Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-17/News and notes

← Back to News and notes

Discuss this story

Yay! I'm so glad the elections are over. Thanks to the community and everyone who helped out. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Graphs fixed, thanks to WereSpielCheckers' note. The article didn't mention that MBisanz has produced a draft policy/guideline for future ArbCom elections. Community input is welcome. Tony (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this might be deja vu on my part, but I'm pretty sure I've been (mistakenly) labeled British before. I just like saying "chaps", guys, and I think "grey" is a nicer-looking spelling. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed; thanks. ['twasn't moi!] Tony (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that was my mistake. Apologies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. Were it true, I could have an awesome accent, so there's that :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be "Elen of the Roads, ~~Beeblebrox~~ NewYorkBrad, and Jclemens" that had low "no votes" in SmokeyJoe's graph? There are six candidates with lower "no votes" than Beeblebrox. Not sure why he chose a line graph either, x-axis is candidate name... joining the dots implies a trend, when there isn't one. --Surturz (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surturz, I thought about that; but at the same time NYB had the lowest oppose vote and the highest support vote of any candidate; the three candidates mentioned had spikes in both supports and opposes (less so Beeblebrox, but the three patterns were still distinct for him); this made all the difference to their outcomes, since the low no-vote was balanced by a high oppose vote, unlike NYB's result. Nevertheless, congrats to all "low no-vote" candidates, who nevertheless did garner more support than those in the vicinity (see graph, where the line formatting, incidentally, does show the bumps on an x-axis ordered in terms of descending S/(S+O), which is linear). Tony (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the graph of votes, it would be interesting to compare applicant's success with their order in the list of applicants' names. Personally, I suffered from "voter's burnout syndrome" by the time I got to candidate 4, and was somewhat disappointed to learn I was supposed to vote for seven people or something like that. There was way too much required reading for the voters, in my opinion. As I recall, I didn't finish voting, but just clicked the vote button out a feeling of "enough is enough"! Jane (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, the Israeli chapter has been trying to change this law since its founding in 2007 or somewhere near that time. Might be wrong, but 2010 definitely seems very late. EDIT: I noticed that the 2010 figure comes from Itzik's announcement, although it seems to be referring to the time when a parliamentarian was officially approached and/or accepted our position, not when the first steps were taken to make this happen. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey, is it worth changing the text at this point, and if so, can you suggest the change here? Tony (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a nit: I'm a system administrator, not a web developer. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's surprising that the turnout was higher. There was much arb-dramah in November. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Quibble about the sentence "Of the 21 candidates, 13 managed to gain positive support-to-oppose ratios ...". All candidates gained positive support-to-oppose ratios because the number of support votes and oppose votes were both positive, and a ratio of two positive numbers must be positive. Perhaps this is meant to say 13 candidates had suppor-to-oppose ratios above 1 (ie. more support votes than oppose votes), while the other 8 had ratios below 1 (ie. more oppose votes than support votes)? Mathematically, S / O > 1 is identical to S / (S + O) > 50 %, so it could also be meant to say that 13 candidates received more than 50 % support (amongst voters who took a position on the candidate). EdChem (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to drop a note saying I semi'd the page for a bit because of vandalism.
Also, not a huge fan of myself, Tim, and Salvio being reduced to just our various roles as clerks/AUSC members respectively. But a minor point I suppose. NW (Talk) 08:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for semi. Your roles as clerks/AUSC members was in a general context of "already experienced in Arb-related roles". Yes, we could have been more expansive in the descriptions of the successful candidates as editors. Tony (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gotcha. As I said, minor point and I understand better where you are coming from now. Best, NW (Talk) 08:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]