Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit/Elections

Ummm?

I came here to look things over and possibly vote. My first question was, what do these offices we're voting for do? I see that these questions are on the page, unanswered. I'm not sure I see the point of having elected officials who have no known duties or responsibilities. Perhaps the lack of definition of duties should be taken as a sign that no directors are needed. For this reason, I won't vote, but I consider myself neutral (or possibly weakly opposed) to all candidates. Friday (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the idea for the CVU is great, and we have done a lot of good work here, but I think the "offices" have no purpose except window dressing. There is nothing the director will be able to do as director that he couldn't do as a regular user. ⟳ausa کui ^× 04:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

I'm not going to comment on whether we should have a director/ast. director, as I've already said where the positions originated from on the talk page. However, I take it as a given that since much of the membership has voted, that is a sign that they do want the offices to exist. As a candidate and a former asst. director, I'm not voting for anyone, as I don't think it would be appropriate for me to "take sides." ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 13:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take voting to mean that they want the offices to exist. I think it means that given that the offices exist, they have preferences. ⟳ausa کui ^× 04:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concurr with Ryan, the titles are a bit meaningless, since the duties are pretty much the same (except perhaps mantaining the CVU page), so I'd prefer if no titles at all existed -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drini I am concerned with the possibility of disputes arising, we have over 80 members now. I want CVU to maintain itself. I do not want any dispute within the CVU bother any ot the already cluttered dispute resolution bodies. --Cool Cat ^Talk 01:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a solution looking for a problem. ⟳ausa کui ^× 12:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additionaly I think it is necesary to note that: Wikipedia is an anti-elitist community. An "eliteist"/"millitary" ideology will only harm CVU and wikipedia. CVU should be a body against vandalism nothing MORE/LESS at all. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Director duties

I disolved the "assistant" director post into a total of 3 directors. Hopefully I wont get crucified for being bold. It is clear we need to clarify what kind of "powers" we want directors to have. I am open for suggestions.

Directors for example could be more of a CVU Arbcom. CVU is ment to be a think tank against vandalism and hence we do not need a solid "millitary" structure in my view as that would comprimise the very existance of CVU. We need odd ideas and a very strong central body comprimises that. --Cool Cat ^Talk 00:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of results

I've checked over Adam's vote tally at Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Elections. His count seems correct to me, and I verified that all votes came from user accounts created before the start of the elections.

As it stands, the results are:

Director: Essjay
Director: Drini
Director: Phroziac

Does anybody want to dispute the count, or can we close out the process? --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. Fir e Fo x 18:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, everything seems in order. Tito xd^(?!?) 23:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. --nihon 01:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

w00t. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody disputed, the results, I've removed references to the results pending confirmation on WP:CVU. Congratulations to our new directors. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]