Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Tony Sidaway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Abstention
Please stop this nonsense. The rules, however arbitrary, do not say neutral votes can be deleted on sight. It says that neutral votes should be considered as abstentions, meaning they are not counted into the total. That is all. By actually providing guidelines for how to count neutral votes, the rules actually allow neutral votes, not forbid them. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-9 04:54
- No. It says that NOT VOTING is counted as an abstention. There is no provision for neutral "votes", quite deliberately. All a neutral vote is is long comment. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- It says "An ambiguous or neutral vote is considered an abstention." — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-9 05:00
- Where? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote; are there some mystery rules I've missed somewhere? If so, my humble apologies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, I was reading Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006. In any case, that it doesn't say anything about neutral votes doesn't mean it is opposed to neutral votes. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-9 05:04
- I've gotten rid of the "long comment" you were worried about. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-9 05:07
- Where? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote; are there some mystery rules I've missed somewhere? If so, my humble apologies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- It says "An ambiguous or neutral vote is considered an abstention." — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-9 05:00
[edit] "Rule"
Moved the neutral votes here by 09:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) per the rules. —Nightstallion (?) 09:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- You just made up that rule, and proceeded immediately to enforcing it. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-9 15:53
[edit] Expansion on withdrawal
My candidacy attracted a lot of interest, and in terms of rate of voting I was near the top of the field. With 104 votes cast I had 46 for, 58 against, less than 45% support and over 30% below the point at which I'd consider my candidacy to have a serious change of succeeding. I can't get much done while looking over my shoulder--many of my actions, although their results command a strong consensus that often cannot be achieved any other way, are controversial to those who think I should follow the failing bureaucratic methods that I eschew even if it means that the final result will be wrong. Withdrawing from the vote was the right move here. I am still available for arbitration duties should I be required, and I think that the way that I handled myself during the campaign was well reflected in a quite high degree of support, all things considered. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
