Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Has stories about this:
Special series on ArbCom elections
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/{{{4}}}/{{{5}}}|{{{6}}}]]

Contents

[edit] Appointees

I got an idea. How about when we figure out a way to elect some people, they can appoint say 3-5 people from a list of users who want to help. These volunteers/electees are randomly put into a group, then take a case and vote on it, majority rules. The only problem I see with this is that it could be easily rigged/exploites (but this implies that we would nominate wikijerks, not trusted members to appoint individual commitees). We could keep the election process the same while hopefully killing off the backlogs. If a volunteer member of the committe is slow, it is put forth to another individual arbcom for consideration of punishment/banishment/exile/flogging/removal of that user from the program. --Herzog 07:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this called an election when it is not an election?

This is called an election repeatedly, but when you read the fine print of the article, it says the election is meaningless, and what will probably happen is Jimbo will decide who will be appointed and then appoint them. So why is it called an election? It is not an election, or at least it is a completely pointless and meaningless election.

If I edited articles regarding socialist governments run by Communist parties that have elections more democratic than the method here, I would be reverted and be accused of having extreme POV. Yet on Wikipedia this non-election is called an election. Ruy Lopez 22:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez, I've reverted your changes. The previous name is consistant with all the links and past elections and there is no reason to change it to a new name. Just because the election will be under a different format does not neccessitate a move to a different name. In either case, your assertion that is not an election or is a meaningless election is disputed; that is no reason to move the page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Flcelloguy: perhaps, though, we can refer to it as the ‘selection’ process instead? :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Groucho Marx speaks up

I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have me.

There's an important voice missing in the world of arbitration: those who have not proposed themselves for membership.

Shouldn't there be some effort to recruit simply by offering the job to random people and seeing who's game? Say, "you can have this job, without politicking and without risk other than your time. Will you do it?"

Because otherwise the bureaucracy is full of, well, bureaucrats. Which is precisely the problem this part of it is meant to fight... 216.237.179.238 23:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that most people aren't willing to put forth the time. Not to mention that going to random people can be problematic. Ral315 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It's my thesis that going to people who are drooling for a little more power under a dime-store halo can be problematic as well... 216.237.179.238 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
That is the great difficulty of selecting leaders - finding leaders who are not attracted by power but yet have the skills and time to do the job. Self nomination is one of the alternatives that works. Personally, I would prefer that Arbitrators be nominated by someone else (or a committee of people that identify people with the required skills) and then the nominated person can accept or reject the nomination. Unfortunately, in practice this ends up being exposed to charges of "playing politics" and "establishing an oligarchy". Trödel|talk 14:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
We should not conflate people who have an interest in things from those who would abuse it. There have been many historical figures who have reshaped parts of the world while doing little or no abuse. --Improv 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
We don't want leaders, we want arbiters. Jurors. The general public. Those capable of divorcing themselves from their need to rationalize their own past actions as members of the government, and judge a situation on its merits. Flawed though the jury system is, the Wikipedia isn't going to reinvent a better wheel on its account. --216.237.179.238 18:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Arbitors are not jurors. The roles are not even very similar -- they're closer to being judges. Jurors typically need instruction as to what the law is so they can apply it, serve only for a single case, and are making relatively simple judgements. Note also that the American system is not the only system in the world - I doubt there is anything radically novel about the way things work here. --Improv 22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time period

What will be the time period of the processs now approved by Jimbo? -- DS1953 15:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll closed and arbcom elections

I left this message on Jimbo's talk page, repeated here for more eyeballs:

I think deciding the election procedure based on a straw poll, which is designed to get people's feedbacks on a range of available options, with around 40-50 people participating in total (which isn't significantly larger than the number of people standing for the Arbitration Committee) is a inherently bad idea. It's not like there was a significant majority in favour of any one of the proposals, either.

The result of a straw poll is not to use the procedure with the most support, it is to find out why other people didn't like that proposal, and work on improving it so that people who didn't support the original idea will support an improved version (or at least, not oppose as much). Talrias (t | e | c) 15:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So, 49% is a consensus in favour of change now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Since Jimbo has asked the community to begin the process and model it after RfA, I've taken the initiative and have created Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Vote as a basic page for voting. I'm thinking that we could have a subpage for each candidate, and then let voters vote "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral", along with a comments section. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We're not having a secret ballot? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears not; his announcement says The community can and should begin a community approval process immediately, patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process. The point of the process should be to generate a pool of acceptable candidates from whom I can make appointments. I emailed him asking him about this last night before the announcement but haven't heard from him. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a tad hasty. I thought the idea was to avoid the mess we had last year, not to delay, then re-create it. Filiocht | The kettle's on 16:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo's annoucement says that the community should begin the process, patterned as closely to RfA as possible, immediately. Someone's got to take the initiative and get the ball rolling. Thoughts on that page? It's basically copied and pasted from RfA. Also, does anyone have any comments regarding elections date and voter eligibity? All the past elections have lasted two weeks and have only been open to people who have been a registered user for 90 days or more. Thoughts on that? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
In this case, it may be appropriate to ask WWRD (What Would RFA Do)? Johnleemk | Talk 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, all registered users are welcome to vote on RfAs, but a new user's vote will most likely be discounted. The past elections all have used 90 days as a cut-off point, and the Board election, if I remember correctly, required both 90 days and a minimum number of edits. RfAs run for one week, but I feel that this should last longer, simply because of its importance. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I share Filiocht's concern. What's the difference between an "oppose" vote here, and a last-year-style "disendorsement", which seems to be so widely reviled? TacoDeposit 16:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Even though the vote is to be "patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process", are we going to permit explanations of votes (pro and con) or simply require the voters limit their votes to Support and Oppose? I would prefer the latter since this voting process is characterized as "approval" rather than "consensus". Otherwise, it seems that we will be back in the infamous disendorsement situation. -- DS1953 17:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I mentioned this to Jimbo Wales on IRC, who said "<jwales> Talrias: there are significant differences though. :-)" Talrias (t | e | c) 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
That is not a convincing argument. TacoDeposit 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I share F's concerns. ... I will assist the mode that has been selected. In the very least, now we need to develop a critical path and refine the mechanics/process. Let me know! E Pluribus Anthony 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no point in arguing about the elections process; community consensus supported Jimbo's second proposal and he made the change. What we should be discussing, though, is how to conduct this. Thoughts on the suffrage requirements, time length, and the process? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
A 49% vote is not consensus. Let's be clear about that. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear; I'm in general agreement with you both. There seems tbe some dissent above, particularly from those advocating merely for a vote, about how to proceed. My request of Jimbo was to indicate that we indeed have a clear mandate to act (or to specify who can, since he noted the Board of Directors too) without succumbing to procedural gridlock or wrangling.
Since it seems Jimbo has endowed us with a mandate to act – and I think we can – we need to: plan ... reiterate and clearly detail the chosen process (Jimbo 2) here, strike a neutral polling body/administrator, refine any points of process contention, establish a timeframe/review period, define candidate eligibility (if applicable), devise marketing (e.g., posting notices on appropriate pages), implementation the plan, and candidate selection/'certification'.
Details (only basic):
  • suffrage requirements: loose – any Wikipedian in good standing, except perhaps for those adminstrating the vote until the very end, if at all
  • timeframe: given the need for perfunctories, we should try to initiate a vote Sun. 18 Dec. and have it proceed until year's end or shortly into 2006?
Make sense? Thoughts and comments are, of course, welcome. More to follow soon ... E Pluribus Anthony 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
We've already lost a lot of students for the holiday. There is no way we can reasonably start any elections until the new year.Geni 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point -- though there's nothing stopping us from running the vote as long as we want; however, pushing it to start 2nd week of January would allow it to happen in an orderly manner. And at the moment, I don't see any big rush; ArbCom looks from the outside to be running pretty smoothly right now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with Jpg: alot of Wikipedians will die between now and new year's ... that's no reason to not get underway now (or soon). On the other end, more people may be home during the holidays and with more time to edit Wp and participate. As well, the vote can last until the 2nd week of January: the terms of the current arbitrators expire at year's end. (By analogy, a Canadian federal election was recently called and will take place in late January.) Thus, we need to equitably deal with the transition: any new cases will be dealt with by the new ArbComm and current cases under their charge can be grandfathered until they are concluded. This will ensure continuity and stability. E Pluribus Anthony 07:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
As I potential candidate, I'd like to make a simple statement. I will not be near the Internet from Dec 23 to Jan 3. I will not be able to respond to any issues that arise during that period. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I will be (with measure) and others worldwide, who may not celebrate during this period, may or may not be. I would think, then, that it be prudent for us to get your input before your respite, potentially initiate a vote, and let it continue into (early/late) Jan. You can 'campaign' before the 23rd and after the 3rd. While I'm not resistant to initiating a vote after the holidays, this isn't preferred: I'm more concerned with ArbComm continuity. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Mind you: I'm willing to assist but can't lead this venture, so I'll defer to the 'committee/consensus.' :) E Pluribus Anthony 08:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
As well, as a candidate, F, would your input and participation in devising a plan of attack here put you in a potential conflict of interest? (I'm not a candidate.) I'm not implying anything of the sort (and hope you don't take offense), but there could be a perception of impropriety or partiality. Of course, we still need to determine membership, suffrage, etc. E Pluribus Anthony 09:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sections make the world a better place :) Radiant_>|< 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree ... sorry for complicating the issue! :) E Pluribus Anthony 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting pages

I would suggest that the voting be done on the already-existing "questions-for-the-candidate" pages, e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/172. RFA pages have a similar questions section, and these pages show already-asked questions and responses. Of course more questions would be welcome. Radiant_>|< 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the pages are clearly marked (but see "Allow comments on votes" for more). E Pluribus Anthony 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeframe

As suggested above, I'd say holding the vote in January would be best (e.g. Jan 7st - Jan 21th). Evidence from earlier years shows that editing drops by the end of december. Radiant_>|< 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think the vote can start before year's end and continue throughout into January, garnering more votes/user input with time. But I'm not rigid on this point. E Pluribus Anthony 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would prefer not to stretch the vote for longer than two weeks. It feels unnecessary to stretch it like that. In my experience such votes get a lot of attention the first five days or so, and then it drops off rapidly. Radiant_>|< 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree with that: more time will allow more input. For the prior HDI vote I administered, for instance, the period of voting/commentary was almost a month (and many captive users commented), and we garnered somewhat sizeable vote tallies (50 or so) that determined the course of action. It continues to garner votes (but at a very low pace)! What sort of feedback have we garnered on RfCs (like this iissue) over two weeks? Do you think it a sufficient amount of time to garner a significant number of votes? If so, OK; but, in any even, I'd suggest a compromise 3 weeks, or even 4. I'm easy! :) E Pluribus Anthony 13:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not run it January 1st to January 14th? Technically, most of the arbitrators' terms end on January 1st, so we should get the ball rolling as quickly as possible. Ral315 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK; how about three weeks: 1–21 January 2006 (inclusive, UTC time based)? This will allow us sufficient time to refine/codify process and to get everything underway, yet to log even more votes, captive or otherwise. E Pluribus Anthony 15:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I prefer January 15-28, with the new terms to start on February 1. This places it solidly after most Christmas breaks, and after most of the confusion of starting a new semester at most universities.
Based on experience with older polls, anything running for more than two weeks doesn't work too well. The vast majority of votes come in during the first week, and by the end of the third week, many people have forgotten about the poll. Starting a poll on January 1 or January 8 puts that critical first week either in the middle of Christmas break or during the first week of a new semester -- both very bad times for university participants. --Carnildo 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
A later start date seems wise, but I do not see why the vote should remain just two weeks long ... I'd say three weeks: 7-28 January 2006. It's not much longer but will also allow more votes to be logged and provide potentially smaller margins for error. E Pluribus Anthony 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The first week is the most important in getting votes. After that, it's old news. If the poll is opened while many people are still distracted by holiday-related events, far fewer of them will vote. --Carnildo 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we're in general agreement about when the vote should start. Looking at the calendar, actually, 10 January would seem a better start date: people will be returning to work (at least in the West, and after Epiphany)) and to their computers wanton of editing Wp. :) I think we differ on when it should end: one week, and even two, may be too short a period to garner sufficient vote numbers upon which to make these decisions. I advocate three precisely because we/Wikipedians need more information, not less. If a groundswell prefers two, I'll support it, but I don't see it yet. So, I propose 10–31 January. If there are no objections ...E Pluribus Anthony 08:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I object, per the above. A wikiwide vote gets most attention in the first five days or thereabouts, and later input wanes and does not to significantly alter the results. Look over the result of earlier major votes (e.g. 2004 election, boardvote or even the CSD vote) and you'll see that one week is in fact long enough a period to "garner sufficient vote numbers". Extending it to two weeks would be reasonable to allow latecomers to catch up, but there really isn't any need for three. Radiant_>|< 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
AOK. I've changed this in the proposed ruleset; two weeks ... I'm easy! E Pluribus Anthony 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suffrage

For rules disputes and common sense issues I'd be willing to trust a newbie as much as anyone. However, to make a meaningful vote in ArbCom elections, one has to be reasonably familiar with at least several of the candidates. Therefore I would suggest to allow voting only to accounts that have existed for three months prior to the start of the election. Radiant_>|< 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. How valid a suggestion is it to include only those contributors with alias names, instead of IP numbers? This isn't a sticking point ... E Pluribus Anthony 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Generally, anon votes are discounted everywhere else on the Wiki. And of course sock votes get discounted, per the usual. Radiant_>|< 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
OK! E Pluribus Anthony 13:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allow comments on votes?

To prevent "disendorsements" I would strongly recommend that votes in the ArbCom election consist of only a signature, and that any other remarks be summarily removed. Of course, honest questions to the candidates are fine, but they go in the 'questions' section. Radiant_>|< 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed: for manageability (there are over 20 candidates, methinks), should we consider keeping comments and questions on a different page; perhaps we should do so as well with the actual votes, with appropriate wikilinks? E Pluribus Anthony 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It's meant to be done like RFA. This means comments. At least untill jimbo clarifies.Geni 12:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments can still be made elsewhere: we don't need diatribes muddying the actual vote and tally. E Pluribus Anthony 12:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
since this election will be entirely decided by ngative campaining we might as well keep it organised.Geni 14:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Even given prior events, that seems subjective: it denies the possibility that Wikipedians will research candidates on their own and make their own choices. I support R.'s proposal immediately below. E Pluribus Anthony 14:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
With the 50% requirement there is no point in campianing to increase someone elses vote share since the person yuo want to stop will still get in. Thus the only logical tactic for preventing people getting in is negative campaining.Geni 11:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Noted. E Pluribus Anthony 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like questions on the same page as votes, because this encourages people to read those questions before voting. Note that each candidate already has a subpage. Transclude the lot of them someplace if you find it convenient. Not every candidate has their statement on their subpage as well, but that's a simple matter of copy/pasting it from the main list. Radiant_>|< 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense, R. E Pluribus Anthony 13:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Though I think any comments, if we must have them (as I think we will), should be on the same page as the votes, I would like to see them separated from the actual vote in a distinct "comments" section, for two reasons. First, on RFA the large majority of "comments" seem to reflect a simple feeling that some comment is necessary. Even RFAs that are being approved 30/0/0 or 40/0/0 are full of repetitive comments like "good editor". Let's take off the pressure to explain votes. Second, many explanations contained in "oppose" votes on RFA have elements of pros and cons on the candidate but are nuanced by the fact that they set out are in the "oppose" section. In the spirit of dispensing with the disfavored "disendorsements" of last year, grouping all comments in one section would allow the comment to be interpreted free of an influencing label. -- DS1953 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, this is not intended to imply that I favor comments. I would prefer to bar them. At the end of the day, however, I think we will have them. If we do allow comments, I propose separating them from the votes. -- DS1953 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree; segregate them on the same page, and move comments (or delete?) when they contravene. E Pluribus Anthony 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate eligibility

This doesn't require set standards, I should think. Some people proposed limits such as "only admins may be arbs" but we don't need rules like that; people who believe in such criteria are welcome to vote 'oppose' on grounds of them. Radiant_>|< 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as candidates conform to the 'Suffrage' requirement, I agree. E Pluribus Anthony 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I notice one candidate with about two dozen edits. I don't particularly care if that nomination is stricken as WP:POINT, or if everybody will simply vote to oppose (as they undoubtedly will). Either way I don't think it requires a strict rule. Radiant_>|< 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
If this means it conforms to the 'Suffrage' requirement (for consistency), I agree. My point/for example: can a candidate who isn't eligible to vote (e.g., with two dozen edits), a more basic criterion, be allowed to run for the ArbComm? It's like this: do we let a child run for office, even when they cannot vote? I'd say no. E Pluribus Anthony 13:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Election results

Interestingly, Jimbo's proposal doesn't state that the candidates with the most votes will be elected. It only states that candidates with 50% support (which should be very easy for most of them) may be instated and those with less support won't be. Radiant_>|< 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the limitation should only be a proviso if most or all candidates receive positive votes (e.g., a 'consensus')? Alternatively, perhaps an ArbComm pool can be formed of everyone with Y = 50% + 1? We'll have a better idea as the vote progresses, but we should pin down the threshold and structure now to obviate any perception of excluding candidates who garner near-parity votes but to also address the issue of candidates that may be contentious (e.g., 51% Y, 50% + 2) In any event: should a supermajority be used or considered – like 60% (or even 55%) Y? E Pluribus Anthony 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe Jimbo's intent was to take anyone with 50%+ into a pool, from which he could select. I doubt the need to do supermajorities; if very few candidates get 60%, it limits us unnecessarily; if a lot get 50%, Jimbo can pick the ones that he and the community trusted most. Ral315 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense. A simple majority: 50% + 1. E Pluribus Anthony 15:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
A super-majority would pose the question of the order of merit between a candidate who gets five support votes and one oppose vote (83%) and one who gets 30 support votes and fifteen oppose votes (67%). Palmiro | Talk 02:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The basic election rules and course of action (edited by Jimbo) are now in place on the project page, so I think this is now fait accompli. It'll be interesting to see how many candidates garner majorities either way. :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official neutral body?

Having an open vote such as this obviates the need for a "neutral polling body/administrator", which is good because it would be hard to find someone that isn't perceived as non-neutral by some. Radiant_>|< 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't disagree. I only suggest active contributors here and organisers refrain from voting or do so at the end of the voting period to maintain an appearance of propriety. For instance, the Chief and Deputy Chief Electoral Officers in Canada are prohibited from voting to maintain impartiality. The last thing we need is for a vote administrator to be challenged by a vote (or candidate) due to this and that. E Pluribus Anthony 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, interesting question... would it be proper for candidates to vote? Voting for oneself tends to be discouraged on RFA; but if a group of candidates vote for one another that might cause other people to yell 'cabal!' Radiant_>|< 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
We should, then, not encourage that practice here: i.e., candidates not voting for themselves, but any other restriction might be onerous (e.g., they can for other candidates). I'm more concerned with us voting at all earlier than we should. I can abstain or until the very end, if need be. E Pluribus Anthony 13:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I vote for Anthere as Chief Elections Officer ;-) Guettarda 15:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Not to be dense, but who's that? E Pluribus Anthony 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
She's a Board member, Vice-Chair of Wikimedia, long-time Wikipedian, and, IMO, one of the most neutral and reasonable voices in Wikipedia. Guettarda 15:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll research (for my own information) ... but if others support her here, fine with me! Is she willing? E Pluribus Anthony 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
See the Foundation page. Real name is Florence Nibart-Devouard. I have no idea if she'd be willing, but I think she'd be a great fit for the position. Guettarda 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
TY! We should approach her, and then present her with an outline (once agreed) regarding the details discussed herein (in a single, simple document, which I can craft); then we'll see if she has any comments/improvements etc, or envision challenges that we can assist with. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 15:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We need someone to do sockpuppet checking. IIRC, everyone with checkip ability is either an overworked developer or a member of the ArbCom. This could present a problem. --Carnildo 20:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this; I don't think I can do it (unless someone guides me; I'm not an admin (yet?)), but support it anyhow. E Pluribus Anthony 08:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read up on what meta:CheckUser is; only six or seven people in the wiki can do it, all of them are either devs or ArbCom members. I think it would be perceived as inappropriate if a candidate were to run sockchecks on the votes, but an arbcom member that is stepping down now, or has a term that doesn't expire this year, could help us. I doubt sockpuppetry would be a major problem anyway. Radiant_>|< 15:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll read up; thanks for the info. Regarding the elections: we need to discourage sockpuppetry and indicate this; enforcement is another issue. it needs to be said. And if Anthere or Angela agree to function as chief electoral officers (and have the checkuser capability, so much the better; this is preferred to letting oe depending on a current arb or candidate to do so (i.e., potential conflict of interest). E Pluribus Anthony 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer an independent person to certify the results, not a member of the arbcomm, although it might make sense to have that person work with a member of the arbcomm whose term was not expiring to certify the vote. Of course, it looks like Anthere has that power, at least in fr. Guettarda 15:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hence the WEO in the proposed ruleset. E Pluribus Anthony 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
How about both Angela and Anthere? Both are board members - has anyone asked them their thoughts on this yet? Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and ask them, or the devs. They're usually busy, but they may have time for this election. But note that the criterion of requiring three months activity before voting already makes sockpuppetry next to impossible. Radiant_>|< 15:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I will ask both; head on over to the ruleset and take a gander. If the capability to checkuser is limited to a few, and if it may be problmatic during the election (perhaps from those who have been around for more than 3 months), we should assume nothing and state prohibition of WP:SOCK and consequences for noncompliance. I intend on presenting it to whomever we ask to be the WEO (for which there seems to be more support than not above) and to get their comments or approval ... unless there's an objection. E Pluribus Anthony 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Promoting the vote

Marketing is easy, the first step will be monday's signpost. Other than that we have our usual channels, e.g. WP:A. Radiant_>|< 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Public voting

One thing that I have to say disturbs me about this process is that (it seems) that a public vote is planned. I fear this will have repercussions (i.e. Candidate X votes against Candidate Y; Candidate Y retaliates by voting against Candidate X) Is there a way that we could still use Special:ArbComVote? Ral315 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My thinking on this is that if we have potential candidates behaving in such a fashion, it'd be good to know about it as we decide. The nice think about wiki voting is that people can adjust their votes based on behavior in the voting process. It seems to work well enough for admin candidature, so I think it should work well here as well. If it doesn't, well, we change it next time. :-)--Jimbo Wales 22:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that would be unnecessary and anti-Wp: if there are any disruptions, we should take it upon ourselves (when formulating election guidelines and process, consistent with Wp policies) and throughout to mediate and ensure they are dealt with. A cryptic private page would obscure the vote for those who may not know of its existence. My two cents ... E Pluribus Anthony 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so. The page I linked is currently not working (I believe the page was removed after the last elections, or I linked incorrectly). I don't believe it's cryptic at all; in fact, using the page (which, after all, was created for ArbCom voting) would automatically lock people out if they didn't have 90 days editing or X edits. Ral315 (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah I see; I misunderstood. OK. This seems good in concept: we are also contemplating (above) excluding IP-number aliases and candidates from voting for themselves ... is there any way to incorporate these notions? E Pluribus Anthony 15:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This would exclude IP addresses. It would not exclude candidates from voting for themselves, as far as I know. However, I don't think there's any pressing need to do so; if every candidate votes for themselves, it's equal. Not to mention that with a significant amount of votes, the help that voting for yourself gives you is quite insignificant. Worst case scenario, I believe it could be coded in, or vote organizers could manually discount all votes by candidates for themselves, but I think this is unnecessary. Ral315 (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Good. But since voting for oneself in RfAdmin is discouraged, there's no reason to make an exception here. One can infer support for oneself without voting to do so. (It would be interesting if a candidate would vote against oneself!) Whether this is an automatic or manual intervention (deletion), I think it should be laid out ... we should assume nothing. :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

One problem with the ArbComVote thing that I didn't immediately think about is that by abstaining from voting for a candidate, you are in fact voting against them. This would eliminate nearly every possibility for a candidate to gain 50%. I support public voting, then, unless the ArbComVote software is rewritten to include "Yes", "No", and "Abstain". Ral315 (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If only the software could interpret an abstention as we do, i.e., ambivalent. E Pluribus Anthony 15:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Uh, one supposes that Jimbo's 50% is of those voting. -Splashtalk 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm reading between the lines, perhaps, but I think 50% approval does mean 50% of those voting, however they vote. Personally, I interpret a "neutral" vote as a vote that is not in favor and would count it in the total votes in determining whether 50% approval was obtained. On the hand, the word "abstain" connotes to me not registering a vote at all. If its not a vote, it should not be counted. The issue is one of semantics. The key will be to make it absolutely clear how those "neutral" or "abstain" votes will (or will not) be counted. If we allow comments, there is no particular reason why someone who doesn't want their vote to be counted should feel compelled to register a "neutral" vote -- they could merely leave a comment and not vote. We just need to decide how the "neutral" or "abstain" entries are treated and make it very clear. -- DS1953 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I generally agree, DS. To me, though: an abstention is analogous (in this instance) to a spoiled ballot; neither positive nor negative and one of indifference or even protest. Of course there is the 'silent' abstention: to not vote at all. If a third category is included (and I'm not rigid about including one), I agree that we should clearly lay out how such votes should be counted, i.e., including 'neutral' votes in the total vote count as per DS' suggestion. E Pluribus Anthony 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If one abstains to vote, one does not vote. An abstention is obviously not the same as a vote to oppose. Hence, abstentions should never be counted towards any kind of percentage. If people vote in a confused, ambiguous, or ill-understood way (e.g. "neutral") we should ask them if they actually mean that to be a vote to oppose, and if not, the vote should not be counted. Simply put, a candidate passes if the amount of 'support' votes exceeds the amount of 'oppose' votes. Radiant_>|< 15:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
OK: do we exclude the third category entirely? This would simplify matters. E Pluribus Anthony 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Exclude it. What value does entering a vote as "I either don't care or am sufficiently ambivalent not to want a make a difference in this person's candidacy one way or the other" have, other than a typing exercise? If you want someone, vote yes. If you don't, vote no. If you can't decide, don't vote. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 10:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed; done! E Pluribus Anthony 12:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah...you can't count abstains, or almost no one would get 50%. Only one arbitrator got 50% of the total vote last year... Ral315 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not an appropriate comparison - last year's vote was to select the best people from a group, and this year's vote is to determine suitability of individuals. This will obviously influence the way people vote, and it's far easier to get to 50% in the latter way. Radiant_>|< 22:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summary ... and feedback requested!

Hello! As a result of our ongoing discussions above, I've summarised a provisional rule set here. This is meant to serve as a concise guide for all of us and Wikipedians regarding the elections and process thereof. Please feel free to comment and edit; once this is done, I'll present to Anthere and Angela, get their support and I'll post it on the article page; then we can create, configure, and link to ArbCom candidate pages.

Moreover, this is contingent (somewhat) on whether Anthere or Angela wants to act as the electoral officer; I've called this position the Wikipedia Electoral Officer; interested Wikipedians (e.g., me!) can function to help administrate the elections and are subordinate to the WEO. In any event, if we're OK with this summary, I'll approach A & A and we can get cracking!

Whatyathink? Comments are invited. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 12:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments; I've tried to integrate all of your comments and address them, so please pay another visit to the above link and comment/edit as needed. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that the original comment regarding a "chief electoral officer" had a smiley-face next to it. Radiant_>|< 15:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry; I thought it a glitch or something-or-another; there seems to be support for such a neutral and ad hoc position. Thanks for the levity!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks again for your input on the ruleset. Based on that and our discussions (as of this note), I will approach Anthere and then Angela to review the ruleset and (hopefully) agree to function as an ArbCom electoral officer. Wish me luck! But feel free to comment and edit the rules s'more.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've asked Anthere; I'll wait to hear back from her before approaching Angela. E Pluribus Anthony 12:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have election pages been setup

It looks like the rules have been generally agreed on. But I can't find anywhere to support/oppose specific candidates. Is there a page similar to WP:RfA if not I would propose Wikipedia:Proposed Arbitrators with subpages of Wikipedia:Proposed Arbitrators/Username to indicate support. Although Arbitrators serve for specific terms, I think we will continue to have attrition because the job is so difficult, as that happens new arbitrators can be proposed elected/appointed thoughout the year, and maybe even have 2-3 alternate arbitrators who are available to be immediately put on the committee when someone resigns. Trödel|talk 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a provisional template here. While the rules we've drafted seem fine, ArbCom member Kelly Martin (currently seeking re-election) has sought fit to dissent with the process, implying that the rules haven't been derived through consensus (though she hasn't discussed anything here beforehand), and has contacted Anthere to recommend another course of action. I've responded there and expressed concern to Anthere: while KM is free to do as she sees fit, I believe this is a clear conflict of interest. Feel free to weigh in. In any event, we should probably wait to hear back from Anthere, and or to propose this to Angela too, and get their feedback. E Pluribus Anthony 12:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - I don't quite understand the objection. These pages are widely watched and discussed on the mailing list - and if there were substantial objections - they would be voiced - it is a wiki afterall. Trödel|talk 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I know! As mine and yours, KM (and her minority dissent) is but one voice among many ... but at least we're openly discussing it. We should wait to hear back from Anthere before moving forward, but I wouldn't besmirch you or anyone for doing so anyway. :) E Pluribus Anthony 12:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Could well be this entire process -- including the process of determining the process -- should be put in abeyance until after the turn of the year. There has been too little participation (for whatever reason) in this discussion for it to have any validity. If I were boss, I'd say "everyone find something else to do for a couple of weeks, then we'll get back to this arbitration election stuff." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine with me. E Pluribus Anthony 19:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - I have had few entries lately - and will probably have fewer until after Christmas Trödel|talk 03:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. As far as I'm concerned we're just brainstorming, and any good ideas here will (likely) be used unless someone comes up with a better idea (which is certainly possible). I've dropped a note on WP:AN for more feedback, and until there is any there's little more to discuss. Radiant_>|< 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed; thanks, R. (By the way, nice note on WP:AN.) E Pluribus Anthony 22:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the general approach outlined here. I am not sure if enough people are aware of the discussion to say there is broad consensus, but perhaps they are and choose not to comment? If something else has to be done to get broader consensus, it should be, I guess. On the topic of secret ballots, have there been other elections here that used them rather than public approval voting processes? The page about the board election didn't make it clear whether they used public or secret ballots, or else I missed it.++Lar 14:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed: I'd love for there to be more input on the proposed ruleset or anything else discussed herein with the goal of arriving at or IDing consensus. Anthere has been presented with the rules developed so far and has been asked to participate; we are awiting her feedback and, otherwise, some of us have decided to give it a rest for now. Another discussion is underway at the admin's noticeboard, but more may be needed. And then there's the "silent" majority. Perhaps a note on the village pump?
Radiant's direction below about last year's Board election process is good: e.g., that was based on approval voting and I infer a public vote (but could be mistaken). For the current issue, it would make sense to borrow workable elements (as from the administrator selection process) and incorporate them in the rules aleady discussed, in a manner similar to the Board process, or similar. That's it for me. E Pluribus Anthony 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update?

Can someone update me on things? I haven't had time to follow for the last week or so. Will all us candidates get our own pages where people can support and oppose, like admin noms? What is the target date for starting the election? Are there any problems that are still left to be worked out, and if so what are they? Everyking 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting and questions will be put on the questions-for-the-candidate page, which each candidate should already have. Format is nearly identical to admin noms. Voting is expected to start in the second week of january. There are two problems; the first is that several people object to open voting and prefer closed voting; the second is that Kelly objects to most of these suggestions on principle, if I understand correctly this is either because they were not created by the person she wishes to be in charge of elections (Raul Mark), or because there hasn't been enough response to them. Radiant_>|< 12:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
who was in charge for the board elections?Geni 13:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Please read meta:Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2005/En. Radiant_>|< 13:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you think we could get any of them to oversee arbcom elections?Geni 14:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you go and ask them? My personal opinion is that we do not need an official election authority person; it's an open election and therefore the community watches. Radiant_>|< 15:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi! Earlier, I asked Anthere to review the ruleset, et al. and she said she'll be getting back to us after her review. Additional discussions are also underway on the admin's noticeboard. Until then, a few of us have agreed to wait for more feedback and to give it a rest; that doesn't preclude other efforts, though. IMHO: a neutral electoral official/body is necessary to keep things on track and in order, but that's a matter of debate and we can agree to disagree.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we work a bit harder on assuming good faith, please? I objected to E Pluribus Anthony's proposed rules because they had not been commented on by a sufficiently large portion of the community and because they are instruction creep. This nonsense about "not being created by the person I wish to be in charge of elections" is poppycock, although I would prefer that they be drafted by someone who is actually in possession of a clue and who understands why instruction creep is bad. Nor do I have any idea who "Raul Mark" is. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, let's all assume good faith. More input, not less, from others. I will not belabour this but, frankly, I (and would assume others) object to your "clue[less]" statement et al., which is part-and-parcel of why your comments (none earlier) and actions should be given all the attention they are due. Respect is reciprocal. E Pluribus Anthony 16:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
First off, no personal attacks please. Second, that is precisely my point: you haven't made any objections to the content of the suggestions (including those here), nor have you engaged in any constructive criticism - you have merely suggested that they be ignored because of lack of consensus and/or disrespect for the person who proposed them. That is, you fail to assume good faith, in that you should judge ideas by their merit and not by their proposer. Pot, meet Kettle.
By "Raul Mark" I meant Mark Ryan, btw. Oh and third, I believe you haven't noticed who pointed out the instruction creep in EPA's prose in the first place. Radiant_>|< 17:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
TY, R. E Pluribus Anthony 17:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well so much for having elections in December. I suppose we should have started thinking about this earlier. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We did. Back in august I seem to recall. we Had pretty much got everything sorted out. Then Jimbo got involved.Geni 01:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Second week of Jan. sounds rather late to me...why not Jan. 1? Even if you account for participation being lower during the holiday season, it would run for two weeks, until mid-Jan., so I don't think there'd be any problem with that. Everyking 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of the voting and discussion of any poll takes place during the first week of the poll. If we start the election on January 1, then that first week of discussion occurs when most university classes are out for the holidays and students no longer have their always-on high-speed connections, and the election ends during the incredibly-hectic first week of class. Most of the people with the time to be involved in running Wikipedia are college students, so we'd be effectively locking them out of the election. --Carnildo 00:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hectic first week? Hell, I've got exams when I go back! Talrias (t | e | c) 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi! IMHO: it might be problematic to get underway quickly (i.e., on 1 Jan./06) without a process being hammered down yet or a consensus not yet within reach. The provisional set of rules that some of us have been working on accounts for this somewhat (startdate of 9 Jan./06). I think we should await feedback from Anthere or others before proceeding definitively? That's it for me. E Pluribus Anthony 00:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see that as a very important issue. If they want to participate, they will. What I think is really important is that we've now gone past the deadline, so we need to hold it as early as reasonably possible so that we don't go over the deadline any more than necessary. In the future we need to take the deadline more seriously. Everyking 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's not put the cart before the horse. If there was a consensus to act, moving forward wouldn't be an issue; however, given the above, we might not have it just yet. A day or two now will allow valuable (and neutral) input from those who have been solicited for that input (e.g., Anthere, admins). Otherwise, it might be fool-hardy to proceed: the last thing that we need this year is for the process or results of any ArbComm vote questioned because it was administered without a general framework or agreement. And given this, IMHO, I do not believe the election can or should start on New Year's. Patience, even for precious days, might be a virtue. E Pluribus Anthony 01:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This latest lot of discusion has for the most part taken place after the end of the uni term. On top of that I doubt much is going to happen between christmas and new year which means we are either fixing all the remaining problems in two days or we try and fix them while a lot of people inlcudeing me are not going to be around. Include the problem of people who are not going to declare their candidacies untill we have a solid system in place and jan 6th is as early as we can get.Geni 01:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, yeah, we need to find the earliest date that is also practical for us. I suppose Jan. 6 is fine, not much of a difference there. What I don't like is waiting until the middle of the month and then having the new ArbCom not get in until Feb. How is arbitration going to be handled during this limbo period? Will terms expire as usual on Jan. 1 and arbitration will just cease to function for a while, or will the terms be extended? Everyking 01:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Another issue that occurs to me is what happens if we can't get majority approval for enough people within the specified time frame. Do we force the result by accepting a lower percentage for success, or do we extend the voting for as long as it takes to get enough candidates at 50%? Everyking 02:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ask Jimbo.Geni 02:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't like all these solutions which just say "Ask Jimbo". We have to come up with some way to live without Jimbo. What happens if he dies in a freak gasoline fight accident? Talrias (t | e | c) 02:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Then we would have started the election on the 1st of December. We had everthing set up to run without Jimbo but then he decided he needed to be involved. Fair enough short of a board vote we would have a hard time stopping him from being involved. The problem is he hasn't really told us what he wants. Therefore beyond a certian point everything is guesswork. Even at this stage the sensible thing would probably be to go back to last year's system (ie one that we know works to a degree) however that is unlikely at this stage.Geni 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that would work; Jimbo rarely responds to anything. Which is very bad, in my opinion, if he is determined to take on this kind of executive role. He needs to either be willing to devote the time to dealing with this stuff, or he needs to let the community do it itself (preferably the latter, but I'll take either one over this frustrating business of exercising control but procrastinating and hardly even responding to the community). Everyking 02:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I know it is unlikely to work but can you really think of any other way out?Geni 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No, that was just complaining. If he wants to control things, which I don't approve of, he needs to at least be actively involved. He can be a dictator and work hard at this, or a constitutional monarch and stay aloof from it, but he can't be a dictator who just lets the papers pile up on his desk. Everyking 02:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we're getting a bit off topic and revisiting (perhaps unnecesarily) old ground. Jimbo has already specified the way we should go – regardless of whether he's intimately involved – and that must be respected. (Perhaps involvement can be addressed again after this year's ArbComm elections.) As well, the rules that some of us have worked on already address some of the basics (when, how, etc.), so they should be approved, refined, or otherwise dealt with. (The start date in the draft rules is 9 Jan./06). To that end, we should wait to hear back from Anthere (on the Board), et al. before moving forward and determining the precise process: to do so without agreement or a clear mandate – and we're not there yet – is a recipe for trouble (methinks). My two cents ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 03:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I strongly object to a procedure modelled on RFA

The proposal Jimbo put forth and people voted on in that straw poll read like this:

Jimbo can put forward candidates for community approval, 50% majority is enough. And also the community can put forward candidates for Jimbo's approval, with the same 50% majority being enough. Any dually approved candidates above the number of seats on the ArbCom go into a pool of reserves. Jimbo states a general intention to always appoint candidates approved by the community as a matter of convention, while reserving the right to refuse to seat any particularly problematic candidates.

I did not support this proposal but I didn't object to it either since it did not appear unreasonable to me. I assumed that he was talking about a closed vote performed with some technical solution like last year's approval vote. But now Jimbo has stated that what he meant was a process modelled on the RFA process. I strongly object to that and I think it is a recipe for disaster. I doubt most of the people who voted for this option thought they were supporting something like that. If we go forward with this it will mean, I predict, much more acrimony than we had last year. Negative campaigning will be rampant. - Haukur 11:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

you would probabl be better off complaining to Jimbo.Geni 12:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Neah, he always takes ages to respond :) But seriously a complaint from me alone may not do much good. If we could get a short list of people to endorse a statement opposing the proposed system we may get somewhere. - Haukur 12:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think further petitions are going to get us anywhere. We need this election, and we need it soon. As stated above, starting around January 6th sounds about right. That is what, two and a half weeks? During which most of the wiki is low on activity. So if you wanted to contest Jimbo's decision, why didn't you do it the moment he made it in the first place? Radiant_>|< 12:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't watch Jimbo's every move as he makes it. I just read in the Signpost that he'd made this decision and came here to protest it. The delay in the proceedings is not my fault. It is, to put it bluntly, Jimbo's fault. He decided he wanted to be involved, left us in the dark for weeks on how he wanted to be involved. Then he set up a poll which gave no consensus for anything and finally he's decided we should go with an option which was, in my opinion, not even specified in that poll. - Haukur 13:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Quite. And all of this was perfectly clear (to me at least) in the way the poll was conducted. Unfortunately, it is probably too late to turn back the clock. As a prospective candidate, I've tried to keep out of this discussion for a while now, but I'd like to put on record that I believe that an RfA-type poll is the worst possible option. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Even at this late stage it would be posible to use last years system with the aleady agreed modification.Geni 13:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's return to what Jimbo has stated (in addition to the above):
The community can and should begin a community approval process immediately, patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process. The point of the process should be to generate a pool of acceptable candidates from whom I can make appointments.
Notice that the way this is designed, all candidates must go through the approval process, so my role in putting forward candidates is essentially just a way for me to communicate pre-approval to the community. I don't plan to do that in this term unless it appears that we are overlooking someone particularly noteworthy.
If an open RFA-like vote is found to be unreasonable (and I don't think it is in Wp, nor does Jimbo infer that in his statements), one can argue that the converse is: as with RfA, public voting exposes candidates to scrutiny (good and bad) and may embolden voters who have not asserted a position either way. And this can be done with or without comments. Moreover, a neutral administrator can ensure everything is on track and conducted properly (including participation in discussions like this). I'm really neither here nor there (i.e., public or not, comments or not) but we should proceed as Jimbo has indicated ... within reason. E Pluribus Anthony 14:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with R. – we need to move and soon, in a manner that's consistent with the letter and spirit of Jimbo's decision, and do so when there's general agreement or sufficient input on how. If someone wished to lead that charge and organise, IMHO, it should be a neutral third-party: an administrator or other interested party who is neither a current ArbComm member nor a current candidate. That's why, as suggested days ago, Anthere or even Angela (as Board members, ergo authority/legitimacy) might be ideal. Anyhow ... E Pluribus Anthony 13:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Since Filiocht has expressed an opinion, I will too: I am completely opposed to the notion of an open (RFA) style election. First, even if the rules (such as those suggested by E Pluribus Anthony) prohibit discussive voting, people will make discussive votes nonetheless, which will just repeat the disendorsement problem from last year's election. Second, public voting may tend to have a chilling effect on voters, as some voters may feel intimidated against voting against a candidate, especially if that candidate is a current Arbitrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There seem to be one or two candidates with a history and reputation of retaliating against others for past issues. While it may be chilling to vote against those, it should be obvious that such people have no business whatsoever being an Arbiter. Radiant_>|< 14:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's not the point, although it does illustrate why public voting is inappropriate: people will take the advantage to make unfair and slanderous digs at people they don't like. The problem is that voters may feel chilled (whether or not such feeling is justified; perhaps due to the result of a malicious slander campaign orchestrated by others opposed to that person's candidacy). In any case, a candidate who was prone to such behaviors would presumably prefer open voting, precisely because it would give that candidate the opportunity to make threats. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • So, as Jimbo likes open voting per RFA, he must want to make personal attacks! Talrias (t | e | c) 15:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I wasn't planning on commenting on the proposals at all, but as Kelly and Filocht have, I shall. I am very very concerned about open voting. Unless there is a hard-and-fast rule that the only comment allowable is a signature (i.e. no "strong support", "weak oppose", or "extreme lesbian neutral" voting and no comments at all) it seems a very poor idea. I am concerned, however, that this could become an RFA-style pile-on, which is ugly and unconstructive. [[Sam Korn]] 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We have the perfect tool for conducting a commentless approval vote: Special:ArbComVote. Jimbo can then interpret the results as he likes. - Haukur 16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The page is Special:Boardvote. IIRC, it only lets you approve a candidate or not, so the way to set it up would be to have an entries for each of the candidates (i.e. Aranda56, Blankfaze, etc.) as well as entries to vote against (i.e., AgainstAranda56, AgainstBlankfaze, etc.) so as to leave open the option of abstention on particular candidates. All we need is someone with both the access and knowledge to set it up. —Cryptic (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Any developer could do it. I suspect stewards could as well.Geni 16:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Either of these options may fly in the face of an RfA-styled vote as Jimbo has indicated; again, is it reasonable to proceed with either of these unique features? Jimbo can still select candidates with or without comments. That being said, IMO, I'm not rigid: I'd support using Special:ArbComVote or Special:Boardvote if a consensus agrees to and if they're are administered properly/neutrally. E Pluribus Anthony 16:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ease-of-editing section break

  • Before we FUD ourselves to death over this issue, I should point out again that it really isn't that big a deal. It's already been proposed that all comments attached to votes are to be summarily removed, thus leading to the hard-and-fast rule Sam Korn mentions. Regarding bully candidates and slander campaigns, I should point out that
    • The community is smart enough to identify candidates that bully or make threats, and they would not be elected regardless of how elections are done
    • Threats and retaliation have a strong tendency to backfire on the instigator
    • Malicious slander campaigns work equally well regardless of whether voting is open or closed
    • I haven't seen anything related to malicious slander campaigns relating to the Arb elections, leading me to doubt their existence
    • I've seen quite a number of MSCs on WP:ANI and WP:RFC and they have a strong tendency to backfire.
  • In other words we shouldn't worry about it overly much. Certainly the allegations of potential threats and slander are no real grounds for either an open or a closed election. Radiant_>|< 16:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, R. E Pluribus Anthony 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Removing inappropriate comments doesn't remove them from the history. You can't unring the bell. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • True, but most people won't read through the entire history (because most of it will consist of "I, user:foo, vote for/against user:bar"). People will make snarky remarks no matter what we do, but this method will keep them to a minimum, and will get them ignored most of the time. (also, might I add, straw man since you're ignoring most of my arguments). Radiant_>|< 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that the manner of voting is somehow an unimportant issue. It's of pretty high importance during an election, which this is (rare for Wiki, but it is). It strikes me as extremely unlikely that anything other than bad-blood will ensue from a public voting process. Yes, the community might filter bully candidates by whichever means we choose, but that does not lessen the problem in the first place. There is a damn good reason that most countries did away with public voting for powerful positions a long time ago: it doesn't do anybody any good. If there is to be public voting, I personally will either oppose all candidates since they are running through a process that is inherently unfit for the selection or because there are a number I would oppose, and to avoid chill winds I will have to oppose everyone else too. We have a functioningish secretish voting system. I can think of no good reason not to use it. -Splashtalk 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
As this vote is modelled on the public voting process of RfAdmin, there is little at this point to reasonably prevent a public ArbComm vote. IMO: if Wikipedians have issues with a public process (or with each other) any which way, they need to either reconcile their differences within the norms of behaviour and or refrain from participating (i.e., voting or running for the ArbComm). E Pluribus Anthony 06:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Just modelling it on some existing process doesn't make it right. I don't really need lectures on how to behave, either, thanks. I'm saying, with absolute certaintly, that a public vote will yield bad blood because people won't do as you pray. Given that we have an opportunity to avoid that problem, I can't see why we actively go seeking the problem out. -Splashtalk 16:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Noted. To each one's own – modelling it on something else or anew doesn't make it right (or wrong) either, nor is the process inconsistent with Jimbo's fiat. Besides: this opportunity to avoid a problem may create other unforeseen problems. And my comments are directed at anyone who can't or won't act (voting or otherwise) within the norms of behaviour ... things we should already be doing. Take it for what it's worth; that's it for me. E Pluribus Anthony 16:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates voting

If we do have open voting, would it perhaps be an idea to disqualify candidates from voting? If candidates are also eligible to cast publicly recorded votes, a number of problems arise. Apart from the obvious but probably less likely case of some of them being tempted to "exchange votes" with other candidates, or to vote for other candidates against their own inclination in order to get a reciprocal vote, candidates might be particularly unwilling to vote against other candidates, even if they thought they should. I'm not saying that any of these eventualities are likely to happen, just that they're possibilities. Also, if successful candidates feel hurt about other successful candidates not having voted for them - and it's surprisingly easy to feel hurt by what happens when you run for an election - it might militate against the development of a good atmosphere in the new Arbcom.

I would suggest that if the vote is to be open, it would be in the best interests of the candidates themselves and of the future Arbcom that candidates not be eligible to vote at all. Palmiro | Talk 01:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound. The problem is that this would disenfranchise a substantial proportion of the people who care most about the election. In my opinion the problem of candidates voting is yet another reason not to have an open vote. - Haukur 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
We discussed this earlier, with varying proposals to prohibit a candidate from voting for oneself but not for other candidates and (conversely) to allow candidates to vote freely to prevent disenfranchisement. Candidate self-voting is already discouraged in RfAdmin, upon which the ArbComm vote should be based, and IMO is not an unreasonable expectation here. The rules indicate, though: "any user that has registered an account on the English Wikipedia on or before 30 September 2005 may cast a vote for or against each individual candidate." Given discussion, I'm unsure if there's yet carte blanche agreement on this point, and perhaps it requires clarification. E Pluribus Anthony 06:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates commenting on the procedure

I appreciate and respect that candidates are reluctant to comment on the election procedure since they have an obvious stake in it but I don't think it's right to exclude so many of our most experienced and most articulate contributors from the discussion :)

So please feel free to comment on this, I doubt anyone will hold it against you. Not that I have any authority here, I'm just describing my personal opinion. - Haukur 16:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO: I disagree – potential conflict of interest ... and this is not rooted in wikilawyering, WP:IAR, or meta:instruction creep. I or other Wikipedians who may be contentious can withdraw from the discussion too. If anyone, Wp administrators, Board members, or other Wikipedians who are not running candidates should be actively interested in or discussing/resolving these issues. But when does idealism agree with pragmatism? :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well technicaly I'm an admin who is not running but I think everyone knows my position by now.Geni 16:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, obviously I haven't been reluctant to comment, but I'll also add to what I've already said that I think having comments on the vote pages is a perfectly good thing. We need to be able to manage an atmosphere of intelligent discussion about individual candidates that falls in between tip-toeing around or saying nothing, and thus doing nothing to advance the general understanding (or the candidate's understanding of him/herself), and being uncivil. That means being positive or negative as it is deserved, but without ever going into insults or anything rude. There's this fear of disendorsements, which I think is silly; I would be fine with having that back again. And I'm sure there are people who'd use such a page to flay me alive, but that's fine. When I put myself out there as a candidate, I deliberately expose myself to the flaying. I'm not perfect and I like to hear criticism; moreover I think it's necessary for interested individuals to be able to read the comments and get a better understanding of me and my candidacy. I think that gets you a better outcome, more reflective of the reality. Everyking 05:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
A commendable position but very few people have skin as thick as yours, James. Not everyone could take three arbcom injunctions without missing a beat. Like Sæhrímnir you're flayed today and you're back tomorrow for another flaying :) - Haukur 21:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree: as long as the vote is administered properly and Wikipedians behave, constructive – yet succinct – feedback/commentary should really not be problematic and benefit everyone involved. E Pluribus Anthony 09:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I may be in the minority (and a newbie to boot) but I think there is merit in allowing a vehicle for commentary. Off to the side of the vote page perhaps, and subject to the usual standards of propriety, yes.... but allowed. ++Lar 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I still don't like the idea of comments, but if we're going to have them, it may alleviate the problem if a neutral 'crat or board member would invoke WP:RPA on the comments as necessary. Radiant_>|< 21:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Radiant but would go one step (or perhaps one and one-half steps) further. I think the instructions should gently nudge the potential commentators by suggesting that voters not feel compelled to explain their votes and asking that they refrain from simply echoing comments that have previously been made by others. Piling on repetitive negative comments seems to me to be destructive, not constructive. -- DS1953 talk 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

How about this: An RFA style election page is created with links to each candidates vote page. These vote pages have spaces for support, oppose and neutral votes. No comments will be added along with the votes but if voters wish they can link the vote to a comment on the candidates statement talk page/candidate vote page or the voters own talk page. Normal WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF apply. Uninvolved Bureaucrats and other admins will administer the process and uninvolved Bureaucrats will validate voters. The process starts Jan 6th and runs for 2 weeks. Candidates with a simple majority are presented to Jimbo for his approval. It seems streamlined enough, allows for comments but won't let them get in the way of the voting space. Maybe it's a little for everyone? Rx StrangeLove 23:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Reasonable, except that (as explained above) there is no such thing as a "neutral" vote (there is such a thing as an "abstention", of course). And I really don't think people should be "linking" their votes anywhere, considering a vote should simply be a signature. I haven't seen anyone here yet who wants comments, people have just pointed out that some people will comment. Comments should be moved out of the voting section, at the least, and personally I'd prefer them removed entirely. And what do you mean by "validating voters"? If you meant sockchecking, let me point out that 'crats can't sockcheck. Radiant_>|< 01:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
By validating voters, I meant making sure they meet the sufferage requirements.
If people will make comments I meant to get them off the voting page, hoping that if there are long threads as a result of comments they won't interfere with the actual voting page, it's not uncommon in RFAs for comments to spawn long threads. I know that support or oppose votes are normally not linked anywhere but it might be better than having comments in-line. There have been several editors who have expressed interest in allowing comments, at least here, but don't get me wrong, I've stated that I think comments would be a bad idea. I just included that part to satisfy those who would like to see them. I'd have no problem not allowing comments. I added the neutral mostly because of the RFA model, again they can go as well.
So, how about ammending this to not allow comments if others agree and no neutral votes? In the interest of settling on a process. Rx StrangeLove 02:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo said like RFA. That means comments.Geni 01:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo said "as much like RFA as reasonable" IIRC. He's also clearly indicated that he is strongly opposed to anything that resembles the disendorsements of last year. I think that means that comments are plain out. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I think if I wanted to spend my time dealing with all this interpritation stuff I would have studied theology. Someone go and anoy Jimbo until we get a more detailed answer.Geni 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As comments are a reasonable facet of the RfA process, and part-and-parcel, Rx's proposal seems a reasonable compromise: Wikipedians can choose or not to make comments in wikispace without things degenerating into a morass for candidates. E Pluribus Anthony 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
They had the choice last year, and they failed to make the right one. I see no reason to believe that civility has improved over the past twelve months. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Uninvolved bureaucrats/admins can monitor the election, just as they monitor and (should) enforce the usual norms of behaviour and process in Wp. I'm not as pessimistic: all comments needn't necessarily be negative, and I agree with R. et al. that this shouldn't be much of an issue if administered effectively. E Pluribus Anthony 02:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Admins are not exactly short of things to do (see WP:CP). Past experence suggests it will be an issue. Of course it will be fun to watch from a safe disstance. Say mars orbit.Geni 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I hear you; just as well for editors. :) Besides: because this vote is such an important issue, IMO it requires dedicated neutral oversight (e.g., clutch of uninvolved admins, or similar) to ensure propriety.
As for distance: I don't mind being immersed in the mantle – never crusty! – but geosynchronous orbit will allow for pleasant viewing too. :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If people want to chat among themselves regarding various candidates in the ArbCom election, that's great. But there's no reason that the official aspect of the ArbCom election needs to concern itself with the chattering. That's why "neutral" as a vote has to go; that's why disendorsements need to go; that's why the RfA style election page is a bad idea (at least, as an official part of the election process). Keep it as simple as possible. If you support someone vote yes. If you oppose someone vote no. If you're not sure, don't vote. Or flip a coin, or whatever your conscience dictates. If people want to discuss the candidacies, as of course they will, fine, but such discussion should be seen as just that -- discussion, not in any way a formal part of the election process. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with you completely. There's no "neutral" option on a real election ballot. --King of All the Franks 05:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree per se, but (given your comments, jpg) how precisely should the ArbCom election/voting pages be "patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process" if not based on the form and function of an RfA vote page, which users can optionally comment on? E Pluribus Anthony 03:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Beats the hell out of me. RfA is a cesspool. This whole idea of challenging people about their votes is ugly (and one of the reasons I don't participate much in RfA). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Understood. I also agree about nixing the 'neutral' option: this is no time to advertise fence-sitting or imply anything else by voting as such. E Pluribus Anthony 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So, is it fair to say (for now at least) that there's general agreement: An election page with links to each candidates vote page, supports/opposes only. The vote starts on Jan 6th and runs for 2 weeks. Uninvolved bureaucrats enforce suffrage though all the usual behavior rules apply. Candidates with a simple majority are passed over to Jimbo.

It doesn't seem like there's much support for in-line comments, but maybe comments on the statement talk pages would satisfy those who do want them part of the process? Editors can comment on their selections without interfering with the actual vote page. Or maybe someone has another compromise? As people come in and out of the discussion over the holidays we'll get more input, but we should get the general framework nailed down if it's going to start on the 6th. Rx StrangeLove 07:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If there are no objections (or even little!), IMO you might want to head on over and incorporate whatever's agreeable here into the rules that some of us earlier worked on (and then perhaps copy them to a 'public' wikispace or what-have-you). Arguments notwithstanding, at least such a document could possibly serve as a concise frame of reference (given all the chat above!) for admins and voters alike without being ... excessive. (Oh: a start date of 9 Jan./06 is indicated, but nothing's set in stone.) Do what you will.
And I'm really neither here nor there regarding comments, whether succinctly on the vote page (as with RfA) or alternatively (through wikilink to a voter's page) etc., but little thus far has convinced me that they are unreasonable nor inconsistent with the spirit of Jimbo's fiat. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I may be naive but if we have an open vote I don´t see any half-reasonable candidate getting less than 50% support. If we simply confirm everyone the election is meaningless. - Haukur 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Why? If that many people really want to participate in the hard work of arbitration, great! It will decrease the sense that some people have that Wikipedia is run by a cabal; it will spread out the nasty task of working through some of the more contentious RfArs; it will decrease arbitrator burnout. All that's needed is a some sort of tweak to the quorum requirements. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with H that public discourse during the election will aid in affirming or rejecting candidates who are of varying 'reason' (according to voters, as Wikipedia is noone's mother), but... E Pluribus Anthony 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Haukurth is correct. Jimbo has reserved the right to appoint the candidates he prefers (as long as they're not entirely distrusted by the community), instead of the candidates the community prefers. Radiant_>|< 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I put together a alternative simplified rule set here along the lines of the suggestions I made above. There's no allowance for commenting in it (on the vote pages themselves), but I know there's some people that would like to see them included. If people feel strongly about it maybe a middle ground would be to allow linking from a vote to a comment on the statement talk pages or elsewhere. This is a result of my reading of comments above and some of the rules E Pluribus Anthony had put in place last week. Please add/change as you see fit and as you see consensus here (or if I missed something) Rx StrangeLove 05:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrator Numbers

jpgordon∇∆∇∆ wrote:

If that many people really want to participate in the hard work of arbitration, great! It will decrease the sense that some people have that Wikipedia is run by a cabal; it will spread out the nasty task of working through some of the more contentious RfArs; it will decrease arbitrator burnout. All that's needed is a some sort of tweak to the quorum requirements.

I totally agree with this - we should have more arbitrators to spread out the work the current group is doing. We could use a random number generator to assign arbitrators to each request and a majority of those randomly assigned must accept to have a case. In addition to the advantages jpgordon points out, we the current arbitrators would have more time to write article. Does anyone see disadvangates to expanding the number of arbitrators? Trödel•talk 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with H that public discourse during the election will aid in affirming or rejecting candidates who are of varying 'reason' (according to voters, as Wikipedia is noone's mother), but I agree with jpg here regarding Arb numbers.
However, I think we are getting off topic – let's first resolve the electoral process and get the election underway! After that, we can get a lay of the land. Besides: Jimbo has indicated he will pick Arbitrators (either his candidate nominations or self-nominations/community approvals) from the pool of those who've garnered majority support in the election (methinks). Perhaps the quorum requirement can be revisited after the election? My two cents. E Pluribus Anthony 17:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I, too, would be very happy with having lots and lots of arbitrators. What I am not excited about is the hypothetical case where lots and lots of candidates pass the 50% bar and Jimbo only picks a handful of those to serve.

As for interpreting Jimbo's words here is my go: The closest reasonable thing to an RFA-style vote is last-year's procedure. - Haukur 21:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood. As the hybrid voting approach selected by Jimbo, we have no choice but to run that potential gamut. As well, I think R and DS have arrived at a solution above (at least to me) that sufficiently and reasonably harks of the RfA process and Jimbo's fiat herein while maintaining openness, but addresses the potential "ugliness" – or 'beauty', depending on who beholds it – of commentary. All that this now requires, methinks, is effective administration by a dedicated neutral body/bodies/'crat ... E Pluribus Anthony 21:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You're clearly doing your best and trying to move forward, I appreciate that. I've basically said my piece and I hope this turns out for the best. - Haukur 21:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, and likewise! I think I've said enough too. (ha!) I think to really move forward: we need to incorporate consensus notions into the (succinct) rules (for everyone's reference/sanity ... or devise a new bunch, or whatever), and have one or few neutral bodies lead this venture, organise it, and act impartially. These are beyond my purview. Merci!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
We the idea of increaseing arbcom size has been disscussed. It failed to gain consensus.Geni 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting; perhaps for another time, then ... after all: this year's process is unique, will have unique results, and Wp is dynamic. E Pluribus Anthony 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ability to discuss the candidates

Where are we supposed to comment on the candidates? The current candidate pages are for questions, and I see that in some cases people have phrased their comments as leading questions to put them there. But where are actual comments (as in, "here's why I think you should/shouldn't vote for candidate X") supposed to go? Also on that page? Some other page? The Village Pump? (that last one hopefully isn't the answer)

Also, if we're modeling this process on RfA (despite all common sense that votes should be anonymous), why shouldn't we be allowed to give comments in the votes, like RfA? Non-anonymous votes that are a bare "yes" or "no" are the worst of both worlds. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think of it differently: non-anonymous votes are bad enough, and adding commentary to the votes just make it worse. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh Good grief, this isn't going to be open voting is it? If so I'll probably have to withdraw... Sam Spade 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm kinda vacillating on the same point. But I realized a moment ago that, given the abuse arbitrators (not to mention admins) already take, if a candidate can't handle open voting, then they won't be able to handle the treatment they'll receive as an arbitrator. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Skrew the candidates, its my voters I'm worried about! At least one wikipedian was driven off for having endorsed me last year. Sam Spade 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
That sort of thing was one of the primary problems last year. Hopefully everyone has enough good sense as to prevent the production of a disendorsements (or endorsements) page. Outside of that, you can discuss what you want, where you want, within reason (being sure not to violate WP:POLICY and so forth). Sam Spade 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A disendorsements page was created and speedily deleted. I will personally delete any such page on grounds of the CSD for attack pages. That said, if you must comment on a candidate, I suppose you can use the talk page of the relevant candicacy. But please keep it civil. Maybe we should have a neutral party strictly enforce WP:RPA on those pages. Radiant_>|< 21:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it an attack to give an opinion that someone shouldn't be an arbitrator? Being an arbitrator seems to me to be a bigger deal than being an admin, and admin candidates have to grin and bear it when their every move is being scrutinized on RfA. People shouldn't be expected to vote just based on the candidate's own statement - they should be able to see others' objections as well. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If you can make a personal-attack-free comment on the talk page of the candidate statement, I'd imagine that would be acceptable. [[Sam Korn]] 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. But there's a huge slippery slope there. As a pure hypothetical, with no basis in reality: Sam Spade and I might think the other is a blatant "POV-pushers", and we also might think that being a "POV-pusher" is a disqualifying condition for abitrator candidates. Me, I think being called a "POV-pusher" is a personal attack. Sam, on the other hand, might think calling someone a "POV-pusher" is a simple statement of facts. Who is right? Further, I see very little in contemporary political discourse -- of which Wikipedia, for better or worse, is a microcosm -- that indicates that people are capable of distinguishing between political rhetoric and personal attacks. Just watching RfA on even slightly controversial candidates shows how nasty it can get. Still, I guess Sam Korn's solution -- using the talk page of the candidate statement -- would be the right place for such things, since they are going to happen. But the likelihood of any agreement regarding what constitutes a personal attack in this context is exceedingly low. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to weigh in, but consistent with Jimbo's prior fiat and RfAdmin, the rule on the project page that was edited by Jimbo reads as follows (emphasis added ):
To prevent "disendorsements", voters are requested to not add extensive comments to their votes; such comments may be moved to the talk page by an uninvolved party. They are, of course, free to ask questions of the candidates.
Remember: questions have already been posed to candidates and I don't foresee anything else that can't possibly be addressed in that venue, if not already. If voter or candidate comments are neither brief nor consistent with Wp norms of behaviour (see above for prior instances of someone being called to account), non-involved admins et al. would be obligated to displace them; if things run further amok, admins need to step in. E Pluribus Anthony 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
People are rarely capable of determining if statements critical of them are attacks, I assure you. That said, I have had some very stern dialogue on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/Sam_Spade, at least one example of which lead to an endorsement. I say we do the obvious: allow people to ask questions on the candidates discussion pages, and delete personal attacks if such is needed. IMO candidates should prob. not delete the personal attacks themselves. Sam Spade 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open vote, RFA style

This is an insanely bad idea, and needs to be changed promptly. Open voting is already a problem on RFA's, causing alot of bad blood. Can you imagine how much worse last years vote would have been had it been open? As it was one of the candidates stepped down based on the flak he got. Lets not open up the pandora's box of cliquism and personal attacks. Force people to research the candate, rather than simply vote for the same people their friends do! I oppose an open vote in the strongest possible terms. Sam Spade 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. I reiterate that everyone should already be conducting themselves properly: to do otherwise obviates any assumption of good faith. Given the openness and five pillars of Wikipedia, arguably Pandora's box has already been opened: if the RfAdmin process needs to be changed (and I don't see a groundswell for that), fine; until then, the ArbComm process shall be modelled on it and as per Jimbo's fiat (and in rather short order).
Mind you, I don't totally disagree with you: questions should continue to be asked (as before), but comments that are not extensive (e.g., brief one-sentence expansion) can accompany votes. Anything else can and should be moved to the talk page by involved persons/admins, or deleted (NPA), ... and definitely not by any candidates. E Pluribus Anthony 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What I see happening is what happened last year, when one of our best candidates was chased off for having endorsed me. Thats the sort of thing we can expect from open voting. Sam Spade 01:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

C'est la vie; as I've said, any improprieties this year should be acted on or punishable through the usual mechansims in Wp. And if I were to interpret your statement and cited situation objectively, SS: best is rather subjective (and arguable, since SK's withdrawal belies endurance or fortitude (which I would expect an Arbitrator to be capable of, in the least)), other factors apparently figured into SK's withdrawal, and all of this is part-and-parcel of the politics (yes, grudgingly) inherent in any election or selection process. E Pluribus Anthony 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Then you had better contact Jimbo Wales directly because I can't see any other way of getting things changed.Geni 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
And let's remember: Jimbo has already edited the rules posted on the project page, so – effectively – he's assented them. E Pluribus Anthony 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! If and until he weighs in again ... E Pluribus Anthony 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another problem

Another problem with having a vote without a secret ballot is that people will largely fail to vote on many of the 44 candidates voting pages. That means that a complete unknown might recieve 100% approval... from only 2 or 3 votes! Its clearly unfair to vote against people we know nothing about, and yet who will go thru and research all 44 of these people? All of this can be solved by a secret ballot (similar to last years voting method). Sam Spade 02:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This might be a problem to some, but not necessarily to others. A secret ballot doesn't necessarily guarantee fairness or completeness nor is it a panacea. Voters should do what they need to to make an informed decision, but they don't have to: any Wikipedian (as per suffrage) who registered in September or before can vote, and who's to say for example that a vote of omission is nothing but a conscious choice to not vote for a candidate (e.g., abstention), or that a vote either way is not a reasoned one? Irrelevant, I think. Further to that, we should refrain from making unnecessary assumptions: Jimbo has indicated he will be selecting candidates based on overall support and (with that) an expectation to not advance a candidate with (say) just 1 positive vote. Lastly, I think we're treading over old ground. E Pluribus Anthony 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with EPA. It is highly unlikely that any candidate would pass with three votes, and exceedingly unlikely that Jimbo would actually instate such. Also note that a closed ballot would not actually fix this perceived problem. Radiant_>|< 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A closed ballot would make it easier for voters to focus on the positive, not feeling obligated to find reasons to vote against the lesser known candidates. Sam Spade 03:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And who's to say that voters shouldn't focus on anything else or to vote based on any criteria, including experience or even popularity? Chacun a son goût. Furthermore as Jimbo indicated to you, SS, RfAdmin votes aren't 'animous' overall and that any such behaviours will be self-evident herein. So, until he states otherwise ... E Pluribus Anthony 04:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that an open vote is inherently unfit for selection of individuals to a prominent, influential post in any system. Which is why there is no reputable election system in the world that uses it. -Splashtalk 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There are reasons for real-world political votes being secret that do not (or hsould not) apply here. Friday (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about should not. I know they do. The slight uncertianty about exactly where people stand is a useful way of allowing people to work together. It also reduces the number of people takeing rash action.Geni 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Checks and balances: everyone participates openly, everyone monitors, neutral parties administrate. If any Wikipedian – John Q. Wiki, Arbitrator, or Administrator – is unwilling or unable to act within the usual norms of Wikiquette, they should refrain from doing so or be held accountable by the community. E Pluribus Anthony 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You have completely failed to address my point.Geni 09:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, F; this is getting rather circuitous. As Jimbo has sanctioned an open process modelled closely on RfAdmin, fit or unfit (which is subjective), our course of action is clear. E Pluribus Anthony 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
No really. It would hardly be the first time jimbo has been overuled by the community.Geni 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Conversely, there's no reason to forego Jimbo's fiat and supplant it with something that's arguably more subjective or problematic. Again, we're treading old ground unnecessarily: dissent was expressed in the lead up to Jimbo's selection and he, nevertheless, has promulgated a conciliatory approach. So until he states otherwise, frankly, Wikipedians should respect his decision, set their differences aside, and do what's necessary to make it work. E Pluribus Anthony 02:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What is necessary to make it work is to change it. I might even be bold and write the correct proposal up. All the praying language used above about hearts of gold and how everyone is absolutely angelic is, frankly, naive. People remember, people forecast. People will reach different judgements about their personal votes if it is open process than if it is a secret one, and they will fail to oppose people they would otherwise oppose on those grounds. Thus, each candidates vote is not truly representative and has little validity. Another edit summary or message contain "au contraire" doens't change that. -Splashtalk 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
IMO, nor does circuitous and subjective argumentation. I'll reiterate it because it's apt — au contraire. Based on Jimbo's fiat, we've already discussed and drafted rules that Jimbo has edited and effectively sanctioned. Others should implement and administrate, not succumb to paralysis. Go ahead and do what you must, but unless there's support for it, I'll support what Jimbo has indicated and will hereafter withdraw from this discussion thread. E Pluribus Anthony 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If I'm to be told that I'm best ignored, then let me absolutely clear: the idea of an open-vote came about by magic, no alternative has been admitted any quarter-way decent discussion, and we have finished up with the most collosally wrong way to do it. -Splashtalk 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

definitely, and snappy combacks and forced usage of french is not helping us solve the problem. Whats the point of a talk page if all it is used for is to discourage communication? Sam Spade 09:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Solve the problem in 2/3 days? Not posible any more. Just sit back watch. It may be ammuseing from a completely disspashinate POV.Geni 09:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, please recall that extensive discussions concerning these 'problems' (arguably) has already occurred. As for forced usage of French et al.: Jimbo has already indicated a course of action, based on input to date, so arguably the reiteration of notions counter to his fiat – and in English – have been the true hindrance here. We need to move forward, and IMO this discussion thread is getting circuitous and counter-productive. Others can feel free to continue it, but unless there's something anew, I'm simply indicating that I've nothing more to say regarding this.

[edit] Administrating the elections

Furthermore, some Wikipedians (e.g., uninvolved admins or similar) really need to take charge of this and get things going. E Pluribus Anthony 09:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I can throw the voteing page together inside half an hour. I'll try and get it done by the end of today.Geni 12:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! Recall that a provisional template has already been created, and it probably just needs to be refined. The only noticeable change from RfAdmin (other than the obvious) is the use of a table to log votes alongside one another Y next to N, instead of Y/N down. Once this is finalised, we merely need to copy and configure the pages for each candidate.
Moreover, I've solicited new admin Nightstallion and bureaucrat Cecropia, both previously uninvolved (I think) in these discussions, to assist and/or administrate. (I am neither in a position nor have more time to lead this venture, but will assist, if necessary.) Ns has agreed to assist, still awaiting feedback from C. Unfortunately, board member Anthere hasn't provided any input yet. Ah well. :( Any ideas? E Pluribus Anthony 12:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
For technical reasons that provisional template is not really practical. I also do no want to use sub pages of sub pages. Still here goes.Geni 12:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the initial intent was to transclude the relevant pages/sections and to give form to it: it's at least a place to start. But whatever works. E Pluribus Anthony 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't transclude. I'd like to make it posible for people on dialup to vote.Geni 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, OK; whatever works ... E Pluribus Anthony 13:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
fisrt page complete Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 Vote/Vote Ajwebb. I'll sort out the rest when wikipedia stops falling over.

Hi! I'm here. What can I help with? —Nightstallion (?) 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Preventing any of the candidates killing each other. Keep an eye on what I'm doing with the organisation and make sure I don't do anything terminaly stupid.Geni 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll try. If you need help with something in specific, drop me a line. —Nightstallion (?) 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo should administer this himself, the whole thing was his (rather half-baked, imo) idea, and deal with all the <expletive> it's going to generate. I can't imagine why any right-minded editor would volunteer to referee the <expletive>storm that's about to break. -Splashtalk 14:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon your French, pardon my French! :) If this is a solution, I choose half-baked door #2 or even WTF door #3 to SNAFU door #1. Ns has offered to assist (TY!); others admins should too. I'd deal with it but have neither the authority (mere plebe) nor the time to do it, etc., but I'll gladly assist if needed. E Pluribus Anthony 14:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Are there things that are needful that non admin editors could help with? And would it be a conflict of interest to help and also to express an opinion about candidates (I've already expressed such opinions, at least in notes to myself which are not publicly linked but which could be found by assidious seekers) ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see the only intervention that might occur during the election is removing extensive comments or comments that violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA and that can be done by any uninvolved party. I think we've been using the term uninvolved party as anyone not running in the election so that leaves it pretty wide open. Votes that don't meet the sufferage requirement won't be counted but there's no provision for removing them. I'd like to see a last minute change in the rules to disallow comments, but I wouldn't get very far with that I'm afraid. Rx StrangeLove 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Remember, L: given all the above, I'm not an admin either. I'm sure you can help somehow, but can't articulate precisely how just yet. As well, I'm not leading this charge: Geni is in the process of configuring candidate pages, I've suggested some tweaks for, methinks, everyone's ease. To anyone interested, I'd imagine that this requires completion first; once that's all in place, I agree with DrS think all that is needed is to monitor the 44? candidate pages for propriety for two weeks ... and that is likely best accomplished through/by non-involved admins who can and should enforce Wp norms of behaviour. My two cents.
And yes, DrS: Jimbo specifically edited the rules to prohibit only extensive comments being added to votes, not all comments, etc. Thus, perhaps such a provision should be something like: an uninvolved admin/party may move or remove a comment if they deem it to reasonably contravene Wikipedia's five pillars. If not, it will merely be up to noninvolved parties to do so at their utter discretion.
Or perhaps I really need a firm hand? :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't contravene 5P, it's not policy. Neither is RPA. Tread carefully. -Splashtalk 20:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I cited 5P merely as an example and starting point – uptop of the 5P project page is the catch-all: "all of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines are based on five unchangeable pillars that define Wikipedia's character..." Hell: replace 5P with Policies and guidelines (list) or similar. Whatever works. Suggestions? E Pluribus Anthony 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disadvantages of open elections

An open election here is not appropriate for all the usual reasons that open elections are not appropriate. They force voters to ask themselves questions like these:

  • Should I dare to vote against this influential member of the community? Will she hold a vendetta against me?
  • I want to run for admin in a couple of months. Which will better help my chances there - voting according to my conscience and opposing a lot of people who I don't think will do a good job or just supporting most everyone with some nice comments?
  • This influential member of the community sure would be a useful ally to have. I'm not sure how good he'll be for the ArbCom but shouldn't I just vote for him anyway?
  • This good friend of mine is running for the ArbCom. I really like her but I don't think she has the diplomatic skills for the job. Do I vote against her and risk our friendship?
  • etc. etc. etc.

In a closed vote people simply ask themselves the question: "Which people would I most like to see in office?" That's not a perfect question but it is generally considered superior to the ones above.

"But Haukur", you may say, "we routinely hold votes for admin candidates like this and it seems to work fine". Okay, maybe it works well enough there. But that's a completely different kind of election. People running for admin are not competing against each other as the number of admins isn't fixed. Voting against one admin candidate doesn't help another admin candidate one whit. This is very different from the ArbCom election.

But if there is absolutely no way we can avoid using this system by now I will still participate in the elections. I will do so politely, in good faith and with the goal of electing the best ArbCom we can get. - Haukur 12:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above. This is a very poor idea. DES (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, but based on Jimbo's statement, we'll have to wait for next time. Its even more important that we reform RfA, btw. Sam Spade 06:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Are we going to be voting by editing the text and typing in something like "I vote for Chewbaca DyslexicEditor 19:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)" like votes for deletion. Will voters be able to do this and then make comments on who they voted for or didn't like "I vote against this person, they are a creep and look at this terrible edit they made, sure they regret it now but the shame will haunt them forever". Or "I think half these people running are the same person using multiple accounts. Let me give names and show how they all edit the same way." I imagine these kinds of things will happen. Wow, there are countless editors. I imagine this would make crazy edit conflicts. Or is there going to be some web system where we choose an option button? Second, are all the people running currently admins or higher? Or can anyone who feels like it run? This really is a needs a FAQ kind of thing? Sorry for being a newb. DyslexicEditor 19:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we'll be voting by editing the text and adding our signatures. There's nothing stopping us from leaving comments (obviously), but if they contain personal attacks or other generally hostile messages a neutral party will probably trim them down or remove the comment.
Anyone who wishes to become an arbitrator may stand as a candidate, there is no requirement for being an admin. Admins and arbitrators have completely different tasks, so I don't see how a requirement would make sense. Hope this helps, Talrias (t | e | c) 19:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, someone without a userpage is now in there. Dunno what'll happen. Not sure if I agree with the system we're using ,because it looks like we'll have problems. Why not do something like last year's elections but modify it so that jimbo can see candidates with 50%+ support? —Ilyanep (Talk) 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
As per votes for administrators, Wikipedians can indicate their vote in one of two sections: YES / NO. As per the procedure, which Jimbo has edited, extensive comments should not accompany or be made with a vote – only brief ones, if any – and comments may be moved to the talk page. E Pluribus Anthony 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Because all such suggestions that have been made have been summarily dismissed since Jimbo's rather unhelpful proclamation. -Splashtalk 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We are stuck with the jimbo system since it is a little late to change it.Geni 22:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, approach the 'anon'/user page in a few ways:
  • (1) determine if they've been around before 30 Sep./05; if not, a neutral admin should nix them from candidacy
  • (2) retain and trust that the community and Jimbo will ID this when voting; this is something a closed vote wouldn't at all solve.
Yes: we're stuck with it. And the suggestions haven't been dismissed: support and dissent has been thoroughly discussed already – IMO, at this juncture, needless repetition and rehashing should be. Whether Wikipedians agree or disagree: read the litany against fear and let's just get on with it. E Pluribus Anthony 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You missed (3) I lose them in the paperwork.Geni 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha! E Pluribus Anthony 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Where did the "stuck with it" notion arise from? We can delay the election as long as we like, the ArbCom are handling the crisis admirably. If Jimbo wants a date, he can set one. Choosing one will approximately double the time he has spent on this so far. -Splashtalk 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Geni brought it up; I merely reiterated it but don't necessarily agree with the sentiment.
And why should we delay? Misgivings? When Jimbo edited the rules, he didn't touch the dates indicated, so (in effect) he's already set the timeframe. Moreover, the boiler plates (at least in my watchlist) are actively advertising the dates now. E Pluribus Anthony 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We should delay because it is completely and utterly the wrong way to do it. Honestly: not saying "no" is a pretty weak form of agreement. -Splashtalk 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I stood against this every inch of the way. However in order to oppose an edict from Jimbo you need numbers and people with serious reputations. I had very little of either to work with. The dabate for this year is over. The election will take place as Jimbo ruled. It would have started jan 1st if it wasn't for the uni holidays. To do things at the 11th hour is one thing. To do them when the 12th has passed is another. Our energy is best spent now on damage limitation and makeing sure there is an election (remember jimbo just wanted to apoint people without an election). You think you can change the system? You know where Jimbo's talk page is.Geni 00:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In your opinion. Honestly: repeatedly saying "no" despite everything beforehand impedes any progress. E Pluribus Anthony 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
We've already been delayed over a month. The time for any debate was before I went and anounced the election on every watchlist on wikipedia. The debate is over. We lost. All we can do now is try and make things go as smothly as posible and make sure that any damage it does is kept to a mininum.Geni 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I do wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. E Pluribus Anthony 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand it.Geni 00:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe I do, but please elaborate or clarify if necessary. E Pluribus Anthony 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting against candidates; retaliation?

If I vote against a candidate who later wins, is there some kind of procedure where if I'm involved in an ArbCom that person can not participate? Not that I expect to be involved in an ArbCom -- I'm just wondering how a non-secret vote can protect against this? Sdedeo (tips) 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would reflect poorly on an arbitrator if they picked on you purely because you voted oppose to them in the elections. I don't think this should be grounds for recusal (otherwise, troublemakers could simply vote oppose to everyone), and if an arbitrator's only contact with you is this election, I don't think there's anything to worry about. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It certaintly would reflect poorly! But presumably the person voting against a candidate believes s/he is likely to behave poorly? I'm not sure if it is something to worry about, but it seems to me a deep flaw in the system. Surely someone can hack together a way to make votes secret and open only to registered users with a pre-election edit history and so forth. Sdedeo (tips) 02:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact a system you mention does exist, it was used for the Wikimedia Foundation board elections a few months ago. Jimbo Wales decided to run this election by a similar process to WP:RFA - see the rest of this talk page for more discussion on this. Well, voting against a candidate because they would behave poorly is certainly one reason to vote in opposition, I am optimistic that any candidate who would have a vendetta against anyone who voted against them would not be elected to become an arbitrator, but of course there are other reasons to oppose also, for example, a percieved lack of experience. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks. Haven't read this gigantic talk page! Sdedeo (tips) 02:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] slight alteration to the rules needed

Any Wikipedian can vote providing they registered for a user account on English Wikipedia on or before 30 September 2005 and X edits. Anonymous votes shall be summarily removed, and sock puppetry will be investigated and punishable through administrative sanctions.

X being between 100 and 500 If we don't do this we have the issue of people complaining that other people are not part of the community. I suggest x=150 since that means 50 edits a months for someone registered on the 30th which seems reasonable.Geni 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that that's needed. The previous standard was used in the past elections, and there wasn't a problem with it. If there's a problem this time, we can change it for next time. Also, it's kind of late to be modifying rules after we've announced them. We shouldn't do that unless absolutely necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The board vote required you to have 500 edits.Geni 22:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If we're changing the rules now, then I've got a couple to ad... -Splashtalk 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd be better off not changing the rules at this point, once we start where do we stop? Rx StrangeLove 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

the point is that this one can be changed with very little effort. It would really just be clearing up an anomily.Geni 23:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a relatively trivial issue either way, sure let's say 150 edits are required - that sounds like common sense. It's not like those rules came about through some massive bureaucratic procedure anyhow :) - Haukur 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, though I'm not allowing myself to say this. [[Sam Korn]] 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the change, but not necessarily with the notion. At this juncture, it's not needed. This rule hasn't garnered a modicum of support nor has it been derived through massive 'bureaucracy'. As well, Jimbo didn't edit this in and, thus, it's as arbitrary as any other proposed change. The 30 Sep./05 should suffice. E Pluribus Anthony 00:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

yep it is arbitrary. So what? The question is is it right or wrong. I know there are a lot of trolls who will have accounts that old but will be nixed by the the 150 edit requirement. We exclude praticicaly no one but we do gain a degree of safety.Geni 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said, it worked last time; why shouldn't it work this time? If it doesn't, I'm sure Jimbo will realize that some votes shouldn't be counted as heavily as others, and then we can fix it for next time. We've already announced the rules; it's kind of late to modify them. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Last time was boardvote and we had a 500 edit minium.Geni 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, F.: admins can deal with the trolls in the usual way, regardless of edit count. This isn't a facet of RfAdmin, is it? And right or wrong are subjective: without any diligence, this limit won't prevent trolls who have made far more edits but have yet gone unnoticed and it may penalise newbies who haven't made a substantial number of edits yet but regd before Oct. E Pluribus Anthony 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
the usual way? plug any cracks we can find then wack those that manage to sneak through? I think you will find that is what I'm doing. Frankly when it comes to electing arbcom I don't care that much what "newbies who haven't made a substantial number of edits" think. The odds are they haven't spent enough time here to know what to look for in an arbcom member.Geni 01:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
For every argument, there's a counter-argument. And, as I said, I don't disagree with the notion ... but now isn't the time: during this rockslide, it's too late for the pebbles to vote. E Pluribus Anthony 02:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
No isn't the time is not a vaild argument in this case. I am quite caperble of changeing the rules by myself. Now do you have any valid arguments against the change?Geni 02:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Valid counter-arguments have already been posed and I'm not alone in doing so. We've already been over this. Importantly: you will also note that the passage/alteration above (though rooted in discussions) isn't actually cited in Jimbo's summary of and edit to the rules, so this is rather willful.
Of course you're capable, but is it justified? Arguably not. E Pluribus Anthony 02:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry which counter arguments have I not shown to be flawed?Geni 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And yours are not? They're rooted in a faulty premise and are arbitrary. Others can address this hereafter; I won't. E Pluribus Anthony 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Argument by assertion logical fallacy.Geni 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
As the proposed alteration is rooted in a faulty assertion – that it's based on a non-existent rule, which is arguably ignored – who's being fallacious here? The proposal should be dismissed as such. E Pluribus Anthony 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not based on a rule. It is based on doing the right thing. Standard cost beinifit analysis. What do we lose by puting in a 150 minium edit requirment? What do we gain?. We lose maybe a couple on votes from people with 149 edits but who have for some reason have a magical flash of insite that allows them to understand the ideal reqirements for arbcom membership. We gain a reduced number of sleeping trolles and a garentee that people have at least some stake in wikipedia.Geni 03:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FUCK NO

I feel that there are times to be polite, and times when it is wiser to just say FUCK NO, with no apologies, and no holding back.

It seems that the people working to design this year's arbcom election procedure have gone and explicitly included every possible method they could think of to make the arbitration committee elections utterly and completly fail, and cause a year of painful precedents for the rest of the wiki.

Is this some secret plan to cut off our nose to spite our face, and I haven't read the memo?

I suggest we re-write these plans damn fast. Especially if this election is to be held on january 9.

Kim Bruning 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You have the mistaken assumption that anyone actually designed this procedure! My sense of AGF tells me that no one could have possibly come up with such a terrible method. ;) Talrias (t | e | c) 03:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You have 20.5 hours to find a steward or developer who is prepared to give jimbo the middle finger.Geni 03:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I would say having a closed election and just handing over the candidates with 50% support to Jimbo would be better, but apparantly we're very suicidal. I don't know if I want to be voting in such a system, nor do many other people. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Kim Bruning, that deserves a barnstar. How many sensibly minded people does it take for people reading this talk page, which damn well ought to include Jimbo, to realise the catastrophe they are advocating? Delay the elections two weeks. Do this properly. Tell Jimbo he's wrong when he's wrong, and have the devs switch on a secret vote. -Splashtalk 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Why now? Where were you when I tried to stop this the first time around? Ok forget that. Just answer this question honestly. Do you really think you can get jimbo to change his mind? Do you really think you can do it in a reasonable timeframe.Geni 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
ɸ ʃ ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ I give up —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo wants an open vote. I think I understand why. Let us proceed. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's proceed since that's what we appear to have gotten ourselves into, but I'm sure that the 2004 election will [pail/pale/pael/paeeeeeel] pale I think (english sucks) in comparison to what this will be. I'll continue to be open-minded anyways, I suppose. —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I was, I presume, far away from all Arbitration issues as I generally try to be. That was clearly a mistake on some counts and an excellent decision on others. I can edit the project page right now, if you like, but I don't suppose Jimbo is likely to respond on a Sunday to a last minute plea for a stay of execution. That doesn't mean that I can't carry on being pretty open about how wrong it is. -Splashtalk 03:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kim. By having an open vote we're backsliding over a century. It's one of the few features of the nineteenth century electoral system that I won't even try to defend (and that's saying a lot). I think we've got to ban commenting on the voting pages. You sign and that's it. Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea. --King of All the Franks 05:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think that that's a good idea. Kim Bruning 05:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


I just think that it would save us a lot of drama and ill will. --King of All the Franks 05:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm dropping my opposition for now. I was among several people standing by last autumn-ish, but we were not to interfere, or something. I'm confused. Apparently there's something I don't know. <retreats in disarray> Kim Bruning 05:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, at the risk of reopening a wound. Not only was this voting process grueling (ballot fatigue, anyone?) but it completely backs off of the progress made in political science in the past, oh, century or so.
By the way, one must love ex-Arbitrator Martin's: "Jimbo wants an open vote. I think I understand why. Let us proceed." As Kim said I guess there's some X factor here. I would assume that it's Jimbo trying to exhaust us so he doesn't need to have an election to anything ever again. Wally 07:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 Vote

Needs proof reading and doesn't have a vote here button on the support or oppose pages. I'll get to that when I've had some sleep.Geni 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You absolutely must use transcluded subpages for each candidate; otherwise, the page will get so incredibly long (remember, 100+ votes for each of 60+ candidates) that it will be uneditable. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
transcluding will produce a page in the megabites very fast. The voteing pages are linked to but I'm not going to risk transcluding them. Or in other words read instruction number 3.Geni 04:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the formatting of the page. Ignore my comments. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not make a table/list at the beginning for those of us who've read the statements? Have the table have 3 comments: username, Support link, oppose link. —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And yes it is possible to have a Support and Oppose link seperately (although the above two links don't point to real subpages). —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense: I tried as much over here. E Pluribus Anthony 04:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, someone has to explain to me how tables work in wikimarkup. —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to code a table to do that right now. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It took about 2 hours to do (mostly figuring out how to exactly do it) but I got a table done, I placed it on the main vote page. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You totally rock, man. Remind when I'm sober to give you a barnstar. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes; looks great. E Pluribus Anthony 13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was thinking! Awesome! :) —Ilyanep (Talk) 15:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Could someone remind me where the main vote page is, I want to see what Jtkiefer's changes look like, thanks! (ya I guess I could look at his recent changes to find it too, but probably more people want to know too?). ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about the link at the top of this section? That's the main page where you'll go to vote for each candidate, or is that not what you meant? Rx StrangeLove 18:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Ya... er... um... DUH! I blame cosmic rays. Seriously, thanks for the reminder, and that table and linkset really rocks. Nice work, all. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are there oppose links on the voting page? I thought we were going to avoid the "disendorsement" silliness this year. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, it turns out that Wikipedia is a suicide pact after all :) - Haukur 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I sent a note to Jimbo. Hopefully he'll show up here and, if nothing else, try to reassure us that he really has thought this through and thinks that it will work out for the best. - Haukur 10:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd that no positive comments were included in this note et al., which demonstrates that each Wikipedian (present company included) has a coloured point-of-view. I'm sure that Jimbo sees the many shades of grey, yet the forest from the trees, and do not share the skepticism: we should all respect the wisdom and choices made throughout, moving forward (pardon the cliché) as best as possible and with the communitarianism and positivism upon which Wikipedia is based. E Pluribus Anthony 13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it was never my intention to compile a balanced summary of everyone's opinion, I was just trying to get the idea across that a lot of us are concerned. The truth is, though, that I haven't seen much talk in favor of open RFA-style voting here. Even you — who are doing the best you can to be positive and optimistic about this and I applaud you — haven't really materially defended the idea. - Haukur 15:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand; thanks. Despite grumblings and concern (which I do share), I've set my differences aside and others should too. I would be just as zealous no matter what process was selected (and appreciate that others have been too for varying reasons) ... it just so happens that this is the one that Jimbo, with extensive community input before and since, has selected. Let's just get on with it, administrate the election effectively, and evaluate it during and afterwards. I don't know if I can or should say anything else to that effect without sounding like a broken record. :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, you're clearly doing your best and trying to get things done. As for the community input part the problem, as I see it, is that the poll Jimbo set up did not mention open RFA-style elections as an option. Most everyone who has commented on that idea has been very skeptical of it. - Haukur 15:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again; likewise. That is true, but he later added that "The community can and should begin a community approval process immediately, patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process" and his subsequent edits didn't change that. As I see it, that's leadership and isn't a problem – both poll and related input should be (and has been) considered. And just as well for the RfA process, which Jimbo doesn't seem to think is all that problematic and should be dealt with separately. IMO ... E Pluribus Anthony 16:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006. Alot more people have expressed horror regarding the open voting since then, so maybe he'll change his mind... Sam Spade 12:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a conversation with Jimbo last night on this topic. He's not going to change his mind on this point, and I understand his logic, I think. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you summarize what Jimbo's logic is for having open elections? I'm not sure I've seen it presented, although it's quite possible I missed it. Carbonite | Talk 17:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that if Jimbo wanted to tell us his logic he'd reply here and tell us, you can always ask him yourself though. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You may be correct, but I think a lot of the opposition is because JImbo's logic isn't really known to more than a few people. If Jimbo came out and said "We're having open voting because of X, Y, and Z" that would probably be good enough for me. It's possible I wouldn't agree that X, Y, or Z were great reasons, but it would be better than having the appearance of an arbitrary decision. I trust that Jimbo has put considerable thought into the election, but it would still be nice for him to share his reasoning with the rest of the community. Carbonite | Talk 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote so that it's a subpage of the elections (I moved the previous page there to somewhere else). Also, I removed the 150 vote requirement - there doesn't appear to be consensus on this. Also, I removed the "If you vote with multiple accounts, all of your votes will be void" and changed it to void only extra votes. This was discussed previously in the proposed changes, I beleive, and rejected. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(Fixing all the broken links created by the move now...)

I have changed the instructions to instruct people to vote on the voting subpages instead of the candidate statements subpages since the pages have been set up specifically to make it easier. My changes probably need copyediting to make them easier to read though JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The 150 requirment stays unless you can give a reason not rooted in burocracy why it should not be there.Geni 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I support this, there doesn't really need to be a consensus on this I don't think. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with that, but I won't argue it - not only is it a minor issue, but I've got some links to fix. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
They were added at the last minute with little discussion, they’ll be ineffective as it’ll be easy to rack 150 edits in a couple weeks if the first part of the rule has been met and there doesn’t really seem to be a real consensus for that sort of limit this year. Probably doesn't matter though. Rx StrangeLove 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought the 150 rule meant that a voter needed 150 edits at September 30; otherwise, I could easily rackup 150 edits modifying the sandbox or something like that. :-) Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I read it as having an account on Sept 30 and the account has 150 edits. If it had said had I'd agree. Rx StrangeLove 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
150 edits as of September 30 is the logical route; otherwise we'll be overrun with socks. (I've got, hm, three other accounts with less than ten edits each, from when I was looking for a user name; I'll never forgive the guy who grabbed Tyrant first....) In any case, the script I used to confirm suffrage for the CSD expansion poll back in July is still around, and makes checking pretty painless. Alternately, I could incorporate it into my bot, making it completely painless. —Cryptic (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! Any objections if I modify the wording to make clear 150 edits is as of September 30? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we have been told it is too late to change anything now and that considerable thought has been given to this by Jimbo. Jimbo no doubt having carefully considered the ramifications of his decree before jotting it down in 5 minutes, is fully aware of all of this and, if he had wanted it, he would have already said so. -Splashtalk 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
10 minutes left in that case. —Ilyanep (Talk) 23:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Geni, why did you change the page so that it says "150 edits at the start of this vote (January 9)"? I thought we agreed that if that rule is placed in there, it's 150 edits as of September 30. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (and for the record I agree with Splash here that there was no consensus to add this rule in after the other rules had been announced)
Agreed, this was added...and adjusted.... sort of unilaterally...Rx StrangeLove 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the rule I know what I meant. As of the start of this vote means a person who registered on the last posible day made 10 edits a week. (and they have 4 mins left to rig the system).Geni 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
No because they're already ineligible due to their account age, I have reverted back to just saying 150 edits. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
(ec) Geni, I hate to be blunt, but this isn't your rule - it's what the community thinks is right. Jimbo asked the community to run this process, and that's what we're doing. Most of us seem to think that 150 edits at September 30 is better than at the start of the vote, if we even have a consensus to add the rule in. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
(unindenting) It doesn't matter very much whether it's 150 as of September 30 or 150 as of January 9, so long as it's as of some specific date (preferably preceding the start). Just "and 150 edits" is unacceptably ambiguous. —Cryptic (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Concur with that. We need to chose one of those two dates or remove it completely. Thoughts on which date? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
killing indentation The idea was to kill sleeper accounts or other accounts that had only registed as meatpupets. Either date will do that but the jan 9th date is a lot less harsh.Geni 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, adding in January 9. Hope this is the end of the controversy and we'll have a nice, quiet election... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That makes the most sense, thanks for doing that, maybe we sidestepped some issues with the clarification. So much for calm and reasoned discussion ;) Rx StrangeLove 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the clock has struck and there was no last-minute intervention from above. Nothing to do now but to participate in good faith and hope this turns out for the best. It was nice chatting with you all. - Haukur 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This 150 criterion et al. is precisely why such a rule shouldn't have been arbitrarily added in the first place and at the last minute: I've said equally as much to Geni, with suggested copyedits unaddressed. It's not a matter of right or wrong, which some people have agreed is the latter. Really, whatever works ... but it should be nixed. E Pluribus Anthony 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

On the basis we managed to move the entire page an change every link in the last hour it would appear that doing things at the last minute is not as difficult as commonly thought.the message at the top of your watchlist was put together in 12 mins.Geni 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point: it's instruction creep, without agreement. E Pluribus Anthony 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
forceing me to go through some long process to get "agreement" would be instruction creep.Geni 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's part-and-parcel why it should be nixed – as stated, it's willful instruction creep.
Anyhow, at first blush the election seems to be proceeding without incident, so I commend everyone for their hard work and input. E Pluribus Anthony 03:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suffrage checking

As alluded to above, I've jiggered my bot into checking signatures against contributions histories and automatically checking them for suffrage. (It's read-only, so I paste the results in myself.) It should be pretty reliable, but it'll fail if either:

  1. Someone both includes a link to someone else's user page, and either doesn't sign or doesn't have a direct link to his own user page in his sig (ie, a sig like {{user|Cryptic}} or {{User:Cryptic/sig}} won't be recognized), or
  2. Someone deliberately signs using someone else's name.

I'm perfectly willing to do the grunt work checking 'normal' cases for suffrage (and will probably do so twice a day or so, more often near the start of the election); if other folks could keep an eye open for the above two cases, I'd appreciate it. —Cryptic (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talk page, there exists a (pretty small) chance that a user will have created his account on or before September 30 but made his first edit (which is what I'm checking) afterwards. If this actually happens, drop a note on my talk page and I'll fix it. —Cryptic (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of experience

There are a number of candidates that have a pile-on of "oppose" votes because of a lack of experience. While well-intended, these canidates don't really stand a chance. I believe it may be useful (for a next election) to require a certain standard one must reach before becoming a candidate (e.g. minimum of 1000 edits, or active for at least half a year, or must be an admin). Radiant_>|< 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggestedGeni 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with some sort of restriction, but it should not be too restrictive, either. —Nightstallion (?) 13:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It will be interesting to take a look at the results of this election and see the support for candidates with less than X edits or Y months of activity. It does seem rather strange to allow candidates that don't even have suffrage to vote. I think standards of around 6 months and 1000 edits would be reasonable. Carbonite | Talk 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we actually discussed this earlier (but not with as much detail, but it somehow got lost in translation? E Pluribus Anthony 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that being to stand despite being ineligible to vote is ridiculous. It's also a waste of time; reading the statements, talk pages and user contribs has taken me the best part of a day. --kingboyk 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's nice to be liberal and allow anyone to nominate themselves, but reading candidate statements/questions takes time and "for fun" nominations are just perturbing. Bring on the suffrage. feydey 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading statements on and off all day (fitting it around my work) and I'm only got as far as Improv so far. A sensible rule imho would be to require the same requirements of candidates as voters. Thryduulf 18:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia wants this to be a robust process, then participation needs to be as easy as possible. As best I can tell, around 1/3 of the candidates are easily rejected due to lack of experience, and yet a participant has to actively deal with them! It is even more ridiculous when the candidate does not even have sufferage. This is a serious position requiring significant experience in Wikipedia. 6 months and 1,000 edits is the absolute minimum that I would require. I suggested in the talk page for the voting 1 year and 1,000 edits, but right now I would prefer to call for 1 year and 2,500 edits. In any case, we need in the elections to be able to focus on people who are serious candidates. --EMS | Talk 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
One year is a bit too much in my opinion. Lots of good people who know the robes have been here, say, nine months. But something like three months and 1,000 edits would be fine and not too restrictive. - Haukur 10:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder how people rack up these high numbers of edits. I've been here for 22 month, reasonably active, and I'm just now close to 1000 edits (slightly more than half in articles). --Stephan Schulz 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Try editting more? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 07:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"I wonder how people rack up these high numbers of edits" Don't use preview. Write a sentence. Save. Correct typo. Save. Make change. Save. Add a space. Save. User contribs will show who is using this technique. GangofOne 16:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
RC patrol, tagging images and wikifying are all more legit ways of racking up edits.Geni 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral votes

To preclude neutral votes and abstentions, as discussed previously ad nauseum, we recently massaged the rules to accommodate for this – specifically, that neutral votes are effectively "extensive" comments and shall be moved to a candidate's vote-talk page.

After going about doing so on a number of talk pages, a solitary user (and an Admin, no less) has taken it upon oneself to negate these changes and revert the rules, evincing lack of discussion/consensus. I think action is necessary and believe these changes should be restored; as well, the offending user should be sanctioned for being disruptive (IMO). Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it's a lot better to first look for solutions before even vaguely considering punishment, y'know? This got set up because the rules one one page were not the same as the rules on the actual voting page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
This is perhaps a point for clarity in the future. But what of now? OK, so what are the solutions?
  • I or anyone else can revert the changes and in fact cause additional disruption – I am reluctant to do this only because I'm not an Admin;
  • Bite our tongues and potentially allow disendorsements through indifferent votes;
  • As per prior discussions, (re)implement this change
And it's not like we haven't discussed this already (despite user protestations to the contrary, who wasn't involved in these discussions) ... you noted this yourself, jpg. Moreover the vote-page links only provide for support/oppose votes, not neutral ones, so anything else is arguably superfluous.
I contend that such changes and reverts, and a wilingness to fly in the face of what we have discussed and invoking a lack of consensus in doing so (pot, meet kettle), should be dealt with somehow and quickly ... and the offending user too. And to that end, the rules should be edited consistently in both spots to reflect this.
I wouldn't hesitate to make these editions and in firming things up as per the consensus derived here and elsewhere, but the voting page is uneditable to non-Admins like me.
I regret if I seem like I'm going overboard and will withdraw if needed, but – as with ArbComm votes – this isn't the time to equivocate and this is a problem that I think needs to be resolved. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, obviously I agree with you regarding the change. I think someone else needs to do it since I'm a candidate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Brian and others will probably shoot me on sight after this, but I'll do it for now. —Nightstallion (?) 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, let's wait for Jimbo Wales' opinion on this; I placed an inquiry on his talk page. —Nightstallion (?) 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral votes are informative, and hardly seem 'extensive' in and of themselves. A neutral vote informs others in the community that the voter has looked at the page in question and is neutral. That's a different piece of information than no vote at all, which might mean neutrality or might mean that the voter just hasn't seen it. I think they should stay on the page. They are a legitimate, peaceful, and positive part of the dialogue. --Jimbo Wales 19:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, thanks again for weighing in. I don't think the issue is whether they are important (they clearly are), but whether given our discussions they belonged on the vote page. If a significant number of people assert neutrality, whose to opine what those votes mean, with or without comments? Are they, effectively disendorsements? And can they not serve the same informational purpose by being moved to the talk page?
Well, I for one would take them into account were I voting, and I will of course take them into account if it becomes the case that I have to select between multiple candidates from a pool approved by the community. I don't see how they could count as disendorsements, at least as compared to an 'oppose' vote. And I think if they are moved to the talk page, they won't be where most people will see them, thus eliminating most of the information they could convey.--Jimbo Wales 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I think we can have our cake and it eat it too, hence the initial proposal to move all neutral votes. A neutral vote is rare in a usual political vote and, as you see below, a neutral or non-vote can have any number of interpretations: abstention, protest, disendorsement, true neutrality, etc. As a result of these extended discussions, the rules and voting pages devised enabled Y/N votes only, and the intent (as per those rules) was to eliminate any real or perceived ambiguity by moving them and "extensive comments" to the vote-talk page. I know I frequently glance at talk pages before editing articles and would have an expectation of others (maybe unrealistic) to do so when providing feedback in this forum. And this would still allow for you and other Wikipedians to make an informed decision regarding candidates without wondering why. Anyhow ... E Pluribus Anthony 06:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As well, the point throughout was that the voting system could've been designed any which way, but this and other notions were discussed herein and a certain set of common-sense rules/process arrived at ... overlooking them notwithstanding. :) This was a well-intentioned attempt to address this apparent 'grey area' in the rules and, given prior electoral challenges, to preclude things from running amok as before. Perhaps this is a learning point for everyone to devise rules in the future, if at all, that more clearly address this from the onset.
Indeed, I see no reason to think that any of this discussion has been anything other than well-intentioned.--Jimbo Wales 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I realise you're busy and appreciate that you've weighed in to help us see the forest from the trees, and to help put out any brush fires along the way. :) E Pluribus Anthony 06:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
In any event, mea culpa – I regret any offence or challenges posed through my comments or actions. Perhaps I've been too involved? Thanks again, Jimbo, for clarifying matters and to everyone else. And on that note, I must get some sleep.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me for being a bit thick here, but what was the upshot? Leave neutral votes on the voting page, move them to the discussion page (what was being done so far till it was striken in one case) or strike them completely. The third choice seems not correct but I can't quite tell which of the other two is the favoured approach now.
Jimbo has indicated that neutral votes should remain where they are – i.e., your first point. Whether it is preferable to your second point, which was initially proposed/discussed and ad hoc implemented from the election onset, is a different matter. The third option (striking them), while previously addressed, is insupportable. E Pluribus Anthony 06:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boycott

After giving the matter much thought, I have come to the conclusion that the ill will that any votes I might make would generate will amount to more than any possible good that might come from "electing" a better candidate. I am going to boycott this election, as it is a failure of community process and upon its completion will one day serve as a textbook example of group decisionmaking gone wrong. It does not build community to encourage people to make a public, subjective evaluation of their peers based on murky criteria; and it compounds matters that the people thus chosen will be expected to be impartial judges of the actions of those who voted for and against them. One could not deliberately construct a more effective system for encouraging patronage abuses and cronyism; and as others have already pointed out to deaf ears, the perils of such voting have been well documented.

The fact that we are, as a group, embarking upon this spectacle testifies chiefly to the fact that our governance systems lack the maturity they need to fulfill the responsibility we now have for the 20th most popular web site in the world.

I encourage others to boycott this election as well, removing any votes they have already cast if necessary, and adding their names here.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not voting because, as a candidiate I find it potentially dangerous (and possibly causing a lot of headaches) with an open vote. I know a few other candidates that feel similarly. —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
In the hopes of commenting or helping to 'administer' things herein with a NPOV, as before, I am/was intent on forestalling my votes until late. I think those truly administering the election (if that is an oxymoron) should refrain from voting to maintain an appearance of impartiality.
As a usual Wikipedian, though, I have every intention to vote and think it important that all Wikipedians weigh in to ensure all feedback is garnered. E Pluribus Anthony 05:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Mh. My personal opinion is that I don't need to be neutral regarding a certain topic to administer it fairly; I can see where you're coming from, though. —Nightstallion (?) 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand and agree somewhat. To me, its about the appearance of propriety and impartiality. As in various jurisdictions, certain key individuals that conduct elections are prohibited from voting – in Canada, they are the Chief Electoral Officer and Deputy CEO. I think Wp elections would be well-served with such an indivdual/body, helping to overcome potential challenges judiciously (don't we know 'em!) while still moving forward ... and particularly given the problems of last year's election (that I only know of second-hand). That's why we approached Anthere on the board, who did not (regrettably) respond.
That being said, I guess I should just vote and get it over with. :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving invalid votes to talk page?

We've seen several people who do not have suffrage attempt to vote; most of them are stricken out but still stay on the page. Would moving those votes to the talk page of the candidate be a good idea or not? Thoughts on that? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think they should stay, for a couple reasons:
  • It makes them less likely to say, "What happened to my vote?" and put it back (as Arkon actually did on Fred Bauder's and Kelly Martin's pages).
  • The suffrage rules have little direct effect on the overall percentages, as currently tagged; the greater effect is to make it clear that there are suffrage rules (for those who overlooked them on the main page), and that, yes, people are watching (for those who ignored it). Hiding them on the talk page will just cause more of these votes to be cast, making more work for those tagging them.
  • It's really up to Jimbo, not us, to decide how he wants to count things; the best we can do is tag these votes and let him decide what he wants to do with them. (This is also part of why I'm just tagging, not striking. The other part, which also applies to both striking and moving to talk, is that it'll be perceived as more rude than it needs to be.) —Cryptic (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think given Jimbo's position on neutral votes and actions thereof (above etc.), yours is a fair assessment C. I don't necessarily agree with it, though (and hence I agree with F.): arguably, the suffrage limitations in toto are subjective too. E Pluribus Anthony 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed in doing some voting that there are some neutrals on talk pages that probably could stand to be moved back... dunno for sure. Maybe I'll do it if I can remember which candidates this applied to. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suffrage cut off date

If "suffrage" is supposed to be 90 days then why is September 30 chosen as the cut-off date? Should it not be October 9th? I know this seems like splitting hairs but my vote was discounted, by three days. I feel a little miffed, believe I have a right to vote, and don't think anyone would perceive me a sock puppet with 1000+ edits. Ifnord 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume the date was chosen because it's a lot "cleaner" than October 9th. An arbitrary date had to be chosen, and there will be users who fall on both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, some good editors will be caught in this; I symphatize with you. (I, myself, felt this frustration when I couldn't vote in the last Board election a few months ago; I had easily surpassed the number of edits, but was a few days short.) However, no matter what date we choose, there will be legitimate users affected, and creating exceptions would throw the election into controversy. As such, my advice: continue your good work, and then wait until the next elections to vote (I'm sure there will be another election, either Board or ArbCom, before the conclusion of 2006). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdraw

I forgot to withdraw before I went on break. I don't want the job, so here's my withdrawal from the race. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll update the pages for you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suffrage rules for next time

Seems the elections are going well, congratulations to all. However, for next time can we be more nuanced with the suffrage rules, publicize them ahead of time, and not change them at the last minute? Nothwithstanding the need to bar sock- and meatpuppets, there are Wikipedians who prefer to read and understand before making a smaller number of well thought-out edits. I'd argue we contribute as much to building an encyclopedia as some of those whose higher edit count is inflated by oodles of reverts or large numbers of tweaks to their own userpage. Since I joined in Sept 2005, I've made about 65 edits to new and existing articles, including RC and "random page" patrol. I spent a fair amount of time looking at candidate statements last week, since the then-current rules for suffrage as summarized on the signpost led me to believe I could vote. But when I went to vote this morning, I discovered the rules have been changed to 150+ contributions only. This slightly disgruntled comment brought to you by Martinp 12:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that; I wrote the most current and up-to-date information in the Signpost. The last minute change was one of the reasons why I initially opposed the addition of that rule, but there's nothing much that can (or should) be done now. While I understand your frustration, please continue to contribute, and you'll be sure to have suffrage next time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
belive me next time a lot of things will be better organised.Geni 00:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to determine results: A carefully thought-out proposal

Since ArbCom is supposed to be impartial, I propose the following selection technique: 1. disqualify anyone with >25% negative votes (because of concerns about impartiality - anyone may have a few people who don't like them, but if they have a substantial minority of people who don't like them they are clearly not seen as impartial - you might say there is no consensus that they are suitable - therefore the number of supporters of their views does not matter) 2. of the rest, select the top N candidates ordered by Positive Votes minus Negative Votes (negative votes negate exactly one positive vote each). ObsidianOrder 09:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, it has already been determined that any candidate with more supports than opposes will be eligible to be appointed to ArbCom by Jimbo. Nightstallion 09:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Anyone who would be selected under my proposal would be eligible; this merely addresses which of the eligible people to pick. Of course Jimbo may select whoever, it's his show; but I feel it may be useful if he were to start from what I proposed and then make adjustments if he feels any are necessary. Just a thought. ObsidianOrder 10:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
rather than the greatest margin, wouldn't it make more sense to just look at the ratio of positive to negative votes, the same as is done for RFA? By the method you suggest, someone who has a vote of 91-20 would be seen as better than someone with a vote of 70-0. I'm not really sure that would be true. Grutness...wha? 11:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You have a point, but using ratios a 20-0 would be better than a 90-10 ;) You may say that my threshold is set too high, maybe it should be a 15-20%? I'm pretty sure that anyone who does a good job on ArbCom will piss off a certain number of people, so some negative votes are to be expected, just as long as they don't add up to a substantial dissenting group. ObsidianOrder 19:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that 25% was too high, as that would probably take away more than what we want (we need 8 people) [although I haven't checked recently]. It may be a good thing to keep in mind, but in the end Jimbo probably decides based on merit. Ilyanep 23:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Comment on sentiment

I was looking at the list of candidates and thinking that I haven't had much dealing with any of them except two. The only one I know and have a positive impression of has already pulled out. The only two I feel able to cast a vote on are candidates I don't support because of past bad experience with them: is this the nature of our dealings here (that you only know and remember people you've had conflict with) or is it just bad luck that none of the people I have positive impressions of are in the race? Ender 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ender, I had to flag your votes because you don't meet the suffrage requirements. (Your first edit was November 28.) To reply to your question, the reason why you most likely didn't have interaction with a large number of candidates was probably because of the newness of a significant amount of the candidates, and also your relative newness (and I don't mean that in an insulting manner). Half of the candidates had extremely low amounts of edits (some with less than a 100); it is very doubtful that even our most experienced editors had interacted with them before. However, the other half consists of respected Wikipedians, ranging from people who gained adminship a week before the election started, to people who had gained adminship before our current system (WP:RfA) was set up in July of 2003. Also among our candidates are bureaucrats, and the person with the most edits. The point is that the longer and more active the candidate (and yourself), the more likely you'll have had interactions with them. (I recognized the majority of the names.) I've had many experiences with a number of the candidates, both positive and negative. I hope that answers your question! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

What are the requirements to be allowed to vote? Chris M. 01:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Any registered user can vote provided that s/he created an account on or before September 30, 2005, and had 150 edits at the start of the election (January 9). The full details are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's a new (by edits, not registration date) person question, how do you check your edits? Thanks btw Chris M. 02:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
If you click on your user page, on the left, under the "Toolbox" heading, you'll see "User contributions". Click on those, and you can see all your edits. It's a link to Special:Contributions/Mason11987. To count the number of edits, you can use one of the tools listed at WP:KATE. You currently have 84 edits, which means that you, unfortunately, don't have suffrage. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Late' votes

Please be aware when you check page history that timestamps are offset according to your local time. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected Talk page re:KM

The talk page for KM for ArbCom has been protected from editing. This is highly irregular. --Dschor 02:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)