< Scratch Wiki talk:Elections

Revision as of 06:43, 29 October 2013 by Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) (Veggieman001 moved page Scratch Wiki talk:Votes for Admin/September 2013 to Scratch Wiki talk:Elections/September 2013 without leaving a redirect: actually wait)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Bios

How about we just link user pages, rather than adding bios?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(BTW @mf Sorry for forgetting "231", someone referred to you as "Mathfreak" and I copied that straight over :P)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather write some stuff pertinent to the Wiki here, so that people have a clearer idea of whom they're voting for. My user page doesn't give a very encouraging picture… :P
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 16:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
What HM said. I think we should be required to make a subpage of our userpage specifically for campaign use.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Better page name

Scratch Wiki:Votes For Admin (September 2013) - what does everyone think?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We could probably just move it to something like Scratch Wiki:Votes for Admin/September 2013, so that we could have a list of all the elections & stuff.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Which borda count system is used?

I saw several different borda count systems on Wikipedia. Which one are we doing? 6 points for #1, 5 points for #2 and so on, or 1 point for #1, .5 points for #2 and so on?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I hate decimals. I would prefer the first one.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The first is more standard, i think.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I figured out a way to check for vote tampering

It's not the most practical solution, but I will write a bot that goes through the edit histories and make sure that people only create/edit their own votes.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, you can't just use rollback? I think patrolling Recent Changes is enough, because I do it practically 24/7.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
+1 same here. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan, and I support the idea. Out of curiosity, could I look at your code to see how you did it?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, you can once I write it. :P
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not sure the bot is really needed because we all already patrol edits 25/7, but past that, can I still see the code? (once written)
Edit: I've changed minds. I don't see too much reason for the bot, but having it implemented would be nice.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see necessity for a bot, but I'm not the one in charge of the code here. I have missed a lot of discussions, so here are my thoughts:
  • write down list of people running for admin and those running for EW so it's official
  • make bios subpages of your user page (pretty simple, and we don't need to make such a huge deal out of where our bios are)
  • Use the borda count system so your vote #1 is 3 points, vote #2 is 2 points, and vote #3 is 1 point. No decimals, and no more than three picks.
  • get this thing rolling!
    Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's easiest just to rank all the choices in order, and not only the first three. I think that's the "correct" way to do it. We've written the bios on here now, anyway, so let's leave it as-is.
Didn't we decide to have the first two as admins, and some of the rest as EWs?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
But essentially, I agree with you: let's just start voting :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, having a bio on its own page is making things over done. If you can't summarize something in 4 sentences, then a page won't be too helpful. Also, this isn't an advertising campaign, but an election. We already know each other well enough to know who'd be good at what. Does the prospect of admin make people so hyper that they just have to have a bio's own page, a better chance at becoming admin?
And in reply to your question Blob8108, you're half way correct. 3rd and 4th place becomes EW's, but no more, or at least that's what I've heard.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, if you guys don't like the bio idea that's fine. I thought it'd just be helpful, but if it turns into an advertising campaign, then no. I made mine here (not knowing we weren't supposed to make a separate page). It's short and to the point, right? And tell me, did you learn something new about my wiki editing that you didn't before? If you did, then it shows that bios are beneficial.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did learn that you "recreated the Paint Editor article for Scratch 2.0.", which was a nice fun fact. As for your bio, I did find it somewhat long, though it was to the point. ;)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we Start Voting?

Can we start voting? I'm ready.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not yet, but we're close. Don't forget that Hardmath and CC need to put in their bios, and their might be an issue that rises up in a few hours.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Never mind about what I've said. We've started voting already.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A script to count votes

I wrote a PHP CLI (command-line interface) script to count the votes. It is available on Github, and can be used by anybody who wants to see how the election is going so far, and also could potentially be used to calculate the votes.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your preg_match fails on the last couple of votes because they're missing a space. Apart from that, your script agrees with mine, which is handy :)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Because everyone loves Python.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That gives:
   blob8108:       72
   jvvg:           67
   Mathfreak231:   67
   Hardmath123:    62
   ErnieParke:     54
   Turkey3:        47

Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 17:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
So it does. I swear before I was getting the same output as with jvvg's script...
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't find a mistake in jvvg's or mine. Can you spot it?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
jvvg's only finds 10 votes (yours finds 17). It uses http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/w/api.php?action=query&titles=Scratch%20Wiki:Votes%20For%20Admin%202013&prop=revisions&rvprop=content&format=xml&salt=, which seems to return a cached copy.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I found the error in mine. It was just a slight mistake in the regex. It now counts 17 votes, as it should. I committed the changes to Github.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
found the other error: there is no sample row anymore so you are removing the first vote.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 04:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I fixed that.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I made an improved version of mine, using some regex and stuff from Blob's. Here it is.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Current Results! I Have Done Some Counting

I have done counting and have the current results. Now, this is based on my counting, so there may be one about 1 off. I'm only human, so it's best that all of you check your own and notify me if your count is off so I can change it. Anyways, here are my results I counted, and I double-checked some users even.

  • 1. Blob - 67
  • 2. Mathfreak - 63
  • 3. jvvg - 63
  • 4. Hardmath - 58
  • 5. ErnieParke - 50
  • 6. Turkey3 - 43
  • 7. CuriousCrab - 41
    Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
With my updated program (see the section on counting the results), I got this:
1: mathfreak231 with 80 points
2: hardmath123 with 76 points
3: jvvg with 74 points
4: blob8108 with 73 points
5: ernieparke with 61 points
6: turkey3 with 57 points
7: curiouscrab with 46 points
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

With blob's I get:

  1. blob8108: 78
  2. Mathfreak231: 78
  3. Hardmath123: 76
  4. jvvg: 74
  5. ErnieParke: 59
  6. Turkey3: 55
  7. Curiouscrab: 50

Clearly one of them is very wrong…
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ignore mine up there, it's old now, but was pretty accurate earlier today. I don't think we can rely on fully Python for this, so why not have 2 people fully count all the votes at the end themselves (possibly an admin) and have each campaigner count his or her own votes to see if there was a mistake? The human brain is the most reliable.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, for counting up long strings of numbers, I think a computer is more reliable. I trust my (or somebody else's) program to count better than I would. A properly written program does not make mistakes, while people inevitably do.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Turkey means that people (as we have seen twice now) make mistakes programming computers. But IMHO we should use a program anyway.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 04:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I checked mine with a spreadsheet and everything! (Ironically, the spreadsheet was much quicker to make :P)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 11:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm really good at counting. May I be one of the counters? Y'allz can trust that I won't give myself extra points or anything (heheheheheheh). Anyways, HM using blob's script I'm pretty sure were the correct results. I counted myself...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
My script now gives me this:

1: mathfreak231 with 91 points

2:           jvvg with    86 points
3:    hardmath123 with    83 points
4:       blob8108 with    77 points
5:     ernieparke with    66 points
6:        turkey3 with    64 points
7:    curiouscrab with    54 points
8:         mesrec with     1 points
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I just use blob's, and this is how it's standing now:

Mathfreak231:   89
jvvg:           86
Hardmath123:    83
blob8108:       82
ErnieParke:     64
Turkey3:        62
Curiouscrab:    58
Mesrec:         1

Isn't it nice how the top 2 are already EWs, and the next 2 aren't? :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I counted myself (no need for hightec stuff :P) and I got 62 for me, so blob's must be right for mine at least. I didn't count the others :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 18:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Scimonster, I think you need to add blob8108 to your vote because it's in everybody else's votes and I think if you don't it helps those who would have come after blob which isn't fair because you'd be the only person who could do that. I hope that made sense!
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 18:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I would have have voted for blob, but he says he pulled out of the race, so that basically means we skip over him even if he does win. If blob says otherwise, i will put him in.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Either you have to vote for me as if I were still running for admin, *or* I need to modify my Python script.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, so i voted for you as if you were running. :)
Mathfreak231:   89
jvvg:           86
Hardmath123:    84
blob8108:       84
ErnieParke:     64
Turkey3:        62
Curiouscrab:    57
Now the Snap!y admins are tied. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I removed my votes to avoid confusion. Sorry for withdrawing!

If you're worried I've upset the scores — here are the results before:

Mathfreak231:   89
jvvg:           86
Hardmath123:    84
blob8108:       84
ErnieParke:     64
Turkey3:        62
Curiouscrab:    57

And here are the results now:

Mathfreak231:   81
jvvg:           75
Hardmath123:    75
ErnieParke:     56
Turkey3:        55
Curiouscrab:    52

As you can see, everyone else is in the same order. Hope that helps!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Mathfreak231:   85
jvvg:           81
Hardmath123:    80
ErnieParke:     59
Turkey3:        57
Curiouscrab:    53

Here are the updated results.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What will we do about ties?

Specifically, a tie for 2nd place, or a tie for 4th place. Who will become Admin/EW?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If there's a tie for 2nd, then we could always hold a small second election to see who gets what. As for 4th, EW's are supposed to have more members then admins, so I think it would be fair if 4th and 5th both become EW's, but only if there's a tie. We could also have a second vote (as with admins), but that's more cumbersome.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
We could let the current admins decide?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Most likely when CC votes (if he ever does; strange he only time he's inactive is now :p) the tie will be broken, or when anyone else does. But then a tie is common looking between Ernie and me.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 10:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Does CC even need to vote? It won't really be unfair if he doesn't because he's already in last place most likely due to his lack of a bio.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, they haven't been on the wiki recently so I think that the election could probably finish now. Perhaps another day but I don't think much more is needed.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
We said the 17th.
CC can't vote for himself anyways.
As for the original topic: i think we can hold a tiebreaker vote if we have a tie for 2nd, but both can become EWs if there's a tie for 4th.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
What are the current scores now since LS97 voted?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────On my count, the scores are now:

Me (mathfreak231): 86
jvvg: 81
Hardmath123: 79
ErnieParke: 59
Turkey3: 57
CuriousCrab: 53

Pardon me if I made a mistake; 7's are harder to work with than 8's.
It's seems it's still pretty unanimous that I'm going to be the first admin. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

When do we plan to end this?

Just wondering, when do we plan to close the voting?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:25, 16 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Tomorrow is the last day. (Sci even said so)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I must have missed that. Thanks for letting me know!
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Which timezone are we using? Wiki time?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Whenever scmb1 comes along. I'll ask her now. Note that voting could extend until tomorrow or even Thursday.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Final results (probably)

Counted using blob's.

Mathfreak231: 85 jvvg: 81 Hardmath123: 80 ErnieParke: 59 Turkey3: 57 Curiouscrab: 53 Mathfreak and jvvg will become admins, Hardmath and ErnieParke will become EWs.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the updated version, for fun:
Mathfreak231:   86
Hardmath123:    84
jvvg:           83
ErnieParke:     64
Turkey3:        63
Curiouscrab:    56


It looks like Hadmath with become an admin, and jvvg will become an EW.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
man, this is nerve-wracking! Every time someone votes, I either enter or leave the top 2.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually Ernie, jvvg already is an EW, so you and I would become EW's.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
@hm: Take a break and come back in two days and find out then. Or have me email you. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
@Turkey3: Oh yes, that is true, and good news for the both of us.
By the way, are we waiting for @Scmb1, or are we going ahead with the 17th being the deadline?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Man, I was so close... Oh well.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
@jvvg At least you're EW. :)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Aah! Every time I try and post someone else does in my process! @jvvg there's still hope @everyone I guess it's up to Sci when the voting ends. He did say the 17th, and in a few hours Scratch Time it will be the 18th. Or it can be left open until Scmb1 comes, but that's an admin's call.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And I highly suggest that everyone counts their own votes just to assure the accuracy.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, 83 is right for my count. Looks like I'm remaining an EW.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
2^6 seems correct for me as well.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hardmath's seem correct too, but I just realized that if I just switched Hardmath and Turkey3 in my votes, that would tie it up.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
yeah, it's uncomfortably close. Practically anyone can decide between us by changing their vote(I presume this is not allowed/looked down upon?).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 22:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no rule saying you can't change your votes like that. However, I can live with not winning this election, but I'm not sure if I can live with borderline cheating. Now I just need to find someone else who likes me... :P
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It isn't looked down upon if you have a good honest reason for it. For example, I did it two times myself, the first time because I changed my decision, and the second time due to the same reason, and to not vote for myself.
Anyway, I agree. Who will win, jvvg or Hardmath123?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
also, is there any way to contact cc? He was pretty excited and I want him to get a chance to at least vote. Or even just say something before the election closes. It doesn't seem fair. Can we make a special case for his vote, if anything? Being a candidate, he should get to vote...
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 22:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Being behind one point and changing votes so that you win IMO is not a good honest reason. I stand by my choices, even though those choices are what is causing me to remain an EW. Also, I don't think we're going to get anyone else to vote, so I think HM will win.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's very honorable and just of you! :) and I tried contacting Curiouscrab, but haven't a clue what is going on. He must be very ill or busy, I'd guess. I feel sorry that he missed the votes.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@jvvg: You've done it with that last voter:
Mathfreak231:   90
Hardmath123:    89
jvvg:           89
ErnieParke:     67
Turkey3:        65
Curiouscrab:    57


You know, I should make my own show on this election. This has so much drama and suspense that I could millions! :P
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow! These are the most crazy elections. What do we do with ties?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
For ties, jvvg and Hardmath123 would battle it out in another election (more all-nighters...), and if jvvg wins, only 3rd&4th place will become EW's. If jvvg loses, then 4th&5th become EW's, but that's if we get the tie. Oh, this is so suspensful...
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okie. This is especially nerve-breaking for jvvg and me!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

End

Right, now we need to start a vote for when the elections should end. If someone could make a page over at Scratch Wiki:Votes for Ending Admin Vote 2013...
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Motion to enter formal debate with a moderated caucus on the topic 'concluding the 2013 admin elections'. I love parliamentary language. :P
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 22:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't compete on those grounds (language). :P But I do think we should stop now and end the suspense.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
for the sake of completion, how about in another hour, so that it's September 18th by Wiki standards? (All delegates in favor of the motion? :P)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Aye
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, wait an hour. Personally I think it should end (and I'm not just saying that because I'm in now) in an hour, because Sci even agreed to that, so why change it? Is a vote for when to end a vote really necessary? But of course I'm open to your awesome opinions :D
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to agree with you that we should end the vote in about an hour and call it done (EW!), but what good would that do? We still have to wait for Scmb1 to come by to apply the changes, and CC hasn't voted, so I think it would be a good idea if we waited a tiny bit longer till a bureaucrat comes by. Then we can for sure end the vote.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm guessing that Sci will protect the page when it's finished. As I said above, Curiouscrab must be very ill or busy, because I tried contacting him via profile on Scratch, but no answer. And it's not like if someone votes after we "officially" close it down we're going to delete the vote and say that it was done.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not over til the fat turret sings.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

wow, we obviously spoke too soon... @jvvg tied again! :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 23:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It'll end as soon as a bureaucrat upgrades people. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Over Tiebreaker

Ernie told me above that there would be a tiebreaker for jvvg and hardmath if they tie. So, you'd assume that the people who voted for jvvg over hardmath before would do the same now, and visa versa, right? According to my calculations, 10 people (excluding themselves) voted for jvvg over hardmath, and 10 people voted for hardmath over jvvg. So wouldn't that kind of show that the tiebreaker is tied? I sound really confusing right now, but sort of understand? Not only did they tie in total, but if you were to take away the votes for the other candidates, those two would be left and tied either way.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an issue. I guess the easiest option would be to make us both admins. Anyway, here's the scores as I have them:

1: mathfreak231 with 90 points

2:           jvvg with    89 points
3:    hardmath123 with    89 points
4:     ernieparke with    67 points
5:        turkey3 with    65 points
6:    curiouscrab with    57 points
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
According to your post's timestamp, the vote is now over, I'm gonna go ahead and claim my adminship. :D
Getting back on topic, I think scmb1 could break the tie (and make me an admin :D)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well it's pretty clear you'll be admin :P I'm not sure what will happen to the tie due to what I stated above about the vote between them being equal (someone else might want to check that, too).
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The voting can stop! :)

Thanks to those of you who let me know that you were finished voting. I've upgraded Mathfreak to admin status, since he got the most votes in your election. I've made ErnieParke an EW, since he's ranked 4th. For now, I upgraded Hardmath123 to EW and have kept jvvg as an EW since they tied for second. Do you think it is necessary to have two new admins, or will one more admin and some new EWs do the trick? Can you give me some examples of when it would be necessary to have more admins? Or maybe just some more attention from the ST (oops!) would help? If you really think it's necessary that either Hardmath123 or jvvg is an admin, I suppose you could hold a tie-breaker of some sort. Whatever the case, thanks for organizing this election and I look forward to working with all of you. :)
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 17:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think they should both be made admins. Otherwise Mathfreak231 would be the only active admin which wouldn't be very good if he went on holiday. With three, the news etc. would probably also get updated slightly faster.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@Turkey3: True, those would be benefits, and it would also cut down on an election, so I think it would be a good idea.
@Scmb1: Great, I'm glad those elections are done! They were starting to be a bit... over dramatic, though I have a few questions now that I've become EW (and thanks for that!) In the Recent Changes page, lots of the edits now have ! next to them; what's that? Also, what is patrolling?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
So wait, we're deciding weather neither jvvg or hardmath should be admin, or both? I suggest both, because having over one active admin would be great, and both are very responsible. Also, would that make me EW, also? Or would Ernie be the only promoted to EW position? Or are you suggesting either 1 more admin and 2 new EWs, or 2 new admins and 1 new EW, or... I'm making too confusing either for myself :P I'm going to download IOS7 and see in a while.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I wish I could get iOS7, though I only have an iPod 4. :/
Anyway, back on topic. The top two candidates were going to become admins, and the next to would be EW's. Meanwhile, if one of the people being promoted to EW was already a EW, then the next non-EW would become an EW. Do you get it?
Oh, and yes, you would become EW.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
What can admins do that EWs can't?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@ErnieParke I'm not totally sure what patrolling means but I think the !s are when something hasn't been patrolled (source).
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Patrolling an edit just marks that you've seen it and think it's ok. Admins and EWs have the power to patrol, so if an edit is patrolled, it's ok for the wiki because an admin or EW said so. For example, I was reviewing all of the changes on the voting page, and marked them as patrolled when I saw that users weren't tampering with votes.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@blob: Admins can edit protected pages, including the main page, news, featured article and images, and MediaWiki pages.
@jvvg: We never really used patrolling, but you guys can if you want.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
So, everybody, do you really think it's necessary to have one more admin? Why?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The way I think of it is, why would it hurt? They are both responsible and very smart code-wise. I understand that you don't want too many admins, but I think that if they've proved they're trustworthy and will use the tools to the benefit of the Wiki and Scratch community, another admin wouldn't hurt.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Both of the admins and I (who won the election and was an E.W. before) voted HM123 above jvvg and we have more wiki power than anybody else (:P). I think HM123 should be admin. Tell me if you think that sounds stupid. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because you and Sci are admins now doesn't give your votes extra power
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@MF I agree! That sounds entirely logical. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Turkey: Sci and Veggie were admins before the vote, and I was an E.W. They don't give direct power, but I was wondering if it could be used to break a tie.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I don't think so. All votes are equal.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
@Turkey I do think there are some potential problems with having lots of admins-- for example, the more admins we have, the higher the risk of somebody getting into an admin account and creating lots of problems. And I also don't see the point of having lots of admins if it's absolutely necessary. Could somebody give me some concrete examples of times when we would really need more admins?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When the only active admin goes on holiday and isn't online?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 21:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. But in that situation, what would you need an admin to do that a EW couldn't?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 22:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
my 2 cents: it's always good to have a couple of people who have more power, because it makes things feel a lot nicer. If just one person can make certain decisions, it's not as open. Also, as others have said, people do go on vacation/have emergencies/sleep (there are some things that will need attention even when an admin is gone, like news items/unfortunate vandalism).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 22:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
@Scmb1: How else will the tie be broken, then? Would we have another vote? Or someone like you just decide?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Sheesh these threads are not very friendly to those who aren't used to the wiki threading. Anyway, I think the point made by scmb1 has yet to get a good answer - kinda seems like the answer is usually "More is better!", and "one of them might go on vacation." Admins are important for doing a very few things, but I think the majority of the important work is done by editors and EWs. So, in the absence of a compelling reason to make more admins, I think we should keep what we have. If real circumstances arise in which it would've helped to have more, we can re-evaluate based on those circumstances.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 01:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
You mean only stick with one new Admin and upgrade no one else? I see your knowledge and actually understand what you mean now. We all need a lightning strike to flash on front of us once in a while :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Yay, I can work alone! XD
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
@Scmb1 I thought EWs can't update the news.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 08:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The threading's all over the place, isn't it? :P I think Hardmath makes a good point -- we don't want Mathfreak to become the evil overlord. We need a second admin to balance him out.
blob8108 (talk | contribs)
Well, blob8108, WHO FORGOT TO SIGN >:D:<, it's either i'm the only admin or we find another method of voting that will likely be widely disagreed with...
I actually may need some help around here. I'd pick Hardmath first, because he's been around MUCHMUCHMUCHMUCH longer, and knows more of the wiki procedures.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Scmb1 I think that there should be more than one person who can update the front page news. Either Experienced Wikians should be able to edit protected pages or there should be multiple admins.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 19:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The only real extra power (regularly used) that admins have over EWs is protecting, unprotecting, and editing protected pages (basically the news).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the page be protected?

Since the election is now over, I think that the voting page should be protected, as there is no reason for anybody to edit it anymore and somebody may decide to mess with the votes in the future.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.