I for one welcome...

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium on...

Former Wikimedia employee was a...

George Herbert

17 Dec 2007 17 Dec '07

5:26 p.m.

Show replies by date

Red Rocket

17 Dec 17 Dec

5:35 p.m.

On 17/12/2007, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RESULT. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMAL OFFICIAL COUNT. THE RAW DATA IS ALL PUBLIC, HOWEVER... I for one welcome our shiny new Arbcom overlords, pending vote results confirmation and the official announcements: Newyorkbrad (97.4% support !!!) FT2 FayssalF Sam Blacketer Deskana Congratulations all! -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I'd like to add a "me too" to that. Although, it was mentioned somewhere that compared to last year that the percentage levels this year were lower generally. I did notice that although NYB got over 500 supports (must be a record for an individual vote, that), he still only got 97%. The other four all trail behind with quite large gaps. Does anyone know how many are being appointed? Thanks. Redrocketboy

David Gerard

6:42 p.m.

On 17/12/2007, Red Rocket <redrocketboy(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

I believe there should be some official word on this soon. - d.

John Lee

11:22 p.m.

On Dec 17, 2007 5:42 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 17/12/2007, Red Rocket <redrocketboy(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

I believe there should be some official word on this soon.

Yes, there's no guarantee Jimbo will appoint the top vote-getters (is there?). Johnleemk

Sam Blacketer

11:27 p.m.

On 12/17/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Dec 17, 2007 5:42 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I believe there should be some official word on this soon.

Yes, there's no guarantee Jimbo will appoint the top vote-getters (is there?).

As far as I'm concerned, no, and I shall make no complaint if not appointed. The elections are advisory. -- Sam Blacketer London E15

James Forrester

11:30 p.m.

On 17/12/2007, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Dec 17, 2007 5:42 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 17/12/2007, Red Rocket <redrocketboy(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

Does anyone know how many are being appointed?

I believe there should be some official word on this soon.

Yes, there's no guarantee Jimbo will appoint the top vote-getters (is there?).

Indeed; they are Jimmy's appointments, and the election advises, rather than binds, him. Though I find it unlikely, Jimmy could appoint no-one at all, or only those who had more than 100 opposes, or whatever other criteria he choses. Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforrester(a)wikimedia.org | jdforrester(a)gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

Jimmy Wales

19 Dec 19 Dec

7:42 a.m.

John Lee wrote:

...

On Dec 17, 2007 5:42 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 17/12/2007, Red Rocket <redrocketboy(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

I believe there should be some official word on this soon.

Yes, there's no guarantee Jimbo will appoint the top vote-getters (is there?).

No absolute guarantee, but by convention I do unless there is some really great reason to deviate. In the current election, I see no such reason, and so it is really just a matter of doing some final due-diligence and listening to ArbCom regarding their views on the number of members. --Jimbo

Tony Sidaway

18 Dec 18 Dec

7:57 p.m.

On Dec 17, 2007 9:35 AM, Red Rocket <redrocketboy(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

*Only*?

Jimmy Wales

19 Dec 19 Dec

7:40 a.m.

Red Rocket wrote:

...

I did notice that although NYB got over 500 supports (must be a record for an individual vote, that), he still only got 97%.

Yes, I am concerned that Newyorkbrad may not have a mandate to govern, given such a poor showing. Only 97%... ;-) Just to let everyone know, I am discussing the results with the ArbCom and expect to finalize the appointments before the week is out. Don't expect anything unusual. It's pretty plain vanilla. --Jimbo

Guettarda

18 Dec 18 Dec

1:52 a.m.

On Dec 17, 2007 3:26 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'm confused what Sam is doing among these five - he's 7th in new votes. Wasn't net support the criterion that Jimbo used in the past?

Mike R

2:18 a.m.

On Dec 17, 2007 11:52 AM, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Dec 17, 2007 3:26 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm confused what Sam is doing among these five - he's 7th in new votes. Wasn't net support the criterion that Jimbo used in the past?

I believe percentage support as expressed by [support votes / (support votes + oppose votes)] has always been used to rank candidates.

George Herbert

3:21 a.m.

On Dec 17, 2007 10:18 AM, Mike R <tacodeposit(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Dec 17, 2007 11:52 AM, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 2007 3:26 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm confused what Sam is doing among these five - he's 7th in new votes. Wasn't net support the criterion that Jimbo used in the past?

I believe percentage support as expressed by [support votes / (support votes + oppose votes)] has always been used to rank candidates.

That's my recollection and what I calculated them by. If I'm wrong I apologize and will go stand in the corner for a while (have to anyways, my work computer is borken). -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Jimmy Wales

19 Dec 19 Dec

7:44 a.m.

I have traditionally looked primarily at percentage support, but I also look at other factors... mostly as a "sanity check" on the results. (For example, if there was a candidate who somehow got only 30 supports and 3 opposes, I would consider that to be quite odd. That's an extreme example.) Also, traditionally, I have tended to view past experience as a very important factor in appointing people to expansion seats, if any. --Jimbo George Herbert wrote:

...

On Dec 17, 2007 10:18 AM, Mike R <tacodeposit(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 2007 11:52 AM, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 2007 3:26 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm confused what Sam is doing among these five - he's 7th in new votes. Wasn't net support the criterion that Jimbo used in the past?

I believe percentage support as expressed by [support votes / (support votes + oppose votes)] has always been used to rank candidates.

That's my recollection and what I calculated them by. If I'm wrong I apologize and will go stand in the corner for a while (have to anyways, my work computer is borken).

Mike R

18 Dec 18 Dec

2:13 a.m.

On Dec 17, 2007 3:26 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

A sixth arbiter should be appointed as well, to fill Flcelloguy's seat, with the understanding that Flcelloguy is welcome to rejoin the committee if he returns. This was previously done with Filiocht. Flcelloguy hasn't edited Wikipedia since May and has unsubscribed from the arbcom mailing list [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee&a…]4744223]. Mike R

5995

days inactive

5996

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

13 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

David Gerard
George Herbert
Guettarda
James Forrester
Jimmy Wales
John Lee
Mike R
Red Rocket
Sam Blacketer
Tony Sidaway