Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee/Elections January 2007

long comments

Never understood what the problem with thoose were. I understand if its a three paragraph essay, but Long comments in general arn't that bad in my opinion. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments are good and should be encouraged. Long threads that often develop from the comments however are less good in votes and should be kept to the talk page. --Cspurrier 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SP

"Arbitration Commite elections are now in the nomination stage. Nominate your favourite wikinewsie." -- Zanimum 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. Ral315 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A question

Rather than have elections every six months, which I think is a pointless way to handle things given the relative inactivity of ArbCom at this juncture, and that Wikipedia uses yearly elections with three-year terms, can I suggest the terms be extended to two years, with elections occurring every July for three seats? This is how it would go (I've used the terms "Tranche A" and "Tranche B" for clarity):

• Tranche A comes up for election in January 2007 (this series of elections). Their terms will expire in July 2008. (1.5 year terms)
• Tranche B comes up for election in July 2007. Their terms will expire in July 2009. (2 year terms)
• The next elections are not held until July 2008, for Tranche A's seats. (2 year terms)
• And so on...

There's really no need to hold elections every six months- what do you think? Ral315 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Six months is too short... --Nzgabriel | Talk 20:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not totally against that. However I see nothing wrong with six months, and a small comunity as ours change a great deal in that time. There is a totally different comunity now, since the first elections (a year ago, last elections 6 mos is fairly similiar to now, but it was in the middle of that change). Amgine is gone, Neut is gone, MrM is gone, Many other admins and users who were very active are either gone or significantly less active. General feel of the wiki is more layed back, and less stressful, on the first election (1 year ago) I remember it being significantly more aggresive environment (not really right word, but best I could find). Six months sounds fine to me (or even make it 18 mos election term, elections every 9 mos, and only two groups, that might be good), but doesn't matter that much to me. Bawolff :-)(-: 07:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember at the start if last year on IRC Amgine, MrM Chiacomo and a couple of others were talking about terms, and it the general consensus was almost exactly as outlined by Bawolff Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 07:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that we could possibly extend it to 1 year, but two years is too much. I also have to agree with Bawolff, we're not as strict as the Grand Pedia', but there is a rare (really, really rare) occasion when we'll need to do an ArbCom case, so we need to keep rotating activley. Thunderhead - (talk) ^{Congrajulations to Kat!} 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1 year re-election cycle sounds good, doubling it from 6 months. Wikinews does need some assurance that its arbcom members are in touch with the community, without lots of vote sessions. -Edbrown05 11:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

oops, looks like the election cycle is a mish mash of at least a year. Make it longer, 18 months I guess. -Edbrown05 11:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a one year term. But one thing that needs to be questioned, how many arbcoms do we need? I do not know how many times they are used, but with our small community I would guess very little. --Nzgabriel | Talk 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clairify, you mean arbitrators, not arbitration commities ? Bawolff :-)(-: 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Nzgabriel | Talk 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I support fully Momodamonkey

Spread the word

Shouldn't we put this on the top of all pages somewhere in MediaWiki to promote the elections?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

/me looks up. Ehm, it is in the Sitenotice. :)--+Deprifry+ 18:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, a broken link is in the sitenotice. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? What do you mean? It seems fine to me. O' course, I'm running IE. Thunderhead - (talk) ^{Congrajulations to Kat!} 19:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's because I fixed it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well that would make sense, wouldn't it? ;) Thunderhead - (talk) ^{Congrajulations to Kat!} 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't see anything. Although it's clearly in the site notice I don't seem to have a site notice displayed neither in IE nor in Mozilla. As long as it's there it's ok. Perhaps it's because I dismissed the gifts thingy that I can't see any sitenotice now?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It should come back everytime we change the sitenotice I think, but that would proablly be why. (Or if you don't have js, you no longer can see the site notice, which I think is a really stupid idea) Bawolff :-)(-: 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Erik said he was updating the default site notice with brion on #wikimedia. 68.187.187.2 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderhead (talk • contribs) as 68.187.187.2