[edit]

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz talk 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Village Pump Discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at the Village Pump (Proposals) that may be of interest to members of this project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)