Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Statement modification

Will Beback has modified his statement. This should be reflected on this page. Tra (Talk) 17:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Conti|✉ 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Can I vote for more than one candidate? This isn't very clear on the page. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 00:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, you can. One vote per candidate. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ineligible votes

Should ineligible votes be removed or should I strike them out when I find them? --Conti|✉ 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Strikeout seems best, to be safe. They can always be removed later. -Amarkov blahedits 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The method used last year was to indent, and add a comment. For example, see Ineligible user's vote in the below scenario:
  1. Support. Ral315 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Ineligible user 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    User has less than 150 edits. Ral315 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Fake 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Using both strikeout and indenting would be good. The reason indenting is used is so that the numbering is correct; in the example above, you can see that the vote of "Fake" is correctly numbered as #2. --bainer (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is a user's vote cast before a one year ban ineligble ? The vote was 8 days before the ban. Haphar 15:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Give brief reasons with votes

While I understand people not wanting to be harsh, brief reasons with votes, especially oppose votes, would generally be helpful for other voters. Otherwise, the question one asks oneself when seeing an oppose is: "Was there something I missed, or is he voting oppose based on something that did not bother me?" With supports, one can at least assume that the voter has no major problems with the candidate. —Centrx→talk • 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Somehow giving brief reasons does make this election look like an RfA. Personally I decided not to; out of respect I don't want to express my choice words for certain candidates. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Albeit an RfA lacking in any discussion of the votes. -Amarkov blahedits 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the bot-update page with the tallies?

I'm sure somebody already thought of that... —Doug Bell talk 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections. Geni 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And another at User:Mathbot/ArbCom Election December 2006. NoSeptember 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Battle of the tallies! ;) - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
We need to add a check for possible duplicate voters, like the Tangobot RfA summaries do. Before long these lists of votes are going to be huge. NoSeptember 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The script I'm using to check for suffrage checks for duplicate votes. —Cryptic 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Btw, it is good we have 2 bots running. Gurch's page has not updated in about 4 hours now. NoSeptember 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Note about Gurch's S-O column: though there was a lot of discussion about that last year, in the end Jimbo ignored it and went by raw percentages. It's still interesting to have both for comparison, of course. Chick Bowen 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections is seriously broken, at least in IE 6.02 on Windows XP. The page is blank and only contains the following:
<script type="text/javascript" src="/skins-1.5/common/sorttable.js"></script>
—Doug Bell talk 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Works in Firefox. I'll let Gurch know. Chick Bowen 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the lack of update. I was asleep and it stalled. Working again now after 9 hours. I'm not sure why it doesn't work in IE... it does have the new sortable table feature, which is perhaps breaking in IE, I'll look into in. In the meantime, those who only have IE either use MathBot's page or get a better browser :) – Gurch 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Just tested in IE7 and it works fine. If you're using IE6 that's your own problem :) – Gurch 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not by choice. I need IE 6 for compatibility testing with the development work I'm doing. Pretty sure since everything else here works with it that breaking it isn't a requirement. —Doug Bell talk 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, now User:Mathbot/ArbCom Election December 2006 is doing exactly the same thing. Oleg, what did you change? —Doug Bell talk 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I just used a sortable table. I removed it now. That Gurch has it is enough I guess. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this seems to be a problem of the user's monobook.js (or .css, I don't know), having some kind of conflict with the sortable table thing. I have the same problem as Doug Bell (using Opera), and it vanishes when I look at the page while logged out. I don't have a clue what part of my monobook.js is causing this tho, as I'm too stupid to know much JavaScript. --Conti|✉ 05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stopped for about 13 hours so I left a note for Gurch but (s)he may be offline. Susanlesch 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mathbot page is still being updated. —Doug Bell talk 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral votes

I have been shifting neutral votes and other corollary discussion to the discussion pages of the individual votes, as provision is only made for support and oppose votes in the ArbCom elections. - Mark 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "150 votes"

A little question - why do you have to have 150 edits to vote? Surely a user's dedication and trustworthiness is based on quality, not quantity? It's ard to measure how 'good' a user is - even time isn't really important. Scenario: candidate registers new account before 1 October 2006, makes 150 minor edits, and votes. Is there a better way? Just wondering. Dr Santa 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's impractical, if not impossible, to judge each voter's dedication and trustworthiness. 150 edits is an arbitrary threshold, but it's also a low one. SuperMachine 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It also helps to prevent sockpuppet voting. It's very easy for a user to register a bunch of new accounts and have them all vote the same way but it's much harder to have each one of them accumulate 150 edits before the vote starts. As for choosing a numerical measure, it's easier to just count a voter's edits than it is to look at each one and evaluate it for quality, plus this is subjective and people might disagree on whether the edits have sufficient quality to be able to vote. Tra (Talk) 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy comments

I believe voters were not supposed to leave lengthy comments; I've got a few four- or five-liners, and one user that left an entire essay in her vote. Could someone neutral please take a look and move those to the talk page if appropriate? (Radiant) 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the longest comment to the talk page, and left a note linking to it. The other ones don't seem so bad, so I've left them there. --bainer (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checking votes

From the above comments ("The script I'm using to check for suffrage checks for duplicate votes. — Cryptic 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)") it seems that checking of votes is taking place. Is it possible to be reassured that such checking is indeed taking place, what it innvolves, and whether the results will be published? Thanks. Carcharoth 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm checking once a day or so, by reading and parsing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=150&go=first&target=Whoever, with a supplementary check to the new user log if the user's first edit is after the October 1 cutoff. I paste the results into the voting pages as I find them. —Cryptic 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable pattern: It's a rather 'rouge' election

There is no cabal - crz crztalk 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no cabal - crz crztalk 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the page 'Category:Rouge admins'. On that list are the ArbCom candidates Alex Bakharev, FloNight, Geogre, JzG, and Samuel Blanning. There are also the candidates Freakofnurture, Starblind, and Blnguyen, who associate with them. Also, look at the votes of the rouge admins JzG (signs as 'Guy'), Geogre, Crazyrussian (signs as 'crz'), AlexBakharev, Nightstallion, Glen_S, Jaranda, Duja, and KillerChihuahua, and known rouge admin associates Zscout370, Newyorkbrad, Khoikhoi, JoshuaZ, Starblind, Giano, Ghirlandajo, Irpen, and Bishonen. There are many of them, and they support their own, so much so that their votes constitute a significant portion of the support votes for their candidates. They even constitute about one-quarter of JzG's support votes.

I also noticed that the listed rouge admin Ral315, and his associates Coredesat and Chacor, mostly voted AGAINST the rouge admins. I wonder what the cause of that schism is.

Hearse Monoplane 10:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Radiant! -Looks like I missed one. Thanks for drawing my attention enough to notice.

[1] Funny.

Hearse Monoplane 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm a "known rouge admin associate"? What the heck does that mean? And, is it good or bad? :) And P.S., who is Hearse Monoplane the rest of the time? Newyorkbrad 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm disappointed that I'm not a "known rouge admin associate"  ;-) TheronJ 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Convincing first 2 questions.

The following links are meant for others, not for you, as you are already aware of their content (as they involve Newyorkbrad).

Hearse Monoplane 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you've uncovered a shocking conspiracy. How can we repair the damage? —Centrx→talk • 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I only intend to make people aware of the group. What others do with this information is of less concern to me. Hearse Monoplane 00:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel a bit left out. But then I agree with the Marxist view of clubs.[1] -- ALoan (Talk) 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I missed another. I read the 'Edit war on a vote page' section below, and saw that the known rouge admin associate BenAveling also voted for rouge admins. Hearse Monoplane 14:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

Keep in mind that in the coming year, due to the overall growth of wikipedia, we are likely to see a big expansion of the arbcom. This is not certain, but entirely possible. Therefore, people should (a) not vote strategically based on good people being very close to the top N and (b) not withdraw from the race with good scores just because you might not be in the top N. Anyone who has recently withdrawn on that basis might reconsider.--Jimbo Wales 19:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Only one candidate with more than 70% support has withdrawn: I hope the expanded ArbCom won't comprise members with less than 2/3 community support. Sandy (Talk) 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo's input here is helpful. I certainly would suggest that no candidates enjoying majority support should withdraw. Voters might also bear in mind that there will be at least one ArbCom position to be filled beyond the five currently up for election, and I presume that, though I can't say for sure whether, that selection would be made from this crop of candidates. (I gather that a current ArbCom member, not in this year's tranche, is resigning from ArbCom to take a Board seat; there is also another member who is on a seemingly long-term break from en:wiki and has not responded to my query whether he will be returning, though I certainly hope he will.)
If there is to be a "big" expansion of the committee, I kind of wish that had been announced earlier; many people who decided not to run because they thought there were five candidates more qualified than they, might not have made the same decision if they'd know that (say) 10 or 12 candidates would be appointed. Ah well, hindsight is 20:20. Newyorkbrad 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, any decision on whether and how to expand the ArbCom will probably take into account the quality of the 50%+ candidates at the end of this election. As for hindsight, I thought you (newyorkbrad) were one of the ones who pointed out that there might be an expansion! :-) Carcharoth 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I recall there was a thread on the election talk page in which this was briefly discussed, but I wasn't one of the ones who suggested it might actually happen. And in any event, I don't think we can assume that all the potential candidates were watching that page! But the committee was expanded from 12 to 15 after January's election, so to that extent at least, I suppose everyone was on notice this might happen again. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why would we expand ArbCom at a 50% threshhold, if we have a much higher threshhold for admins? Fifty percent seems awfully low - that means as many people oppose as support. <confused> Certainly would expect 2/3 consensus. Sandy (Talk) 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is selected by Jimbo, who himself gives due consideration of the candidates, after an advisory election, whereas an RfA that exceeds 80% rather automatically results in the candidate being made an administrator. Also, new admin candidates may be rather unknown and RfAs are no where near as well advertised and well known as the Arbcom elections; thus they require a surfeit of support to evaluate trustworthiness. With Arbcom, however, all remotely successful candidates are well-known established users, typically for years. There is probably not a candidate in the whole election who would intentionally try to mess up Wikipedia, and everyone who has a chance at Arbcom has a certain level of competence, though certain ones are more or less competent for this very high task. On RfA, however, there are regularly candidates who would be seriously dangerous to have as administrators, as well as candidates above 50% who have little clue about Wikipedia or administrative tasks. Arbcom elections are also more heated than the less important, less publicized RfAs with candidates who have not taken strong positions on anything; most RfAs pass with 95+% support —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Centrx - dont' like it, but appreciate it. Sandy (Talk) 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Some good points, but I'm with Sandy. In fact, I think it's the other way round: adminship is said to be "not a big deal", but ArbCom is a very big deal. I'd want 80-85% minimum. Tim Smith 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If Arbcom elections were conducted in the same way as RfA's, that would make sense (though because of its importance, it would never be conducted in the same way), but they are not similar. —Centrx→talk • 09:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
A little late for this. The elections page for this elction was created on 14 March 2006 at 00:38. Surely it would have made more sense to talk about posible expansion before this point rather than requireing the cadidates to run blind.Geni 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree - I imagine a lot of people would have voted differently if they had known such a low threshhold was in place. Sandy (Talk) 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Those voters could easily have read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006, which says, Jimbo favours running the elections in the same way that they were run last year, that is: All candidates with more 'support' votes than 'oppose' votes were eligible for the ArbCom. If there are more approvals than seats available, Jimbo will either expand the size of the committee or choose among the community approved candidates. Jimbo appointed candidates mostly in the order of the percentage of approval in the community. That language has been there explicitly since November 4 [12], and has been there implicitly since October 1 [13]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I read that: it says eligible. Sandy (Talk) 19:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Candidates are eligible if they're past the 50% threshold; Jimbo picks whoever he pleases from that pool. Same as last time. Or am I missing your meaning? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two different discussions here.
First, some people are surprised that this is really an approval process, and not an election. Anyone with 50% or better is approved by the community; then Jimbo choses from that group. But Jpgordon is correct, that is the same as last time. See the last bullet at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006.
The second discussion is about how many will be chosen. The current tranche needs four new ones, plus another slot was vacant. So everyone, or almost everyone, thought five would be chosen, and even with Jimbo's discretion, there were 4 - 8 who had way more support than the others. And three with positive support, but lagging the leaders, dropped out (plus a few others without 50% support).
But two things happened next. One ArbCom member resigned (or is in the process of). Looks like we will need 6. And Jimbo hints just above (and not for the first time), that he may be taking even more members. I'll guess: 9 new ArbCom members. Had the others known that there might be 9 instead of 5 slots, they might have stayed in. Jd2718 20:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing I'm confused about is that Jimbo says that anyone who withdrew might want to reconsider. (To be precise, he said "Anyone who has recently withdrawn on that basis might reconsider."). Does that mean that anyone who withdrew can re-enter? Would their vote counter have to be reset to zero or do you just reopen the voting page? Might this advantage the candidate in some way? I will note that the one withdrawn candidate "with more than 70% support" that Sandy mentions, mentioned other issues at User_talk:Voice_of_All#Withdrawing from ArbCom elections, and predicted that the support would go down to "60% or less probably". If a clear guideline isn't set here, we will probably have more of this "withdrawing" and "re-entering" in other elections. It needs to be made clear that this is an exception (if indeed it can be), and maybe discourage withdrawing as well (better to let the election run its course). Carcharoth 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it. It seems unlikely that anyone will, in fact, reenter. Chick Bowen 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with Geni above that it's a bit too late to talk about expansion. I also don't see a problem if some of the people who withdrew would put their name back in. I doubt it would influence much their percentage of support (and there is at leat a week more to go). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Though I doubt it'd make any difference, since Jimbo requests it, I believe I should "un-withdraw" for the election. I'm not sure how that would work, so I'd like comments from the "election officials" (by which I mean the neutral people looking over the process) on how to handle it; for instance, it may be a good idea to keep my page open a few extra days to compensate. I've asked Jimbo to comment as well. Also, I believe that since this is unprecedented so far, we could use a clear rule on this point for next year to prevent confusion. For what it's worth, if statistics are any guide, a candidate with more than 50% support would "miss" more support-votes than oppose-votes by being "inactive" for some time, thus it could only advantage a candidate that is already below the threshold and so doesn't have a chance anyway. (Radiant) 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
elections can't be extended since we will run into christmas and it will make a mess of apointments. I would consider this to be extraordinary circumstances thus any discusions on rules can wait until after the election has finished.Geni 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree elections can't/should not be extended. But I doubt one should worry so much about "new rules in these extraordinary circumstances". Radiant's support percentage will most likely not increase so much to put him in the top 5 where election is guaranteed, and neither will it probably drop too much, so then it will be at Jimbo's discretion anyway. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this has messed up the election. Insofar as it does not matter, the election does not matter because Jimmy Wales will select appropriate people. Insofar as the election is supposed to be advisory, the advice produced by the vote is not an accurate reflection of the preferences of Wikipedia editors. —Centrx→talk • 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would it not be an accurate reflection of the preferences of Wikipedia editors? The nice thing about open elections is that we can consider the entire context, including that people (mistakenly) tend to vote strategically even in cases where strategic voting makes no sense. :) In the case of those who withdrew and re-entered then clearly we can reflect on that and what it might have meant, etc. And finally, in terms of the numbers, I think it makes sense for me to take guidance from the breakdown of the votes, i.e. if the community has a list of 8 candidates with very strong approval, and then a big break in the percentages and then some approved candidates but not that high, then surely it would make sense for me to consider those 8 to be a natural breakpoint for expansion, etc. I think the best thing for people to do is simply consider: would I want this person to be on the arbcom, or not? Do I know this person well enough to have an opinion, or not? I don't intend to do anything shocking or controversial... the very ability of the arbcom to work with peace and love and firmness to guard our values of openness and quality editing depends on strong community support. We have some arbcom members with 90+% approval... that's wonderful because we know for sure these people can speak with a certain moral authority.--Jimbo Wales 01:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
oh man arguments over voter intentent. Well I supose it is a US tradition. Ok but long term I'd rather ban withdrawals althougher rather than allow unwithdrawals to become a regular thing.Geni 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Those who are considering ArbCom's future scalability and 'expansion' issues may want to contribute to this thread on the Village Pump Proposals. Thanks, Crum375 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If the point of the elections is more about a candidate's proportion of support to opposition, rather than who's got the biggest number of votes out of the total cast for all candidates, then surely withdrawing and re-entering wouldn't make that much of a difference - you'd expect the proportion of support to stay roughly the same. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is going to be a "big expansion" of ArbCom, does that mean that its processes are likely to change? At present, ArbCom votes are based on a majority of active, unrecused members (5/9, say). A larger ArbCom is likely to make this process slower (getting, say, 9/17 members to agree) unless we break the (larger) committee into smaller units - splitting the process into parallel workstreams (so, for example, we have "ArbCom A" and "ArbCom B", each of which decides half the cases) or by task (so, for example, a subcommittee decides on opening case, and another actually decides the cases). Or perhaps empanelling "benches" of, say, 5 or 7 Arcbom members to hear cases, chopping and changing the membership of the bench for each case on an ad hoc basis. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Approval voting isn't an accurate reflection of preference, quite simply in the first instance because it doesn't even elicit preferences, simply degree-of-preference-over-some-threshold. If one's preferences aren't simply binary (as most people's tend not to be), approval voting forces people to make a "strategic" choice about how many votes to cast, so it's not really fair to criticise people for doing so, or for doing so in a way one dislikes. (Or for doing so ineffectively, since tactical voting can be tricky at the best of times, never mind trying to strategise to a moving target, or perhaps to no target at all.) Imagine for example the dilemma of the person who feels that all of the candidates (or at least any of those in any danger of even being "approved", much less preferred) are perfectly acceptable (but nonetheless has an opinion as to which is the best), or the person who thinks none of them are unqualifiedly worthy of approval (but nonetheless has an opinion as to which is the 'least worst'). See the approval voting and preferential voting articles for the gory details (aren't online encyclopaedias handy?). If we persist with this method in future "elections" despite these... features, realize that we're making people's true preferences doubly ineffective. If the model is rather, RFA + JW as super-bureaucrat-with-copious-discretion, we could avoid avoid confusion of expectation by not using the term "election", with its connotations of "voting" and an electoral system by which people can be objectively seen to have "won" or "lost" (which terms people also persist in using, adding to said confusion). Alai 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this page remain protected?

The following discussion is crossposted:

Hi Thebainer. I've just come back from a wikibreak, and I was scrolling up and down Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote when I noticed an excessive amount of space between Daniel.Bryant's and Flcelloguy's candidate statements. I was going to go fix it, but the page was protected; you seem to have protected the page with the reason "main voting page for ArbCom election." Was someone disrupting it, or was this a pre-emptive protection? If it's the latter, would you consides semiprotecting? In addition to allowing copyedits from us non-admins, several candidates are non-admins, and if they want to withdraw, they should be able to edit the page. I'll crosspost this to the voting talkpage if you'd like. Picaroon9288 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This was a pre-emptive protection, as was applied to the equivalent page in the last elections, which was done in light of the importance of the page and the desire to keep it absolutely stable throughout the elections. There is not really any need to edit the page other than to move withdrawn candidates to the bottom section; with respect to the candidates, the statements have been copied directly from the candidate statements page and should really be complete and stable prior to the election. I appreciate that some people may disagree with having the page protected, and I would encourage you to crosspost at the talk page if you would like to do so, it's a topic worthy of discussion.
It seems Cyberjunkie has already noticed this request, shortly before I did, and made the edit. In the future you can use {{editprotected}} on the talk page and someone will be along shortly. Many admins have this page watched and there shouldn't be any significant delay in having edits made. --bainer (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of {{editprotected}}, but eliminating whitespace is such a minor issue that it almost seems like a waste of time to use the template on the talk page (in fact, the only reason I cared about it at all is not because of the aesthetic purposes, but because I kept blinking whenever I scrolled by it.) I'll cross post this beginning of a discussion momentarily. Picaroon9288 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

End crossposted

Anyways, I'd just like some other opinions on whether this page should remain full protected. Firstly, I count 9 out of 32 candidates as being non-sysops; if they withdraw, I think they should be able to move their statements from the Standing candidates to Withdrawn candidates sections of the page without having to wait for an admin to do it for them. Secondly, this is, after all, a wiki; it seems rather unwiki to lock pages to the majority of users unless there is vandalism, post-xfd recreation, or edit warring that needs to be halted. I completely understand Thebainer's view, but {{editprotected}} it still seems an unnecessary hassle for the other 99.96% of us (who might just have more important changes than clicking backspace twice!) Any thoughts? Picaroon9288 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything so pressing to fix on the page that would require general editability. Disruption of any sort to the election process could cast doubt onto the results, which I believe is the last thing anyone wants. I will have to side with Thebainer on this one, though I do understand where you're coming from, too. High-risk pages occasionally get preemptive protection, and the last thing Wikipedia needs is a vandalized graphic on its voting page (for example). -- nae'blis 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked people being unable to vote

As there are only a few days left, I thought it was possible that some people who might be blocked for a week or a few days (or even for 24 hours close to the end of the election) would be unable to vote (if they have not done so already). Is this a problem, or is it a case like that of criminals being unable to vote? ie. If you are blocked, you can't vote until the block ends, and if your block runs until the end of the election and you haven't voted yet, tough. I would say that if a particular user seems reasonable and regrets the actions leading to a block, and wants to vote, and asks to be unblocked, it seems reasonable. ie. Treat on a case-by-case basis. Sorry if this is a solution looking for a problem! :-) Carcharoth 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are blocked for the duration of the election you can't vote because blocked users are not allowed to edit.Geni 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Quick question then- what of a user who has voted before a year long ban ? The ban starts before end date of election, but the user has voted before being banned, does this vote count ? Haphar 15:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
de jure yes. De facto up to Jimbo.Geni 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaigning

A user whom I'm in dispute with ([14]) and who has been attacking me in edit summaries ([15]) has made this campaigning message about me [16]. The message is mostly neutral but the intent is clearly not. FYI. (Radiant) 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that as well. I was fooled into thinking he was asking people to vote for you. I see from the evidence you've provided that the opposite might have been the intent. Hmm. Carcharoth 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentially, while we are on the topic of campaigning, I wonder what is to stop extensive campaigning outside of Wikipedia. I'm thinking mainly of IRC (I've heard rumours that campaigning goes on there), but also other venues as well. People e-mailing "wiki-friends" for support, etc. There has also been more obvious campigning on the actual vote pages, and some discussions at individual talk pages. Is it a case of pretty much anything goes, or are some things frowned upon? Could this sort of thing explain the disparity in voting patterns (with some candidates getting more "single" votes than others) or is this purely down to some people only voting for a few people and ignoring the rest? Carcharoth 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've not seen any significant campaining in IRC. The different vote totals are to a large degree to do with the name reconition.Geni 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose 'Can't sleep, clown will eat me' is recognisable! :-) Though that can, of course, work both ways. Carcharoth 14:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Rumours, Carcharoth? Cite reliable sources! Silliness aside, campaigning doesn't seem to be a big deal around here. Sure, there's been some user page endorsements, not to mention the issue Radiant! mentioned, but I haven't yet seen "Lorem Ipsum Vote for Arbcom Candidate! 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)" Similarly, I rarely actually see those custom candidate banners that were brought up once; they haven't exactly spread to a ton of user pages (which is good, IMO.) Campaigning seems to be, by and large, a non-issue. Jimbo is certainly capable of taking into consideration a few isolated incidents of it. •Þicaroon• 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I should cite where I read that. Give me a moment... Ah. Here we are: [17]. The full discussion is here. I've never used IRC for any Wikipedia-related purposes, so I don't know what really goes on there. I guess I should probably just take a look to see what really does happen. If that was just an isolated incident, then fine. Carcharoth 11:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You can't stop people from talking about the elections, if that's what they want to do. It would also be difficult to draw a line between endorsements and campaigning, so I think there's really nothing that can be done about it (if anything even should be done about it). I'm in favour of letting the voters apportion scorn to those who display excessive hubris during election season. --bainer (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What do people talk about on IRC? sex mostly. Copyright law a bit.Geni 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Okey a bit more seriously whatever people feel like talking about at the time #wikipedia tends to be pretty offtopic.Geni 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on a vote page

Geogre's vote page history shows an edit war developing. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Geogre. On 11 December, Ben Aveling added this, which Cyde on 14 December removed to the talk page. Then Giano reverted Cyde. I also left a message on Ben Aveling's talk page. My view is that something needs to be done when people feel moved to comment on a vote that they think is misleading, or distorting things. My personal view is that Cyde's initial comment was misleading, and this is particularly unfortunate in this sort of election where people reading the other votes do find themselves being swayed by what other people say. Quite what to do about it, I don't know. Simply forbid any comments at all next time and direct all discussion to the talk page? That would be simplest. Carcharoth 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The previous history of the response to Cyde's comment can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Geogre. Carcharoth 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Carcharoth suggested "Simply forbid any comments at all next time and direct all discussion to the talk page?" I think that is overkill. Most comments are informative, brief, and are clearly opinions. I agree that this comment (and from what I can tell, only this comment) falls in a different category. I think that the current situation (Ben's response sitting there) is fair and reasonable.
One problem with bringing all comments to a talk page would be that there would be fewer comments, most users would be discouraged from making them, but those who did would likely make their comments much longer and more complicated. Currently, I think the comments are useful and easy to read. We would lose that. Jd2718 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a symptom of trying to use an RFA-style poll while retaining almost none of its benefits. If we must continue to use an open, nonsecret poll, with the voters encouraged to comment with their vote, but threaded comments are impermissible, I suggest the following:
  1. If threaded replies are moved to the talk page, always, always leave a note that replies are on the talk page.
  2. If there's just one reply, leave it instead of moving it. It won't take up significantly more room than the "moved to talk page" text.
Thus, we could end up with:
  1. Oppose. JoeCandidate vandalized User talk:Newbie42 [diff], is blocked on Wiktionary as a sockpuppet of Primetime, and edit warred to replace Criticism of Wal-Mart with a copyvio advertisement directly from Wal-Mart's web page complete with yellow smiley face. --User:ObviousTroll 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    That was 192.168.10.12 (talk • contribs) who put Image:Autofellatio 3 into Template:Welcome9 just before I substed it, wikt:JoeCandidate isn't me, I've never even edited Criticism of Wal-Mart, and I hate smiley faces. --User:JoeCandidate 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
or
  1. Oppose. JoeCandidate vandalized User talk:Newbie42 [diff], is blocked on Wiktionary as a sockpuppet of Primetime, and edit warred to replace Criticism of Wal-Mart with a copyvio advertisement directly from Wal-Mart's web page complete with yellow smiley face. --User:ObviousTroll 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Threaded comments moved to talk page. --User:NeutralElectionObserver 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
but never just the deliberately inaccurate oppose. —Cryptic 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I endorse Cryptic's suggestion. Makes sense, plus we would rarely have to move comments. Jd2718 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This was a daft choice for a format in the first place. It effectively gives voters (for or against) a free opportunity to say whatever they like, however false or misleading (a half truth is a whole lie), with no effective right to comment or reply. Yes, the talk page: but why are we separating the initial comments from the responses?

Either no comments should be allowed in the voting section, with all comments and replies relegated to another section or the talk page, or a response to the comments made with the votes should be permitted. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Seats

Please excuse me, gentlemen, but how many seats upon the Arbitration Committee are "up for election?"--Anglius 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

At least six. See #Expansion, above. -Will Beback · † · 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I thank you, sir.--Anglius 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting pages

Is someone ready to protect them all? Do we protect the talk pages as an archive as well, or else let them run free even after the election has closed? Do we discount votes after the deadline (and rollback), or do what happens at RfA and leave them? Just a few questions, as it is getting "tight-at-the-top", so to speak. Even though Jimbo isn't proscribed to take the top candidates, tradition says he probably will (the only time he doesn't is to reappoint, and no outgoing ArbCom members ran this year). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm preparing to protect them all in about 42 minutes when voting ends. There's no reason they should be editing once voting is over, and there is always the talk page if discussion is necessary. --bainer (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There may be some double votes or non-franchise votes to be cleaned up before the tally is final. -Will Beback · † · 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There's no unmarked non-suffrage votes that I see, other than the two reinstated by the candidate in this edit. The only double votes remaining are Bubba ditto's on Blnguyen's candidacy and Kiwidude's on Will Beback's; each is a split between support and oppose, and so should have no net effect. —Cryptic 00:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for monitoring the votes. -Will Beback · † · 01:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Last time, Jimbo appointed based on percentages, didn't he? So wouldn't the split support/oppose votes only not have an effect if the voting was 50/50? If the voting was, say 3 in favor and 2 against, the percentage is 60%. If User:Lorem Ipsum adds a support and an oppose, then it becomes 4 and 3, or 57%. Therefore, resolution of split votes is needed, is it not? Picaroon 02:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be absolutely true if there were just a handful of people voting, but with most of the candidates having had a total of 200-300 votes cast, the issue is not realistically going to matter as much. As a tangentially relevant aside on parliamentary double-voting in the real world, see [18]. Newyorkbrad 03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Geogre's vote now is 182 - 106, or 63.19%. Had you snuck in an extra support and an extra oppose at the wire, his percentage would have fallen to 63.10%, hardly enough of a difference to make a difference. Better to get it right, of course, but no need to worry too much over this one. Jd2718 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am dismayed to see that the method of calculating the final result has not been explicitly discussed prior to the election. I assumed that this was a simple arithmetic result: Support votes minus Oppose votes equals the candidate's score. The candidate with the highest score wins. Axl 08:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It was explicitly stated: see here, where "same as last year" is expanded to say: "All candidates with more 'support' votes than 'oppose' votes were eligible for the ArbCom. If there are more approvals than seats available, Jimbo will either expand the size of the committee or choose among the community approved candidates. Jimbo appointed candidates mostly in the order of the percentage of approval in the community." Note particularly that last bit: in the order of the percentage of approval in the community. Carcharoth 10:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • However, note that is an observation of what happened, not a statement made by Jimbo. One could similarly observe that Jimbo appointed candidates mostly in the order of greatest "support minus oppose" scores. If you do the math, that turns out to be the case. (Radiant) 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, Jimbo explicitly stated that he had used percentages: [19]. Conscious 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Which is just a description of what he did do on that occasion, not a commitment to use that method again. (There was no such prior commitment on that occasion, either, though there were certainly (prior) requests for one.) Also note the "mostly": the vacant seats were appointed in percentage-ranked-approvedness order, then there were the "expansion reappointments", which did not follow that pattern. Alai 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia_talk%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006_Vote_77fd.html"