1822:) mostly because the import and scope of the "office" are such that they attract <200 participants (usually), in english, they are "no big deal". By contrast we have made Arbcom into a very big deal (relatively speaking) and we have many more users participating in the election. Enough that I didn't bother reading the questions or answers (general or otherwise). I'd be interested to learn how many users read all the questions, or even a preponderance of them. Somewhat cynically, I suspect we won't throttle or control questions in the next election, so discussion of the merits may be fruitless. I do note one pleasant outcome of the secret voting system: it substantially reduces the ability of a voter to grandstand after seeing his/her pet question go unanswered. Perhaps we will find ourselves at an equilibrium with candidates refusing to answer late or redundant questions.
2782:. Note that this is a bar to pass and not a ranking, as in this scheme every candidate can be elected, or no candidates at all can be elected (if none can muster the 80% and 30 support)... there is no certain way to predict in advance how many will be. This works well for Stewards which don't have a fixed number, but may not work as well for a committee in which one desires to set the number of seats in advance. (that's not to say that it might not be a good method to use... why have fixed numbers of arbitrators after all???? the number of arbitrators over time is a sawtooth function anyway) ++
620:
logged-in user's private data absolutely, not just in connection with them. I think the requirement that the election appoint scrutineers who are identified to the foundation and competent with checkuser, is essentially set in stone. I wouldn't have a problem with them being enwiki checkusers rather than stewards (or perhaps a mixture of both). The "opportunity for the community to scrutinise the election" is unlikely to change: the community already has access to all the data that can legitimately be published, there was just no enthusiasm to investigate it.
2275:
voting closing on 17 December). The average time before the nominations are announced is thus around 8 days. Given the limited data that Jimbo will have on which to base his nominations, that stage of the process should be extremely quick, perhaps a day at most to account for timezone dislocations. So compared to other elections, we are still well ahead of schedule. The only difference is that, instead of everyone waiting with baited breath to see how Jimbo interprets the results, everyone waits with baited breath to see what the results actually are.
3165:
committee has a high profile role so it is not a problem if you have to think about it. There's always the ability to go back and change your vote anyway. Overall this was a much more satisfactory approach than the old method where votes were not secret so there were issues of pile-on and poisoning the well in vote comments. I'm sure it could be improved further, but reducing the amount of information about the candidates does not sound to me like an improvement. I would always recommend a review of contributions before making up your mind anyway.
554:
of the election (no offense, Happy-Melon), I think it falls short of the mark. I think there has to be some level of community involvement in scrutinising elections. (Many comparisons have been made that conducting ArbCom elections by secret ballot is more like a "real-life election". In this aspect - i.e. the ability or inability of the community to satisfy itself that the election was carried out fairly - the election process departs most starkly from "real-life" elections carried out by secret ballot, at least those carried out in democracies.)
1687:
to co-ordinate things and oversee the results) which looked at the questions and simply picked out 15 or 20 of the best for each candidate it would assist the process. I found some of the questions to be a bit ... ummm ... let's just say perhaps asking the candidates on their talk page might have been a better choice for a few of them. Even Arbs have real lives, and I can sympathize with the sheer multitude of work that went into each and every candidates page. Surely we can find a way to tone it all down a notch for next year. â
1157:
slightly disconcerting. It lengthened the time it took me to accurately cast my vote from (rough guess) 60â90 seconds to 5 minutesânot a huge hardship, by any means, but considering the hours required to wade through all of those pre-voting pages, an unexpected and unwelcome obstacle. Also worth a second thought next time around: increasing the line spacing between the rows on the ballot. Even with the (faint) border lines, aligning name with radio button was a little tricky, especially going all the way over to the Oppose column.
1758:
Personally I think such a rule, even if clear and enforced, is unhelpful as there is not limit to the amount of question people can ask candidates directly. I did like the idea of general questions being submitted, being re-organised into question categories with duplicate merged, and then submitted to the candidate. This could also work well with the Board
Election like set-up of questions being listed and each candidate putting their individial response underneath each one, as suggested by Gatoclass.
2679:. Alternatively, someone who gets a few votes of support (from their mates, say), and otherwise neutral votes, will top the field at 100%. Likewise, a largely unknown, average candidate who managed to annoy some special-interest-group will appear less popular than they actually are. Discounting the neutral votes pushes the candidates with more neutral votes outward from the centre of the field. To be sure, under real-world conditions, this effect gets largely smoothed over, but not entirely.
1176:) that position on the ballot paper has a tangible, measurable, and serious impact on the allocation of votes in real elections. Candidates listed at the top of the ballot paper receive, on average, 2.5% higher support than those listed at the bottom. Perhaps that effect is less pronounced here, it doesn't matter: it is a known source of bias in ballots that can be completely countered by randomisation. It is, as you say, "not a huge hardship".
1416:" I don't think that holds. Strategically, I want my opposes to count, as much as I want my supports to count - for entirely rational reasons I'm not going to invest unlimited additional time to form an opinion on candidates who I am 'neutral' about after I've researched them fairly. Were I to randomly vote my neutral candidates 50% support and 50% oppose, then I risk bumping out (or in) a candidate I support (or oppose). â
1906:
questions (and there were quite a few I paid very little attention to). Perhaps something like each eligable voter could ask 2 questions, with any further questions from that person requiring another 4 people to endorse the question being asked. This would have to apply to both general and individual questions as the individual question part just became an extension of the general questions this year.
719:(Or erased, purged, or whatever the technical term is.) The process requires that the record of how each person voted has to be kept so that a person can change their vote and so that invalid votes can be thrown out. But after the process is completed, checked, verified and so on, there wouldn't seem to be a need to keep them around. (Modified version of Neutron's question at the election talk page).
1302:
moment, that is not really the case. The data is sitting on a computer and it could be leaked, accidentally disclosed, or otherwise made known. At the point where there is no longer any need to be able to invalidate votes (which I would define as being anytime after Jimbo announces the appointments), I think that who each person voted for should be made completely "secret", by deleting that data.
395:
the risk of election fatigue by planning for a slightly crisper pace for the public parts: what about a 32-day schedule, not including prep? This would make for a more effective event, holding people's interest with less of the drawn-out drama. This timetable would start one week earlier than the one at the top (equivalent timing and duration to ACE2009) and would finish almost three weeks earlier.
1883:
people have already told me they didn't vote because it's too hard to wade throught the text. Of course, in previous years we just acted like a herd and voted as we saw our friends did; fortunately, that is no longer possible. Bringing the question process under control so that it serves both voters and candidates better is a prime consideration for next year, in my view.
143:âcall for volunteer coordinators; establish new pages for the election; invite and confirm scrutineers and administrators; confirm timing; liaise with developers and confirm software situation; confirm electoral roll and update eligibility tracker; apply for and implement watchlist notices, for "nominations are open" and "voting is open"
3055:. It's not about FUD. It's about: why would we use a voting system that most of our voters aren't going to be able to comprehend? If people saw the votes in Schulze they wouldn't even be able to determine the outcome themselves. I don't think you appreciate how this could undermine the legitimacy of the whole process. --
1198:
study specific to
Knowledge (a difficult proposition, to say the least), we cannot know whether ballot position makes a difference here. To be on the safe side, randomization is probably the judicious way to go. I'd suggest a brief note on future ballot pages stating that the order is random and why. And increased
3149:
use of admin tools, other rights etc.), quality of judgement (how could I see?), stance on various issues (where is it shown?), a combination of these? All in all, I left with a feeling it was a very unsatisfactory election. Providing better, more focussed, information would enhance the election considerably.
1425:(I'm going into voting geek mode, not expressing an opinion on our elections.) But you also risk bumping in or out a candidate when you only make your vote for or against them count half (ish) as much against your neutral candidates. Voting neutral rarely improves the expected value of your vote to you (see
3029:
for it to be one of the 5% or so of cases where such a cycle is even possible, and figuring out how to make the cycle actually help or hurt the candidate you want, a chaotic system that grows more complex with the number of candidates and which you may not even be able to alter with your single vote anyway.
3164:
I disagree. There were a few candidates I unequivocally support because I have seen them in action as admins, a few who I would unequivocally oppose, and the balance took some time to read around and make up my mind (which was neutral in some cases). I don't think that's a bad thing, the arbitration
2030:
Way too many questions. There were over 400 question/answers for people to sort through (21 general questions *23 candidates; this doesn't include individual questions). I hate to admit it, but I didn't even try to skim through them, instead I looked at the candidate's statements. In the future, I
1686:
I have to agree that the number of questions is simply staggering here. I can't say with any certainty what the "best" resolution to this is, although I would suggest that limiting each user to 1 question could improve things. Perhaps if there were a group (not unlike the group that has worked here
972:
I agree w/ Carch. We can simply adopt a system like most real-world elections: create some buffer prior to the start of the election where candidates may not be added or removed. We don't have the hassle of paper ballots and multiple polling places to necessitate that this time period be very long,
775:
Screenshots and bank accounts are indeed a poor way of making such an exchange. The way you get this kind of privileged information, as developers of shady Web games know, is just to ask the user nicely to type their username and password into your form. In fact, now that you've got me thinking about
756:
What, by taking a screenshot of it, emailing it to the potential "customer", promising to vote that way, and here's my bank account number to shovel money into and you can trust me to honour the screenshot? (Other voters cannot access one's personal ballot page.) This is, let us say, a fatally flawed
737:
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of being able to display your previous vote. In a real-world election, that would make it possible to sell one's vote by logging in and showing it to the buyer. It's quite possible that the abstraction provided by interaction over the
Internet makes this less feasible,
574:
I'm not proposing these as suggestions (I'd prefer a variation on the above three combined) but rather simply as feedback here. More thought, I believe, should be put into the community confidence aspect of what is meant by scrutinising an election, as opposed to seeing the role in a limited sense of
553:
For the purpose of the check user aspect of the role, I think the current way of selecting scrutineers (and of performing the role) is quite good. But that is a very limited a view on the role of an election "scruitineer" IMHO. For the purpose of garnering community satisfaction in the administration
394:
ACE2009 took well in excess of 50 days, of which the wider community were involved in a period of 49 from the first public call for questions to the announcement of the tally. I suggest that to take almost two months of every 12 with the electoral process is unnecessary drama on a wiki. We can lessen
216:
I agree with DC about this, and would suggest that the whole process be moved to start about 10-14 days sooner, so that announcements can be made around Dec. 15-16 or so. That gives new arbitrators time to identify to the WMF, start navigating through the myriad lists, and everyone to get through the
3028:
that opportunities to strategically flip some of your preferences must exist somewhere in any preferential voting system -- but the only way to do this in
Schulze is to exploit a Condorcet cycle. Doing so requires successfully predicting how everyone is going to vote on the whole, being lucky enough
2982:
You are assuming, Coren, that everybody votes strategically. However, we know that's not going to happen. More likely that we actually experienced some strategic voting in this cycle and it's almost impossible to say what its effect was. I used "neutral" as a viable option, but I bet there were some
2927:
Concur - oppose votes should negate support votes 1:1. That is in the spirit of consensus. A divisive candidate who gets twice as many supports as anyone else, but also twice as many opposes, is not going to be as good an arbiter as someone who gets only half as many supports, but no-one opposes.
2682:
I argue that the method for ranking should be ((S-O)/T), taking account of those who make a decision to come along on âpolling dayâ to vote, and actively tick the neutral box on their ballot for a portion of the candidates. This year, the effect is apparent in a few places, but I will take places 8
2540:
There needs to be a little more of an explicit process on how to do administrative things, especially once the election starts. For example, if a change to an interface message needs to be made, such as the number of open seats changing, a candidate withdrawing, etc. there was no set process for how
1905:
I did wade through most of the questions, skimming past questions I was not interested in. It took about 4 hours for me to go through them and make my decisions. I think a limit of one question each is too strict but would support having an enforced limit of some sort as some people did ask a lot of
1738:
I think voters must be allowed to ask questions. One method by which things could be somewhat improved, as I suggested last year, is for the "General questions" section to be formatted in such a way that each question is put only once, and the candidates list their respective responses one after the
1708:
From a voter's standpoint I would say that the huge volume of questions made the question-and-answer process mostly worthless. I tried to wade through all of it, but there was no way I could. I also think that a lot of questions are a little too "inside baseball." Maybe a little less focus on the
1535:
You are still describing something with almost no legitimate use whatsoever, although certainly an improvement of the postal voting idea. There are lots of totally legitimate users, interested in ArbCom elections, who do not have a single account with 150 mainspace edits, do have that spread across
1050:
I just want to go on record here as liking the way the way this was done. We still had conversation, user were still able to publicly state positions if they wished, but in the end you could make whatever decision you thought best without consideration of how you might be viewed by the candidates or
250:
I agree with both DC and Risker. I know that my task, even when mostly ceremonial in nature, is one that I take seriously. I do my due diligence... I look at the history of the candidates, I read everything over, I ask for feedback, and I listen and read. I search my email archives. I don't know
3204:
Bear in mind, people's standards for support for ARBCOM are probably much higher than for admins. For RFA, someone's attitude might be "they seem to know what they are doing, they won't break the wiki," for ARBCOM they may want to see that the candidate has a much deeper understanding and level of
3050:
But indeed, that's really the only way of casting a more powerful vote in the current system. Ranking more people, which, in our current system, means casting opposes instead of neutrals. Guessing at the margins. My point is that both
Schulze and our current system are open to some trivial level
3006:
Support/neutral/oppose is neither novel for
Knowledge nor is the mathematics of the best "strategic voting" tactics difficult to figure out. Although the Schulze method has been used for some meta elections, it's a very inscrutable system on first blush. Certainly people who understand the system
2957:
would have, SA, is to change everything to (in effect) a simple support vote tally (which, interestingly enough, would have given nearly the same result this yearâ as far as I can tell only the ninth place would have switched) and depress the apparent support percentage even more (in proportion, in
1994:
I don't think that where you put the answers influences the answers. Or it shouldn't. A candidate who wants to crib from everyone else's can open multiple tabs. But putting the answers together makes it easier for voters to compare. Given how much you said you are concerned about how hard it is for
1597:
I believe the Right To Vanish is the right to leave. Not the right to start over secretly and receive secret suffrage with nobody except a few scrutineers having any clue who you are or why you have suffrage (and being able to evaluate whether your reason is "legitimate"). Misusing "RTV" to cover
1241:
Build in a period of at least a week for the scrutineers to do their job without community pressure to rush out results. Remind the scrutineers to do some basic sum-checks beforehand to make sure everything adds up. And set up some sort of competition or content drive (maybe on articles on election
1197:
Good point. I am aware of such studies. I'm not sure that it doesn't matter: the rate of participation in
Knowledge elections is so low that I'd expect voters here are unusually well informed and have more reasoned opinions on the candidates than typical "real world" voters do. Without conducting a
1085:
Overall good. However would like it to be possible to be able to not have to vote all at once and be able to change your vote without having to revote on all the candidates. I did not want to go back and change my votes when it became clear there would be an extra place being elected as I could not
3148:
springs to mind! Although the voting guides that various people produced were very useful, it took a while to find them and they were highly subjective and incomplete. It was very hard to even make up my mind as to what criteria I should be using! Should it be based on experience (number of edits,
2912:
II would be against any move to only have support votes. It leaves the strong possibility of candidates who would have more opposition than support getting elected. For instance in this years election one candidate who got 78 more oppose votes than support votes would have been only one place from
2877:
If I had known that it would come to the result it did, I'd have opposed everyone I was neutral on just to make sure that the people I supported were more likely to succeed. Alas, that strategic voting didn't occur to me until after voting had ended, but if we have this system next year you can be
2334:
Things seem to have gone well, overall. Many of the hiccups we had (like the start and end times, period for questions, etc) were artifacts of the Open Voting system used in previous years - which might be my fault, a bit, as I started setting up election pages under last year's open voting system
2274:
The 'overrun' compared to the timetable reflects a hopeless optimism on the part of the timetable, not any problem with the process. Compare the date of announcement in previous elections: 20 December in 2008, 26 December in 2007 (but with voting closing on 16 December), 26 December in 2006 (with
1757:
Does this mean a single question per candidate? A single question being asked only once, so no duplicates? It is clear that a few users did not understand it actually meant a single question per person, as shown on the discussion pages and by the fact it has been ignored by many two years running.
1301:
Such notification can be given before next year's election, but for this year, I think the votes should simply be deleted. I think that when people were told the election would be "secret", that meant that their votes could never be revealed in any way, through any means. As it turns out, at the
865:
On displaying a voter's previous vote: Yes, absolutely this should be done if it is technically feasible. (And we already know that the software is keeping a record of how each person voted; otherwise it would not know which vote to over-write when someone votes for a second time to change their
597:
This is no personal slight against either the election administrators nor the scrutineers, it was human error on both parts. However, it is one easily spotted by community scrutineers, who have a greater degree of motivation to spot such trivial errors. Indeed, given even the dearth of opportunity
1521:
Maybe a simple "fix" would be that such users can approach scrutineers and if it's agreed they have franchise, the scrutineers can add their primary (nominated) account to SecurePoll as an exception in the election. This would mean SecurePoll would need a minor upgrade to allow an automatic rule,
339:
There have been calls to hold the election earlier. This is the way it would look if moved forward by three weeks, retaining the duration of each activity, except that I've increased the timing of the preparation period and, of course, the scrutineering period. The other durations are the same as
2296:
What went "wrong" is that our insistence on neutral and distant scrutineers had the unfortunate, but predicable consequence that they were unfamiliar with enwiki jargon, history, community norms, and so on. They were, quite frankly, and with no disrespect intended, flying blind. Checkuser is not
1397:
Thank you, that clarifies it. I think all voters should be given this information; they can't be expected to hunt for old election results in order to deduce the tallying method, nor do they know whether the same method is still being used. Specifying the tallying method ahead of time would also
1031:
It ought to be possible for the developers to set up the SecurePoll system so that a certain group of users (let's say for the sake of argument there's an
ElectionAdmin flag that can do this) that can set up new elections and edit the list of candidates, deleting them if necessary in the case of
942:
On withdrawals: Although I don't feel terribly strongly about it, I think that once the voting starts, the ballot should remain stable. It's a secret ballot; nobody really knows how they (or anyone else) are doing, though they might think they know. A candidate may certainly "suspend" his/her
925:
I was considering voting, but when I realized I need to do it all in one sitting, or remember all the decisions when I continue it, caused me to change my mind about it. This system may also cause people who usually edit from public computers to save their votes on a subpage (publicly visible to
2112:
Agreed, secret ballot worked well. It might not be a bad idea to shorten the election to a week, voting fell off dramatically after the first few days. I may have some comments on the amount of time it is taking to announce the results, but am content to let the scrutineers do their thing for
1882:
I'm not so concerned about the candidates (although the idea of perpetuating the "trial of hell" aspect just because I myself survived it doesn't seem like a good reason). No, the real concern for me is the voters: they want to make their judgements in under 10 hours of reading, thanks. Several
1360:
describes the voting system only with the words "with the traditional options of support/abstain/oppose". It is not clear to me what that means; how will the winners actually be determined? Are we sorting on the difference #support-#oppose, or on the ratio #support/#oppose? If all I want is one
1127:
I'm curious about the order in which the candidates' names appeared on the ballot. I'm sure there's some logic (order of filing to run?) but think that alphabetizing it would make things a bit easier for many voters. (Apologies if this topic was already discussed elsewhere. I couldn't find it.)
619:
shows you exactly the same data as it does me or the scrutineers, only without the checkuser data. You can see the current, old, and struck votes in exactly the same way. Anonymised data will probably not be possible; it's too difficult to anonymise properly, and the privacy policy protects a
3185:
I find this election incredibly problematic, although I appreciate we can't really counter my flaws, since it would mean reducing ArbCom's size. I find it worrying that we have "top 8" candidates out there who wouldn't even pass RfA with those support percentages, with no offence meant to said
1924:
I would suggest a two question limit, with parts, subparts, and the word "and" being counted towards the limit. Questions violating the limit to be removed not by the candidate (why should he take the heat?) but by an election official. In addition, perhaps it is time to look at the election
1156:
I'm not sure why an alphabetical arrangement wouldn't be fair. It seems both fair and feasible in many elections off-wiki, anyway. Personally, I found the discrepancy between the order of the pre-voting pages (e.g., candidate statement and questions pages were alphabetical) and the ballot page
895:
It should be possible to have a system where you don't have to vote for everyone at once and can easily change your vote without displaying previous votes. It could go something like this: If you haven't voted for a particular candidate before, the ballot would give you four options: Support,
231:
One thing I thought of was moving the the whole timeframe up a month. I have no evidence to back it up, but I think there's be less activity in early
December than early November, because people tend to get busy/spend less time online during the holidays. Moving it up 2 weeks would put it in
1723:
Rather than questions, make candidates draft an arbitration case (or pick some other arbitration activity if they don't particularly like the idea of drafting a case). Or some other form of practical test, such as analysing various forms of evidence. More practical stuff and less wordy stuff.
1615:
rather than strengthen this dynamic. The community must mature beyond that cloak-and-dagger nonsense which is prone to cliquishness and outright abuse. With all due respect to (the incredibly minuscule number of) people who truly are forced to "start over", if this happens shortly before an
880:
There are disadvantages to a public record of when and how often someone changed their votes, but the advantage is that the person changing their votes sees a visual confirmation in the log that their vote did in fact change and get recorded. If the log only showed the fact that you had voted
549:
Yes, I think it would be of benefit to the community to write the roles out. If we are to continue with a secret ballot then simple acts like this greatly improve transparency, which itself engenders trust and confidence. "Election co-ordinator" and "Election administrator" work well for me.
712:
Are there ways of minimising the necessity for developer input/set-up? For example, is it feasible for an election coordinator to upload the names of candidates? What would need to be done to the software, and would it require too much technical skill for non-developers to upload the names?
1855:
The volume and variety of the questions serve as an introduction to the firehose you will face if appointed. Just as there is no way to fully do what is required as an arbitrator, there is no way to comprehensively answer all the questions adequately. It does no harm to get a peek at the
1453:
As to the other issue, there is little point in telling blocked or banned users that they can't vote. If they have a sleeper sock so well put together that it fulfills the requirements to vote and has not been detected, telling them not to vote is extremely unlikely to have any effect.
3238:
to RfA and the percentage boundary for passing would need to be adjusted: many more voters will cast an Oppose than otherwise. There would need to be a careful trial period, with crats willing to feel their way towards something lower than the current 70â80% (possibly 60â70%). Look at
2297:
magic pixie dust because all it reveals is technical data - technical data does not say. "Hi! I'm a sock of a banned user." Rather, it works the other way around, you can follow hunches and technical data can buttress or weaken them. Delays are the inevitable result of unfamiliarity.--
926:
all), which defeats some of the purpose of a secret ballot. I think that the ability to see one's previous votes isn't that relevant, but one should easily be able to see who (s)he actually voted about(for or against), and be able to modify some without needing to remember the others.
265:
Having it in the first few weeks of
December also puts time for voting and reviewing right at the end of American and Western European (at the least) university semesters, quite a problem for us considering our userbase. I would suggest moving elections to either November or January.
1086:
remember all the previous votes I had made and there was no way I was going to spend the time to remake the decisions again. I hope the votes are destroyed after the election process is completed to ensure there is no way candidates will ever find out how each voter voted on them.
3021:
There's a bit of FUD there that I'd like to quash. The only sane way to cast a "more powerful" vote than others in a Schulze election is to rank more people, an option that is available to everyone. This is all a voter needs to know in order to cast the most powerful vote they
2049:
Perhaps there should be a set period during which asking general questions is permitted, and during this period, collaborative editing to refine off-the-point or similar questions should be encouraged, perhaps with a target of producing five to ten key questions - a kind of
1779:
I agree with the idea of restricting users to one question. To be honest I only glanced at the questions and answers because it was just too much to read over and I don't think that I would be the only one, so I think that it is self defeating allowing so many questions and
3186:
candidates. While they can be said to have community acceptance, it's hardly a strong one in some cases. I worry that we've potentially exhausted the mine of well-liked and supported candidates, and we risk appointing arbitrators which have nowhere near universal support.
1256:
I'm ambivalent on whether voting data should be destroyed, but if it is, the voters should be notified when they vote that the voting data will be destroyed at a later date (and when), and sent a receipt (encrypted if needed) telling them how their vote was recorded. What
910:
i'd definitely be in favour of a system where i don't have to do all the voting in one sitting and where i can see who i have/haven't cast a vote on yet. i'd also prefer a system that lets me know a changed vote has been duly recorded without publicizing that information.
2841:
I'm not sure if it would favor anyone over anyone else. But it would eliminate an anomaly where a candidate who gets less support votes wins because they get less oppose (ie, KnightLago winning this year, despite having less support votes than 5 unseated candidates). ~
3051:
of "strategic voting" and we shouldn't be making our decision off this criteria; Schulze, however, has the added defect of inscrutability. Look, FUD? Imagine if you had studied classics instead of computer science and someone told you the outcome of the vote would be
2241:
Dislike secret ballot. Dislike unanticipated delays in announcement of result (schedule says 14 December 2010: close of voting... 15 December 2010: certification and announcement of the results). This wasn't expected, something has gone wrong, and no-one is saying what
2131:
Wehwalt, one week of that sounds just great from where I was standing (it was a lot of work). But I think the complaint would be that seven days only is two short a window for those who might be on vacation or distracted or otherwise unavailable. Compromise 10 days?
2913:
being elected based on support votes only. The ability to prevent candidates who have strong broad opposition from being elected is a strength of this system. (my preference remains to change to a system where candidates can be ranked but thats another argument)
2699:
Also to note that, only because candidate votes are balloted together, and there is no difference between a non-vote and a 'neutral' (whereas they should be distinct as they were with non-secret-voting), this equates to the same thing as the net-vote result. â
470:. Editing the interface and monitoring votes was handled by WMF-identified "election administrators", while "scrutineers" drawn from the ranks of stewards not active on the English Knowledge monitored the integrity of the election and signed off on the results.
304:
Considering that is where a large portion of our userbase resides, that's not such an awful thing. I think both of your proposals below are good, though I would lengthen the voting period a bit longer than you have it (two weeks is fine, no need to shorten it).
1606:. In practice, if you are part of the in crowd you can "exercise your right to vanish" as a way to erase all your past negative behavior while maintaining the benefits of your tenure. (I am aware of at least one instance where an editor "RTVed" and was given
2463:
Let's not leave it until October to ask Tim to do these things. I wonder whether a committee of the coordinators plus administrators plus anyone else from the community should be convened in the new year to liaise with the developers on these matters. :-)
1925:
guides, some of which seem very idiosynchratic and based on personal preferences having little to do with ArbCom. Perhaps it would be a good idea if there was a standard they had to meet if they wanted their page in the election template Just a thought.--
973:
but it should be non-zero. After that I don't see the benefit of removing names or the cost of retaining them. In the unlikely event that someone notionally "withdraws" during the election but is still elected, S/he can either resign or refuse the seat.
593:
in the count on the part of the election administrators demonstrates the practical benefit of community scrutineers. It mirrors too the benefit of community-based scrutineers in commonly spotting similar error in "real world" elections conducted by secret
2096:
This was a relatively painless and mostly drama-free election. Arguably, some of that can be attributed to the Committee's performance during 2009 which, by most accounts, was much less controversial than the previous year and thus less likely to arouse
2541:
to go about requesting and implementing changes, it was just done on an ad-hoc basis on the talk page. Logging of message changes will help, but there really should be an explicit process for requesting, discussing, and improving administrative tasks.
2099:
I'm a bit disappointed by the paucity of direct discussion, but perhaps that is a normal side effect of editors being able to keep their votes to the privacy of the booth; so there can be no badgering or "why did you vote this way, you fool!" effect.
993:, which is used in most 'real-world' elections, seems to have so far significantly reduced drama, potential for distortion etc. kudos to getting it set-up and looks like it would be a good idea to keep on using it and expanding its use where suitable,
3031:
The analogue in a non-Condorcet-based election, which is only a bit less probable, would be to deliberately create a tie, and while they flip a coin to pick the winner you turn on a nearby fan to make the coin land on the side you want. I assure you,
1868:
Per Fred. But also, a lot of questions were off-topic on what Arbitrators do. If current and ex-arbs described the role better for next year, and an indication of useful and likely less useful areas were given, then questions might be more salient.
1709:
political and interpersonal disputes that have taken place within Knowledge would make the election a little more "accessible" to the "rank and file" who are more tuned-in to editing articles than some of the other stuff that goes on around here.
778:
You don't even have to pay real money; many Facebook and Twitter users will "sell" their online identities for a game of Mafia Wars or the ability to upload photos from their phone. Imagine how cheap a single vote is in comparison. Again, it's not
562:
We could open the ballots completely (minus check-user type information) to the whole community after the scrutineers have performed their duties as present. The list could show votes stricken by the scrutineers marked in some way as having been
1836:
As a candidate, I don't think the number of questions was terribly excessive; I was able to answer the vast majority of mine in the space of a few days. However, I did join in rather late and I believe got fewer questions than many as a result.
2211:
Two candidates withdrew from the election, there was nothing precluding Kurt from doing the same. If he was unable to accept the use of a secret ballot in the election, it only served to waste everyone's time to continue to participate in it.
816:
Yeah, it's probably not a huge concern, especially as we're coming off a system where you could basically "trade" your vote for an arbitrator liking you more. (I'm not claiming that this happened to any extent that would affect the elections.)
1379:
The relevant metric is (unchanged from previous years) the support percentage, calculated as supports/(supports+opposes). Abstain/neutral has no effect. So a candidate with 8 supports, 67 neutrals and 2 opposes will have a "score" of 80%. See
1647:
557:
There are many ways we could do this while maintaining the privacy policy and the secrecy of the ballot. Three such examples, ranging from an option that would maintain least secrecy of the ballot to one that would maintain it the most, are:
68:
2683:
and 9 as an example. The candidate ranked 9th has 44 more supports and 31 more opposes that the candidate ranked 8th. The candidate ranked 9th has 0.2% less support under (S/(S+O)) but would have 1.3% more support under ((S-O)/T). â
699:
Should the developers be asked to change the software to display a voter's previous vote so that they do not need to vote in a single sitting, and do not have to start from scratch on returning to their ballot paper to make changes?
2381:
Scrutineering needs to be explicitly privileged. SecurePoll doesn't leave voters very much on-wiki privacy; voters should be reassured that, unless electoral fraud is involved, any skeletons that are found in their closets will be
1350:
1536:
multiple accounts, and there's no impropriety at all? Come on, you're more familiar with Knowledge than that. This is opening the door to abuse for no good reason at all. Someone without 150 real edits on a single account can
1651:
957:
I agree. Withdrawals in a secret ballot system are pointless, and in theory someone could withdraw after voting once in support of themselves, and hence end up with 100% support. Not that this would really work, of course.
896:
Neutral, Oppose, No Vote. If you have, there'd be a checkmark next to the candidate's name and four options: Support, Neutral, Oppose, Retain Previous Vote. Just an idea; might need better wording on that last option. --
1643:
1067:
I was very glad that we switched to a secret ballot. I found the interface reasonable enough, although I seem to remember I wished there were more cross-links between the voting page and the candidates' pages. â Carl
797:
Rspeer, although the thought is chilling, I'd say the previous, low-tech manual "scroll down and vote" system was also vulnerable to vote trading. We can only do our best to avoid dishonesty whatever system is used.
1610:
on their new account; it's hard to think of a more abusive and outrageous use of RTV.) If you are not part of the in crowd, little respect is shown to your desire to extricate yourself from the project. We should
566:
In parallel to the current scruitineers work, en.wiki community scruitineers (drawn from across the range of editors) could scrutinise on an anonymised ballot list showing the check-user data visible to the current
2577:
2670:
Iâm guessing this has been thrashed out in years gone by, but I think the ranking done by (S/(S+O)) is flawed. This is especially so when neutral voting is an available alternative on the ballot sheet. For a
570:
A selection of en.wiki users with check-user rights could be chosen through an open process in advance of the election to be act as scrutineers (even in addition to the current method of selecting scrutineer).
1569:
If a supplementary voting system is ever added, the election officials will need to ensure they only accept votes from people who have a legitimate reason for not being able to vote using their old account.
866:
vote.) It should be easier to change one's vote. I also don't think the software should necessarily reveal to the public who has changed their vote, as it did this year. It's really nobody's business.
2089:
78:
1463:
606:
1370:
650:
1015:
then it's certainly reduced that. I don't know on what observable information we'd conclude the process has reduced the potential for distortion, certainly when we've not seen the results yet. --
598:
the community had to scrutinise this election, it was a community member that spotted the obvious error despite it having evaded the election administrators and strutineers. --rannáčĂĄirtĂ anaiáč«nid
583:
2939:
That seems to ignore the fact that the current system rewards, then, people for opposing just for the sake of opposing in order to make the preferred candidates look more appealing in the end.
2228:
2206:
1797:
661:
636:
122:
Please interpolate comments, feedback, and discussion below; if adding issues, use the formatting consistently. Note that this is not the place to discuss candidates or the Committee itself.
2012:
If that's the case then it's better to know before they read each other's responses in an ArbCom case. P.S: I noticed a lot of similarities between the answers to Majorly's no. 1c question.
113:, and ideas on how the process can be improved for the next election, in 2010. The 2009 elections departed in some ways from those of previous years, most notably in the introduction of the
2063:
1863:
1733:
1703:
2606:
1971:
1748:
1915:
1850:
1270:
1251:
1137:
1060:
1002:
2729:, which would be good in a real political election, but (as I have argued elsewhere) I don't think we want to elect an ArbCom that is a microcosm of Knowledge and all its disagreements.
2719:
2269:
2251:
1831:
1774:
1718:
1486:
Can some hypothetical examples of these disenfranchised editors be given for context, are they editing outside the main namespace, editing under IP addresses(!?), or something else? â
952:
281:
2948:
2675:
example, take a candidate who is so âmehâ they get only neutral votes, this should put them right in the middle of the field, but instead they will divide by zero, perhaps creating an
2637:
2077:
1095:
1045:
544:
3132:
1811:
1625:
1580:
1510:
875:
2887:
2763:
2749:
1753:
If the single question rule is to remain the wording on the general questions page desperately needs to be revised. Both this year and last year it said on the general question page
747:
251:
if all this helps - it hasn't ever led to anything useful yet, but I do take it seriously, and I need a touch more time after the results are announced before I can formalize them.--
3108:
bstain with default=abstain is a good way to do this. A neutral would count as as half a vote for and half a vote against, pulling the total towards 50%. Or to put it another way,
3001:
2992:
2976:
1976:
Easy for voters to compare, but I'd rather each candidate took a fresh, original approach to responding to the questions rather than reading their colleagues' responses just above.
1873:
1211:
1192:
155:
call for candidates, call for individual questions; manage candidate statement lengths and individual questions to candidates; remind developer of arrangements for starting the vote
2725:
I assume you're being imprecise when you say "instant runoff". Instant runoff is a single-winner method. It can be generalized into a proportional representation method called the
2345:
2044:
2794:
2511:
2455:
2402:
1080:
320:
299:
226:
2818:
2189:
1407:
1392:
1024:
507:
456:
3195:
2335:
prior to the RFC. Next year will be vastly simpler if we know we're using one system from the beginning. Congrats also to the volunteers who pitched in for ACE2009 - well done.
2306:
1680:
1381:
1311:
967:
890:
260:
3227:
3036:. The option of just voting what you mean works perfectly fine, and there aren't going to be people with advanced degrees in game theory conspiring to manipulate the election.
2555:
2532:
2477:
2291:
1228:
1166:
1151:
933:
2687:
1934:
1474:
In the 2009 election, the franchise was given to accounts rather than editors, forbidding some eligible editors from voting using the SecurePoll system. It was proposed that "
1420:
1294:
1281:
Carcharoth, as an election coordinator I almost felt it my duty to entertain the crowd with tap-dancing, stand-up jokes, etc. This should probably be written into the duties.
905:
211:
3260:
3064:
3045:
2932:
2922:
2376:
2021:
1989:
982:
848:
3016:
1118:
920:
3158:
2704:
2168:
2145:
2122:
1438:
3178:
2805:
I think a better way to vote is to use the plurality system. People could vote for as many candidates as there we're open seats. This makes more sense to me at least. ~
1553:
1526:
826:
811:
792:
770:
727:
2659:
1951:
3144:
My experience is that is was incredibly hard to make a reasonable vote without taking an age. Perhaps this explains why so many people ended up casting "neutral" votes.
90:
2997:
At the risk of repeating myself again redundantly another time once more: this just highlights the importance of moving to a sane (preferential) voting system. Â :-) â
2907:
2872:
2104:
2007:
1896:
1496:
245:
2855:
2836:
1501:
Postal voting is an exceptionally poor idea open to incredible amounts of abuse with almost no legitimate use whatsoever. This has not been thought through at all. --
1328:
1516:
The question seems to be more about users in good standing who have sufficient votes but spread across multiple accounts. The automated system doesn't recognize them.
1339:
The use of a multiple account to cast more than one vote or to evade a block or a ban by voting will result in the voiding of all votes by the user in that election.
1319:
1361:
particular candidate to succeed and I don't care about all the others, is the strategically correct approach to vote "oppose" for all of them, or can I "abstain"?
489:
192:
3240:
1490:
1357:
72:
17:
2195:
943:"campaign", as is done in real-world elections, without changing the ballot. But I don't think the ballot should be altered once people have started voting.
1479:
2740:
methods of electing multiple winners. I don't have a reason to prefer one over the other, but I would not oppose a move to the Schulze method for next year.
2560:
2754:
I definitely preferred certain candidates over other candidates in more than a three-tiered system. That's why I think that the Schulze method is better.
1962:
Non-controversial suggestion: Collapsed (show/hide) answers of all the candidates under each general question in one page to easily compare the answers.
706:
User:Secret withdrew half-way through, but it was not possible to remove his name from the list, and votes could still accrue for that candidate.
3205:
experience with tasks like mediation, uncovering and understanding facts, balancing all issues for the common good, deliberative thinking, etc.
831:
Rspeer, I don't understand your point at all. Thanks to the public voting log it is already trivially easy to verifiably sell one's vote with a
2256:
I don't go so easily with a conspiracy theory: it looks intead that for the first time the votes/voters will be checked properly for validity.
1642:
There has been unresolved debate on measures to bring the size and number of both "general" and "individual" question under control (examples:
1819:
2898:
That's actually called "plurality at large". It has few desirable properties. What reason would there be to restrict the votes like that?
2693:
Just to note I can't even remember how I voted for those two candidates, much less have any connection or bias towards either of them â
1818:
I think questions suffer from the many-to-many networking realities at hand. RfA's are somewhat manageable (with an obvious and notable
1051:
others in the future. I'm sure this idea would be shouted down if I actually tried it, but I think this could also be new model for RFA.
2665:
198:
I think this years election shows that having the results announced within a day is unrealistic. I think 3-7 days is more do-able. ~
2318:
2859:
Note:I'm not contesting his election this year, since he won according to the rules used for the election. He's simply an example.
590:
1032:
withdrawals. They could also appoint scrutineers and vote counters if needed, I'm not sure how that part of the extension works.
1224:
rankings is neutral. It still has the observable effect of, on average, bringing support percentages closer to the median. â
528:} breakdown works. All three roles are essential, and the requirements for the admins and scrutineers are pretty inflexible.
3139:
2776:
Um, I think you both might be talking about the Board election. The steward elections in recent years have used a metric of
2363:
Consider obscuring enhanced list data for scrutineers/election admins unless it is deliberately accessed, and again, logged.
2201:
2083:
656:
601:
578:
738:
and it's certainly true that vote-buying on Knowledge is improbable, but we should try to be a model for good elections.
2736:, not IRV. The Schulze method with multiple winners, as well as the range voting method we use now, are both reasonable
134:
seek resolution of the outstanding issues for the 2010 election; liaise with developers if software changes are required
2646:
in the instructions to voters that they should not leave it until the last minute to vote, lest there be software lag.
2341:
1478:"-style supplementary voting should be enacted to facilitate these voters; ongoing discussion for the 2009 election is
1174:
3145:
2570:
2198:... unless you're saying that the decision to go with SecurePoll was made before then? ;-) --rannáčĂĄirtĂ anaiáč«nid
2194:
The election opened formally on 10 November. Nominations for candidature closed on 24 November. On the same day,
2031:
think we should have a limit of five to ten general questions (or get rid of general questions all together). ~
1637:
1242:
systems) to distract those who are hanging around waiting for the results and engaging in stand-up comedy... :-)
59:
3007:
will be able to lodge "more powerful" votes than those who don't. Thus the definite perversion is preserved. --
3025:
2247:
1572:
I can agree that this is hardly worth the extra voters, and the cost is a lot of extra effort to prevent abuse.
494:
Possible term for (election) administrators might be "officials". Then: coordinators, officials, scrutineers.
3217:
3122:
1939:
Two question limit? That's a singularly bad idea. Standard to meet for an election guide? Even worse idea. ++
1802:
Well you don't have to read them all. You can just pick out the questions from users you trust, for example.
671:
3247:
private voting for RfCs is unacceptable to meâthe current system encourages herd voting; it is superficial.
2154:
Secret balloting is unacceptable. How are we to know the announced results accord with the actual voting?
1469:
550:"Scrutineer" is a good word also but I am disappointed with the limited community involvement in the role.
1673:
a proscription on the mass pasting of the same "individual" question(s) on more than one candidate's page.
690:
in the weeks leading up to the election. The community needs to decide whether it should be used in 2010.
2988:
2944:
2883:
2759:
2715:
2591:
2565:(New section because it doesn't seem to fit in an existing one.) For next year, we should remember to:
616:
461:
125:
84:
2573:
if we use securepoll again before the elections (I noticed it hadn't been updated and did it on 6 Dec)
783:
likely to happen in the current environment of Knowledge, but it's technically quite straightforward.
3221:
3126:
2847:
2810:
2791:
2243:
2036:
2004:
1948:
1755:
This questions page may be used to pose a single question to every candidate in this year's election.
237:
203:
2983:
who didn't. Their support votes, then, ended up being more powerful than mine. Definitely perverse.
2968:
oppose someone they feel would be bad for ArbCom. Those are all arguments in favor of switch to a
2851:
2814:
2726:
2040:
1790:
313:
274:
241:
207:
3052:
2355:
2068:
There certainly needs to be a cut-down of the questioning. It's all kinds of silly at the moment.
1739:
other. That would also have the advantage of allowing voters to compare the answers more readily.
682:
115:
48:
2051:
2710:
IMHO, the steward election process with instant run-off balloting is the appropriate way to go.
2331:, who prepared the software, are invited to give feedback and make suggestions in this section.
776:
it, the fact that the entire election takes place on the Internet makes this easier, not harder.
340:
those used in ACE2009. All start times assume 00:01 UTC and all end times assuming 23:59 UTC.
1566:
The main concern is active contributors who RTV for a legitimate reason close to the election.
2984:
2940:
2879:
2755:
2711:
2504:
2448:
2395:
2284:
2221:
2182:
2059:
1860:
1185:
629:
537:
466:
In the 2009 election, most of the on-wiki running of the election was done by self-appointed
256:
2843:
2806:
2588:
2585:
2032:
1729:
1696:
1576:
1459:
1266:
1247:
1207:
1162:
1133:
1056:
998:
963:
930:
886:
687:
233:
199:
2676:
41:
8:
3191:
2672:
2092:
in the 2009 elections are invited to give feedback and make suggestions in this section.
2017:
1967:
1807:
1781:
1744:
1598:
the latter case unfortunately has trivialized the meaning and deference we ought to show
1403:
1366:
1172:
306:
267:
161:
voting period; construct draft announcement for scrutineers, plus message to scrutineers
3154:
3060:
3012:
2918:
2602:
2546:
1911:
1621:
1549:
1506:
1091:
1020:
901:
844:
486:
Should scrutineers continue to be entirely drawn from the ranks of non-en.WP stewards?
33:
3213:
3118:
2519:
Nice work, HM; this is extremely valuable feedback straight from the horses' mouths.
2336:
2328:
2118:
1930:
1827:
1770:
1714:
1307:
978:
948:
871:
686:
system was used for the first time in an ArbCom election in December 2009, following
110:
1426:
3041:
2929:
2903:
2868:
2745:
2701:
2694:
2684:
2496:
2440:
2387:
2372:
2324:
2302:
2276:
2213:
2174:
2073:
2055:
1857:
1487:
1434:
1417:
1177:
1147:
916:
822:
788:
743:
621:
529:
473:
Is the current structure of coordinators, administrators, and scrutineers optimal?
467:
252:
222:
1220:
the effect but distributes it evenly on every candidate so that the net effect on
167:
close of voting â cascade full-protect of all voting pages to ensure clean cut-off
3255:
2831:
2654:
2632:
2527:
2472:
2264:
2140:
1984:
1891:
1725:
1691:
1455:
1289:
1262:
1243:
1203:
1158:
1129:
1113:
1052:
994:
959:
927:
882:
806:
765:
502:
477:
451:
294:
2863:
Given that oppose votes are intended to mean something, why is that an anomaly?
2594:(without voting links I suggest, since most viewers will be unregistered users).
1384:. Regarding strategy, a rational voter will not use the abstain/neutral option.
3187:
2733:
2581:
2013:
1963:
1803:
1740:
1399:
1385:
1362:
723:
Advantages and disadvantages in destroying the data after the election process
615:
Interesting points. The open-list-minus-checkuser-data is already published:
3173:
3167:
3150:
3056:
3008:
2914:
2787:
2598:
2543:
2000:
1944:
1907:
1838:
1617:
1545:
1502:
1414:
Regarding strategy, a rational voter will not use the abstain/neutral option.
1087:
1075:
1033:
1016:
990:
897:
840:
3206:
3111:
2878:
sure I'll be opposing far more candidates - even if I don't have a reason.
2737:
2155:
2114:
1926:
1823:
1759:
1710:
1303:
974:
944:
867:
2778:
3037:
2899:
2864:
2741:
2368:
2298:
2069:
1475:
1430:
1143:
912:
818:
784:
739:
218:
2779:
a support/oppose ratio of at least 80% with at least 30 supporting users
1104:
Privacy of voting at RfA? <Draws breathe sharply in astonishment: -->
3248:
2998:
2973:
2824:
2647:
2625:
2615:
Start/end times should be expressed 00:01 and 23:59 to avoid confusion.
2520:
2465:
2257:
2133:
2101:
1977:
1884:
1282:
1225:
1106:
832:
799:
758:
495:
483:
Should the roles and responsibilities of each position be written out?
444:
287:
2327:, scrutineers, and election administrators of the 2009 elections, and
232:
conflict with Thanksgiving in the US, but a month would avoid it. ~
1522:
plus a manual whitelist. But it would solve the problem completely.
881:
previously, you might think "did the new vote really get recorded?"
835:. The concern of vote-selling is not a small concern but it's just
476:
Should the term "administrators" be changed to avoid confusion with
2783:
1996:
1940:
1870:
1523:
1327:
Is there a need for explicit rules about blocked and banned users?
1071:
286:
Very northern-hemisphere-oriented. January is dead in some places.
109:
This page serves as a forum for editors to provide feedback on the
2492:
A clearer checklist of things to do to complete the scrutineering.
2173:
One does have to wonder why you chose to run in such an election.
1664:
a limit of one question per user (properly observed and enforced);
2964:
The secondary effect is that people would be left with no way to
1995:
voters, I find it surprising that you're opposed to this idea. ++
1347:
Voters should be given information about the voting system used.
1199:
591:
failure by the current scrutineers to spot an obvious discrepancy
2621:
Make it very clear when the periods for inserting questions end.
1398:
avoid the possibility of nasty disputes after the fact. Cheers,
717:
Are the actual votes going to be deleted after all this is over?
1105:
Beeblebrox, I was enjoying thinking I'd thought of that first.
182:
solicit feedback from scrutineers and other election officials
1336:
Voting is not permitted for the duration of a block or a ban.
1261:
be destroyed is the IP data that is collected during voting.
2618:
Check next time that SecurePoll start/end times are correct.
2350:
Some comments on SecurePoll, may have thoughts on the rest.
1670:
an absolute limit on "individual" questions per candidate;
2624:
Mention banned users' status under "Voter eligibility".
434:
scrutineering, certification and announcement of results
379:
scrutineering, certification and announcement of results
2823:
DC, interesting: whom would that favour and disfavour?
1358:
Knowledge:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009
1142:
It was randomized for each voter, in order to be fair.
693:
There are some technical issues that invite attention:
18:
Knowledge:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009
132:
From the announcement of the new arbitrators onwards:
3243:: it's a dramatic shift. I must say that anything
1320:Improving instructions to voters and voting rules
2196:the decision to go with a secret ballot was made
1661:the requirement of a seconder for each question;
1171:Scientific study has demonstrated conclusively (
101:on the elections is solicited from participants.
1351:Discuss "Improving instructions / voting rules"
217:exam/holiday season with a little less stress.
575:catching double-voting. --rannáčĂĄirtĂ anaiáč«nid
2576:advertise the election in proper places (see
176:certification and announcement of the results
111:December 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections
2561:Feedback on the organization of the election
1676:closer editorial control over the questions.
2962:of candidates which is downright perverse).
2417:Better filters and sorting on the list page
2360:SecurePoll needs to log tally generations.
1616:election, you can wait until next year. --
1216:Strictly speaking, randomization doesn't
416:call for candidates, individual questions
361:call for candidates, individual questions
2411:Proper logging of administrative actions
87:closed at 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009.
2489:Checkuser log extract on /details page.
2436:Should be enough to be getting on with
1856:over-whelming situation you will face.
704:How to manage mid-election withdrawals:
14:
3092:having neutrals count for something.
2732:The steward election process used the
336:Proposal 1: earlier but same duration.
3241:the graph of the ArbCom oppose levels
2423:Finite lifetime on the checkuser data
653:to save space. --rannáčĂĄirtĂ anaiáč«nid
149:call for and manage general questions
25:
1429:), it only decreases the variance.
23:
2666:Feedback on the statistical method
2386:in the closet by the scrutineers.
2354:SecurePoll needs to be documented
24:
3274:
2319:Feedback from election volunteers
1681:Discuss "Questions to candidates"
2677:eddy in the space-time continuum
2571:MediaWiki:Securepoll-not-in-list
2429:Optional memory on the vote page
391:Proposal 2: earlier and shorter.
3146:Knowledge:Too long; didn't read
2485:Requests from the scrutineers:
174:By 18 December 2010 (expected):
3024:To go into some details: yes,
2611:Just a few odd notes from me:
1497:Discuss "Supplementary voting"
93:have been published, 18th Dec.
13:
1:
3261:03:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
3228:23:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
3196:01:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
3179:16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
3159:22:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
3140:Feedback from ordinary voters
3133:23:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
3065:14:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
3046:09:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
3017:02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
3002:22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2993:14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2977:13:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2949:13:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2933:08:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2923:08:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2908:08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2888:13:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2873:08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2856:05:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2837:05:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2819:05:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2795:23:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2764:23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
2750:18:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
2720:23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
2705:03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
2688:01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
2660:07:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2638:12:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
2607:16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2556:22:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
2533:15:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
2512:13:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
2478:13:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
2456:10:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
2403:12:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
2377:21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
2346:13:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
2307:20:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
2292:12:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
2270:11:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
2252:11:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
2229:12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
2207:20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2190:20:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2169:19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2146:09:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
2123:18:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
2105:00:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
2064:04:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2054:utilising the wiki software.
2045:04:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2022:13:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2008:23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
1990:13:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1972:08:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1952:23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
1935:18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
1916:17:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
1897:12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
1874:12:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
1864:19:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
1851:05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
1832:22:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
1812:16:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
1798:14:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
1775:14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
1749:08:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
1734:03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
1719:00:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
1667:a word-length limit per user;
1626:03:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
1581:02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1554:03:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
1527:12:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
1491:01:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1464:18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
1439:07:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1421:01:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1408:22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
1312:21:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1295:09:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
1271:16:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1252:16:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1229:18:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1212:18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1193:16:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1167:16:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1152:06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1138:06:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
1119:13:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
1096:18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
1081:12:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
1061:18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
1046:05:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
1025:03:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
1013:discussion about the election
1003:13:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
983:22:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
968:03:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
953:00:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
934:08:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
921:17:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
906:01:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
891:03:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
876:00:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
662:12:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
637:10:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
607:09:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
584:00:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
545:12:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
508:12:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
457:11:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
422:complete individual questions
321:23:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
300:02:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
282:23:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
261:23:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
246:07:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
227:06:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
212:06:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2084:Feedback from the candidates
1704:15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1511:20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1393:18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
1371:18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
849:20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
827:08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
812:07:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
793:06:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
771:00:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
748:17:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
710:Minimise call on developers:
490:Discuss "Election personnel"
367:fallow period (why so long?)
193:Discuss "Proposed timetable"
7:
3110:support%=(S+N/2)/(S+N+O).
1657:Possible measures include:
839:to the proposal at hand. --
10:
3279:
3034:nobody is going to do this
2972:voting system, really. â
2592:Knowledge:Community portal
2420:A CAPTCHA on the vote page
2078:10:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
617:Special:SecurePoll/list/80
432:28 November â 4 December :
410:call for general questions
377:28 November â 4 December :
355:call for general questions
31:
2426:A configuration interface
400:19 October â 1 November :
359:23 October â 6 November :
75:for candidates to answer.
2727:single transferable vote
1654:). Should this be done?
2590:, but late) and at the
1638:Questions to candidates
697:Display previous votes?
518:Election administrators
1342:
2584:(see how it was done
2432:Optional vote receipt
1427:Range voting#Strategy
1333:
522:Election coordinators
60:Arbitration Committee
2244:William M. Connolley
1542:wait until next year
1538:stick to one account
1470:Supplementary voting
153:10â24 November 2010:
2673:Reducio ad absurdum
2578:archived discussion
1345:Voting system used.
159:1â14 December 2010:
71:were submitted and
3053:determined by this
2407:SecurePoll needs:
1382:last years results
1325:Voter eligibility.
514:Election officials
462:Election personnel
126:Proposed timetable
3226:
3225:
3177:
3131:
3130:
2860:
2344:
2205:
1773:
1702:
1079:
660:
605:
582:
180:19 December 2010:
165:14 December 2010:
107:
106:
69:General questions
49:WP:INDECISION2009
3270:
3258:
3253:
3211:
3210:
3171:
3116:
3115:
2985:ScienceApologist
2953:The only effect
2941:ScienceApologist
2880:ScienceApologist
2858:
2834:
2829:
2756:ScienceApologist
2712:ScienceApologist
2657:
2652:
2635:
2630:
2554:
2530:
2525:
2509:
2501:
2475:
2470:
2453:
2445:
2439:
2414:An API interface
2400:
2392:
2340:
2289:
2281:
2267:
2262:
2226:
2218:
2199:
2187:
2179:
2165:
2162:
2143:
2138:
1987:
1982:
1894:
1889:
1795:
1787:
1784:
1769:
1766:
1763:
1701:
1699:
1688:
1579:
1390:
1389:
1292:
1287:
1190:
1182:
1116:
1111:
1069:
809:
804:
768:
763:
757:business model!
654:
634:
626:
599:
576:
542:
534:
505:
500:
478:site-wide admins
454:
449:
426:18â27 November :
420:14â17 November :
371:13â27 November :
316:
297:
292:
277:
147:1 November 2010:
138:25 October 2010:
51:
44:
26:
3278:
3277:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3256:
3249:
3142:
2832:
2825:
2668:
2655:
2648:
2633:
2626:
2563:
2542:
2528:
2521:
2505:
2497:
2473:
2466:
2449:
2441:
2437:
2396:
2388:
2321:
2285:
2277:
2265:
2258:
2222:
2214:
2183:
2175:
2163:
2160:
2141:
2134:
2086:
1985:
1978:
1892:
1885:
1791:
1785:
1782:
1767:
1761:
1697:
1689:
1683:
1640:
1577:John Vandenberg
1575:
1499:
1472:
1387:
1386:
1353:
1322:
1290:
1283:
1186:
1178:
1114:
1107:
807:
800:
766:
759:
734:
678:
630:
622:
538:
530:
503:
496:
492:
464:
452:
445:
438:Total duration:
414:7â13 November :
383:Total duration:
365:7â12 November :
353:14â22 October :
314:
295:
288:
275:
195:
186:Total duration:
128:
119:secret ballot.
62:Election status
55:
54:
47:
40:
36:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3276:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3231:
3230:
3199:
3198:
3182:
3181:
3141:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3086:
3085:
3084:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3072:
3071:
3070:
3069:
3068:
3067:
3030:
3023:
2936:
2935:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2734:Schulze method
2730:
2708:
2707:
2697:
2667:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2640:
2622:
2619:
2616:
2596:
2595:
2574:
2562:
2559:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2494:
2493:
2490:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2434:
2433:
2430:
2427:
2424:
2421:
2418:
2415:
2412:
2365:
2364:
2361:
2358:
2323:The volunteer
2320:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2126:
2125:
2109:
2108:
2085:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2066:
2047:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2010:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1919:
1918:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1877:
1876:
1866:
1853:
1846:
1843:
1834:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1777:
1751:
1736:
1721:
1706:
1682:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1674:
1671:
1668:
1665:
1662:
1639:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1573:
1570:
1567:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1530:
1529:
1518:
1517:
1498:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1374:
1373:
1352:
1349:
1341:
1340:
1337:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1274:
1273:
1254:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1214:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1099:
1098:
1083:
1064:
1063:
1048:
1041:
1038:
1029:
1028:
1027:
987:
986:
985:
970:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
908:
893:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
777:
751:
750:
733:
726:
677:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
642:
641:
640:
639:
610:
609:
595:
572:
571:
568:
564:
491:
488:
463:
460:
442:
441:
435:
429:
423:
417:
411:
408:2â6 November :
405:
387:
386:
380:
374:
368:
362:
356:
350:
345:1â13 October :
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
248:
214:
194:
191:
190:
189:
183:
177:
168:
162:
156:
150:
144:
135:
127:
124:
105:
104:
103:
102:
94:
88:
82:
76:
64:
53:
52:
45:
37:
32:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3275:
3262:
3259:
3254:
3252:
3246:
3242:
3237:
3233:
3232:
3229:
3223:
3219:
3215:
3208:
3203:
3202:
3201:
3200:
3197:
3193:
3189:
3184:
3183:
3180:
3175:
3170:
3169:
3163:
3162:
3161:
3160:
3156:
3152:
3147:
3135:
3134:
3128:
3124:
3120:
3113:
3107:
3103:
3099:
3095:
3091:
3088:
3087:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3054:
3049:
3048:
3047:
3043:
3039:
3035:
3027:
3020:
3019:
3018:
3014:
3010:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3000:
2996:
2995:
2994:
2990:
2986:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2975:
2971:
2967:
2961:
2958:fact, to the
2956:
2952:
2951:
2950:
2946:
2942:
2938:
2937:
2934:
2931:
2926:
2925:
2924:
2920:
2916:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2861:
2857:
2853:
2849:
2845:
2840:
2839:
2838:
2835:
2830:
2828:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2803:
2796:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2781:
2780:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2735:
2731:
2728:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2706:
2703:
2698:
2696:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2686:
2680:
2678:
2674:
2661:
2658:
2653:
2651:
2645:
2641:
2639:
2636:
2631:
2629:
2623:
2620:
2617:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2609:
2608:
2604:
2600:
2593:
2589:
2586:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2572:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2558:
2557:
2553:
2552:
2550:
2545:
2534:
2531:
2526:
2524:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2510:
2508:
2502:
2500:
2491:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2479:
2476:
2471:
2469:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2454:
2452:
2446:
2444:
2431:
2428:
2425:
2422:
2419:
2416:
2413:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2405:
2404:
2401:
2399:
2393:
2391:
2385:
2379:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2362:
2359:
2357:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2348:
2347:
2343:
2338:
2332:
2330:
2326:
2325:co-ordinators
2308:
2304:
2300:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2290:
2288:
2282:
2280:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2268:
2263:
2261:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2240:
2239:
2230:
2227:
2225:
2219:
2217:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2203:
2197:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2188:
2186:
2180:
2178:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2166:
2157:
2153:
2152:
2147:
2144:
2139:
2137:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2111:
2110:
2107:
2106:
2103:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2091:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2065:
2062:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2048:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2029:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2009:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1988:
1983:
1981:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1960:
1953:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1904:
1903:
1898:
1895:
1890:
1888:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1875:
1872:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1859:
1854:
1852:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1844:
1841:
1835:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1796:
1794:
1788:
1778:
1776:
1772:
1765:
1756:
1752:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1737:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1722:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1707:
1705:
1700:
1694:
1693:
1685:
1684:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1666:
1663:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1614:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1520:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1492:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1481:
1477:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1452:
1451:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1391:
1383:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1348:
1346:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1332:
1330:
1326:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1288:
1286:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1255:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1230:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1183:
1181:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1117:
1112:
1110:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1082:
1077:
1073:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
991:secret ballot
988:
984:
980:
976:
971:
969:
965:
961:
956:
955:
954:
950:
946:
941:
935:
932:
929:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
909:
907:
903:
899:
898:Chris Johnson
894:
892:
888:
884:
879:
878:
877:
873:
869:
864:
863:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
829:
828:
824:
820:
815:
814:
813:
810:
805:
803:
796:
795:
794:
790:
786:
782:
774:
773:
772:
769:
764:
762:
755:
754:
753:
752:
749:
745:
741:
736:
735:
731:
728:Discuss "The
725:
724:
720:
718:
714:
711:
707:
705:
701:
698:
694:
691:
689:
685:
684:
675:
663:
658:
652:
651:the talk page
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
638:
635:
633:
627:
625:
618:
614:
613:
612:
611:
608:
603:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
585:
580:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
543:
541:
535:
533:
527:
523:
519:
515:
510:
509:
506:
501:
499:
487:
484:
481:
479:
474:
471:
469:
468:co-ordinators
459:
458:
455:
450:
448:
439:
436:
433:
430:
428:voting period
427:
424:
421:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
404:
401:
398:
397:
396:
393:
392:
384:
381:
378:
375:
373:voting period
372:
369:
366:
363:
360:
357:
354:
351:
349:
346:
343:
342:
341:
338:
337:
322:
319:
317:
310:
309:
303:
302:
301:
298:
293:
291:
285:
284:
283:
280:
278:
271:
270:
264:
263:
262:
258:
254:
249:
247:
243:
239:
235:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
215:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
129:
123:
120:
118:
117:
112:
100:
99:
95:
92:
89:
86:
83:
80:
77:
74:
70:
67:
66:
65:
63:
61:
50:
46:
43:
39:
38:
35:
30:
28:
27:
19:
3250:
3244:
3235:
3166:
3143:
3109:
3105:
3101:
3097:
3093:
3089:
3033:
2970:preferential
2969:
2965:
2963:
2959:
2954:
2826:
2777:
2738:majoritarian
2709:
2681:
2669:
2649:
2643:
2627:
2610:
2597:
2564:
2548:
2547:
2539:
2522:
2506:
2498:
2495:
2484:
2467:
2450:
2442:
2435:
2406:
2397:
2389:
2383:
2380:
2366:
2349:
2337:UltraExactZZ
2333:
2329:Tim Starling
2322:
2286:
2278:
2259:
2223:
2215:
2184:
2176:
2159:
2135:
2098:
2087:
2058:
1979:
1886:
1840:
1839:
1792:
1754:
1690:
1656:
1641:
1612:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1541:
1537:
1500:
1473:
1413:
1344:
1343:
1324:
1323:
1284:
1258:
1221:
1217:
1187:
1179:
1108:
1035:
1034:
1012:
1008:
989:The move to
836:
801:
780:
760:
729:
722:
721:
716:
715:
709:
708:
703:
702:
696:
695:
692:
688:a discussion
681:
679:
673:
631:
623:
589:I think the
573:
556:
552:
548:
539:
531:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:I think the
511:
497:
493:
485:
482:
475:
472:
465:
446:
443:
437:
431:
425:
419:
413:
407:
402:
399:
390:
389:
388:
382:
376:
370:
364:
358:
352:
347:
344:
335:
334:
333:
311:
307:
289:
272:
268:
185:
179:
171:
170:
164:
158:
152:
146:
140:
137:
131:
121:
114:
108:
97:
96:
57:
56:
2056:Warofdreams
2052:compositing
1764:Christopher
1476:postal vote
1329:For example
649:Replied on
567:scrutineer.
563:discounted.
526:Scrutineers
403:preparation
348:preparation
253:Jimbo Wales
141:preparation
81:are closed.
79:Nominations
3236:SecurePoll
3234:Introduce
3026:it is true
2156:Kurt Weber
2090:candidates
1783:Literature
1780:answers.--
1726:Carcharoth
1456:Beeblebrox
1388:Skomorokh
1263:Carcharoth
1244:Carcharoth
1204:Rivertorch
1159:Rivertorch
1130:Rivertorch
1053:Beeblebrox
960:Carcharoth
931:Od Mishehu
883:Carcharoth
833:screencast
730:SecurePoll
683:SecurePoll
674:SecurePoll
116:SecurePoll
3188:Ironholds
2644:somewhere
2097:passions.
2014:Sole Soul
1964:Sole Soul
1820:exception
1804:Gatoclass
1741:Gatoclass
1608:adminship
1400:AxelBoldt
1363:AxelBoldt
1356:The page
1011:you mean
928:ŚąŚŚÂ ŚŚŚ©ŚŚ
837:unrelated
73:available
42:WP:AC2009
34:Shortcuts
3218:contribs
3151:AndrewRT
3123:contribs
3057:JayHenry
3009:JayHenry
2915:Davewild
2642:Clarify
2599:Cenarium
1908:Davewild
1618:JayHenry
1546:JayHenry
1503:JayHenry
1222:relative
1088:Davewild
1017:JayHenry
841:JayHenry
781:socially
98:Feedback
3207:davidwr
3112:davidwr
3100:eutral/
3096:upport/
3090:Endorse
2930:Jaymaxâ
2702:Jaymaxâ
2695:Jaymaxâ
2685:Jaymaxâ
2582:WP:CENT
2569:update
2115:Wehwalt
2088:The 23
1927:Wehwalt
1824:Protonk
1760:Camaron
1711:Neutron
1488:Jaymaxâ
1418:Jaymaxâ
1304:Neutron
1218:counter
1200:leading
975:Protonk
945:Neutron
868:Neutron
732:system"
594:ballot.
440:32 days
385:49 days
188:49 days
91:Results
3257:(talk)
3222:e-mail
3127:e-mail
3104:ppose/
3038:rspΔΔr
2966:really
2960:number
2900:rspΔΔr
2865:rspΔΔr
2833:(talk)
2742:rspΔΔr
2656:(talk)
2634:(talk)
2580:), at
2529:(talk)
2474:(talk)
2369:Tznkai
2299:Tznkai
2266:(talk)
2164:Colts!
2142:(talk)
2113:now.--
2070:Stifle
1986:(talk)
1893:(talk)
1613:weaken
1600:people
1431:rspΔΔr
1291:(talk)
1259:should
1144:rspΔΔr
1115:(talk)
1007:If by
913:Sssoul
819:rspΔΔr
808:(talk)
785:rspΔΔr
767:(talk)
740:rspΔΔr
676:system
504:(talk)
453:(talk)
296:(talk)
219:Risker
85:Voting
3174:Help!
2999:Coren
2974:Coren
2852:Edits
2815:Edits
2507:melon
2499:Happy
2451:melon
2443:Happy
2398:melon
2390:Happy
2287:melon
2279:Happy
2224:melon
2216:Happy
2202:coáčrĂĄ
2185:melon
2177:Happy
2102:Coren
2041:Edits
1793:T@1k?
1604:leave
1226:Coren
1188:melon
1180:Happy
1009:drama
995:Tom B
657:coáčrĂĄ
632:melon
624:Happy
602:coáčrĂĄ
579:coáčrĂĄ
540:melon
532:Happy
242:Edits
208:Edits
58:2009
16:<
3251:Tony
3214:talk
3192:talk
3155:Talk
3119:talk
3061:talk
3042:talk
3022:can.
3013:talk
2989:talk
2955:that
2945:talk
2919:talk
2904:talk
2884:talk
2869:talk
2848:Talk
2827:Tony
2811:Talk
2760:talk
2746:talk
2716:talk
2650:Tony
2628:Tony
2603:talk
2523:Tony
2468:Tony
2384:left
2373:talk
2356:here
2303:talk
2260:Tony
2248:talk
2136:Tony
2119:talk
2074:talk
2060:talk
2037:Talk
2018:talk
1980:Tony
1968:talk
1931:talk
1912:talk
1887:Tony
1861:Talk
1858:Fred
1845:fold
1842:Hers
1828:talk
1808:talk
1786:geek
1771:talk
1745:talk
1730:talk
1715:talk
1692:Ched
1622:talk
1602:who
1550:talk
1544:. --
1540:and
1507:talk
1480:here
1460:talk
1435:talk
1404:talk
1367:talk
1308:talk
1285:Tony
1267:talk
1248:talk
1208:talk
1163:talk
1148:talk
1134:talk
1109:Tony
1092:talk
1076:talk
1057:talk
1040:fold
1037:Hers
1021:talk
999:talk
979:talk
964:talk
949:talk
917:talk
902:talk
887:talk
872:talk
845:talk
823:talk
802:Tony
789:talk
761:Tony
744:talk
680:The
672:The
516:â {
498:Tony
447:Tony
315:Talk
290:Tony
276:Talk
257:talk
238:Talk
223:talk
204:Talk
3245:but
3220:)/(
3216:)/(
3168:Guy
3125:)/(
3121:)/(
2784:Lar
2551:man
2544:Mr.
2342:Did
1997:Lar
1941:Lar
1871:FT2
1524:FT2
1072:CBM
3194:)
3157:)
3063:)
3044:)
3015:)
2991:)
2947:)
2928:â
2921:)
2906:)
2886:)
2871:)
2854:)
2844:DC
2817:)
2807:DC
2786::
2762:)
2748:)
2718:)
2605:)
2587:,
2549:Z-
2438::D
2375:)
2367:--
2305:)
2250:)
2167:)
2161:Go
2121:)
2100:â
2076:)
2043:)
2033:DC
2020:)
1999::
1970:)
1943::
1933:)
1914:)
1830:)
1810:)
1789:|
1747:)
1732:)
1717:)
1698:?
1695::
1650:,
1646:,
1624:)
1552:)
1509:)
1482:.
1462:)
1437:)
1406:)
1369:)
1331::
1310:)
1269:)
1250:)
1210:)
1202:.
1165:)
1150:)
1136:)
1094:)
1074:·
1059:)
1023:)
1001:)
981:)
966:)
951:)
919:)
904:)
889:)
874:)
847:)
825:)
791:)
746:)
524:,
520:,
480:?
308:NW
269:NW
259:)
244:)
234:DC
225:)
210:)
200:DC
172:15
3224:)
3212:(
3209:/
3190:(
3176:)
3172:(
3153:(
3129:)
3117:(
3114:/
3106:A
3102:O
3098:N
3094:S
3059:(
3040:(
3011:(
2987:(
2943:(
2917:(
2902:(
2882:(
2867:(
2850:|
2846:(
2813:|
2809:(
2792:c
2790:/
2788:t
2758:(
2744:(
2714:(
2601:(
2503:â
2447:â
2394:â
2371:(
2339:~
2301:(
2283:â
2246:(
2220:â
2204:)
2200:(
2181:â
2158:(
2117:(
2072:(
2039:|
2035:(
2016:(
2005:c
2003:/
2001:t
1966:(
1949:c
1947:/
1945:t
1929:(
1910:(
1826:(
1806:(
1768:·
1762:·
1743:(
1728:(
1713:(
1652:3
1648:2
1644:1
1620:(
1548:(
1505:(
1458:(
1433:(
1412:"
1402:(
1365:(
1306:(
1265:(
1246:(
1206:(
1184:â
1161:(
1146:(
1132:(
1090:(
1078:)
1070:(
1055:(
1019:(
997:(
977:(
962:(
947:(
915:(
900:(
885:(
870:(
843:(
821:(
787:(
742:(
659:)
655:(
628:â
604:)
600:(
581:)
577:(
536:â
318:)
312:(
279:)
273:(
255:(
240:|
236:(
221:(
206:|
202:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.