Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007: edit · history · watch · refresh

Preparations for Voting phase:

  • Final checks complete.

Contents

[edit] Change for next year

Overall last year's elections went smoothly. However, one thing I believe we should be stricter in next year is moving voter's comments to the talk page. It's probably best to move all such comments, but especially comments that are rather lengthy or contain diffs should be moved. The reason is that some opposers tend to use these to cast the candidate in bad light by give a one-sided view of a situation he was involved in, in a manner that the candidate cannot really respond to on the voting page. Voters that feel the need to write a long story about the candidate tend to be people with an axe to grind, anyway. It would be easy to construct a bot to do the moving. >Radiant< 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While I do think there needs to be some change in format to make it easier for voters to get through all of the material, I don't think it is fair to focus on comments by "oppose" voters. Candidates and their supporters also tend to have a "one-sided view" and may also have an "axe to grind". It's ok to have a "one-sided view" in elections, because if you support (or oppose) someone, you want them to get elected (or not) and you say why. The difference between a well-reasoned, thought-out, factually based opinion, and "axe-grinding", often comes down to whether one agrees with the opinion or not. Lengthy essays and comments that go "over the line" are a different story, as they pose issues of readability and disruption, respectively, and those are valid issues. 6SJ7 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that's why I said all comments should be moved, not just the opposing ones. The point is that vote comments can be (and are) used to give lopsided views of the situation that cannot practically be responded to. >Radiant< 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

  1. I would like to see a bot alert editors to potential problems, such as lack of sufferage or overlong responses. Editors seemed good at catching sufferage problems, but it would also be good work for bot.
  2. I tend to agree with Radiant! that long criticisms and/or endorsements should go to the talk page, or maybe an all new "discussion" page. Maybe we could have a rule that the !votes have to be limited to 30 words or something, and may include a link to a longer statement on the talk and/or discussion page.

Thanks, TheronJ 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That has been the defacto situation in the past although the limit was probably less than 30 words.Geni 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (2) has never been the de facto situation to my knowledge, although it is a good idea for the future. I should add that any criticism or endorsement containing a link or diff should automatically be moved as well. That way the candidate can explain himself on the talk page if necessary. >Radiant< 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see the value of the word limit but I'm not sure why there should be an outright ban on brief explanations for why someone is supporting or opposing. Maybe some with more experience of ArbCom elections could explain what prob these caused in the past - old voting pages don't look unduly long... Also, why the objections to diffs/links. Surely "Oppose. Due to [diff]... " isn't a disruptive comment? WjBscribe 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, because if the candidate (or his supporters) disagree with that rationale, they can't question it, since threaded discussion is (from my knowledge) prohibited on the voting page itself. At RFA, rationales may be questioned and threaded discussion is allowed, since it is not a vote but a discussion. The ArbCom elections are a vote, and allowing opposers to give a detailed rationale but disallowing supporters to question that rationale creates a one-sided view of the candidate. I agree with Radiant! here. Melsaran (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard-line view on commentary

I agree totally with Radiant! here, and suggest limiting it to signatures and timestamp only. One candidate, who was eventually successful, almost was not appointed after his vote went from >95% to <85% in the space of six hours, due to a user posting a patently false comment on the voting page which led to a pile-on in opposes before it was removed. The candidate couldn't reply, and it led to a very bad situation. Daniel 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just let the candidate respond to opposes as they see fit? If the opposer wants to make a further comment in response to the reply, it can be moved to the talk page. Picaroon (t) 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought voting was evil? 86.29.44.23 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope.... Daniel 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So voting is fine for elections, but not for RfAs? Weird, 86.29.44.23 01:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess it'd be too controversial to have discussions, where there's 30+ candidates trying to get 5 or 6 spots. And I don't think Jimbo would appreciate the whinging etc. that would come with having to decide. Daniel 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither the Arbcom elections nor RFA is a "vote" in the sense that the outcome is binding. RFA is a means to help the bureaucrats determine community consensus to promote; the ArbCom elections are the means by which Jimbo assesses community views about candidates (since he can't possibly know them all). Jimbo is not bound by the results and can appoint anyone he wants no matter what the vote count is. Thatcher131 04:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I am pretty sure that last year, Jimbo chose to appoint those who had the highest percentages in favor, without exception. (I realize that the year before, he skipped one or two.) It is therefore clear that he is inclined to go with the results of the election unless he sees a good reason to the contrary. And it therefore follows that the votes DO mean something, if only because Jimbo has decided that they do. It is not simply a discussion. 6SJ7 06:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to the process of ArbCom elections but I'm finding the opposition to a comment/diff being added to a vote puzzling. I agree we shouldn't be allowing vast diatribes but it doesn't seem unreasonable for people to add a sentence explaining why they support or oppose the candidate. WjBscribe 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WJBscribe, in that someone may have a serious reason for opposition that they wish to bring to the communities attention, allowing a small sentance to clarify a vote would allow them to do that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember this being a serious problem on several pages last year. Some of the context for the worst case, and my preferred solution, can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote#Edit war on a vote page. Strict limitation to a signature and a timestamp is also acceptable. However, the ad-hoc practice last year of moving comments only when someone arbitrarily decided they were too long, or only moving rebuttals with no indication that a rebuttal had been made, was disastrous. This is something we very badly need to hammer out beforehand. —Cryptic 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic brings up an excellent point. As I review previous ArbCom elections, they appear very contentious, and I can see clearly that people would resort to edit warring over theirs or others comments. We either need a maximum characters limit or a limitation to only one's timestamp and user name. --Iamunknown 05:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I am in favour of a username and timestamp only system, with comments moved elsewhere, for the reasons outlined above by Radiant, Daniel and Cryptic. If it means we have to forbid probably harmless comments like WJB's "oppose due to [diff]" to avoid big fights and arguments, so be it. – Steel 15:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WHile I realise it would result in duplication, how about we split the difference, and have the "main page" list ID and timestamp, and the talkpage list comments? In other words, instruct every "voter" that they need to vote at both places, but that adding comments, while optional on the talk page, isn't allowed on the main page.

Else, I'm opposed to not allowing at least "some" comments in the process.

Also, I don't see any reason to disallow cantidates responding to comments, though that would obviously be smarter to have on the talk page, though similar to an RfC or an RfAr:

== response to so-n-so ==

or something similar. - jc37 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be difficult, to say the least, to keep in sync. Many users will vote only on the main page no matter what the instructions say; should we then paste their sig/timestamp onto the talk page? (Obvious answer: Sure, why not?) And when they vote only on the main page but with a comment, should we then remove the comment, and past the comment/sig/timestamp onto talk? (Obvious answer: Of course!) But, how does is this final result superior to just having all comments on talk? There are obvious drawbacks: for instance, we need to deal with people who only vote on the talk page, or worse, change their vote only on talk or on main, but not both. This will absolutely result in errors and almost certainly in frayed tempers.

Now, the reality is that no matter what the instructions say, people are going to comment on the main voting pages, just as they do on other polls throughout Wikipedia, and other people are going to reply to them. Our options are:

  1. Do nothing - allow threaded comments to form. This has the advantage of needing the least maintenance, but will be hard to edit and distracting to view.
  2. Allow comment, move replies to talk. Previous arbcom elections, especially last year's, show that this is a recipe for disaster.
  3. Allow comment, move replies to talk, leave an indented comment saying there are rebuttals on talk. Midway between #1 and #2 in all respects. Still has the problem of deciding where the cutoff between "oppose due to this edit [diff]" and "oppose due to [four paragraphs of ranting]".
  4. Limit comment to N words or characters, move replies to talk, leaving notice of rebuttals: More impartial than #3, but requires more work to maintain, and will still spawn complaints about how the other guy's comments were left in place.
  5. Allow only a sig and timestamp. Totally impartial, but will require extensive maintenance, as most everyone will try to leave a comment anyway. (Trolls who try to say stuff like "He eats babies!" is part of their sig can of course be stomped normally.)
  6. Use the old Special:Boardvote software (not the current version which just redirects to an external site). All the advantage of #5, except it doesn't allow folks to see how other people voted. (Whether this is truly an advantage is a totally different question.) Plus, there's no maintenance to speak of.
Of these all, I only find #2 to be totally unacceptable. Sadly, it's exactly the situation we're looking at right now. —Cryptic 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think 3 combined with 4 would be fine, and likely non-controversial. - jc37 03:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. 3 + 4. I find 5 and 6 unacceptable, as they would tend to reduce discussion within the community. And no to 2, per Cryptic. Jd2718 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Option three became essentially the de facto best practice last year, if memory serves me correctly. A number of people did this and it seemed to work pretty well. --bainer (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest a standard simple explanation: Oppose, see my comments at the talk page. The candidate would only place an indented comment in the vote page saying: Replied on the talk page. I think that would promote discussion where it belongs, in the talk page. Users would then create their own section in the talk page for direct discussion with the candidate, allowing for steady threads and providing enough space to provide evidence and comments as they wish. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Those of you who have concluded that this section licenses you to delete comments from their contextual location are grossly mistaken. This section merely contains some meandering thoughts and much unhappiness at the suggestion. Please stop over-clerking the issue and leave editors to their own devices. Splash - tk 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There were serious concerns raised over last year's elections, and users wanted changes implemented for this year. As you can see, a user suggested #3 and #4, various users supported it, no one opposed. If you're opposing now, I understand your view, and we've relaxed on this somewhat because of the concerns raised, but arguing for a free-for-all which has been determined to be disruptive and confusing is not the way to go. I admit that it's fault is that the discussion was held already into the nominations, too late to garner interest from many users. However, that doesn't preclude a good-faith effort to improve on bad experiences. Additionally, most of the community was aware of the upcoming elections and nominations, and the instructions were there to read. No one came to this page to offer changes or suggestions, so we all assumed it would proceed as normal, with acceptable opposition. But I've only seen strong opposition from relatively few users, and so far we haven't had a major issues in the elections, thankfully, given the somewhat tense environment these past few weeks. Keep in mind that people are arguing because they can't write whatever they want, how long they want in just one specific page. The election process offers numerous talk pages to express your views, and believe me they all receive exposure and are all read. Your votes still counts, and your opinion is still heard.
There you are wrong, though. My vote is no longer on the page in question at all, because it was not allowed to have an opinion attached to it. I do not believe that they all receive exposure and read, either. Jimbo isn't going to read all that lot on the talk pages. Splash - tk 01:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that most of the electoral process has already run smoothly. I'm content with the fact that everyone has gotten along pretty well. If sufficient users really object, then we'll chill, as PMAnderson adequately suggested. I personally won't bother to move extended comments to the vote page, unless they are threaded discussions. I apologize for the confusion this brought on, but please acknowledge that it was made in good faith.
So I suggest we continue to focus on the election on hand, there's just 9 days left! After that, we can start discussion on the next elections with a good head start. (keep in mind, however, that this discussion actually started in January 2007). - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Asking permission to move comments, or abridge them, is perfectly reasonable, and to be encouraged. There is a case for brevity; and no one questions that the proposers have a genuine and valid concern. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts and suggestions

I dunno. One thing that wasn't dealt with of #4 was "how much text" is ok. I've gone through all Splash's comments/"Votes" (or at least the ones grouped in contributions), and the ones I've seen haven't been that lengthy. (The one to NYB being the longest.) I thought that the spirit of this was to avoid lengthy threading, not to entirely remove comments if they go over 2 sentences (the length of which also seems to be arbitrary). If we want to set a finite character length, fine, but let's do that, and rid ourselves of this continuing controversy/disruption. For comparison, Splash's lengthiest comment was 421 characters, including spaces, but not including support/oppose (and bolding quotes) or signature.

I think the rules should be:

  • No more than 1000 characters in a response, including support/oppose (since users can at times be creative with this).
  • Cantidates are allowed a single comment/response of 1000 characters.
  • Users warned that anything over this limit will be truncated.
  • Further threading is moved to talk page (with the initial comment and response copied, not moved).
  • (Optional) - Signature reduced to whatever the current default is.

Obviously 1000 characters is negotiable, but that still isn't "that" long.

(1000 characters with spaces):

  • 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789

And if length is a concern, signatures are probably as well, but I don't hold a strong opinion on that. - jc37 02:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Signatures shouldn't count, some are quite elaborate. 1000 seems reasonable, enough to address even the most detailed concerns. This is a good start, and hopefully won't end here. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please consider this comment, made in a very different context. Wikipedia has too many rules, which too many people are out to enforce. There's nothing wrong with asking people to summarize if they go over 500 or 1000 characters, but this is a solution in search of a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid Questions

Are there any qualifications (other than editor in good standing) to be an arbcomm candidate? And what are the sufferage requirements (generally)? --Rocksanddirt 22:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

to run is generaly 1000+ edits. To vote is normaly a bit over 100.Geni 23:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If you're not an admin and have less than 5000 edits, you can forget it, I think. There's not really a high requirement to apply, but there is a high requirement to pass (about 85% support last year). Melsaran (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations

Last year we started accepting nominations on October 1, 2006. Presumably it's the same thing this year, unless Jimbo or the committee says otherwise. I'll create the nominations page, copying last years format (I have no intentions to run). Picaroon (t) 02:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back to Nov 1; while last year's page said Oct 1, the first statements only came in Nov 1. Might as well reflect this trend Picaroon (t) 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

The page says the elected arbitrators will join Tranche Alpha - is that just naming and the terms expire in 2010, or does it imply something different? Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, purely naming - they're not like Alpha Dogs or anything :) Daniel 11:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Six or five?

There's six strings in Alpha, as opposed to five for Beta and Gamma. The sixth was occupied briefly by Essjay. Any ideas of it'll be six electees or five from this election? Daniel 11:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's six, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't think Essjay's seat is going to be completely "abolished". Maxim(talk) (contributions) 11:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Depends on if any seats in other strings are taken. (Will flcelloguy's seat be treated as filiocht's last year? Maybe, maybe not) Wizardman 15:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And it also depends on Jimbo's decisions to appoint. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 15:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007's case workload - reference for potential candidates

If any one is considering running and is wondering what the workload would be like, see User:Picaroon/Stats for case statistics in 2007. I'm not trying to scare anyone, but if you are appointed, it is hoped you will participate actively, and that means reading over and voting in most of the ~8 cases a month. If you fail to do so, the clerks break out the cattle prods - and that's never pretty. Picaroon (t) 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things to do

Well the time is coming soon, should we start getting some pages organised for candidate statements to go on and the process for which users can enter the election? E.g. start gathering nomination templates, instructions for entry and eligability for voting? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is basically how it worked last year:

  • Nominations start Nov 1. You have to 1000 edits or more on enwiki by this day to run. Blocked/banned users may not run.
  • Candidates place a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote. 400 words or less. Link to a longer statement in your userspace if you want.
  • Candidates create their own subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Username and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Username. Copy&paste statements to top of both of these pages.
  • People ask questions, using level 2 headers, at that page, and candidate responds (or doesn't) as they feel best.
  • On Dec 1, nominations are no longer accepted.
  • Voting begins same day at the /Vote/Username pages. Supports and opposes only, no neutrals. Keep reasoning brief, link to longer comment on talk page if you must.
  • You must have 150 mainspace edits before Dec 1 to vote. You may only vote once per candidate, and not for yourself. Possible sockpuppet votes should be listed on this page for investigation. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite and explain why their vote has been indented. If you want to withdraw your candidacy, place archive templates on your voting page and move your section on /Vote to #Withdrawn candidates.
  • Voting ends on Dec 15. Jimbo comes along and decides the result. Everybody lives happily ever after. The end.

How's that? Picaroon (t) 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not just a pretty face Picaroon! :-) I'll get on with it tomorrow! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about 150 mainspace edits before Dec 1 to be able to vote. That raises both the sock and high inexperience problem. I really think it should be 150 before Oct 1 (or at least Nov 1)... WjBscribe 01:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
candidates do not place their statements on the vote page that is done by whoever volenteers to run the thing.Geni 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh and voteing begins on the third so we have the weekend free to make sure all the voteing pages are in place and people can ask last minute questions and the like.Geni 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threshold to vote

Last year the requirement was 150 edits to vote and accounts created before Oct 1. Those seem generally sensible, but I was wondering if we should exclude the sandbox and User:/User talk: namespaces from that? Anyone have thoughts on changes to the standing requirements for voters? WjBscribe 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me, all users participating should have an understanding of what they are participating in. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Way to complicated to run edit counts on. Let's just make it 150 mainspace. Picaroon (t) 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
the requirment is there simply to make it hard to use socks. Beyond that pretty much anyone can vote.Geni 02:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of moving the threshold up to 500 or something, since people with edit counts below that (newbies) usually don't have any idea of what's going on in Wikipedia politics, so users with less than 500 edits who vote for ArbCom candidates are usually either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I'm not that comfortable looking at the edits per mainspace, though, because that would take a lot of time to check. Melsaran (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
rather less trouble than it used to be and in the past we have had people with a legit interest with less than 150 edits.Geni 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but things like AWB can make 150 edits seem trivial. I'm not sure that even 1000 may be enough for that. But that said, I vaguely remember that the board vote requirement was 400 edits? That would seem to be a good number. - jc37 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I would also support moving the threshold up to 400 or 500, on the principle that people need to understand what they're voting on, and we want to keep the various types of puppets out. While I don't like the idea of keeping out someone who understands, but has a low edit count, I just have a hard time believing someone with a low edit count has really participated on WP enough to understand much about policies. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the sounds of this. I'm a lurker that has been here for over 2 years and I read discussions on the wiki every day, but don't participate that often. I probably have less than 200 edits, but I probably know more about things around here than people with 10,000 edits. I have a boring job and I tend to read AN, AN/I and ARBCom cases (and everything that goes along with that), but I just don't have the "want-to" to participate that much. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions and I think I know what's best for the project. I could easily run a script to get 500 edits, but why should I have to? --SGT Tex 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A person could have made thousands of edits under an IP before registering for an account. I'm concerned about the number of "people with < X edits are probably socks / newbies" type comments here. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, doesn't X main space edits favour edit warriors and disadvantage people who use the talk pages? Someone with 100 main space edits and 150 article talk space edits might be a better contributor than someone with 250 main space edits. I guess including article and article-talk page edits is too tricky? Dan Beale-Cocks 21:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a simple rule in place to reduce the likelihood of newly created sockpuppets. We didn't want to go overboard with the limits. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gap?

Any reason why there's a 4 day gap between the nominations closing, and the voting starting? – Aillema 02:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I was just about to ask that :) I think that preparations for it need to be done, not too sure though. Majorly (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see Geni answered above. Nevermind :) – Aillema 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Should be 2 days close dec 1st open on third but someone fiddled with the dates.Geni 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote

We are three days away before candidacies start, and the Vote page has a message reading Rules are still being worked out[1]. I think we should go ahead and draft the instructions to follow now, so that when users start accessing the candidacies they'll also see that the whole election process has been duly designed and ready for implementation. I just don't want users questioning the integrity of the process by alleging it's incomplete. Thoughts? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You (or anyone) can write something up now. Take a look at last year's procedure for guidelines. Majorly (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. I was posting here so everyone would know. I don't have much time right now, but I'll give it a shot later tonight. Anyone who wants to give it a shot is welcome. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I think a simple template to navigate through the sub-pages and sub-talk pages could help. Anyone interested in the task? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I created the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Election status template which links the most important pages. Users can navigate using this template. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlists

Is this going to advertised on watchlists, like last year? First calling users to stand, then to vote. Majorly (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is; it just appeared in mine. Acalamari 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I just bugged an admin to :) Majorly (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You're fast. (:-) - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I was waiting :) Majorly (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate presuming questions

Secret (talk · contribs) copied and pasted questions from another candidate's page.[2] This is disclosed, but I think it's a misrepresentation because we have no way of knowing if those people wanted to ask Secret those questions. Secret, whether intentionally or not, has prevented others from placing tough questions near the top of the page where more people would see them. I am objecting and suggest that the page be deleted, and everyone listed be notified so they can repost their own question. - Jehochman Talk 08:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting seems unnecessary. I am, however, requiring the removal of the questions he copied until the users who made them give permission. He/she would then post them at the bottom, since the questions you and other users asked directly to him were posted first. I believe his actions were made in good faith, following the RfA trend of self-asking the most common questions, but since these are included with the authors' names (and their signatures), we need their permission first. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds perfect. - Jehochman Talk 10:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is total process wonkery, at least with my questions. It's obvious every candidate was going to be asked them, and to suggest removing them so as to not "prevent others from placing tough questions at the top of the page where more people will see them" is ridiculous. Only a fool wouldn't bother reading the whole page before voting, so it doesn't matter. I haven't checked the page, but if my questions were removed, I'd like them added back. Majorly (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it too late, or unwise, to make a "questions for all candidates" page that could be subst'd in as new subpages are made? — xaosflux Talk 16:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I copied the questions that was asked to everyone, I'll remove them if you like. Secret sup 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be unwise to do so unless you want to end up with candidates faceing an insane number of questions. The effort to ask every candidate a question should be enough to make sure that such questions are kept under control.Geni 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the questions. Sorry about that. Secret sup 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone, candidate or not, can copy mine to any other candidate's question area, and I do not care about the ordering chosen, or about my signature timestamp, in this particular case. If the candidate themselves wants to reorder mine after that happens, that's also OK by me. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joke noms

Endlessdan nomination seems like a joke, what's the best way to deal with these, as it is a very serious matter. Secret sup 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave them alone and assume good faith. It doesn't look like a joke to me anyway, more short and sweet. Majorly (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If you feel like my nomination is a joke, don't vote for me. Provided any nominee is civil and not disruptive, I feel any user can throw their hat into the ring. Do I expect to win? Not likely. But I'd like to be involved in the process. :) --EndlessDan 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should have a better statement, as that helps a lot in running, I'm for non-admins running for arbcom, but no one would take your statement seriously. Secret sup 18:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise, but I don't feel like I need to sell myself as being something I'm not. I'm more interested in the process of garnering votes and what-not. Do you have any idea of how many people actually nominate themselves? --EndlessDan 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone with over 1000 edits may run in whatever way they chose.Geni 19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Will there be a vote count? As in, will I be able to see how many votes I garnered? --EndlessDan 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Votes are public so you will be able to see how many support or oppose you.Geni 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks. --EndlessDan 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with their statement, as long as they answer the questions well. If only everyone politicked as little as this... east.718 at 19:45, 11/1/2007
If anyone nominates me, I'll block them for 4.5 seconds. :-) I'd rather have bamboo shoots stuck up my toenails than run for arbcom. Bearian 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, use integer block lengths only. There's a bug in the software that can cause users to be blocked for much longer than you expect if a non-integer is entered as the block length [3]; perhaps as much as several years, in theory. --ais523 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A very serious matter? Are you kidding me?--Burzum 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you can relax, Jbeach. After all, the U.S. has somehow survived the presidential candidacies of Pat Paulsen, Bill the Cat and Lester Maddox, though not necessarily in that order. (It's still an open question as to Stephen Colbert, of course.) I think Wikipedia can probably survive a joke candidacy or two. If people don't think a candidate is serious, they can vote for someone else. 6SJ7 04:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems like he admitted in one of the questions that he is running just because he is bored in work, now I'm 100% sure it's a joke and should be withdrawn. This is a Secret account 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Why should it be withdrawn? If you don't like this candidate don't for them, and do vote for someone else. And who's to say that (in the unlikely event of a win) this candidate is going to be bad? Dan Beale-Cocks 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New IRC channel

There is a new IRC channel for the arbcom elections at #arbcomelections Thanks Secret sup 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What would that be used for? IRC isn't Wikipedia (cliche: as we all know) and any meaningful discussion about the elections better be done here...RxS (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It was very active for the first week with most of the candidates who has IRC talking about the election process etc, but it's mostly dead now. This is a Secret account 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine it will begin to get busy again after the voting begins. Anthøny 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
And it is, less than an hour before elections, and a number of people are in the channel. This is a Secret account 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Now over 30 and a bot This is a Secret account 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note to the community

I will not stand for reelection to the Arbitration Committee next month, because of increasing obligations and opportunities in my life outside Wikipedia. I enjoyed my time on the committee, and will continue to be an active editor and administrator here and on the sister projects. I hope to use some of my time to work on new and innovative ideas for Arbitration, and will also probably be endorsing some candidates.

Good luck to all the contenders!

Warmest regards,

Neutralitytalk 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and best of luck on the opportunities. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of "me too," I am also not standing for election. Like Neutrality, my off-wiki responsibilities have multiplied. Arbitration requires time and energy that I simply cannot devote any longer. I wish the current crop of candidates the best of luck; you cannot imagine what you're getting yourselves into. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck to you as well Mackensen. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock candidate?

I know all candidates must have had at least 1000 edits by November 1. I'm a long-time user with lots of edits. But I have an idea that I might like to stand for ArbCom under an acknowledged alternative account, which only has some 200—300 edits. Haven't quite made up my mind ... but I might. This is not because I want to perform some sort of breaching experiment, but simply because the alternative account in question has a personality of its own, and is reasonably well-known on the wiki. In fact lots of people have been asking "it" to run. I would make the status of the account clear, of course. Would this be possible? These are my arguments for thinking it might/should be:

  1. that I—me— the individual behind both accounts—have some 20,000 edits, amassed as "Bishonen". I'm an experienced administrator, and that's a personal profile that stays with me when I use my sock (though the actual admin buttons don't).
  2. that everybody knows it's me anyway.

It goes without saying that the "Bishonen" account wouldn't run for ArbCom—not that very many people have been begging me to—snort. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC).

I personally think there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think it's a great idea, and I'd be proud to serve with Bishzilla. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Appointment to the Committee—just like a ban by the Committee—applies to an individual, not a particular account. Are you willing and able to serve on the Committee—via whatever account—should you be appointed following the election? If you are, then the semantics of accounts shouldn't matter too much. If you're not, however, then please don't waste everyone's time with a frivolous candidacy. Kirill 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll think about it for a day or two. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
Exactly. It's the same person behind Zilla and Shonen. Should it really matter which name runs? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The only reason to run under the non-primary account would be as a joke, for which there is no good reason to make any allowances or to alter, bend, or deliberate over rules. —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying there is a difference between Bishzilla and Bishonen? Even though it is the person, not the account, that is being elected to arbitrator? How would it be different if Bishonen ran instead of Bishzilla? Would Bishonen too be a joke, then? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If the candidacy is not a joke, then the person can run under the primary account. People asking whether a joke account would run is a joke, Bishonen asking for clarification or bending of the rules is a joke, running under a joke account at the request of jokesters would be a joke, and presumably you were joking when you said you would be proud to serve alongside a joke. —Centrx→talk • 19:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't jokng. Look at it this way. I would be proud to serve alongside Bishonen. I view Bishonen and Bishzilla as the same person. Logically, it follows that I would be proud to serve alongside Bishzilla, because once again, they're the same person.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Bishzilla is some sort of stupid monster. Are you saying Bishonen is a stupid monster? —Centrx→talk • 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Bishonen is a japanese boy. I'm some sort of police clown, and you're an energy products company. Do we really need to make ridiculous strawmen here?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes; and I am "double dog's cock" (thank you User:Yomangani of blessed memory). -- !! ?? 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I just spit Fresca out my nose. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Bishzilla (talk · contribs) has a good deal less tolerance for bullshit than the average arbitration candidate, and at this stage most supplicants need a damn good kicking more than dispute resolution anyways. An acknowledged alternative account running for arbcom is a novel proposal, but can think of no reasonable objection. If Bishzilla can gain the votes, then give the community what it wants. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"If Bishzilla can gain the votes, then give the community what it wants. " - I just had to say that I loved that statement : ) - jc37 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • [With dignity ] [Edit conflict] Little Mackensen wrong end stick. Bishzilla kindly and helpful! Protect little edit warriors! No mesozoic remedies! But 'Zilla consider new responsibility carefully. Never been on mailing list before, not learn much about e-mail in admin school. Difficult. Plus, already possess some unofficial influence. ['Zilla checks pocket, is pleased.] Little arbcom still shooting craps in there! Cute! bishzilla [still thinking about it] ROARR!! 12:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
Run under tha account with 1000 edits. Doesn't have to be the account you arbcom with.Geni 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, forget it. No, Centrx, Bishonen may be stupid, but not stupid enough to run for ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
What does that say about the rest of us? No, don't answer that.... Newyorkbrad 22:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on. Bishonen is a highly respected editor and admin and 'Zilla is just the no-nonsense, light-hearted, fire breathing side of her personality. The thinking behind 'Zilla is still the same, no matter how many verbs are omitted from the dialogue. The ArbCom would be lucky to have her (er, it?). It's the person we're voting for, not the screen name. --SGT Tex 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that Bishonen serving on Arbcom would be the best thing to happen to Wikipedia since...well ever. Regardless of the account...though 'zilla would be good. Those pages could do with a little more cyan. RxS 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I withdraw

I withdraw from the race, I'm going to start working soon, and all they need are more inactive candidates, I also didn't have much shot of winning. Thanks This is a Secret account 02:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, though; it's good to see many users apply for the available positions. Hope everything goes well in your new job. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you had more support than you think, but I'm very glad to see that you want what's best for the committee. Best of luck to you in your work.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Bleh I would have gotten no more than 30-40% support, solely because of Mzoli Meats. Work and college = lack of time :P. Thanks anyways This is a Secret account 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not running

I'd just like to announce that I won't be running for reelection this election. While I still enjoy the work, and find it interesting, it's been several weeks since I have been able to be active. I haven't recently even found much time for simply editing Wikipedia, much less the commitment necessary to be an effective arbitrator. - SimonP 17:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck to you, ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, best wishes and thanks for your years of thankless service! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankless, lonely, and unrecognized. Except for that little Time Magazine Person of the Year thing. :-) But more seriously, thanks for all your work. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age limit?

Should there be an 18 year old age minimum on arbitrators due to the sensitive information arbitrators have access to, as well as the potential access to the checkuser tool? Currently there is not, however given the gravity of the position I believe that it is sensible to include one. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already argued this point once with somebody involved with the enforcement of the resolution (with the same argument - they have access to sensitive private information when dealing with experienced user sockpuppet cases, eg. User:Runcorn, even if they don't have access to the tool themselves), and I was told that it was fine. Why? I have no idea. Daniel 05:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That should really be up to the community as we express our preferences. I note that you just interacted with NHRHS2010 who is a high school sophomore. Of far more interest is Messedrocker, 15, but with more experience and sharper answers than some of the others on this board. Last time out I voted no on every candidate under 18. But a) I don't know about this time, and b) I am not sure where to draw the line, if we draw the line. 18? Why not 17? 16? 21? If there were a legal issue, obviously that would trump all. But is there? Jd2718 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue is foundation:Resolution:Access to nonpublic data. Daniel 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And v1.1 of this resolution, m:Access to nonpublic data policy (see resolution updating/changing it). Daniel 05:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
They seem to make it fuzzy, twice (and fuzzier as the revisions go on). "which may include," and then the Board can waive any requirement anyhow. So unless/until someone powerful says "No" I will assume that all the candidates may be considered. This may be more of an issue, as I mentioned above, for Messedrocker. What next? Someone contacts the foundation? Jd2718 06:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the elections are a way for the community to give their opinion to Jimbo, who as I understand it makes the final decision, why not leave out any age limit and let the community make recommendations based on merit? Then, if there are legal (or even practical) reasons for an age limit, they can be dealt with at the Jimbo/Foundation level. --barneca (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What worries me is this statement: user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside.[4] But there are many underage users who have shown an incredible amount of maturity and knowledge within the project, they should at least be given the opportunity. I believe Jimbo and the Foundation will be aware of this situation (since, it is now documented here), and they'll make the proper determination. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, there shouldn't. Arbcom is a position that demands maturity, which is not the same thing as age. If someone acts mature, they are qualified if they are 15. If someone acts immaturely, they are unqualified if they are 45. This has been a long accepted principle, and a perfectly fine "right answer" to "how old are you?" a question that is often asked at RFA, for example, is always "old enough". Frankly, this proposal makes me worry about your understanding of some key Wikipedia principles. Let's take that at your candidacy Q&A page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hold on. User:Swatjester pointed to a good faith concern, which is also shared by several users and the Wikimedia Foundation. Although it allows for differences of opinion in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation's stance on generally not allowing minors to have access to private and sensitive information is quite serious. We are just discussing the effects this may have on the ArbCom elections. You may express your opinion on this matter as much as you like, but don't question another user's integrity just because they share different viewpoints. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't question his integrity. I'm not about to offer him some cash, I didn't block him, I didn't bring him up for RFC or RFAR. :-) But SwatJester is, however, a candidate for arbcom, and I believe it is appropriate to ask how his views on this will affect his actions as an arbitrator. I asked on that page. For what it's worth, I also believe that maturity is important, and there are plenty of immature young people. I was a strong supporter of WP:CHILD (back when it was controversial). But there is a way to say that, and the few sentences he started this section with aren't them. Let's see what he has to say on his candidacy page, where he can hopefully expound in more detail. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does everyone associate checkuser with arbcom? It's oversight that is given out, not checkuser. If the candidate is not old enough, they don't get it. If they are they do. Simple as that. 82.19.15.225 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oversight is also governed by the access to non-public data policy, and all oversights must be identified to the foundation and 18 years of age or older, exactly the same as checkuser. --Deskana (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As I just said. Someone can function as an arbitrator without having access. 82.19.15.225 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrators may still have access to non-public data though, just not of the sort that is goverened by the access to non-public data policy. Given Jimbo appoints the members, someone should ask him. --Deskana (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, you don't seem to understand the reasoning behind my argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with maturity, and everything to do with being of the legal age of majority. A person under 18 years old should not be given access to sensitive information that may involve legal action by the foundation. Checkuser is one of those things. So is ArbCom email list content. See Access to nonpublic data policy, which states that users must be personally identified to the foundation, including proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside. For indemnification purposes, we need our arbitrators to be 18. It's got nothing to do with their maturity level; immature candidates simply aren't going to be elected. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I did not know MessedRocker fit into this category as well, but that does not change anything. It applies just as equally to him. I singled out NHRHS2010 because his username rather plainly implies that he is under 18 years old. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If Arbcom were covered by the Wikimedia policy you link to, there wouldn't be a need to ask the question. It's not. Many Arbcom members neither have or want Checkuser permission. As for legal action, it's certainly true that the Arbcom list may discuss information that may have to do with legal action, but so can, say, an article talk page. Arbcom decisions absolutely do not bind Wikimedia to take any legal action. It's true that the Arbcom does its best to protect the Wikipedia, but then so do we all. Thanks for your answer, it clarifies your understanding. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom is indeed covered by the policy I link to, under the oversight section, and the fact that arbitrators are the ones that approve requests for oversight and checkuser. And I disagree with your argument about talk pages: Talk pages absolutely should not have anything to do with anything related to legal action, per WP:NLT. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
18 sounds like a good minimum age requirement, 30 would be a good voluntary minimum age requirement, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The confusion here seems to stem from the following confusion: arbitrators need not have access to the tool, but they will have access to the data. This is because notable sockpuppetry cases (eg. Runcorn) and the checkuser information associated is discussed on arbcom-l, and the checkusers must agree on the strength on the checkuser evidence (which requires access to the private data). Following the letter of the Foundation resolution (which can't be overriden by any form of "community consensus", but rather by the Board as a whole on individual cases), minors should not have access to any of the data associated with checkuser results, as they will if a case comes up.
The same applies for oversight, as there have been cases privately discussed by the Arbitration Committee which have involved oversighted edits as primary evidence (eg. TREYwiki). I think this is a very valid argument to be making, as the combination of a Foundation resolution specifically about this issue and private information (and its ramifications with the law therein) is one of importance and should not be "ignored" (to the extent that it can be by anyone not on the Board, per the Resolution). Daniel 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As a candidate in the election myself, I am reluctant to say too much on this page, but I suppose I can comment here briefly. I see no need or reason to impose a minimum age criterion for arbitrators. The Foundation policy restricting checkuser and oversight (and previously, steward) positions to those aged 18 or over is understandable, but still it represents a derogation from our guiding principle that all editors have equal rights and opportunities, and its application should not be expanded further. I believe the difference between an editor who is legally a minor exercising sole discretion over whether to access non-public checkuser data, and his or her participating in group decision-making as part of a committee of 15, is sufficient to distinguish the two positions. I would also strongly urge that unless it were somehow found to be absolutely legally necessary, which it should not be, the rules should not be substantially changed in the middle of the election. Newyorkbrad 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Insightful as always, Newyorkbrad. This makes a lot of sense. Ultimately the decision is Jimbo's but hopefully he will read this. I think I'll leave him a note. --Deskana (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no harm in leaving him a note, but by all means let's attempt to arrive at a community decision about the best course of action, in at least the first instance. If we're going to take JW at his not-a-God-King word (assuming we can work out what the distinction to that effect is actually supposed to mean in practice), we should be attempting to extrapolate from past practice (or consciously improve on it), not await input from on high. (Which further implies to me that it should ideally have a fully defined procedure set out in advance, and explicitly be an election in every sense, but that might be a tad radical at present.) On the material question, I agree with NYB: if people have concerns in this regard, they can factor it into their questioning of the candidates, and their decision as to which to approve. Alai 04:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on current practice: the Committee currently operates with the understanding that all members are eligible for access to restricted data under the Foundation policy, and such data is therefore openly shared. Kirill 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this require substantial "screening" of information if one or more arbitrators <18y were elected/appointed, then? If a change in AC procedures would be required, or if it would palpably impede the ability of such arbitrators to do the job they were supposed to be doing, then it might be prudent to ask all candidates about their eligiblity on a more formal basis, to avoid any appearance of an unintended result. Alai 04:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
We're currently discussing the various options; it would be premature for me to say, at this point, what the ultimate decision regarding eligibility will be. Kirill 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Decision on what, exactly? On who's eligible, or procedures for dealing with the non-eligible? I'm not asking about either of those, just for a stream-of-consciousness indication of how "big" an issue it'd be, if it did indeed arise. Alai 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
We're not entirely sure exactly how big of an issue it is (hence the ongoing discussion ;-), but suffice it to say that any need to significantly change the current practice would almost certainly have a substantial impact. Kirill 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Kirill, when you say we're currently discussing the various options, does this mean that the Committee is actively discussing this particular issue (both the age limit for the elections and the impact of having a minor serving in ArbCom)? As you can see from my timestamp, we're already halfway through the nomination process. I'd really like to see this issue resolved before the voting phase begins to avoid confusion. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does. We'll do our best to provide a more concrete answer before voting starts. Kirill 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it doesn't at all suffice to say. :) Would I be correct in guessing that such data doesn't arise in the majority of cases? Or am I being hopelessly optimisatic? While I'd personally have strong reservations about voting for anyone under 18, for these reasons and otherwise, I think it'd be undesirable to start "striking out" candidates at this fairly late stage; even more so for the AC to drop a bombshell midway through the voting, as MtM says; and worst of all if this arises afterwards, in the "Jimmy Wales cherry-picks, vetoes, or changes the groundrules of the election after the fact" phase of the operation. A detailed resolution of any change in process can wait (and the need may of course not actually arise in any case), but the community should really have some clarity from the AC as to the nature of the potential problem, before it starts picking pigs out of pokes. Alai 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Our own faults then, mine included, for not thinking of this sooner. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hopelessly, hopelessly optimistic. While it's true that a large portion of the formal RFAR cases don't involve such data, much of the other business the Committee deals with does. Kirill 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If imposing an age restriction is being seriously considered, then I would like to provide a great deal more input. Is this the appropriate place to do so? Newyorkbrad 11:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As good as any to start with. The problem: although we have had good arbitrators under 18 (Sam Korn did fine at age 16), the Foundation's recent data access policy would quite definitely cover quite a lot of the material that is routinely discussed by the arbcom in the course of its duties, even if individual arbitrators don't have personal access to checkuser. - David Gerard 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I could say quite a lot about this matter, and probably shall, but before I do so, I would like to understand more specifically what is the concern about having an arbitrator who is a minor exposed to this particular information. I understand there is a Foundation resolution and policy, but I have never been quite clear on exactly what the age-restriction aspect of the resolution was supposed to accomplish. I can intuit the purpose, particularly as applied to checkusers, but it's really never been spelled out with any clarity, and therefore I concede that I may be missing something. (And I can actually think or at least one rationale on my own that is stronger than I have seen articulated by anyone else, even though it is not dispositive.)

So I will ask it directly: From the point of view of either the Foundation or the Arbitration Committee, what specifically is the concern raised by the prospect of an arbitrator who is a minor having access to the information in question (especially, not even in the context of deciding whether to run a checkuser himself or herself, but in the context of having the information from the mailing list to consider in decision-making). Please note that "conformity with the Foundation resolution" is not an answer to this question, because the issue now presented is whether this community chooses to construe the resolution broadly or narrowly, a decision that must be informed by understanding the purposes the Foundation policy is intended to serve. If it were my decision, I would require a very powerful showing of reasons to believe that that having a minor as one member of the 15-member Arbitration Committee could raise problems for the Foundation or the encyclopedia, before I would be prepared to narrow the spectrum of the community from whom arbitrators can be drawn, or overrule the strong policy of this community in support of recognizing equal rights, obligations, and opportunities for every Wikipedian. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the reasoning for that aspect of the policy was, not being privy to the Foundation-level discussion of it; but I would hazard a guess that the intent is primarily related to the legal aspects of the WMF privacy policy. Requiring that users who can potentially violate that policy be over the age of consent presumably gives the Foundation better legal recourse should that policy be breached, as well as encouraging the victims of any such breach to take action against the party responsible rather than against the WMF itself. (But you're the legal expert here, so you're probably in a better position to judge whether this seems reasonable.)
As far as the Committee is concerned, I'm not aware of any issues with having a minor as an Arbitrator except for the matter of compliance with the Foundation policy (and the resulting impact on the rest of the Committee if we are forced to comply by filtering discussion). Kirill 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Will allow a few hours to see if any other concerns or background is added here before sharing some thoughts. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "AGE OF MAJORITY" is a good thing: There are significant time tested reasons why minors are, in fact, protected by the laws of the country that this discussion is indeed taking place. There are securities laws for minors and laws for voting rights. There are also laws which protect the people from the actions of minors, (e.g., age limits when running for public office.) We could discuss this topic, ad infinitum, but to say that minors should ever be given access to private and detailed personal information about anyone in the U.S. is quite frankly, patently absurd. Wisdom comes from experience and without same, it hardly could be argued that being smart is even a close second to the above. No doubt there are plenty of smart young people here, albeit each of us, with patience and understanding, can wait until our time has come. Songgarden 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No matter if there is an age limit or not, I withdrew myself from Arbitration Committee elections. I would be better off doing this when I'm 18. NHRHS2010 talk 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The question isn't so much whether it's a good idea to disclose private information to minors (or is that only in part, at least) as to what degree such non-disclosure would make it unworkable to have (or to be) an arbitatator in that situation. Alai (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the Foundation's "Access to nonpublic data policy", would prohibit sharing any such restricted data with an underage arbiter (Newyorkbrad are you suggesting that this interpretation is incorrect?) An arbiter would be unable to do their job responsibly under such a restriction. Paul August ☎ 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The resolution can be construed broadly or narrowly. I would have favored a narrow construction, particularly in the absence of an articulated reason supporting a broader one. There remains a major difference between a minor's being designated as a checkuser operator with sole authority to access the information, and a minor's serving as one member of a committee of 15, presumptively elected with overwhelming community support and then appointed by Jimbo Wales, who happens to receive it after the decision to pass it along is made by another specifically entrusted with the latter role. No reason for imposing such restriction has been suggested that strikes me as outweighing the infringement of the equality of editors implied by a policy limiting the community's choice of arbitrators. In saying this, I am mindful of the various ramifications of this decision, and understand what could have impelled it, but remain in disagreement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion

Resolved.

Just a heads up. I made a completeness check by reviewing Special:Prefix index page of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements. My check produced one user who had made a candidate statement but forgot to post it at the main candidates page, which I then properly included it (I left a message at his talk page, just to make sure he didn't just change his mind before posting it.) Anyone is welcome to make these types of checks, especially in the final week of nominations. We want to give the community ample opportunity to study the candidate and ask questions before the voting phase begins. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add other peoples candidate statements to the page. It's someones choice when and if they want to run, so it's upto them whether or not to transclude. By all means leave them a note, but please don't enter them in without input. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems fair. I've removed his subpage until he responds. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's for the best if I'm being honest, I'm just not sure that AGK's decided to run or not. I agree it's a good idea to do a prefix search and give people a prod that haven't transcluded yet. Thanks for sorting it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on disclosure of identity, and permissions

Related to that above discussion on age, you need to apparently be "legal age" to have Checkuser or get an exemption, but I'm curious if the arbiters have to disclose their identities (to Wikipedia's community, to Jimmy Wales, or to the ArbCom overall)? Or, are they anonymous as well? I assume if they are anonymous it just means that they wouldn't have access to the extra tools like Checkuser or Oversight, but could still serve as arbiters. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there is no restriction on the age of Arbitrators, although obviously those who choose to take on the Oversight and/or CheckUser permissions must be 18+. They also choose how little or much of their identities they disclose post-appointment, and the variation in this between that which they disclose to the ArbCom privately, and to the Community. At the bare minimum, they don't have to be 18 and they don't have to disclose any personal information. Anthøny 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Transparency. --bainer (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edidcount to vote

Last year, one had to have 150 total edits to vote; this year, that has been changed to 150 mainspace edits. Why was this changed?--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 12:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruling on age limit

It is the considered consensus of the Arbitration Committee that our working practices are incompatible with having a minor as a member of the Committee, and that any changes to facilitate this would be impractical and severely damage the effectiveness of the Arbitrators.

Specifically, a minor could not take part in discussion of or even be shown privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools, without violating the confines of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices. This is a significant part of the work of the Committee, and would result in, at best, a two-tier Arbitration Committee with some members unable to participate in, or even be aware of, most of the activity.

We understand that this will be a disappointment to several widely-respected members of the English Wikipedia community who would otherwise run, and accept that we have spent too long confirming 'officially' that this is the case.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

It will be a disappointment. I believe the next appropriate step is to notify those users of this decision and withdraw their nominations with appreciation for their effort after obtaining their feedback. I'm changing the wording of the election instructions to include this decision, so all users are aware. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just informed the two users I am aware are under 18 (Cbrown1023 and Messedrocker), plus some others I knew were considering a run at this; I'm afraid I don't know if there are any other users who are affected by this rule, and would greatly appreciate it if they could be informed if anyone is aware of someone I've missed.
James F. (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making the decision before the elections, and for (in my opinion, as I suggested above) making the right one.
A question: say someone who will be turning 18 (the age of legal majority) in January or February. Would their nomination be allowed to slip through (no, not me - enough badgering!) given being "off the mailing list" for a couple of months right at the start of their tenure isn't as disruptive as someone who could spend two or even all three years in the situation of not being able to digest private information? Daniel 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I imagine a slight staggering to the entry for an Arbitrator could be acceptable. New Arbitrators will have to get vetted which may take some time over the Christmas period (for obvious reasons), and a few weeks' delay before one or two were added to the list would not be impossible.
James F. (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait. This encyclopedia receives international participation and there may be conflicting views on the definition of a minor. What exactly is the official threshold? Is it 18 or 21 years of age? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's 18 or the legal age of majority at the place of ones' residence, whichever is higher. Daniel 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The exact language in the policy is "at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside." Paul August ☎ 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I was just copying that here. From my reading, both our comments mean (in practice) the exact same thing :) Daniel 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe they will honor the same age as outlined at wikimedia:Access to non-public data policy. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's the greater of 18 and the age of majority local to the individual concerned, as set out in the CheckUser policy. Sorry I didn't make this clear.
James F. (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all. I'll include this in the instructions. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is good that we have a clarification on this issue, but my personal view is that this change is not necessary or desirable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not clear on the necessity or desirability, but the need for prior clarity outweighs any reservation I might have on that, speaking personally. If the community is unhappy with this determination, it can be revisited for next year, hopefully in a more timely way with respect to the "electoral cycle". Alai (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Arbitration Committee members were appointed by Jimbo (based, at his discretion, on the "election" results.) Shouldn't it be he who decides what the qualifications are? Of course, the committee can make a recommendation to Jimbo, but that does not appear to be what is happening here. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is, from what I understand, active on the Committee's private mailing list. I would be surprised if he had no input into this decision. Daniel 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to make sense, given the growing number of arbitration cases that have involved private checkuser results, oversight information, etc. Another question: Will ArbCom members have to identify themselves to Bastique/the Foundation prior to or after the election, to confirm their age? Ral315 » 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

  • Hi James F. I am a little concerned by the way this came about. This decision seems to hinge on a reading of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms, a task many of us are capable of doing. What was the need to make this decision in secret? Also, please provide a link to the "Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices" the specifically prohibit a minor's participatin in discussions of or viewing of privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools. Tahnks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • From the WMF Access to nonpublic data policy:

      2. Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside.

      (emphasis mine). An Arbitrator that does not meet these requirements cannot have access to such data (including, in particular, any internal discussion where such data is shared). Kirill 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks Kirill. I see that minors access to non-public data foundation policy has been in place since April 2007.[5] It was not a kind thing to wait until the eve of election to spring this on Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 when this could have been settled months ago. I still see no reason for announcing this as a secret decision made through the private Arbitration Committee's mailing list. I hope those involved in making this secret decision at least had the decency to apologize officially to Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 for luring them into revealing personal information about themselves in an effort to gain a position for which they had no hope of obtaining. -- Jreferee t/c 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes we all owe Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 an apology. I personally offer my apologies. As a community of volunteers we are not the most organized of organizations. Paul August ☎ 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see that this policy serves any necessary purpose as applied to membership on an arbitration committee, and other than pointing to the words of the resolution (which so far as I can tell was not adopted with this issue in mind one way or the other), no one has publicly identified one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, there is the question of whether the Wikipedia community would accept "a two-tier Arbitration Committee with some members unable to participate in, or even be aware of, most of the activity." Personally, I would be fine with Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 having limited access to non-public information as I think their decisions would be just as valid. If the Arbitration Committee's practices are dictated by the Arbitration Committee and those up the food chain, I would be happy to accept this. However, as far as I am aware, Wikipedia always has operated off open consensus and the decision to permit minors on the Arbitration Committee seems to be one for which an open consensus would have been more appropriate approach. -- Jreferee t/c 16:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would not agree to be an arbiter unless I had access to all the relevant information necessary to make responsible decisions. I would not approve of other arbiters who made decisions without the benefit of all relevant information. Thus aside from the considerable logistical problems such a two-tier system would present, I would oppose such a system on the grounds that such a system could not perform its duties responsibly. Paul August ☎ 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Paul August's thinking. From my interpretation of the Foundation's Access to non-public information policy, minors can not have access to this information. Many of our cases involve discussion of information covered by the privacy policy. I don't see any way that a Committee member could make a good independent assessment of the case with out looking at all the evidence. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • From what little I know (and I will certain defer to current or former arbitrators on this), establishing a formal "two-tiered" process would indeed be problematic. What I have been questioning is whether it would have been necessary, or why. In this regard, I accept that there are certain issues on which arbitrators who are minors would not have been expected to take the lead, just as I have told administrators who are minors that while age is irrelevant to 99% of administrator actions, there are occasional legal-threat and harassment situations that they would be well-advised to leave for others to handle. I have no doubts that a younger editor enjoying sufficient maturity, experience, and standing in the community to have been elected to the Arbitration Committee would have been fully capable of recognizing such matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is some background on the Foundation's implementation of the Access to nonpublic data policy. The Wikimedia Foundation non_discrimination_policy prohibits discrimination against age in its context of age being a legally protected characteristic. Those under 18 are treated differently under the law, including areas of access to nonpublic data.[6] Foundation Meetings/June 1-3, 2007 leading to Access to nonpublic data policy Resolution. June 6, 2007 Resolution:Access to nonpublic data policy update. As for the necessity of a formal "two-tiered" process, the only ones who can answer that are the arbitrators. They apparently agree that it would be necessary. -- Jreferee t/c 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently, this issue was raised in the second 2006 elections for Stewards, and apply to users with checkuser or oversight access in May 2007[7]. Here is the foundation discussion thread and here is a May 2007 Wikizine announcement. -- Jreferee t/c 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In reply to Newyorkbrad's request above to locate the purposes the Foundation policy is intended to serve, I have not been able to locate the Foundation's reasoning for the change. It looks like they discussed it at Foundation Meetings/June 1-3, 2007, but I was not able to find out what they said. -- Jreferee t/c 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How does this relate to my question about disclosure of identity? Without that, how would you verify age? Or would those arbiters that can't/don't simply not have access to run their own Checkusers and Oversight, but serve otherwise? Or does this mean that all arbiters have to disclose identities after all? Sorry I am confused. • Lawrence Cohen 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know any other way to do it, either. So we can assume that newly elected arbitrators will be required to disclose their identities before they get assess to our confidential discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That is what I assumed, too. I was just curious for the elections. Does that mean that all the current ones have also disclosed to have access to that data? Is it recorded anywhere publically that they have? Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge they have not disclosed their identity to the Foundation yet. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought every Arbitrator had confirmed their identity, as everyone has oversight? I recall Cary removing Theresa Knott's oversight access because she did not identify within the period given by the resolution on access to non-public data. I figured this meant that every current oversighter has identified, and the Arbitration Committee is a subset of the set of all oversighters. --Deskana (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the question related to current candidates not current Committee members. To my knowledge all current committee members have. Cary Bass is the person to ask as he handles this task for the Foundation.--FloNight♥♥♥ 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. As far as I'm aware, the only people who are running who are currently identified are me and Raul654, as we are both oversight/checkuser. Possibly Danny too, but given he used to work in the office, I wouldn't have thought any sort of verification would be necessary. --Deskana (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure several others noms have also based on the other work they've done for the Foundation. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Not just that, but some of the other candidates are known to foundation staff via wikimeetups, as well. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Per this foundation thread, arbitrators need to send their info to Cary Bass, who I asked to respond in this thread. I would assume that existing Arbitration Committee members who are not of age are no longer Arbitration Committee members and the remaining ones need to prove their age. -- Jreferee t/c 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Er...not as far as I've been told. This is a different process, not related to the privacy policy on Wikipedia or anything outlined by that. I'm unaware that Arbcom falls under that policy. Cary Bass demandez 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it is not clear whether the existing policy applies to arbitrators was precisely one of the points I was making above. In any event, requiring proof of identification is a separate and distinct issue from imposing a minimum age on committee members. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The policy does not say that arbiters must identify, or be of age. However it does say that arbs who have not identified or are underage can not have access to non-public data. The Foundation could make an exception for arbs, but until they do I would feel constrained to not pass along such data to such arbs — in my opinion that would be an untenable situation. Paul August ☎ 21:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it goes to enforcement. Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Transparency does not require age disclosure, but you can't be under 18 and be on Arbcom. The effect seems to be that only the honest candidates under 18 will drop out or not enter the election. -- Jreferee t/c 20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That is not quite the point I was making. What I meant to say was that it is possible to require identification validation without imposing an age requirement. (As a practical matter, that might require that would-be arbitrators who were minors speak with their parents/guardians about the role they were taking on, but I doubt that this would be a problem.) At present, I believe that most, though not quite all, of the arbitrators are publicly identified by real name and/or at least known to Foundation officials in any event, although not all of this year's candidates are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing your posts and Cary Bass's post, I think I see the distinction you made. The right to decide and the ability to mine data for non-public information (checkuser) vs. receiving that mined data after another has decided to compile it (arbcom). Looking at the language of the foundation policy, the foundation policy addresses "granted access rights to restricted data."[8] The arbcom minor might receive restricted data but they in fact are not granted access rights to that restricted data. The arbcom minor's receipt of restricted data is conditioned on another's right to access that data. The foundation policy addresses who can push buttons to get restricted data from Wikipedia's database. It does not address the decision by those with access to that data to pass on that data. In fact, they pass on portions of that non-public data all the time at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser and post it in a location where minors can see it. I do not agree that "a minor could not take part in discussion of or even be shown privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools, without violating the confines of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices."[9] I think the reading of the Foundation's privacy policy is incorrect and Cbrown1023 and Messedrocker should be allowed to run for arbcom. -- Jreferee t/c 21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I do not think ArbCom can have it both ways. If the information received by ArbCom falls under the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution, then all ArbCom member are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution to provide identification to the Foundation just as checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS do.[10] If the information received by ArbCom does not fall under the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution, then there is no Wikimedia Foundation basis for the above ArbCom decision. -- Jreferee t/c 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Cary, in this thread the Committee announced that we do not think that Committee members can carry out our job without access to non-public information. This is a new decision that we made after discussion among ourselves. The election prompted our discussion and decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Wouldn't a valid local I.D. be the only way demonstrate age, beside a birth certificate, though? • Lawrence Cohen 20:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy doesn't seem to address Arbcom's control over the Arbcom election. It lists it as an unresolved issue. A Wikipedia:Election policy would have helped. -- Jreferee t/c 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Jreferee has established valid points based on his interpretations. I still believe that the ArbCom made the correct determination, however, we won't find a resolution unless either the Foundation, through one of its members or representatives, Cary, or Jimbo address this. Otherwise, we risk having serious confusion and disagreements in the election process, or worse: disenfranchisement. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, ArbCom's outcome probably is correct. ArbCom can determine that "our working practices are incompatible with having a minor as a member of the Committee" in the context of the privileged information since only ArbCom (and others with access) know what in fact constitutes the privileged information. All Wikipedian's can determine whether minors can be shown privileged information in a general sense, but when it comes to making a determination regarding the actual privileged information that would be revealed to the minors, only those who can review such actual privileged information can make such a determination. -- Jreferee t/c 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidacy

I would like for my candidacy (That is, User:Phil Sandifer's) to be restored. Phil's Sockpuppet (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are returning to Wikipedia, which I surely hope you are, then the best procedure would be to get a password reset through your old account's e-mail (or through a developer if needed) and resume using your old account. My apologies if you are one step ahead of me and already doing this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not committing to returning to Wikipedia at this point. I am committing to being a candidate for the arbcom, and winning election would necessitate returning. But absent that or some other sign that gives me hope that the areas I like most to contribute to and feel like I am good at contributing to (policy and meta-discussions) are areas that I am able to be useful in, I do not intend to return at present. Though if it would make you feel better if I restore access to my main account and conduct business relating to the election from it, I will. Phil's Sockpuppet (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As a fellow candidate I'm not really in a position to say that what makes me comfortable is relevant, but for what it is worth, I venture to say that some editors might feel an awkwardness in voting for someone without access to his primary account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Very well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On what procedural grounds was Phil's candidacy removed? Hiding T 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The grounds that I left Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't see where in the rules it states you are delisted if you leave in a hissy fit. ;) Hiding T 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slight formatting problem

Right now, on the candidate statements page, there is a note referring to Phil Sandifer that says: "This user has left wikipedia." The problem is that it is right above Phil's section, and it kind of makes it look like Newyorkbrad is the person who has left. Could someone please make it a little more clear? Or maybe delete it altogether, since Phil seems to be back, sort of? Thanks. MookieZ (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Sandstein removed it. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. For better or for worse, I'm not going anywhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost coverage

The Wikipedia Signpost recently compiled a candidates profile page, with certain standard questions asked to each candidate. I believe this should be linked at the top candidate statements page and voting pages ( within the instructions, sort of like a see also link.) In last year's elections, the Signpost used a template for major stories about the elections. I have already contacted Ral, who wouldn't mind as long as it discussed here first. Thoughts? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the signpost's coverage is useful for those who haven't been following the candidates and their questions. A useful thumbnail sketch, if you will. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My nominations

Withdraw Please After recieving some questions and also reading through other users replies to their own questions I have come to the conclusion that I am not yet ready for ArbCom. I have read the policies and paid attention to some of the cases but I think I'm not immersed enough within the dispute resolution process as a whole. Over the coming months I will spend more time watching the process and commenting where possible. I think I would be a good member of the committee and I know I would respond to the challenges. Ultimately though, after further deliberation and some questions (of which I thank those who asked them) I am not ready. Could somebody please therefore remove my nomination to the withdrawn candidates section. I will be back to vote when the elections start as there are some great candidates here and thank you all for the chance to nominate myself. Good Luck to everyone. Best regards, LordHarris (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done - thank you for putting yourself forwards in the first place. Maybe at some point in the future you will feel ready to run again. WjBscribe 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real-time voting analysis script

I've recently done the script for Russian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections, which had great interest and success in the community. Maybe English Wikipedia community will be interested in my implementation of the similar parser for these elections? — Kalan ? 12:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We are always interested in improving the elections. How does the script work, and what does it do? I'm sorry, I don't understand Russian. :( - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The script contains two parts — "public" one and "backstage" one. Users see the "public" part (for example, here), and they see different statistics (by clicking the link before you'll get the table showing election results at the moment). The "backstage" part is run by cron every 60 seconds, and it updates the votes list (and all statistics based on that) without making any edits in Wikipedia.
In Russian Wikipedia, I was the informal "technical election coordinator", so I've introduced some hints on how to edit pages correctly. Our rules state that comments are forbidden in voting section (we have a discussion stage for that), so I could easily analyze every vote and build an interesting table based on it.
— Kalan ? 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final day of nominations - three new candidate so far

Final day of nominations - three new candidate so far. Wonder if there will be any more? About 18 minutes to go... Carcharoth 23:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt many candidates will come out of the blue in the next 15 minutes, maybe one or two at the most, but even that I doubt. This is a Secret account 23:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Note in a few mins I will close and protect it for no new people to run. This is a Secret account 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Closed nominations. I accidentally closed them a few minutes before deadline. Sorry about that. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I edit conflected you on that, I also protected the statements. This is a Secret account 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright. All we have to do now is prepare for the Voting phase. I created a To Do list, see template at top of this page. Feel free to add or modify the instructions. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did the first one, but I have no time (at least tonight) to do the rest. This is a Secret account 00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm tight on time too. But we have 48 hours, which should be enough. I start tomorrow morning and tomorrow night. I'd say we should be ready by Sunday, November 2 at around 18:00 UTC. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, are there any official, or even unofficial, election officers for this election? I looked for information on this on the main page, but couldn't find anything. Carcharoth 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Official, no. But certain users, including myself, have maintained these pages before and during the nominations. I'm willing to continue serving as one, as I already considered not voting during these elections to be able to monitor discussions, pages, and editcounts, making sure it goes well. But it's too much for only one user. I think 3 to 4 users could be enough (but there's always room for more). We could renew the Organizer's Statement. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll willing to be an election officer as well, and I'm thinking of you, Geni and WJBscribe as the other election officers. I'm going to vote in the elections though. This is a Secret account 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the watchlist message inviting people to nominate themselves for the committee. Perhaps someone should add a message saying voting commences 3 Dec? --Deskana (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

On december the third yes. no need for one over the weekend.Geni 00:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt I'd be qualified as an election officer, in light of the lofty company you propose - but is there any other way I can pitch in and help? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Note you could become one, I'm thinking of four editors in good standing. This is a Secret account 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyways I had to protect Giano's for 36 hours (until right before election starts) because people are already voting on that one. Thanks This is a Secret account 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please, please make sure that all the voting pages are unprotected before the election starts, especially if any of them have to be reprotected again (I see the protection time expires before the election starts). Carcharoth 11:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, who is handling the voting suffrage issues? Also, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote has a stray ^demon redlink at the very bottom. Could someone confirm that ^demon has withdrawn? I see someone else removed him, but can't find where ^demon confirms this. Carcharoth 11:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. See the deletion summary for his candidate statements sub-page, or demon's deletion log. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone might want to put together a quicklist similar to last year's; people seemed to find that useful. --bainer (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's on the to do list. I'll get to it tonight, unless someone does it first. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election officers

Users willing to serve as election officers should sign below as a commitment to the election process. Note that this isn't a position of privilege or power, just a commitment and notice to other users in an effort improve the transparency of the elections. Also note that this list is unofficial, and is not a formal organization or group. It may be discontinued at any time by the the arbitration committee, Jimbo, or if consensus is reached either by the community or the standing candidates.

Any established user, in good standing, may serve as an officer, except for standing candidates. Users may list or de-list themselves at any time during the elections. If sufficient good-faith objections arise, a user should be de-listed. Any user who is not an elections officer may also perform the tasks listed below, as long as they are good faith efforts to improve the elections.

Tasks and responsibilities:

  • Officers must be civil and impartial, at all times.
  • Move extended vote comments to respective talk pages, kindly notifying users at user talk pages of the move.
  • Watch pages for vandalism, and revert as needed.
  • Monitor edit counts of users, making sure they meet the 150 mainspace edits requirements to vote.
  • Watch for possible sockpuppets, report as needed, and block only if necessary.
  • Unqualified users should have their vote indented with a note by an officer.
  • Votes of unqualified users (e.g. not enough edits, suspected sockpuppet, etc.) should not be removed outright, unless they are pure vandalism, a blatant attack, or if the votes are made before the elections begin or after they end. Instead, they should be indented with a note from an officer.
  • Voting pages must not be protected while the elections are ongoing, unless they routinely receive extreme vandalism. Even then, they should only be temporarily semi-protected, but again only in extreme cases. Any full protections (i.e. limited only to admin edits) will be immediately unprotected regardless of who protected it, even the candidate.
  • Officers must remain uninvolved from discussions, other than those regarding the voting process. Otherwise, the officer should recuse him/herself from continuing to monitor that specific vote page.

Volunteer officers:

[edit] Comments

I'm being bold here and made an "unofficial" list of election officers for this election. I also listed the expected tasks of the officers. This is completely open for discussion, but I hope we can come to consensus before the elections begin. Suggestions are always welcome. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think the Arbitration committee candidates themselves should be election officers, and it might be appropriate to make that explicit. Sam Blacketer 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a given. I'll include it now. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What does Officers must remain uninvolved from discussions, other than those regarding the voting process. Otherwise, the officer should recuse him/herself from continuing to monitor that specific vote page. mean. Can you please clafify. Thanks This is a Secret account 20:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • At a minimum, I'd say that officers shouldn't campaign or engage in debate on the merits of any particular candidate. Officers should probably refrain from monitoring votes on pages of candidates that they support or oppose. I'm not sure if discussions indicate discussions about the election as a whole, candidates, the voting process, or just the inevitable discussions on each voting page. this was totally me earlier. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, as long as I'm allowed to vote I'm ok with it. This is a Secret account 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd probably be hesitant to indent votes for candidates I voted for (or against), unless it's a clear-cut case. Beyond that, I think we're OK to vote. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I was away during the day, so forgive the late response. You guys basically understood me. Officers should remain impartial, and their work should be transparent. An officer routinely monitoring a vote page must not engage in lengthy discussions on the voting talk page about the candidate. I personally believe that we should not routinely monitor pages which we supported or opposed, but that's open for discussion. Remember, an uncontroversial edit which unquestionably improves the election process should be done. So revert vandalism and blatant attack comments and indent unqualified editors at will. If you have doubts, look for assistance of other officers or indeed other uninvolved editors, and maybe let them do the edit. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I intend to vote on most candidates, and leave brief explanatory comments on the vote page, linked back to a fuller discussion of my choices. I could outdent votes that are short on edit count. But moving comments might be touchy. Is there a way I could help out, without raising eyebrows? Jd2718 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving another person's comments might be touchy, but unfortunately necessary. You may leave that to one of the other officers. However, I think that the most routine thing would be to check for unqualified editors, checking the edit counts constantly. You're free to do that. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quickvote

I'm working on adding this year's candidates to a quickvote page similar to last year's. Once it's complete, I'll create the subpage, add the template, and then redirect the WP:ACQV shortcut to the new quickvote. Once done, could I have someone protect it? I'm looking at probably late afternoon (US) before it's done, and I'll post a notice here. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I've completed the 2007 Quickvote page. I can't find any bad or red links, but please have a look and doublecheck me. I also redirected WP:ACQV to the 2007 page, though the 2006 page still has the shortcut link (since it's fully protected). If everything looks good, I need an admin to finalize the page by protecting it from editing. Thanks! ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work, but I'm not sure it would need to be fully protected preemptively, as there's not yet any evidence of abuse and there's a good chance it would need to be updated during the voting e.g. if candidates withdraw. Tra (Talk) 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's true - forgot about that. Guess that means it's done and final. Thanks! ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also redirected the Quickvote talk page to this discussion; on the off chance that there is some question or concern about the page, it's more likely to be seen here. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Verifying

So, when someone votes, we check their contributions as of December 1. If they have fewer than the required total edits, we indent their vote and explain why. We also leave a message on their talk page noting that we did so. Should we <!--comment--> that the vote has been reviewed, so that others don't spend time checking? We might also make a list of the verified (and ineligible!) voters, so that - before checking - we can see if the name is already on the list as checked. it has the added benefit of putting the names of every voter deemed ineligible into one place, for added transparency. Thoughts? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We certainly need a system to improve efficiency. We could make a Note section after the opposes, with a note from the officer noting how many votes of that page were verified.
Example: Supports 1 through 25 verified, with 2 ineligibles. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Example update: Supports 1 through 35 verified, with 5 ineligibles. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer a system like that, since its more low key. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Correction: The instructions say accounts created with 150 edits before November 1. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget that it's mainspace edits, not total edits. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So far...

Well, it's been an interesting two hours since the elections started, with a heck of a lot of votes cast. I'm calling it a night, I really can't do much right now. So here's an update:

  • User:Daniel started moving comments, and I continued throughout all pages. I admit that I had to be subjective, since this is without precedent. I received some heat for it, but discussion turned out to be civil and forthcoming. Some still do not agree completely, but at least they understand the instructions to keep comments short.
  • I reviewed all pages, moving extended comments to the talk page. Users who wish to continue this task may follow the same process, but please be sure to leave a note at the user's talk page. Please! This is a highly respectful gesture, necessary to maintain civility for the elections.
  • The only Vote page I didn't oversee was the Giano vote page. As expected, it received the most long comments. I hope someone else can take it tonight, otherwise I'll handle it in the morning.
  • I haven't checked users for edit counts, but that isn't critical right now, we can wait until we're a few days into the elections.
  • Mathbot isn't working yet, a message was left at Oleg's page to try and find the problem. Gurch's tool is currently operating fine.

So that's it. I hope the rest of the elections run relatively smoothly, like it's been for the last couple of hours. I hope this page is still here in the morning, and not MFD'd. :) - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requirement?

I don't know if this is something that is "too late" to suggest at this stage of the election, but I'll still propose it so that it might be considered for "next time" (and please let me know if this has been proposed already):

With the new "ease" this year of usurping accounts, and of course just general renaming of usernames, in the interest of transparancy, and because traditionally (I believe), we elect people to ArbCom, not usernames/accounts, I'd like to request that anyone running for ArbCom should list/have listed every username that they have (socks, regardless if "legal" or not), and "former" names as well.

ArbCom elections are not RfA or RfB, and involve other concerns (including privacy issues), So for this (and many other presumably obvious reasons), I'm suggesting this. - jc37 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. White Cat voluntarily did this, and Mercury probably should have done it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EXIT POLL LINK HERE

Where can I see a running sum of the votes? futurebird 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral rules

Obviously, with Jimbo ultimately deciding which (if any) of the candidates is appointed, the election is something of an illusion, but is the theory explained anywhere? Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee is singularly unenlightening, but perhaps it is explained elsewhere and I've missed it. Net support = Support votes - Oppose votes? Net Support = Percentage supporting out of total votes (as shown in the little report above)? What purpose do the comments play if it is a straight vote? Yomanganitalk 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments with votes serve several purposes. In some cases, it might be a direct message to the candidate - "Improve this and I would support" or "Moral Support". In others, there may be a caveat - I'm seeing several votes for Rebecca being phrased as "Support if she resigns as ombudsperson", for example. The vote counts the same, but makes the voter's intent clear. Finally, some present diffs to justify the vote, in similar fashion to an RfA. These might be to show the candidate why the voter voted as he/she did, or it might be to attempt to sway others.
In theory, the election results are used by Jimbo to evaluate community opinion of the candidates, and to aid him in making a final selection. The project has grown to the point where he cannot possibly be personnally familiar with each candidate, which is why additional input is required. If a candidate gets the most support (by %) of all the candidates, but had many votes against, or many that expressed the same concern about their conduct, he may take that into consideration. Then again, he might not - he could just flip a coin. But, by using community input, he at least has some data to evaluate.
Hope this helps, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nome

This user (who left me a nice message on my oppose list) keeps adding this to my page. Can he do that? --Endless Dan 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. I'll have a look. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate was closed as Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Hopefully, that takes care of that. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) MFD was speedy closed, and rightly so. We don't delete discussions or RFAs because of WP:SNOW. If a user feels a nomination should be withdrawn they should bring discussion here or the candidate's vote talk page, preferably by first consulting with the Candidate and Jimbo. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think candidacies should run their course. Many users have already participated in good faith. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the closing admin agreed. I was barely done reporting the incident at WP:ANI when it was closed. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Result graph

I've thrown up a not-too-pretty results graph here, for anyone interested - I'll update it a few times a day for now. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another fabulous tool, ST47! Anthøny 20:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks too crowded. I realize this may mean more work for you, but could you try breaking it up by candidate blocks? There were originally 34 candidates, so maybe 4 graphs of 8-9 users each? That would look better. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, this graph gives us the best picture on how the elections are running, and how we can expect them to finish in 14 days, save for an october surprise. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Main graph updated, and Image:ArbCom Elections December 2007 hourly A-M.jpg and Image:ArbCom Elections December 2007 hourly M-Z.jpg created. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks great! - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Looks like there was an organized opposition against me, wizardman, and shell kinney, about 59.09-51.72 (whenever that is supposed to be). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A wild "what if"

These approval margins seem lower than I recall from the past. So what if, at the end, there are not enough candidates that have 70%? It could happen! Just trusting to Jimbo is one approach, I guess but... maybe some discussion is merited now. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's only been one day. Let's wait until we're half way, and if this persists we'll open discussion. We still have some contenders, steadily receiving 75% support or more.
I think that this should've been expected. There have been many nasty ArbCom cases recently, and most parties involved have outright opposed every candidate unless they show their willingness to drastically change the Committee. This has really hurt many good faith candidates' chances, but it's part of the process. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Per my recollection traditionally the stated threshold for selection is 50% not 70%. FloNight 12:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. But I was just emphasizing that many users are receiving much more than a majority support (i.e more than 51%). Many users are comparing these elections to WP:ACE2006, where the members selected received 84%+, and are therefore concerned. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on my past observations, I think that Lar is correct and the percentages are going to drop lower for a number of noms so we may end up with the majority of the noms below well below 70% and only a few above 70%. I think that Jimbo can be trusted to think this through and decide whether the lower percentage reflect a dissatisfaction with the candidates or not. Additionally, our method of voting where the voters leave a comment may help him figure it out. FloNight 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The significance of the percentage is also reduced somewhat by the fact that Jimbo will not necessarily appoint the top five vote-getters anyway. Last year, I believe he appointed the top whatever-number without skipping anyone, but the year before that he did skip a person or two. His aim seems to be to do as little "skipping" as possible, but it remains theoretically possible (if unlikely) that he could decline to appoint someone who got 80+ percent and instead choose someone who got in the 50's. As FloNight says, the comments will allow Jimbo to figure out why certain people did not place as highly as they might have otherwise, and to take that into account if he so chooses. 6SJ7 15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That's partly correct: following the January 2006 elections, Jimbo appointed the top eight candidates (in terms of percentage support, see the results) to the eight expected vacancies, but appointed three more users (#9, #12 and #15, of a field of 68) to three newly created seats. --bainer (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The process of electing Arbitrators relies primarily on Jimbo's selection process, and also on the top X candidates. It does not run by "top X%"; theoretically, the most successful candidate can all have got 40% - it is simply, those underneath got less support votes. Anthøny 22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it would be a change from the criteria previously stated by Jimbo if someone was appointed who had 40 percent, or anything less than a majority. The idea is that those selected should have the support of the community, at the very least. Of course, if the best that any candidate could do was 40 percent, in an election in which each candidate is really running against himself/herself, that would not bode very well for Wikipedia. It would mean the community did not trust anyone to be an arbitrator. Fortunately, it does not appear that this will be the case. The community will express confidence in some group of people, even if the "margin of confidence" for most of them is smaller than in past elections. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we are also seeing a general drift downwards due to the 'late' vote generally being more evenly split than the 'early' vote. This what happens is that the initial trend is set by the early voting (a big surge), and then roughly 50-50 split of the remaining votes on a candidate (the long decreasing tail of voting that slows and peters off towards the end of the two weeks) means that the percentage drifts downwards from the value set by the early voting. The drift in either direction caused by the late voting varies according to how many votes arrived in the initial surge. If a large number of votes are present already (eg. 200+ votes), then the later votes will have a small effect on the percentage. If there is a smaller number of votes (eg. 50 votes) then the late votes will affect the percentage considerably more. This is most obvious in Giano's case, where an initial large surge of votes has been replaced by a steady drift downwards. I also think the "net votes" column at User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections (I looked at this snapshot) is interesting. Both Sam Blacketer, Thebainer, and Wizardman have high percentages, but low net supports (64, 44 and 24) compared to the other front-running candidates. Of the top 5 percentage-wise, all have well over 100 net supports, compared to Sam Blacketer's 64. Does this mean that Sam Blacketer's candidacy is getting less interest or scrutiny than it should? And it still seems that nearly everyone wants to express an opinion on Newyorkbrad and Giano, with 369 and 339 total votes respectively. Hmm. I've just realised that snapshot is very out of date. I'm off to the other bot to see what the latest is. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost suffrage

Just a note: I was just notified my votes have been struck under this years rules. It was a small surprise, since I had suffrage last year. I'm not here to complain, however, as I see the rules were up in October and I simply hadn't been by to notice the change. I am posting a new section for two reasons. Hopefully, others in my boat will see this first and refrain from launching any sort of protest. Rules change, and these were posted more than a month in advance. I also hope someone might consider making the suffrage requirements more prominent in the next election. Perhaps as a reminder in the header of each voting page. Thank you. I'm going to take my little computed edit summary, go back to my own talk page and cry now. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Last year it was total edits that counted, while this year it was changed to 150 mainspace edits. It's tripped more than a dozen editors up so far, and I'm sorry you weren't able to vote. If it helps, you're not alone. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the 150 mainspace edits requirement is a bad idea and it seems like it was taken without very much discussion and, in fact, against the general consensus on the page where it was briefly discussed. Unless I am missing the locus of the discussion about this, it appears to have been a decision made by a election volunteer (whose work we all appreciate) without the appropriate review. As ZZ has pointed out, a number of editors who voted in good faith and are NOT sockpuppets (the apparent target of this rule) have had their votes indented. I think it would be appropriate, even at this late point in the voting process, to restore last years voting requirements and accordingly restore the votes of those of us who have been denied suffrage. AvruchTalk 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of users who edit infrequently at best, but who follow and could reasonably comment on the candidates and their views. These people should probably be allowed to vote. Mainspace edits were required, I think, so that editors had to be at least peripherally involved in actually editing the encyclopedia. A new account, sock or no, could tinker with a userpage 150 times and qualify otherwise. One alternative would be to require A) a registered account, and EITHER B) 150 mainspace edits, or C) 25 mainspace edits with the earliest edit being on or before 1 November 2005 (or some other date). The user would still have had to edit something, but could be considered to be "grandfathered" in as a result of their "tenure".
For good or ill, though, I don't think we can change the voting requirements in midstream. Voters who thought about voting and did not may not find out about the change that would permit them to vote, which means that some candidates would get votes they wouldn't have received, while other candidates will still lose votes they never actually had. As much as I hate to see votes not counted, I think fairness would require the rules, however derived, to remain the same for all candidates, throughout the voting process. The mainspace rule came up in late October, and it stuck - so, whether we keep it for next year or not, it should probably stay for the duration of this election. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its unfortunate that the only way the people who considered this before 'it stuck' could come up with to measure a users contributions to the encyclopedia is mainspace edits, particularly since people who have lots of mainspace edits but few talk page edits get opposed at RfAs. I think fairness requires that unfair rules be retracted once they are found not to have the support of the community, without waiting for the full negative effect to have accumulated.

The current voting experience shows that a number of people voted who thought they were eligible despite the notice. It would be ironic if the difficulty of making people aware of the reversal became the reason for not adjusting an unreasonable requirement. The truth is you could fairly describe the voting restriction as a Wikipedia policy, and as such it should have required a fair review by the community and it should not have gone in to effect without consensus in favor. AvruchTalk 21:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that more community input should go into determining the rules for the election, and I intend to propose such a review for next year's election (July or August, perhaps?). I'd like to get onto some sort of election cycle, and an annual review or comment period would help with that. This rule was added to the voting page on 28 October, more than a month before the election.
I also note that, even if a vote is indented for lack of suffrage, it remains on the voting page. This lets the voter's feelings be known, either as a statement of support or opposition, regardless of whether it goes into the count or not. But, it also lets Jimbo see that, in addition to the counted votes, there were other editors who supported (or opposed) that candidate, but who could not actually vote. As Jimbo is ultimately the authority who determines the outcome of the election, having those indented votes remain visible does provide him with information, and thus - even if they aren't counted - the votes do have some value. That's specifically why they are indented instead of removed entirely. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
And if he just uses the handy-dandy counter box? AvruchTalk 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You got me - I guess that would be within his discretion, though it'd be a bit disappointing. They might impact a tight race, though, where he would have to go into detail about the voting. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon suggested the 150 mainspace edit requirement in October, to which we all agreed. Granted, this does limit suffrage to new users, but most are not even aware of the ArbCom. And as ZZ said, they are still more than welcome to provide their views, especially on the vote talk page. Jimbo decides the elections, and he is not a vote counting machine. Although I can't speak for him, I trust he carefully analyzes the results, reading through the comments, to determine consensus. Of course, candidates that receive overwhelming support are obvious shoe-ins, but close calls are scrutinized. Comments by new users may still be read to determine consensus.

Please understand that this requirement is an effort to reduce the likelihood of malicious sockpuppets, which could have a serious negative effect on the elections by gaming the system, making some candidates appear they receive community support, or making sure some good-faith candidates don't make it when they obviously have much support. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Threshold to vote section of this page where Picaroon suggested 150 mainspace edits. It was his response to someone else saying that it should be 150 edits but exclude User and User_talk. No one (no one) agreed with his suggestion in that section. One editor agreed in another section, but then made the first post in the threshold section and suggested 150 edits, not 150 mainspace edits. So where do you get 'to which we all agreed'? AvruchTalk 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion continued. No one opposed. Other users continued discussion considering the 150 mainspace requirement. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
150 main space edits isn't a high hurdle. It's not a perfect system - people who discuss edits on talk pages have lower edit counts than edit warriors; it'd be trivial for a sock using twinkle (or many tabs) to get 150 minor main space edits by spell and grammar checking; etc - but it's easy to understand and implement. Dan Beale-Cocks 00:49, 7 December 2007

(UTC)

Alrighty. I appreciate the reponses to my questions and concerns. Next year I won't have the same problem, and hopefully I'll remember to pay attention to the discussion earlier so that other users don't have it as well. AvruchTalk 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simultaneous vote

What is the best procedure to deal with a simultaneous vote? If someone votes or comments in the support section for a candidate and simultaneously votes or comments in the oppose section this would cancel out any tally counting implications. I can't see any direct ruling on this situation, though the process indicates "You may only vote once per candidate, and you may not vote for yourself. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite, and do explain why their vote has been indented." An understanding of the wording could be that one vote for and one vote against would be more than one vote per candidate, and this would make the votes ineligible so the votes should be indented. If this is a reasonable reading should the process be re-written to read: "Ineligible votes may be indented...". SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that. If you want to make a neutral comment, you can make it on the talk page. This election runs on percentages, not on total supports and voting support and oppose affects the result. Sarah 10:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, as I explained on my talk page, you may only vote once. Voting a second time has the net effect of hurting a candidate (i.e. if you have 2 supports and 1 oppose you stand at 66%. If you vote twice to make it 3 support and 2 oppose, now you are at 60%., which is a net loss, even though you voted a support). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
But indents are NOT counted? Is that correct? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indented votes are not counted toward the total for each candidate, nor to they impact the count of support or oppose votes. Inadvertant duplicate votes are indented, though the voter could remove the dupe if they so wish. I've also seen some voters place good faith votes to oppose, and then indent the oppose vote and add a support vote (or vice versa), all while indicating that this is what they are doing with a comment. Votes are indented for lack of suffrage, but bad faith votes (such as one where other votes were removed) are reverted.

I am unclear as to what the purpose for double-voting would be, other than to serve as a defacto Neutral vote. In that case, I'd strongly urge the voter to consider a comment on the vote page's talk page. They are read, and some have seen lively discussion from voter and candidate alike. I'd add that, unless the voter indicates which is the correct or intended vote, both duplicate votes would be indented or removed. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just have a question about this discussion. If someone's vote(s) is/are indented, the indenting party is required to notify the voter on their talk page, right? (Actually, I am not so sure that I am right, but I hope I am.) They need to be notified so that if the problem is double-voting (either on the same side or different side), they can fix the problem and avoid all of their votes being stricken. I think they also should be notified if they are deemed ineligible because of a lack of sufficient edits, even if there is nothing they can do about it. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the reasons for the duplicate/simultaneous vote, I feel there should be an appropriate procedure for dealing with the situation. There is an unopposed view that a simultaneous vote should not be left on the tally. The three methods that can be employed to remove the vote(s) from the tally are: a) simple deletion/revert of the votes, b) indenting, c) moving the votes to the talk page. And, following up 6SJ7's question, should a user whose vote has been removed from the tally, by whichever method, be notified on their user page? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The procedures I am aware of, based on discussion elsewhere on this page, is to indent votes if A) The user has no suffrage, B) The user has already voted, or C) The user is banned as a sockpuppet, and to remove the vote entirely if A) The voter removed or overwrote other vote in posting their vote. Extended votes are kept, but any comment beyond the identifying word (support, etc) is replaced with a link to the talk page, where the vote and comment is moved in its entirety. Second votes are indented unless the voter indicates that the new vote overrules the old vote ("changed to support"), in which case the original vote is indented (usually by the voter); the voter can switch the indent if they did intend to change their original vote. Simultaneous votes are indented because there is no way to judge which of two votes - support or oppose - the voter intends to keep, unless that is made explicit. By rule, only one vote per candidate may be counted. In all cases, when a voter's vote is adjusted or moved in any way, the voter should be notified. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's very clear, and the process should be worded to reflect that clarity. Thank you. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solutions for next year

Ok, it's obvious there are some inadequacies with the way voting was handled this year. At least one site has organized an "opposition" bloc to oppose en masse all candidates except the ones they support, in order to give him a higher chance of getting in. There are people upset about false or incorrect statements placed in the oppose section, People are simply voting by name recognition or piling on to whatever others say, there are retaliation votes, etc.

So some solutions that I believe absolutely should be imposed next year.

1: Switch to simple approval voting. In this system, similar to what was done for the WMF elections, you vote to approve the candidates of your choice, and you do not vote at all on the ones you oppose. This has the benefit of completely countering organized opposition, pile on opposes, retaliation etc, because it is impossible to know whether someone is being actively opposed or just getting low turnout. It also has the benefit of eliminating misleading percentages, and showing only the raw support for the candidate. You'll note that say, Newyorkbrad has significantly more raw support than FayssalIF. That is an indication that the a larger portion of the community supports him than does FayssalIF, which we can tell even without % to compare to.

2:Confidential voting. Basically, make the vote private. Use a system similar to what was done for the WMF board election to automate the vote, and do not publish the results while the vote is ongoing. Or, use some other sort of automatic but confidential voting system. Several candidates I've noted have become upset by negative comments that were claimed to be "misleading" or blatantly false, which then received pile-on oppose votes. Pile-on supports and opposes help NOBODY. They only serve to artificially inflate a candidate without addressing his merits, or to artificially bury a candidate without addressing his merits. Candidates should be elected ON the merits.

3: Shorter overall question period. Come on, 30 full days? It does nothing but to swamp a candidate with largely identical questions, some of which are thinly veiled troll attacks. All the important Q+A about a candidate can be answered in about 2 weeks, probably less.

4: Longer period between nomination and voting. A bunch of candidates "snuck in the back door" on the last hours of the nomination period. I'll not speculate on their reasons, they simply could have been making up their minds (but is that something we really want in ArbCom?), but what the result of that was is those candidates were opposed for not having answered the questions. Those candidates also were not subjected to some of the stupid trolling questions that candidates who nominated themselves earlier were.

5: Bigger, more active, election committee. Not that it's a dig against the current volunteers, who are doing a great job, but in order to handle #2 they will need more help.

6: More announced suffrage requirements. Make it clear who can vote and who cannot.

7:??? Offer your own suggestions as well. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that confidential voting is NOT used; the current open voting does lack gravitas - I would support such a proposal. I wouldn't support a move to shorten the time the community has to research and question candidates - especially with the amount of candidates that present themselves. And I wouldn't pass comment on the people who do ask questions or the quality of the questions - candidates are free to respond to questions in the way they best see fit. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
a tiny change that many people could agree to: NAME First, THEN comments, if any comments are needed. Any comments longer than X go to the talk page, where X is about a single line length. This would make it easier to count the names, to check the names for appropriate main-space edit counts, it mean that people could leave useful feedback "NAME - didn't like answer to questions", "NAME - Next year maybe" etc, and it'd move contentious feedback into a place where it could be discussed / 'debunked'. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My thoughts on this:
    1. Approval voting would be a bad idea, because historically there have been a number of candidates with many supports and many approvals.
    2. Reasonable, but would probably lead to accusations of secretiveness. As I said a year ago, the problem isn't really the open voting, but the comments. I remain of the opinion that forbidding comments is the best way to go, because many such comments are half-truths, exaggerations or simple falsehood, and the candidate is not in a position to feasibly respond to them.
    3. Agreed. I haven't had the time to read most of those question pages because they're way too long. Plus they focus more on personal pet peeves, than on essential issues. I'd suggest the Signpost does a thorough one-page interview of each candidate, instead.
  • >Radiant< 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see an advantage to confidential voting. This community has indicated discomfort with secret processes. I think that outweighs the otherwise legitimate points that have been raised. I agree that approval voting leaves out a very important factor. Between approval voting, percentage voting, and net-voting, perhaps net would be the middle ground. Swatjester's 3 and 4 (shorter nominations period, gap between nominations and voting) both make sense. I do find some of the questions valuable - and signpost would not replace that, could not replace that. At the end of the day, this voting system has seemed to have produced reasonable results for at least the two elections I have followed. If the results are ok, perhaps there is not a problem to be solved? I would be hesitant to overhaul it in any major way. Jd2718 (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


My views on SWATJeste's suggestions:

  1. Oppose. Users must be given the chance to oppose a candidate. Some good faith oppose comments have revealed serious issues with candidates that other users might not be aware, and would not have opposed without them.
  2. Oppose. It's best to leave the election process as transparent as possible to the community.
  3. Support. I agree the question period is best for after the nominations but before the election starts, so every candidate has an equal amount of time to be asked and to answer. Subsequent questions during the vote can be made at the vote talk page. I suggest about a week in between.
  4. Support. See above suggestion.
  5. Support, if you could get others to sign up.
  6. Support. Sockpuppets have become more sophisticated, with users producing many edits using relatively easy and quick methods. There's a serious possibility that there are sockpuppets currently voting, but it's hard to prove and identify. I'd suggest increasing the edit threshold, but I fear we'd deny suffrage to innocent editors. Clearly more discussion is needed on this.

My suggestions:

  1. More discussion on the organization of the election, before it starts! We're getting many questions and criticisms for a process that was discussed and organized weeks before it began. But users didn't opine on it until after the voting got underway. Clearly the elections could be improved (like every other page on Wikimedia), but arguing with other editors and questioning prior consensus at this late stage is moot.

I for one welcome SWAT's suggestions, and thank him for opening this discussion so early. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got some suggestions I'll be putting together, but I know I agree in one particular - we need more pre-planning for next year's election. I don't want there to be a formal election committee, but maybe having an election team of some sort wouldn't hurt. I almost started a discussion on the December 2008 election page for this very topic - and, if you look at the top of this page, the first discussions were in January of 2007. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the pre-planning as well.
I'm not thrilled with the fact that the "rules" are that you get better benefit from voting against those who you're not actively supporting (essentially voting oppose on what would normally be a neutral vote). If that's the case, then everyone should do it (and consider what the length of the "discussions" would be then...)
I don't like the idea of approval voting, since this is actually by appointment, and Wikipedians should be able to indicate their distrust.
Time periods: I think it should go something like this:
  • (90 days before the election) notice that the elections are coming up (and solicit help with the elections etc.)
  • (60 days before the election) notice that all those running need to submit their names (and indicate being of age) - Most "rules" for the election should be finalised by the time of this notice.
  • (4 weeks before the election) - Q/A period starts, to last for 3 weeks. - cantidate "blank template" pages would need to be done by this time.
  • (1 week before the election) Q/A is closed, giving time for implementation of the election.
  • The election.
The times are obviously negotiable. I'm also wondering if we should consider the duration of the "voting" as well. - jc37 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest a time period between The election notice and the invitation to candidates (90 to 60 days before the election) for users to submit questions for all candidates, in order to prepare a templated question page for all candidates. This reduces redundant questions. Of course, users may submit their own personal questions to an individual candidate during the questions period or during the election process. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
We can solicit questions during the Notice period. I'd say we open a question page, ask for questions to be submitted, and then users could comment in support of each question or suggest wording adjustments. Any question with X comments in support would be included into a template (Template:ACE08Q, maybe?) or some such, which would be subst'd onto each candidate's questions page. Other questions could then be added by individuals for each candidate, and the Q/A period would be ideal for this purpose, and the additional notice period gives voters ample time to generate a question for any individual candidate. I agree, too, that we should have a hard timeline - maybe I'll put one together based on the above. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


On secret ballots. This was utilised in 2004 as I remember, via something like Special:Boardvote. The outcome was the creation of 'discussion' pages on the candidates. These became, let us say, lively. And deleted. Thence the open ballot in succeeding years, which certainly has its own problems (not least the disenfranchisement of most of the candidates who, as experienced Wikipedians, we would want to have in on the action). Splash - tk 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Approval voting is not so hot, imo. This is the kind of position for which some people are emphatically not suited, and it is reasonably important for people to be able to register their view of that. Splash - tk 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I think it might be a good idea to try and create some generic questions that are agreed upon before hand that all candidates should answer (say 10-15?). All other questions after that should be personal. This year, there were a lot of people asking extremely similar questions, and answers often completely overlapped others. Of course, we need to get a full picture of each candidate, but this can be done with far fewer questions than candidates have been asked this year. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to add another ACE-RfA comparison, but there are 3 stock questions that every candidate for admin is asked as part of their nom - this could be similar. Good thing we have a year before the next election, so that we can actually pick the questions. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for next year's elections

Do real elections merely entail candidates (or parties) giving statements and members of the public voting during the election? No. In real elections, there are heated debates regarding various issues that the elected candidates are expected to deal with. People also declare their views and try to persuade others to vote for candidates they support.

Perhaps we should simulate this by having a page where the community gets to air their views. Wikipedians could post threads such as:

  • You should/should not vote for Candidate X because...
  • A good arbitrator should be...
  • How will future arbitrators handle Issue Y?

Currently, voters are not allowed to attach lengthy comments to their votes. This proposed page would let candidates, current arbitrators and others know what the community expects of ArbCom. Candidates who are elected will (hopefully) carry out the community's wishes and thus do a better job, while those who are not will gain some useful feedback that will make them better Wikipedians.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, let's please have even more drama, argument, and personal attacks. Nothing makes an election run smoother than vigorous application of the dictum "more heat, less light." Seriously, every vote page has a talk page, and voters are more than welcome to say, "see my comments on the talk page" or to link to a statement of their voting rationale (as I did, plus there is the interminably lengthy "Questions for candidates" and it's talk page. What more do you want. Thatcher131 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Interminably lengthy? Surely every single voter has read every single word on every single page? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
We already have the heated debates. They occur in RfC's, on AN and ANI, in arbitrations, on policy pages, etc, etc. These are real editors with real track records of contributions. Jd2718 (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher131, the page you link to is an example of what I hope the proposed page will achieve, on a greater scale. Jd2718, perhaps we should have all the relevant debates on one page. May I remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus (in this case, consensus on who the best candidates are) should be determined through discussion, not voting. While I hate drama, if a little drama is necessary to improve ArbCom, then I am all for it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to use a secret ballot. In some countries, the ballot box is clear and the voter must make a big "X" so that people across the room can see how you vote. Voter intimidation and retribution happens in elections around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Voter intimidation in an ArbCom election would get noticed and publicised pretty fast. I think the current process is by far the most effective. Particularly in light of recent events, it's pretty clear that secrecy does not serve to benefit Wikipedia. Manning (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Elections 2008

OK, here we go...

I've took the time today to create a rough draft of what the 2008 ArbCom Elections page should look like (before looking at it, please read the rest of my post first.) I've read all the suggestions and criticisms on this and other Elections talk pages and taken them to heart, and basically incorporated and addressed most of them. I admit that not all of the suggestions are incorporated as of the first draft, but they could once discussion gets underway.

The current election process has sparked discussion on how to improve the elections based on disagreements and, in some cases, mistakes. My objective is to get all users actively discussing the future elections here to concentrate their efforts on that draft. Any and all users are welcome to edit it, modify it, discuss it, blank it, stab it, shoot it, or outright delete it, as long as they at least take a look at it.

Much of the instructions were copied from the current election, with some major exceptions:

  • Dates are all in ??, pending discussion on when the elections will actually be held, although times have remained the same.
  • The current sub-page system (one for each statement and another for each vote page) remains relatively unchanged (this may change if a secret ballot system is implemented.)
  • The current open supports and opposes system is considered, although it may change if an approval voting system is implemented.
  • There's a new Planning phase, detailing how the elections will be organized. This is based on concerns that consensus was not adequately achieved. I hope this new phase will address this.
  • There's a new Questions phase, where users will take time to submit questions and candidates will answer them. Many users here have suggested creating this to level the playing field, based on assumptions that users who nominated early got more questions and late nominations received less (I hold no opinion on this, however.)
  • There were suggestions of establishing standard questions to all candidates, similar to the RFA process, so I included it. Users should then decide what questions and how many of them.
  • The Voting phase received much more detail and clarity as to instructions and guidelines.
  • The two most hotly disputed issues of these elections are effectively up in the air: moving extended comments and the 150 mainspace edits requirements. As you can see, I highlighted them to reflect that. The rest of the voting instructions were written as such that they are relevant with or without these requirements.

As for attribution, it's right here on this talk page. The suggestions made by the users above have been incorporated, and once the 2008 Elections main page is created I'll include an attribution statement on the top of the talk page stating this.

Just one last thing, I don't think we should create the 2008 Elections page yet. We do not want to shift everybody's interest from the 2007 elections currently running to a another page. We're still receiving many votes daily and there are still active discussions. Thanks for your time. Regards, - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks very good. I like the idea of communal questions. I strongly oppose approval voting and secret ballots. I also think active candidates should be forbidden from voting. Grandmasterka 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this all wait until the current election is over? There is nothing wrong with people making suggestions based on what they see happening in front of them, and there is nothing wrong with someone compiling them, but it seems to me that the time for discussion and comprehensive proposals is after the election. We have almost a whole year to discuss improvements. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The draft was made in order to coordinate such suggestions. Like I said, it's a rough draft and the 2008 Elections page should not be created, at least until January 2008. Users are welcome to read it now, and after the elections and member selection processes are over, we can start discussion again with this draft. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voters without suffrage

--uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Bishzilla is an alternate account for a very well-established user, Bishonen (says so on Bishzilla's user page). Unless Bishonen dual voted on any page, and I highly, highly doubt it, they're legitimate votes. --InkSplotch (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Please also double check Fowler&Fowler, as noted.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The ampersand in the username wasn't urlencoded. This is the proper link. --bainer (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I have only checked the two commented on above; so silence is not consent. Someone should, before these results are submitted to Jimbo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the above votes have either been properly indented, explained as OK above, or were withdrawn by the voter. I've spot checked most of the election pages over this weekend, and I have found no further votes which need indenting. I think we're good. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Apankrat does not appear to have suffrage. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. --JayHenry (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) My apologies, I counted incorrectly. He has suffrage. --JayHenry (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another withdrawn candidate?

Vanished user appears to have withdrawn. Could someone confirm this and do the work to remove him? I would but I am not certain that I could do this properly. MookieZ (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks for the heads up. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections

Hi, just to let you know I very definitely won't be doing this next year.

  • I have simultaneously recieved complaints that the table is updating too often and not often enough. I guess the only way to satisfy you is not to update it at all.
  • I have been woken up in the middle of the night and told the table was not updating when in fact it was working fine, but nobody has voted. I have better things to do.
  • I left my laptop switched on and running for two weeks straight, probably shortening its life significantly, and when I finally have to unplug it for a few hours in order to take it halfway across the country I get an email complaining it's stopped within minutes. Someone with toolserver access can do this from now on.
  • I have been told I couldn't run the bot because it was unapproved to do the task, when it operated last year without any issues.
  • Now that the voting is over someone has taken it upon themeselves to protect the page. I thought this was a wiki, but apparently administrators don't trust me to edit a page in my own userspace to add a note that voting has finished. I suppose I would only fuck things up.
  • An alternative is apparently available which I have been told is "more precise". I guess that's good enough for you.

– Gurch 11:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I used the report of your bot (I preferred it to the alternative), and I had no problems with it. I noticed it did stop a few times, but it came back up again soon. I guess a notice saying it would be offline for a few hours might have helped. From what I see, the bot operated fine - are BAG kicking up a fuss or an individual editor? I also noticed the page protection, which was strange as it is clearly a general report used each year (the previous year's results are, I believe, available in the deleted edits). Did you ask Maxim to unprotect it? I noticed Maxim also protected all the voting pages, and then unprotected them and put them on a watchlist. Clearly Maxim think these sort of pages should be protected at the end of an election, but he should have asked you first about your userspace page, and he should have realised you don't have the tools to edit it once someone has protected it. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with most of your complaints, and I hope you reconsider and do run the bot again next year. But of course, it's entirely up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for putting up with any opposition and sticking it out until the end of the election, your table was helpful.
  • The amount of OMG IT BROWKE's reflect upon quality, as editors began to depend on the table, too much so apparently. Occasionly we have this issue on wiki; everyone becomes so accustomed to something that is only being maintained by one person. There are only 2 ways it can go: Increase the resources maintaining it (per your toolserver suggestion) or getting everyone to lay-off. If you change your mind and decide to do this again, maybe a big "this is the unofficial tally, updated manually: if it is not up to date yet, please see the /Vote page"
  • The protection was not warranted, though I can AGF that it was part of a sweep, using a permalink or copying the final results somewhere would have been more appropriate.
  • I'm on BAG and don't see any operational issues with the bot, did you request this feature addition and were denied, or just ignored the rules and ran out of scope? As your bot is already flagged it shouldn't of really been bothering anyone. If you want to add a general bot task request (e.g. "Update statistics pages in the bot's userspace" at <=10epm) over at WP:RFBOT I'll speedily approve it so you won't have these issues in the future.
  • Again, Thank You.
— xaosflux Talk 13:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a solution to these problems, though thanks for offering one. I'm merely explaining why I really don't have time for this, at a time when, as you'll see from my contributions, I am basically inactive, and will be until the end of January at the earliest. I'm letting people know so that anyone who wants to handle this thing next year can do so, and will have some idea of what they can expect – Gurch 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


(ec) The protection was preemptive, I fully protected the Election Status template for 15 minutes with cascading protection on all vote pages to make sure all pages are identified as closed. Maxim then fully protected all pages indef, he asked me and I said it wasn't that necessary, but if users object we'll unprotect it. I didn't think it applied to the user reports, however, I respect that as a property of the user. It was a mistake, and I'll be the first to apologize for it.
I agree that your report, Gurch, was incredibly useful. The elections were an important issue these past few weeks, but nothing to generate a fuss over by nagging to you. The fact is, your work was greatly appreciated, even if only a few editors acknowledged it. Many users relied on your up-to-date results as evidenced through talk page discussions and on IRC. Perhaps we can improve the situation next year by adding a disclaimer to that page to calm hyperactive editors and by using the toolserver. Although we're a year away, I hope you'll reconsider. If you need any help, any one of us will pitch in. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm... well, I would be willing to host the script next year. I would mention that I would only turn my computer on for a couple of hours each day (at non-regular intervals) and put a message of "Fuck Off!" on the talkpage with a redirect to the official tally page. At that point (following my desysopping and ejection from the community) perhaps people will appreciate Gurch's efforts. I certainly did. (Truthfully, I hope someone would host it if Gurch would allow them to have the script - someone a little less strident than me, perhaps?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
For what its worth I found it a most helpful and well functioning tool and used it extensively throughout the election. Sadly, there will always be those that are quick to criticise, but please be aware that there are many, many more that very much appreciate your efforts in running it. Rockpocket
I'd be happy to run either this or a similar script on the toolserver next time around. --bainer (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Wales

Why, exactly, does Jimbo Wales have this anachronistic and outdated power to appoint arbitrators? Why can't the five candidates receiving the greatest support in the election be elected automatically? All other Wiki communities are trusted to govern themselves, and I can't understand why he thinks we need or want his intervention here. I don't recognise his authority in the slightest - he may have founded Wikipedia, but he doesn't own it, fund it, or contribute any substantial part of its content. The only people who have any moral right to control Wikipedia are a) the donors and b) the community, being the people who actually keep the encyclopedia running. Jimbo should abandon any pretence to any sort of authority around here. WaltonOne 13:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The historical basis is that, before the creation of the ArbCom, Jimbo himself would arbitrate disputes. When there were too many disputes to handle fairly or adequately, he formed the ArbCom to take up the task. The committee - in theory - act in Jimbo's place with regard to the cases they review, and exercise his authority. He selects them himself as a result. The election is supposed to give him a view of the community's impressions of the candidates, since the project is too large for him to personally know all of them and form an opinion on that basis (as he did initially). I stand mute on the merits of the process (or any perceived lack thereof), except to note that there are other proposals brought forward annually, and each such proposal would only muddy the waters more. This works, unless consensus indicates otherwise. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Walton One, Jimbo did actually appoint the five candidates with the greatest percentage support from the community so I don't see any cause for complaint there. As to control being handed over to those who donate, well that would open wikipedia to all sorts of abuse if you could simply buy control the way politicians in less advanced democratic countries are bought by their donors.... - Galloglass 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
By "less advanced democratic countries" I assume you'd include the United States (et al) where private electoral funding is directly proportionate to electoral success (with subsequent policy decisions overwhelmingly benefitting those donors). Pinkville (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the ambiguity in my earlier statement - I wasn't suggesting that the donors should have more control than they presently have. Rather, I have consistently argued that Wikipedia should be 100% controlled, democratically, by the community. We're the people who write it and who do all the work, so we have a moral right to govern it. As to the other point, it is immaterial that he appointed the five candidates with the greatest percentage support; the fact is that he could choose not to do so (and indeed, I remember someone discussing that possibility with regard to Giano's candidacy, if Giano had received substantial support in the election). I completely understand the historical background, but I think we should establish as a formal principle that the Arbitrators are elected, not appointed. WaltonOne 18:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the key point. And, in fact, Giano did receive substantial support (behind only Newyorkbrad and Raul654), but (unfortunately) by this electoral system such support counts for little when cancelled out by votes opposing. Pinkville (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Arbcom seats are ultimately seats of trusts to Jimbo and the community. One user could potentially receive 500 supports, but would he/she have the community's trust if 400 people opposed? Would a simple support only system reflect this reality? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't say what system would be better, though current voting systems in the context of Wikipedia seem to me to be hopelessly flawed. In theory, I'd rather some meaningful form of consensus, but it wouldn't be up to me alone to say how it might be implemented or what form it might take. Further discussion required... Pinkville (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is Wikimedia. It is a privately owned non-profit corporation, which has in its bylaws established various processes and levels of authority that are not subject to democratic change. Like any corporation, there are paid employees and volunteers. Editing Wikipedia is not a right, it is a privilege extended to us by the Foundation and it is revocable. We may do much of the work in creating the content, but that does not transfer ownership of the corporation (like it would not with any other duly constituted corporation). Folks constantly conflate Wikimedia projects with a self-governed community, where styles of governance can be debated and changed. That is not what we've got here, period. Avruchtalk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but much of Wikipedia's self-proclaimed philosophy extolls its supposed democratic nature - the claim could be mistaken, misleading, hopeful, or deceptive. Regardless of the non-democratic/corporate structure you describe, this doesn't mean that efforts to make it (more) democratic are a waste. Pinkville (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Avruch, the first really intelligent comment in the thread. Its also clear from the SignPost article that Jimbo has very much takenm on the community viewpoint, and especially re Giano, so his behaviour has actually, IMHO, been worthy of respect and showing of leadership, in contrast to Walton's "I don't recognise his authority in the slightest" approach to Jimbo. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for calling my comments non-intelligent SqueakBox, I really appreciate your remarks..... - Galloglass 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's not get in a huff. SqueakBox referred to "the first really intelligent comment". While we'd all like to think our comments are intelligent, I'd hope that none of us expect our comments to be described as "really intelligent". (Using "really" in the sense of "very", not "actually"). I'm sure it wasn't meant as a dig at anyone, just an appreciation of a good comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I deliberately didn't call anyone's comments non-intelligent, I was merely trying to praise the sensible comment from Avruch. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well no you didn't state it in black and white SqueakBox but the obverse implication was very very clear. - Galloglass 16:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well if that was how it was perceived I expressed myself badly. Apologies to anyone offended. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)