Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/AMA 2006 Coordinator Election

Nominations on the main page - procedures and voting apparati will be listed too. Wally 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that the consensus that Ambi received in order that she could run, be afforded Hipocrite as I, and at least two other person, are opposed to his nomination for a number of reasons. Without such consensus, his name should be removed. See the talk page on the AMA page for more details.Gator (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wally.Gator (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the best. Wally 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove my candidate statement.

If you must, I request that you place it in a seperate zone for individuals who you assert are not be eligible for the position. I'm not interested in three editors, all of whom should rightly be strongly opposed to my candidacy, removing it from the page unilaterally. 3 people is not a consensus, especially when I so obviously disagree with it. (I would note that wgfinley also did not oppose my candiacy, per his statement, though he did not support voting for me.) Honestly, this is just silly. I appear to be the only person who wants the position. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a single member to support your highly irregular candidacy in order that it might be considered (remember, you weren't a member until you self-nominated and put up a statement). Not one was willing to do so. Therefore, by consensus, you are not considered appropriate as a candidate. I'm sorry. Wally 01:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now our platform is simply to support anotehr candidate, yet I am sure that if someone removed your nomination youdd jsut revert again and get all upset. This goes to my original point hat you're not here to be serious but jut making trouble. It's clear you are endorsing a candidate and when people usually do that, they withdraw, so please do so. Thanks. (no snarky response is required, I don't want to argue with you, just do it)Gator (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals with suffrage

List from 6 January, as I am blanking the membership pages except for individuals who have recently participated.

A D Monroe III
Alex756
Amicuscuriae
Andrevan
Anthere
AtomAnt
Audentis
BD2412
BDD
Bill the Greek
Briangotts
Brian New Zealand
Burgundavia
Chazz
ClockworkSoul
Conradrock
Crazynas
Deltabeignet
Donwarnersaklad
Denni
Dystopian Rhetoric
Flgook
Fred-Chess
Friday
Gator1
Ian Manka
Isotopephd
Izehar
Jamesmusik
Jord
Jossifresco
Journalist
KeithTyler
KC9CQJ
Konrad West
Kurt Weber
Ledward
Lejend
Ludraman
Mentality
Metasquares
Mrs.HippieBurning
Neigel von Teighen
Oliver Keenan
Olorin28
Pakaran.
Pedant available
Perl
Pharotic
R6MaY89
Sam Spade
Secretlondon
Sekicho
Soltak
telekenetix
siafu
Silas Snider
Sj
Skyler1534
Snowspinner
Stellertony
Stephensj74
TigerShark
Toby Bartels
ugen64
Vijay Krishna
Wally
WGFinley
Wikityke
Xxpor
Zestauferov
Kat
Phroziac
karmafist

- Compiled by Hipocrite. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated voter roll

A D Monroe III
Alex756
Ambi
Amicuscuriae
Andrevan
Anthere
AtomAnt
Audentis
BD2412
BDD
Bill the Greek
Briangotts
Brian New Zealand
Burgundavia
Chazz
ClockworkSoul
Conradrock
Crazynas
Deltabeignet
Donwarnersaklad
Denni
Dystopian Rhetoric
Flgook
Fred-Chess
Gator1
Ian Manka
Isotopephd
Izehar
Jamesmusik
Jord
Jossifresco (Jossi?)
Journalist
karmafist
KeithTyler
KC9CQJ
Konrad West
Kurt Weber
Ledward
Lejend
Ludraman
Mentality
Metasquares
Mrs.HippieBurning
Oliver Keenan
Olorin28
Pakaran.
Pedant
Perl
Pharotic
Phroziac
R6MaY89
Sam Spade
Secretlondon
Sekicho
Soltak
Silas Snider
Sj
Skyler1534
Snowspinner
Stellertony
Stephensj74
telekenetix
TigerShark
Toby Bartels
ugen64
Vijay Krishna
Wally
Wikityke
Xxpor
Zestauferov

Thanks to Hipocrite for starting that off. I double-checked it and in the process came up with a different number than his — 70 rather than 74. Having double-checked my work this is due to the absence on my list of four members who between the 6th and now removed themselves from the organization. Wally 03:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five members, apologies; my list also includes Ambi. Wally 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Suffrage is extended to those who were members in good standing as of 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)." People who quit were members in good standing on that date. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you quit, you specifically and knowingly surrender your right to vote. If you are not a member any longer, the above criterion cannot apply to you. Wally 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faster, please

What can I do to speed this up? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'm eager to get a votiin' here too. What's the hold up?Gator (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for word from Theresa. I'm also soliciting a couple others, as the delay in this phase, I agree, has been unacceptable. Wally 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting by e-mail?

I'm a bit worried by submission of votes by e-mail, rather than via Wiki, after user login.

Wikipedia accounts can be "anonymous", simply registering a username (In view of the not-infrequent "flame wars" etc, it's not surprising that people don't always wish to divulge anything more than a username). The wikipedians on the electoral roll are listed in a public area, by their wiki username, as is the voting address.

What's to stop ill-intentioned people from voting simply by sending a vote to the appropriate address and signing it with one of the names from the voters list? Wikityke 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's entirely likely the voter themselves will, too. Plus this ensures a measure of confidentiality that voting on the user space doesn't — perhaps the ArbCom doesn't favor a secret ballot, but I do. Wally 14:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, and that on my on my talk page, Wally.I noticed the comment below, dated last year, 2005, on Wikipedia talk:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure . Did that option show any promise? (I also prefer anonymous voting systems). Wikityke 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" Condorcet Voting "

I strongly recommend that we should change to Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, a Condorcet method, for the next elections. We can use Andrew Myers' Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS) to count the ballots.

Already during the last Arbitration Committee elections, it has been proposed by Johnleemk and Nat Krause to change to Condorcet voting. But their proposal came to late. Markus Schulze 21 June 2005

I did, and frankly I found such a level of complexity unnecessary in an election with such a limited number of both candidates and voters and where tactical voting is likely to be minimal (especially given the approval voting system). Plus it would have required a lot more work, which at such short notice was a non-starter. Everything's on the table for the future, though; you'll have to talk to our new Coordinator and/or their deputies. Wally 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Wally, thanks for the explanation. Wikityke 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]