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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Fixed; thanks. ['twasn't moi!] Tony   (talk)  03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my mistake. Apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Just a nit: I'm a system administrator, not a web developer.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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).


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)