I've got friends in weird places, just not enough of them. These are votes sorted by timestamp of voter's last edit, where same is earlier than midnight Oct. 31. Those appearing to have no timestamp are names for which no user currently exists, due to name-changes during the election.

Okay, so let's post it and figure out which list is more accurate. Pool them together even.

That concern will still exist regardless of recent editing habits.

B-b-but… I thought even the scrutineers would not know who you voted for. Even assuming the most pathological case where each of us listed above voted for all the under-dogs and against all the favorites, I thought the results (or provisional results, point-spreads, etc.) were to remain boxed until eligibility disputes are resolved/final (unless there was some other principled reason not to give voters an up-to-the minute status chart during the voting period).

Either this is a catch-22 or someone (here probably) has misled me regarding these points.

Excellent post.



Errr, yes, they would. A few of the people listed on that page have done just that.

I don't know how the results are handled. I assume that the scrutineers know the raw totals, but don't know who voted for whom. So they would know whether or not a 25 vote margin could potentially change the results, although they wouldn't know how striking 25 votes would affect the outcome until they'd done it.

But maybe they don't even see the raw vote total until they are done striking voters and "lock" the results. Honestly, I don't know.

And, even if 25 votes could make no possible difference to the outcome, the stewards might feel that they needed to do due diligence and examine the votes anyway.

And of course, there are many ways to have sockpuppets vote, checking voters who have not edited recently may not even be a particularly good way to identify candidates.

Poor Derktar.

My list is more accurate of course.

There are no extra names on your list. My list omitted the people who were renamed, because they have edited after Oct. 31.

However your list excludes quite a few, such as Aitias who has not edited since September 19, 2009.

Btw, my list was posted here.

And what are you going to do to those accounts on your list? Why haven't you contacted those on your list about your investigation?

My account met the criteria for voting. Why is it under scrutiny and what are you people doing to it?

Edit: I'll understand if you cannot respond immediately. Coren appears to be preparing an arb case against you, for unblocking Giano. For that (I like Giano), I'll try to lower the temperature on this issue. I recognize that you are more likely to address my concerns than others and my anger is more at this change in the election rules after the fact and lists popping up with my account on it without explaining what is being done to it.

Next election, the WP Community needs clear rules ahead of time regarding "low-editing" or "recently re-emerged" voting editors. That way, people like me don't get upset when the Spammish Inquisition starts with lists coming up with my account on it.

Edit again: I am satisfied with the below, though I would like to know exactly what is going on with this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=332185975

Eh, phooey -- Giano is tops and Coren is a shmuck. The outrage! All in favor of thinking of new ways to annoy Coren, raise your hoofs.

I only created the list. A few people were showing concern about votes from people who haven't edited in a while, and I figured it was better to compile a list rather than watching everyone wave their hands about. I sent it to functionaries-en, and have left it with the election admins/scrutineers to decide what, if anything, to do with the data.

I should have posted that caution note immediately, but I didn't think that people whose names were listed would panic. I expect that the accounts on the list will come under extra scrutiny, but I expect that a lot of accounts are being reviewed for a variety of reasons. Some of the names on the list are "above suspicion", which should clue in the scrutineers that there are lots of reasons why people haven't edited recently. It is silly to assume that a sockmaster is more likely to have "not edited in two months" or have "less than 500 edits". 1000 vandal whacking edits are easy to obtain.

John, can you explain to us why the results have still not been released?

Because the wrong people won, and they need to figure out how to amend the rules to make the Holy Elect come ahead of the Toxic Personalities. Do you really need to ask?

Sigh...I feel so disenfranchised, I think I might just have to cry myself to sleep tonight.

Well, whatever the case may be, it's shameful to not release the results for this long when surely a computer calculation would determine them in a matter of seconds. I said all along this secret ballot business was a bad idea. They need to bring back public voting and drastically raise the voter eligibility requirements (raising the candidate eligibility requirements would be nice too).

Will the scrutineers and/or functionaries release a report about this? I don't really understand how they can scrutinize except using checkuser. I just want to know what the scrutineers/functionaries are specifically doing to those accounts.

I realize there really isn't anything I can do about it. I mean, I could go a Giano-style attack, demand answers, and require you to give me Rlevse's eagle badge, but I can't go on a dramatic tirade for a long time and such a tirade is usually pointless (as you are aware).

I have this feeling there will be demands to increase voter restrictions next year. Wiki-gnomes like me who edit only every once in awhile won't have any say-so in Wikipedia's affairs. Will Beback probably thinks everyone is HK.



You're not the only one feeling this way.

It all makes sense now, just looks like somebody failed to account for red-link usernames.

Anyway, I just got sucked into making a couple of unrelated December edits, so one could kindly ask the functionary pervs to direct their x-ray vision elsewhere, at least for now.

This is taking forever.

I thought that might be the reason for the differences. Some of my stats may be out by one or two due to unicode usernames being silently discarded by my scripts.

I have shuffled you down into the section for people who have edited since Dec. 1.

No surprise here -- I suspected there would be some monkey business with the results. I would wager that at least one (and, possibly, two or three) non-admins won the vote and there is now a discussion going on about how to proceed.

I'm puzzled myself. I would have thought that they would scrutinize voters on a rolling basis. Because voting is front-heavy, I would have expected them to be done now.

Yep. Could have been mostly done by the time the election closed.

I'm not particularly willing to assume some Grand Conspiracy here, but it is starting to look a bit shady.

That's Wikipedia - even if they get it right, they are bound to create the impression of having done it wrong.

Well they have given me exposure to the word "scrutineers," which I find hilarious. More than worth any wait they might bring. I wonder if they wear special head gear? They should finish up quickly because in "s - c - r - u - t - i - n - e - e - r" the "c" always stand s for "see ya real soon."

Controversial, unpopular, and fiddled results are often announced on days when few people are paying attention. My money is on the results being posted Christmas Eve or Boxing Day, as they will likely contain some new and fresh outrage.

They may also be waiting for Jimbonic input on some issue, which Jimbo has since forgotten about because Jimbo is incapable of keeping more than one thought in his head for more than fifteen seconds at a time. Jimbo has a habit of saying "Please don't do anything on this until I have a chance to get back to you about it" and then never getting back to you about it; while sometimes I think this is intentional most of the time it's just because Jimbo's mental capacity is smaller than his ego, and so maintaining his ego excludes all other thought.

You're being uncharacteristically restrained, Kelly. Norway is slightly smaller than Jimbo's ego. As for his mental capacity, I can't say, but the evidence would point to it being sized somewhere between a golf ball and a grapefruit.

Was it last year or the year before that we all knew the results, but Jimbo went on vacation to the Virgin Islands and refused to appoint the arbs until he "looked over it" or something like that?

Or bread-box < x < Jupiter as Vonnegut might put it.

Am I right in hearing that 300something admins voted? Out of 1000 or so allegedly-active admins?

Does this sound suspicious to anyone? Are there piles of sockpuppets who did not vote, for fear of being discovered?

My guess is nobody received more than 50% support. Which would be a trifle chortle-worthy.

Maybe people just don't care anymore? Maybe they think that this ArbCom election won't change anything?

If true, then Wikipedia really is going down the drain if over 2/3s of all administrators won't even bother to vote.

By procrastinating Jimbo gets more attention and the appearance of still being important. Arbcom appointments are one of the last things the community still lets him do. So dragging it out is a win/win for Jimbo - he gets to procrastinate and be the center of attention, while everyone waits on him.

That is probably exactly right.

Cf. FlaggedRevs.

I'm not sure I buy this.

Disclaimer: I don't know Jimbo, I've never met him, and I've made no effort to learn anything about him. But I'd hazard a guess that he shares certain traits with other entrepreneur types I've known.

I don't have a hard time believing that he likes attention. From women, from journalists, from investors, etc. But from a bunch of random folks on Wikipedia? Does he honestly have so much free time that he cares about that kind of attention? Seems unlikely to me.

Results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...s_December_2009

Of the top nine "nets" are elected, then in descending order:

Kirill Lokshin
Fritzpoll
Coren
Mailer diablo
Steve Smith
SirFozzie
Hersfold
Shell Kinney
KnightLago

How on earth did Cla68 lose? I thought he was a shoe-in!

I'd like to know how in the fuck Coren was re-elected.

Pro-porn vote. Its huge on en.wp.

Congrats to Steve (Sarcasticidealist). Let the serious disillusionment now commence.

I think you overestimate my illusionment. Must be the presence of "idealist" in my name.

Congratulations, Red Green!

Or should I say "commiserations?"



If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy!

So it finally hit me just now: no arrangement or re-arrangement of these names could yield a favorable result. I have another reason to wish I hadn't bothered voting in this shit.

And yeah, I told him to keep his stick on the ice but I don't think he got the reference.

Congratulations to all the electees. The predictions that hardly anyone would get over 50% were, fortunately, incorrect.

A very sad bunch, I must say. I agree with the sentiments of CharlotteWebb - wtf is Coren doing in 3rd place?

Looking forward very much to yet another year of backstabbing, poor judgement, ill-advised blocks, sleaze and abuse.

Jimbo is not your entrepeneurial type at all. For one, he's far too risk-adverse. Then again, he's failed at every entrepenurial venture he's ever tried.

Congratulations to those who won honestly, and those who benefited from a fixed vote.

In my defense, I got it after you explained it to me.

(I'm not sure that "defense" means what I think it means.)

I don't fix anything was fixed, inasmuch I don't think the 9/11 conspiracies are true. They won fair and square.

Looks like only Kirill was able to obtain a mandate (he was the only candidate with more than 50% support including neutrals). Kmweber was the only able to obtain an antimandate (more than 50% opposing), although RMHED came close.

While I'm self-interested here, any definition of "mandate" that treats neutrals and opposes equivalently seems intuitively unreasonable. Surely, as an RROR ninja, you can appreciate what an abstention is?

Ah, cognitive dissonance (I get it now).


Yeah that seems to treat the neutral votes more like a margin of error.

'course after seeing the results, I can totally understand that approach.