Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Speaking officially here

First, I am extending Thebainer's term by a year. I have not done sufficient study to determine whether this means I am moving him to another tranche or... what. I seek the advice of all knowledgeable persons about the details.

Second, I am watching the excellent preparations for the elections and I would like to take this time to clarify the appointment process.

As in previous years, according to our longstanding customs, I will appoint from those users gaining 50% or more of the vote; and while in previous years this has usually been the top candidates by percentage, in fact this is discretionary, and there may come a year when I may not agree that some specific user who gained a high percentage would be a good, safe, and trusted appointment for the community. While this has not happened in any previous election yet, it is worth noting it could. Please be aware that I am often privy to private counsel and information which may not be available to ordinary voters, and the confidences that I hold are a heavy weight upon me which I bear with seriousness and concern for the future of the project.

I anticipate following tradition and appointing directly in order of elected percentage, with any possible expansion seats appointed based on both election percentage and experience within Wikipedia.

To my knowledge and belief, the current ArbCom is fully in support of our monarchist tradition. I will not act contrary to their advice, given in private, and these traditions will continue so long as the Foundation and the ArbCom support them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to move him to tranche Gamma to replace one of the two seats that were vacated there? — Coren (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
there may come a year when I may not agree that some specific user who gained a high percentage would be a good, safe, and trusted appointment. The most unsound appointments, in my opinion, such as Kelly Martin's and Essjay's, were appointments made by you without the input of the community. As far as judging the 'soundness' of appointments, Jimbo, I suggest you leave it to the community. --Duk 23:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has historically probably been a better judge of a number of "people things" than the community. Since the Arbitrators are elected by users of the community as being (by definition) its best, most seasoned, and skilled users, it follows that a discussion in open community is going to be made up of users who have by and large not been voted by a communal process to be the best, most seasoned and skilled users. To underline this, it was the communities - plural - that decided Poetlister was legitimate... and it was an Arbitration Committee, twice, that stated categorically they were socks. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that argument holds up under scrutiny. The community picks the arbitration committee, therefore the arbitration committee must have better judgment than the community? Perhaps we should have arbitrators select their own successors? Avruch T 23:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Bad example. 1)Poetlister was not dealt with through conventional arbcom channels. 2)Mantanmoreland. I'd say honours are about even.Geni 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Poetlister's 2007 ban, and May 2008 unblock, both stating clear puppetry as the Committee's view, were absolutely standard arbcom channels. You're probably thinking of the September 2008 investigation and reban. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Essjay never actually made it to arbcom. Jimbo was hardly the only senior person behind Kelly's rise. A lot of people supported kelly and well Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kelly_Martin for the time that was a fairly impressive level of support. Indeed the first significant community opposition I'm aware of was post arbcom appointment Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Kelly Martin (and most of that was from the awkward Squad). While Kelly's lack of experience world probably have prevented her getting through an arbcom election at that point another year of that level of performance would certainly have given her a fair chance. Kelly was a mistake yes but can't just single out jimbo for blame.Geni 00:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Essjay did serve as an arbitrator for a couple of weeks. I remember him at the time as being dedicated to the arbitrators' tasks, and very good about keeping the clerks informed as to things that were happening. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd just say what I'm sure has already occurred to you (you being Jimbo)-- if you find a candidate who is in the top bracket of support, it will be far less controversial for you to warn the community by speaking out during the election process and making your feelings known. Your opinions are widely respected and I'm sure if they were shared (even if the details weren't entirely explained), undoubtedly a candidate's chances for remaining in that top-bracket of support would substantially plummet.
If you find yourself in the position of having one of those doubts about a candidate, I'd encourage you to go about solving it in that way-- by speaking up and making your concerns known. As for the alternative-- an after-the-fact veto-- ya gotta do what you gotta do, but tinkering with election results is bound to be controversial. So if there's any way to get the same effect without taking that drastic step, that'd be far preferable.
(again, based on past elections, this is something everyone is probably aware of anyway, just thought I'd say). --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Going by past elections statements from jimbo during the election are likely to be messy as well.Geni 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
ahh-- I didn't realize he employed that method before. But still, it's hard to measure relative messiness, since the veto power has never been used. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Not on arbcom. Think erik? and board elections.Geni 00:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You (Jimbo) have in the past likened your role to that of a constitutional monarch. From what you've said above, I don't believe that this is an appropriate comparison, as I am not aware of any monarch in a true constitutional monarchy who wields discretionary powers as extensive as the ones that you claim for yourself above. Moreover, in constitutional monarchies the powers of the monarch are limited by a constitution that is in some way democratically adopted; not only are your powers not limited in such a way, you have not said (even when asked) where they come from or what you consider their limits to be. Absent an indication to the contrary from the WMF Board - whose authority is obviously beyond question - I consider it the right of the community to divest you of your traditional powers, and I would fully advocate your doing so were you exercise them in the fashion that you have contemplated above. Moreover, while decision-making of that sort is not currently possible in the Engish Wikipedia community, I think you'd find that there would be a great many more like me - people who have not engaged in the oh-so-fashionable "let's poke figures of authority in the eyeball to satisfy some immature impulse" trend, but who would be sufficiently pissed off to say something in this case. In fact, I'm not far from that point right now, after your casual reappointment of a sitting arbitrator (with absolutely no disrespect intended to the arbitrator in question) without, by your own admission, having put a great deal of thought into it or having so much as solicited the views of the community. Best, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been said that the Queen of England can overrule Parliament... once. After that she would no longer be Queen. Whether matters here are analogous or not, I cannot say, but I suspect they might be. ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
In fact the background to this is far from "not having put much thought in", and gentle chiding for the assumption. The proposal to extend Thebainer's term came from within the sitting committee. Newyorkbrad suggested it on August 27, the point where Paul August stated he wished to step down, since Thebainer was a seasoned arbitrator who had been in place some 8 months and Paul August and UninvitedCompany were both due to sit during 2009 and while one seat could be covered, two seats made good sense to extend the term of an arbitrator who had sat for one year only, to ensure the Committee retains broader experience. Also because the appointment for one year was itself unusual in the first place - every other appointment following election that I'm aware of (except the initial committee 5 years ago) was for a full 3 years, regardless of circumstances. It was endorsed as a sensible recommendation for Jimmy, by 8 of the other sitting arbitrators: FloNight, myself, James, Jpgordon, Sam Blacketer, Deskana, FayssalF, and Kirill, and opposed by none. Jimmy has taken 2 months to watch and consider the matter, from then until now. It makes sense in that case, to announce before and not after nominations. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The "You shouldn't use your authority in X fashion because of Y problem" argument generally works better when X is not "the same fashion as always" and Y is not "because it doesn't jibe with my interpretation of your own description of your role." I understand a lot of people think Jimmy should relinquish his status, but you need a substantial and persuasive argument. A reminder of a lever of control that he has always had is not a new and far reaching grasp for power, and the sky is falling approach seems excessive. Avruch T 03:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This just underscores the point I was trying to make above-- overruling the community elections might be doable, but it certainly is something to be avoided at all costs. Since that power has never been used and (as far as I know) hasn't been ratified by consensus, there's no telling what percentage of the community would want to "storm the Bastille" in such a case-- but as we see above, it is an issue that some people care about greatly. So, if it looks like the community is about to drive off a cliff during the elections, don't wait for us to go off the edge and count on the jimbo superpowers to save us-- instead just yell out "hey, looks like you're about to go off a cliff!", and hopefully the crisis will be averted. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which this might come up, and hard to guess what might happen if it did. It strikes me as best to avoid it from the outset. But it is actually quite important to be precise here: the rule has been that I appoint from among those with 50% approval rating, based on my own judgment (in consultation with sitting arbs, ex-arbs and other experienced users). Choosing in the percentage order elected has been my custom, and I intend to continue it, but it would not be "overruling the community elections" to do otherwise. Overruling community elections would involve appointing users with less than 50% approval rating, for example. This I will not do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, the proposal to remove that power from you is a proposal for a change in the rules. The rules as they stand at the moment are perfectly clear (and there is far from a consensus to change them). Personally, I think it would be best to transfer that power to the WMF board (in such a way that they only need to act if they want to do something other than appoint the top X candidates - if they remain silent for a month, say, the appointments go ahead automatically, if a board member objects then they can call a board meeting. The appointments could be deferred pending that meeting if it's impossible to hold it quickly, and the outgoing committee would remain in a caretaker role), that way we still have a way to deal with unforeseen disasters (democracy is far from infallible) but it doesn't rely on trusting one individual with a significant amount of power. It is quite clear that you don't have universal trust from the community, so to avoid controversy a new system would be good (of course, the board doesn't have completely universal trust either, but trusting a group of people is usually easier than trusting an individual, especially when that group is partially elected by the community). --Tango (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, but the board is clearly the wrong institution for this. The board is not, and should not be, focused on the detailed governance of the community of the English language Wikipedia. The board is tasked with governance and oversight of a global charity, and quite properly for a number of reasons prefer to stay out of these kinds of debates. It strikes me as unlikely these days that I would act in any, shall we say, interesting ways, without first consulting and getting approval from the majority of the Arbs and ex-Arbs. Of course, in theory, this too can be problematic, as giving the existing ArbCom a say over the next ArbCom poses some (mostly theoretical) difficulties. In any event, I propose that we continue to evolve slowly and thoughtfully over time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a terribly big fan of the "Jimbo is the decider" model, but the Board's definitely not the right body for appointments. Either Jimbo continues to do it, or the community does it directly, that's probably the only two ways about it. WilyD 13:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
We're not talking about detailed governance, we're talking about a power of veto once a year for use in exceptional circumstances. It is very much an oversight role and isn't that different to the board's current role in Steward elections (yes, Stewards act for all projects, English Wikipedia Arbcom only for one, but IMO that isn't a significant difference, the importance of the role is pretty similar). --Tango (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Does Jimmy Wales appoint the members of the Arbitration Committee on any other language Wikipedia, or just the English Wikipedia? What about on other WMF projects? Cirt (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, it's just here he has that traditional role. --Tango (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, only enwiki. MBisanz talk 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Why? Why does he not appoint members of the Arbitration Committee(s) on all of the other Wikipedias? Or, conversely, why here, and not there? Cirt (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
He founded the English Wikipedia and generally did not found the other languages on his own, hence why he has the Founder flag here and not on other wikis. So there is the tradition of him as the leader of the community that other wikis founded by groups of people of a similar language do not have. Also, historically (pre-2004), he owned Wikipedia, so in effect had total legal control of it. This changed when he reformed it into a tax exempt foundation, however, he still sits on the board of that foundation as "community founder". MBisanz talk 15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
All of that is true. He also probably couldn't do a very good idea helping to select from a group of editors when he couldn't read a word of them that any of them ever wrote.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Do the other language Wikipedias' Arbitration Committees lack for something or have they encountered problems, because they do not have this appointment process from an individual like Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs)? Is that a likelihood to occur with the other language Arbitration Committees in the future? Cirt (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a good question. However, the answer is probably that there haven't been any problems so far that Jimbo could have prevented because the Jimbo's position is only intended for dealing with exceptional circumstances and they don't happen very often. Just because nothing has gone wrong so far doesn't mean it won't. --Tango (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay thank you everyone for your explanations. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that Jimbo has decided to assert his authority as a "constitutional monarch" by insisting that he can exclude candidates whose placement on the results list gives them a community mandate. The community has never agreed to give Jimbo this power; he simply decrees that he is entitled to it. Well, I object, and I propose that we hold a vote to establish a consensus that Jimbo should not interfere in the process; appointment should be automatic based on the community's mandate, with only the Foundation having the power to veto. Everyking (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessing the wider community's input on this particular segment of the Arbitration Committee Election process on English Wikipedia is certainly a good idea. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the mechanism by which things happen is always fuzzy; given the ArbCom policy approval vote, and the history of appointment, Jimbo getting to select candidates is part of the process and has a community mandate. The community could withdraw this mandate - feel free to hold a discussion - but I don't sense any real desire to do so. WilyD 18:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
First things first, votes do not establish consensus, that's not how consensus works. That said, I don't think we're going to get a consensus either way on this issue (we rarely do with big issues), so a vote might be a good idea. We could have a referendum alongside the ArbCom elections to decide how the community wants the final decision to be made. We usually favour the status quo when there is no strong opinion either way, so a super-majority should be required to strip Jimbo of this role (60%, maybe 70%). A preference vote on various options might be good if there are multiple practical options (for example, my idea to give the WMF board the veto is only worth voting on if the board are willing to act) - in that case, the super-majority should still be required by declaring that more than 40% of 1st choices for the status quo means it wins, regardless of the other numbers. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I proposed a vote because I don't believe there is any other realistic way to reach a community decision on the matter, and certainly not within the limited amount of time available. Holding a referendum on the issue of Jimbo appointments concurrently with the election seems reasonable. Everyking (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Speaking purely on the technical point of how to bookkeep the bainer's extension, I would say consider him moved to Tranche Gamma. In terms of the template, this means adding a yellow line to the next year of Paul August's seat and marking marking it as his. Thus for this election there are 5 three-year terms to fill and 1 one-year term. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. That's a sensible clarification. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How does English Wikipedia selection process compare to other language Wikipedias?

How do other language Wikipedias select their Arbitration Committee members, and how do their processes compare to the process at the English language Wikipedia? Cirt (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In trying to gather together how the different projects select Arbitration Committee members, I have set up Wikimedia Arbitration Committee election processes at Meta-Wiki. If you are proficient in one of those languages that is not yet described, your help/input would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Oppose" voting?

What do people think about the method of "Oppose" voting? Looking at the descriptions coming in so far at m:Wikimedia Arbitration Committee election processes, some elections use it, some don't. How would people feel about eliminating the "Oppose" voting this time round, and simply supporting, or not? Just a suggestion for discussion. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How would we determine who's won? Most votes? I can't see it working - what if one had serious objection to a candidate? The only way get around it would be to support everyone else, and I don't think that is practical, since you're supposed to be voting for who would be making a good arbitrator, not tactic voting. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The one thing "oppose" voting has in its favor is that it tends to equalize popularity contests. For instance, if I am a really popular admin with lots of friends, I can probably get a lot of people to support me. Someone else may be just as qualified, but not have the same meat-network and get fewer supports. On the other hand, I may also have messed up a lot and get a good number of opposes, where the less popular person might not have messed up and will get very few opposes. The percentage method would then off-set my popularity. MBisanz talk 17:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, very good points both. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem with subtracting oppose votes from support votes, is that someone who no one really knows a lot about will in essence get some fraction of additional support by not having as much strong opposition. While a well known editor is sure to have a substantial amount of people who oppose them, simply because people being people develop dislikes to individual personalities, a relative unknown will get less opposition because people don't know them enough to have a reason to.
To use a real world example, Sarah Palin was apparently chosen because none of them knew anything bad about Sarah Palin, so they settled on her as the least opposed VP candidate. --Barberio (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, also a very good point. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what is "oppose voting"? Is that like approval voting but with an explicit abstain option? --Tango (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it is a specific separate subsection for people to "oppose" candidates. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Subsection of what? --Tango (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The voting page. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
So you can vote on each candidate and can choose to support, oppose or abstain? That's approval voting with an explicit abstain option (in normal approval voting no distinction is made between opposing and abstaining). --Tango (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Some candidates would have got in last year by volume of sheer support votes, but did not because they were heavily opposed. A raw count of the number of oppose votes doesn't always tell the full story. Anthøny (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing in on the Voter eligibility deadline - some housekeeping

I've formatted the project page to match last year's, shortly before nominations went live. The discussion items there have been moved to the to-do list (above), and to this page for later archival. I do have a question, though - last year, most of the discussion about particular candidates ended up taking place on the talk page for their voting page. Is this a practice we want to continue this year, or should we create a central discussion page for each candidate? It might be as simple as picking a talk page (Questions, Candidate Statement, Vote, etc) and redirecting the other "Discussion" pages to that one - but we should pick something, if that is our intent. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is to keep such discussions both isolated from the discussions over other candidates, and unified amongst each other. As such, I don't think that it matters very much which of the "discussion" pages is used, as long as we are consistent and, as you say, encourage through redirects everyone to contribute in the same place. The "candiate statement" talkpage seems the most neutral location IMO. Happy‑melon 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sitenotice Proposal

I've posted this request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. Since there is some disagreement as to how prominent or critical a process needs to be in order to merit a watchlist notice, I thought it prudent to propose the notices ahead of time. This is being cross posted here to refine the wording, if needs be. I proposed the following watchlist notices:

These notices match the notices posted for last year's elections, and I believe that the election of the Arbitration Committee is of sufficient importance as to justify a notice of this type. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good; entirely suitable. And absolutely no question in my mind that these messages need to be posted. Happy‑melon 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Looks good. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok by my view. MBisanz talk 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, this seems like a pragmatic approach to soliciting input from the wider Community. AGK 19:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Great - Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Start date

Just checking, are noms open on November 1 or November 10? I'm hearing different things. --Elonka 18:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The 10th from what I've seen. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yup - Nominations open on November 10th, and will be accepted until November 24th. Editors must have 150 mainspace edits on November 1st in order to vote, and we've opened noms in the past on November 1st, which probably caused the confusion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, clarity at last.  :) Thanks, that's exactly what I needed to know. --Elonka 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Free speech zone

In the last few years some administrators have used 'civility' as the new censorship. For example, Giano has been improperly blocked several times for a lack of 'civility' when there wasn't any such thing, when he was simply speaking inconvenient truths.

The American election process (and I'm sure other countries as well) has a long standing tradition to not censor or interfere with candidates advertisements. This is in contrast to non-election broadcasts where broadcasters can be fined if people complain about their emissions.

I'd like to propose that this year's Arbcom election be a free speech zone for the candidates - where they can participate freely and openly without fear of getting blocked by some petty little administrator because they speak an inconvenient truth. This should extend to candidates only because of the potential for troll abuse. --Duk 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable applying American ideals to a website that is firmly global, and likewise, to any process therein. I don't think my discomfort is anything but immaterial here, however: I do not recall a candidate ever being blocked on the basis of what they have said in the course of the election, and I see no reason why that would change this year. AGK 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ya, you're probably right. Screw any American ideal, such as free speech. --Duk 18:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Come to think of it, we may need to bounce some people for certain atrocious behavior, such as injecting anti-American bigotry into an election. But maybe the arbitrators can be in charge of that. --Duk 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Anti-American bigotry? How exactly was AGK dismissing free speech? He merely pointed out that we're a global website and therefore we can decide ourselves how to run an election. Now, I agree with your points about free speech. I just think we can improve on the media-circuses that are American elections. (Disclaimer: I'm a Brit.) Your demand that AGK is banned for not wanting a carbon-copy of an American election here is uncivil. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
That was entirely uncalled for, and I think you should consider redacting it. AGK presented a counterpoint, it in no way makes AGK bigoted for doing so. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, redacted, but to reemphasise; AGK's problem with my free speech suggestion was something about it being American. I mean really ... go read what he said. --Duk 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What on earth...? My comment was intended at exploring all aspects of what you said, and not to attack the American system and what it stands for. I'm British; attacking America would, on many levels, be attacking what I stand for and proudly support. Yet, here I go—defending myself. I have nought to defend here, thankfully: some sane folks have piped up and pointed out that my comments have been completely misinterpreted. Good grief.
And my opinion stands. You're suggesting we modify the elections to compensate for a non-existent issue, Duk. Never has a candidate been penalised for what she or he has said in an election, and I anticipate no such problem this year, either. AGK 19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the comments apparently accusing AGK of bigotry being ridiculously out of line, the U.S. is also an example of the incredible nonsense that occurs when there are no controls about lying, cheating, and attacking. Probably worth the risk in the real world, but I'm not convinced Wikipedia is similar enough to the United States of America to be making any policy decisions on U.S traditions.--Tznkai (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Saying "there is no chance you'll be blocked, whatever you say" sounds like a recipe for chaos to me. At the same time, I hope and expect admins will be restrained in dealing with issues that come up in the course of the election. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, with the exception that candidates should be sanctioned for personal attacks as normal. A candidate statement that calls out individual arbitrators for being douchebags, for example, would be right out. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Too much risk of legit critism being viewed as personal attacks.Geni 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe calling someone a "douchebag" is ever a legitimate criticism, even if the person is a douchebag. Criticism is always welcomed, but assumptions of bad faith, in particular, need to be avoided. There's no reason to accommodate a "race to the bottom" as in United States elections. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
"Person X has been entirely infectual as an arbcom memeber and has endangered the project something I intend to try and reverse" Personal attack Y/N?Geni 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No, of course not; neither is "I don't trust person X". But compare "Person X has intentionally made Wikipedia worse" or "Person X is a habitual liar". There's no reason we cannot have high expectations for collegial and professional discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting pages, Templates, and You

I'm starting to code templates for use during the election, so that votes are indented uniformly regardless of who is indenting or why. I have three put together, which I'll post below. The question I'm coming to is that we have discussed moving comments to the candidate's discussion page (probably the Vote page's talk, at this point), but have we nailed down a standard to use in deciding which comments move? Wordcounts, more than 2 sentences or 5 formatted lines, or some other standard would work, but it needs to be uniform. I mention this now, because I'd like to have consensus early this time around.

As for the templates, I have three so far for your review. {{indentvote}} cites the 150 mainspace edits requirement, and adds a link to the user's 150 namespace 0 (mainspace) contributions prior to 1 November - in theory, if there are earlier contribs, the user has suffrage. {{newuservote}} links to the User creation log for the voter, again to verify that they were registered after 1 November. {{anonvote}} is for IP voters, and links to the Why should you register. All three templates link to the Election process page, which states the mainspace and registration requirements.

I've given User:Example a voting page, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Example, where I added some dummy votes and indented them. Please have a look and let me know what you think. I plan to code a template for Duplicate votes, and one for blocked/banned sockpuppets linking to the checkuser or what-have-you, but are there other in-line voting templates that would be of use? Thanks for the input, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one for alternate accounts, as in "Voter X is a declared alternate account of Voter Y, duplicate vote struck". Other than that, I cannot think of anything you missed. MBisanz talk 14:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Easiest option there might be a parameter on the duplicate vote template. "User has already voted (For/Against) this candidate (Using the alternate account X)." It should be trivial to write up a switch to make sense - my only dilemma is that {{dupevote}} is already in use as an AFD duplicate !vote template. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
For clarity and to keep the voting pages as uncluttered as possible, I'd rather see one non-subsituted template with a simple #switch statement to determine the output. So {{ACE|editcount}} ~~~~ instead of {{subst:indentvote}}. The actual content looks very good and extremely transparent. Happy‑melon 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've now created {{ACE}} as an amalgamation of all these templates. Happy‑melon 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely the way to go. How do we get the User and Editcount parameters to work, though? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I figured it out, and added a second parameter. Now {{ACE|editcount|Ultraexactzz}} returns {{ACE|editcount|Ultraexactzz}}, which shows that I have suffrage. Great template, Happy-melon. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
An obvious question: why not semi the vote pages? After all, nobody who is not autoconfirmed could have sufferage. No need to indent anon votes then. — Coren (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the answer isn't as obvious? Ping? — Coren (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I can see it both ways. Semi-protection would prevent ineligible voters from voting, which is simpler overall. It's less transparent, though - there's something to be said for letting anybody vote, and then disqualifying votes based on objective and measurable criteria. Unless they're personal attacks or what-have-you that would be removed anyway, the votes remain in place as statements of the voter's sentiments for or against the candidate - they're just not counted. I'm inclined to leave the pages unprotected, but I certainly wouldn't object if consensus disagrees. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Anons would still be welcome to comment on the associated talk pages, though. Personally, I think that there is a net gain to preventing non-autoconfirmed accounts from editing the page altogether, but I don't feel so strong about it that I'd make a fuss unless people are already in general agreement. — Coren (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
That's my position as well - unless there's a groundswell of support for semi-protecting the vote pages, I'd say we should leave it be. We might consider leaving the option on the table if there are a lot of shenanigans; most of the options for reporting severe disruption involve a report at ANI, which would probably trigger protection anyway. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding running

Jimbo, Arbitrators - as we all know, Jimbo has stated he will retain the power of veto over any candidates whom he or the Arbitrators would consider not to be a good, safe, and trusted appointment for the community. With this in mind, perhaps if there is anyone running who you would consider would not be such an appointment, could you advise them to withdraw (either publically or via email)?

I would imagine it would be far better to prevent these occurances before they arise; allowing candidates to run knowing that they wouldn't make it even if they did win is a waste of everyone's time. I cannot think of anything that would cause more heartbreak for the candidate, or hysterical, scabrous Wiki-drama, than nixing someone who came in the top five (six?) of the "popular vote".

I am especially interested in finding out if it's worth my running; I think I'd make a good arbitrator, but if I'm going to run only to be told at the end "actually, no thanks", I'd rather know now. Thanks. fish&karate 09:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth cross-posting this to Jimbo's talk page and the arb-l mailing list, since I doubt Jimbo reads this page, and some arbs may not be paying close attention to it yet. MBisanz talk 09:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The thing about Jimbo's role is, it's not likely to be needed often (it hasn't been for the last several elections) because it's likely in most cases that the community's decision will be a good one. Even if there were a candidate who would not be likely to be okay, there's not likely to be need for Jimbo to pre-empt anything or step in most times, because the community is historically extremely likely to say so themselves by means of usual voting. The bigger problem would be if the community as a whole began to go "off the rails" and became an unmoderated battleground without the backing of users and admins who had the ability to enforce the historical view that it's purely an encyclopedia. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If you see a candidate listed who has some sort of horrible, but publicly unknown, history of policy violations that would make them unsuitable, will you all say something promptly, or will you let them and the community waste a huge amount of time considering their candidacy? This is a hypothetical question. Jehochman Talk 11:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the concept of the ideas "the community is wrong" and "Jimbo is always right" came from. Other Wikipedias manage to have an ArbCom without the intervention of a divine leader. Other communities manage to get it right every time. If the community appoints somebody, that should be respected by Jimbo, and not chucked back in everyone's face as a complete waste of everyone's time. Jimbo never needs to step in. This is not 2003 anymore. We are perfectly capable of making our own decisions, thank you. Al Tally talk 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Other communities do not have an ArbCom as complex or as important to the general running of our project as enwiki does, Majorly. Additionally, the point being made is that the community could be wrong—hence Jimbo having the power of veto over the appointments—but in practice it rarely is—hence his never using that power. It's important to understand the theory behind the safety-valve arrangement, and I'm not sure you do. AGK 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You clearly under-estimate the importance of other communities' ArbComs. ArbCom is there to arbitrate user disputes primarily; that they choose to involve themselves with other things is not my business (well, it is, but nothing I can do about). The community isn't wrong - the idea "everyone" made a mistake, and Jimbo was the only person in the right, is utter nonsense. We don't need, or want a "safety-valve" - I don't trust Jimbo's judgement one bit in this arena (remember his appointments of Kelly Martin, Essjay, Jayjg etc, all without community approval, all disasterous). I understand the theory behind the "arrangement", but don't understand why we need it. The community is, in fact, never wrong (read WP:CONSENSUS). People can make mistakes individually, but there's never, ever a case when everyone is wrong, and therefore justifying the right of one man to make the decision on behalf of us is an extremely bad one. Again, this isn't 2003. We have grown up, and don't need someone making decisions for us. We are a community, and what the community agrees with (i.e. consensus) is what goes. Always. Al Tally talk 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I totally agree, and I want to reiterate my earlier suggestion that we hold a vote on whether the community's choices should have an automatic mandate. Everyking (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • For my money, I remain undecided about whether the JIMBO veto should continue or not, but I do think it would be good to propose a "Wikipedia:Project Leader" policy that actually assesses which of the powers traditional held by JIMBO are supported by community consensus is. My strong suspicion is that all of them are still supported-- but it'd be a useful to actually establish that as a fact, rather than a guess. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I attempted that some time ago over at WP:JIMBO. It rapidly devolved into something descriptive rather than prescriptive, though of course Wikipedia mythology states that that's the nature of all policy. Anyway, if you want to pick up that torch, you certainly have my blessing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Works for me-- all involved should peek at Wikipedia:Project Leader to see if I've missed any of Jimbo's powers. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon is resigning

Jpgordon is resigning at the end of the current term. Therefore, another seat will be open, and this needs to be updated on the page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

General Questions

OK, based on the discussion above, and on Anthony's excellent proposal, I've put together the General Questions page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Questions/General. The page provides instructions for posting a question for all the candidates. The questions themselves go onto a list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Questions/General/List, which can be substituted onto a Question page for each candidate on 17 November. Individual questions can then be asked to specific candidates on that same page. Please doublecheck me; if this format works, then I'd propose adding a request for questions to the main election page. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Two questions:
  1. When will it be appropriate to put some questions to the page?
  2. How does everyone feel about the propriety of a candidate placing questions there?
I ask, because there are a number of questions I feel raise important issues that I would like to see all candidates answer, and given that those questions are uniformly asked of all the candidates, I see no ethical concern with it but I also know I haven't been designated the Fount of all Morals by anyone. — Coren (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
We had discussed asking the community for questions on 3 November, but hadn't in the absence of a format. Wouldn't bother me a bit if you went ahead and added your questions (just remove my example question). As for candidates asking questions... it might seem hinky to voters, just as some voters have problems with candidates voting against their opponents. But I don't think there should be a rule against it, necessarily. Besides, there aren't any candidates yet - so it's no problem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I'm going to go ahead and post a request for questions at WP:AN, WT:ARBCOM, and WP:VP. I can't think of any other good venues, nor do I think the general questions warrant a watchlist notice. Besides, people checking nominations will also see the link to add questions, so that'll take care of itself, I imagine. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
What's with the a/s/l question that Giggy added? I can see why he put it there, but surely there is a better way to phrase it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
I don't mind it. It's lighthearted in formulation, certainly, but it's succinct and harmless. — Coren (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Example's Candidacy

Perhaps it's because things are slow today, but I decided to put together the candidate pages for next week. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Example, which shows the format for candidate statements when everything is added in. We have the usercheck, for the useful links about the candidate (contribs and whatnot) - though we might swap that with {{admincheck}} if we want to include blocks and deletions and whatnot. I've put together a mockup Questions for the candidate page, which shows where the general and specific questions would go. Next, we have the discussion page - per consensus above, this will be the talk page for the candidate's Vote page. In this case, it's at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Example. Finally, the voting page, seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Example. I think these formats are consistent with the discussion above, and should work well for when we begin to get nominations in 6 days (!). Please pick these apart, if you could, so they're solid on Monday. Thanks again!

Ultraexactzz, please remove the self-identification section from the Candidate statements/Example and Vote/Example. Jimbo has already stated that it is not required unless the candidate is offered an appointment, and it gives an unfair advantage to candidates who choose to do so. I suggest a mandatory question for all candidates instead: "Do you meet all requirements for membership on the Arbitration Committee, and if you are offered an appointment to the Committee, will you provide the necessary identification information to the Wikimedia Foundation?" Risker (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Those were a holdover from the proposed format, and I didn't mess with them. As for that question - you can certainly post it now, if you like. No objection here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Process details

Hey all. I'm preparing for transclusion tonight, and I had a number of practical questions that pop up:

  1. Should the empty voting page be there, or do we leave a redlink until voting opens?
    • Corollary: if we put the voting page in now, shouldn't there be a standard "Don't vote yet" message at the top?
  2. Same with the question page. Redirect to the general list until answer time comes? If I understand right, the plan is to subst the general questions into the candidates' pages on the 17th; does this mean that no individual questions will (can) be asked until then?

— Coren (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the voting page could be created, perhaps with a template (statement at top, links to questions, support/oppose sections). And yes, there should be a note, just in case people forget.
I was under the impression questions could be asked whenever people wanted to, so I'd surely expect pages to be created more-or-less immediately. Best of luck by the way. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
[Edit conflict.] Answers for Coren:
  1. There should be no voting link. You'll use {{Arbitration Committee Elections statement}} to create your statement, which incorporates a ParserFunction to hide the voting link until voting is open. (When voting does open, the candidate—or any bystander—can subst: the necessary material onto candidate voting pages. This can be done a few days before voting opens, if desirable, but for now, voting pages can remain non-existent.)
  2. Please redirect until we have created a template for individual question pages, detailing instructions, terms of usage, and so on. Oh, and no—questions can be asked of candidates immediately after nominations start being accepted, I believe... Or have I missed a discussion regarding not accepting individual questions until 17 November?
Good luck with your candidacy! AGK 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Reading back, I think you're correct about the 17th for individual questions. I'll redirect to the general question page, then. — Coren (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think a template for question pages is needed - all it will be is headers such as "Questions from John Doe". It doesn't really need any template to make that. I don't see why questions can't be opened as soon as nominations do. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think the point is consistent instructions, and a pointer to the general list for those questions best asked all candidates. We probably want to have that ready soon, though. — Coren (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think it's best if we allow individual questions to be asked as of 10 November 2008 (ie., as soon as the respective candidate statement is live). It fits in better with the principles behind candidate statements: once we start accepting statements, we are saying "we as a community want to find out how suitable each candidate is for the ArbCom."
    Point of enquiry: do we stop accepting questions at the same time as we start voting? I think that's the best course of action, but it wasn't the way we did things last year. Thoughts? Do we stop allowing questions to be asked on 1 December (when voting opens) or on 14 December (when voting closes and the election therefore concludes)?
    AGK 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Once the election is over would be better. No point in stopping questions unnecessarily. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of stopping as voting opens; or at least some time before voting closes— I don't think questions at the bottom of the 9th are productive, or fair. — Coren (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Coren on this one. It's fair—questions stop on the 9th, and voting opens on the 10th. How Do You Turn This On, would you be adverse to—for now—stopping questions on the 9th...? AGK 22:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get the 9th from? I though voting opened on the 1st? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
My apologies; yes, I meant stopping questions on 1 December 2008. AGK 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking for users who aren't around for the time questions are open. This is a very important election, and it doesn't seem right to bar people from asking a question just because they weren't around at a certain time. Just my opinion. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. It's a difficult issue, actually. If you'll allow me to be extreme for a moment: do we allow people to vote in January simply because they didn't notice the Election was live? The election is advertised in the sitenotice from tonight until late December; I am quite sure folks will be able to get their question in. Should we cut questions off on 1 December, but extend the deadline if we notice a lot of folks wanting to ask more? Would that be a good solution? AGK 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I really can't see any benefit in a deadline. People should be able to ask questions whenever and wherever they like, of the candidate, even once the election is over. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Personally, I think allowing questions after voting has started is unfair to the people who already voted most of all. Strictly speaking, every vote should be for the same package: statement, questions and answers. There is also concern about a question posed far into an election that throws a curveball that may take some time to answer properly and would be prejudicial. — Coren (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to vote?

Hi!

Sorry for bothering you, I know that voting hasn't started yet, but I think it is better to get some clarifications as soon as possible.

I guess rules of being eligible to vote will be the same as in previous elections, right? Let's quote the relevant part:

"Who can vote?

In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process 1 November 2007."

(of course, "2007" will be replaced with "2008").

Now, here is interesting problem: I was eligible to vote, according to these rules, in the previous year (and I successfully exercised my right to vote), but now recommended tool shows that I made only 143 mainspace edits. IT IS WRONG! Some articles edited by me (good articles IMO) has been deleted since previous elections and now edit count shows less edits in mainspace than I have really performed.

So, my question is: am I allowed to vote in 2008 ArbCom elections or not?

If the answer is "no", than I think that this would be pretty absurd outcome, because I was able to vote in previous elections (somehow related: Ex post facto law).

Thank you for your time. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the number to go by is the number listed under Special:Preferences which is the "total" number on the tool you link to, which says you have 242 edits and are therefore eligible to vote. MBisanz talk 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Not all tools calcalate edits the same. Some don't count deleted edits, but Prefs does count them. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are the published voter criteria (if they are published)? I think last year it was 150 mainspace edits, which isn't something that you can get from special:preferences. Also, I'm not sure how you check the prefs number of someone else - of course the edit totals need to be verifiable by others. MBisanz, can you explain how that works? Avruch T 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate shows total edits including deleted edit counts. If someone doesn't have enough edits to meet the criteria, but would if deleted edits were included, I'm sure an admin could just do a hand count of deleted edits. In this case, Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen has 143 mainspace edits that are not deleted and I verify he has at least 7 mainspace edits that are deleted, so he has made at least 150 mainspace edits. MBisanz talk 04:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate question pages

{{subst:ACEQuestions}}.
This should be added to every candidate's "/Questions for the candidate" page.

Assistance in doing this would be appreciated.
AGK 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All candidates that were submitted at this point in time have had their question pages sorted (or, in a few impressive cases, have taken the initiative to do it themselves!). If any bystanders could watch for new candidates and give their question page the treatment, it would be much appreciated: this will be very much an on-going process. (Or perhaps I should simply tweak the instructions such that the candidates create their own question page...?) AGK 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be better to fix the instructions I expect (Where are they by the way, I was meaning to add a note to them but couldn't work out where they were located) – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had to do a complex bit of fiddling with Extension:Inputbox to get the instructions page. It's located at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Editintro.
I've added an instruction to it which should now have all new candidates create their own question page with the desired template.
AGK 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Recorded debates and discussions

Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Seddσn talk Editor Review

Usercheck et al

On the candidate statement pages, would anyone object to swapping the {{usercheck-short}} template with the {{admincheck}} template for administrators? Or, alternatively, using admincheck for all candidates? The non-admins would just have no items under deletion logs and the like. I ask because having a candidate's deletion, block, and protection logs might be of value in evaluating them. For comparison:

Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've used {{admincheck}} from the get go myself, so I obviously wouldn't be opposed. — Coren (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Admincheck renders an annoyingly long utility that is somewhat less pretty than usercheck-short, but otherwise, it does seem like a more thorough option, yes. I therefore offer my support to your proposal, for what it's worth. AGK 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
As Coren notes, it's an option - no problem either way. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Views?

As an arbitrator I find myself conflicted on something.

  1. I have questions related to one or more candidates that (as an admin) I would ask questions about, and (possibly if there were any very significant matters) may feel inclined to support or oppose based upon.
  2. These include awareness of non-trivial matters that (like any issue raised at arb election) others might want to know of, should they choose, and that others may or may not feel were important to be aware of.
  3. However an existing arbitrator raising a question to a candidate or stating concerns is likely to be given a lot of weight, and may polarize or be contentious. (And arguably isn't best practice - existing arbitrators should possibly be neutral to the election and I've never voted on one.)
  4. But "being neutral" is not the same as, having awareness or insight yet staying silent. Should the facts be mentioned, or the candidate asked what they mean, even if the asker is neutral?

In brief, there are a couple of matters/issues that make me uncomfortable, and I'm not sure if I should raise them, ignore them, or whatever, to the candidates concerned. And equally a couple of candidates have handled matters out of the public realm, that suggest they would do well at Arbcom. Should that be mentioned?

These aren't "privacy issues", they are like everyone elses' views, the results of working and interacting with various users over time.

The essence is, that those who might have especial knowledge, also are conflicted in whether to mention it due to "weight". But equally, to not mention possibly serious matters, is to let the community go unaware of matters that some will feel aggrieved they didn't know. Mostly I'd like answers/comments by the candidate, and I've considered asking by email, but a couple are such that I'm not sure if that's enough light or if I should keep it "to myself" that way. I'd consider asking or commenting, but ideally as an admin only.

How would other users wish me to resolve this dilemma?

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Juggling your hats is a difficult game. Play it by ear, I'd say, and handle on a case-by-case basis: if you really need to speak up on a particular point, I would say do so. Staying silent (and maintaining "neutrality," which silence seems so often to be called) is going to be less helpful than speaking up and making sure the best candidates are Elected this year. Oh, and I would point out that the weight your comments are given is very much an unofficial phenomenon, and a positive one; you shouldn't need to sculpt your contributions around not having your comments being given weight, because that the community pays serious attention to what you say is a clear sign that we want to hear what it! (Ie., so don't deny us that!) AGK 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
communicate, FT! better out than in, and to do less would be akin to spreading fud at this point... it all comes out in the wiki wash regardless :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

General questions redux

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but according to what I'm reading, the general questions aren't substed to every candidates question page by default, but only if the candidate wishes to subst them? That would seem to defeat the purpose of "general" questions... - jc37 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the original plan was to have them substed by default on the 17th, but that this was later dropped. I think that the main reason one would put questions on the general page is mostly one of convenience: it allows all candidates to see it without having to post it to a large number of candidate question pages. — Coren (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The plan was indeed to subst the entire list to each candidate's questions page, and let them answer as they saw fit. We never planned for individual questions before the 17th, though, so when editors began asking specific questions, some candidates began copying the general questions over and answering them on their own. At this point, on the 17th, we'll lock the list of general questions and post it to each candidate's questions page - unless they've done that on their own. In that case, I'll make sure that they have all of the general questions, and I'll note the fact somewhere on the page. The end result will be that all candidates will have all general questions, which is the whole point of having the list in the first place.
Nominations are open for another week after the 17th, so new candidates would get the entire list right away, as their question page is formatted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
All candidates save one have received all of the General Questions. The remaining candidate had expressed an interest in formatting the question page in a particular way, and I screwed up the formatting when I posted the questions - so I reverted myself and asked them to do it in a manner to their liking. Thank you to everyone who posted questions. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lorem Ipsum

It's not a great look in my book to have this protected page with 'lorem ipsum' within the instructions.. p'raps someone could change it to 'will be confirmed presently' or some such - maybe even with a link to the most suitable page for discussion on the subject? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

care to suggest a suitable linky ? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
John: Privatemusings is referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote, and specifically to the collapse box. I created that box with the intention of detailing the voting criterion, but I've yet to do so; as a temporary fix, I filled it with {{Lorem}}. AGK 10:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think he is suggesting that it points to some sort of discussion about the voting criteria, but I dont know if there is any current discussion about the voting criteria for this year .. ? He also suggest putting in some sort of estimate when a voting criteria will be announced. This is an important detail that needs to be finalised very soon. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
spot on, Jay - I see it's been updated now.... now it seems a little silly to have a collapsible box for one sentence - but it's no biggie! - I'm not sure I totally understand why it's protected, perhaps it would survive unprotection, and the regular wiki editing processes would whip into whatever shape consensus determines is best :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree on both points, Privatemusings: collapse box removed (and guidance for confused voters given); and, page unprotected. AGK 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, at this point - but wasn't the deadline for suffrage 1 November? It's now 10 November on the main election page as well, and I'm not seeing a clear discussion on changing it. Doesn't bother me either way, but it's a little odd to change it in mid-stream. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Write-ins/draft

Will there be a page for people to write in votes for people who are not officially running? --Random832 (contribs) 15:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There never has been in the past. And that would be problematic wrt to people voting for ineligible minors. MBisanz talk 15:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Why should we do this? I don't really see the point in voting for someone who doesn't want the job. --Conti|✉ 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
There isn't really a good place to do this, either. The best I could come up with would be templating the user's talk page urging them to run, sort of like the "An editor wishes to nominate you at RFA" template. They still have 6 days to nominate, so it's not too late at all. I guess you could support an existing candidate with "Since User:X isn't running, you'll have to do...", but that's a bit much, I think. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This would raise all sorts of difficult questions. The creation of such a page both leads to difficulties with having a two-tier Committee (comprised both of "orthodox" candidates and of "other" candidates); difficulties with having such candidates properly scrutinised by those who do not know them (there would be no official statement, questions, and so on), which in turn raises problems with "cabal"y operations; and difficulties with, as noted by MBisanz, minors being voted for (a grand waste of time). It may also lead to the idea that the process of only voting for candidates who have submitted themselves should be superseded by the process of simply mentioning your preferred candidate, irrespective of whether they want to be on the Committee or not. It's really just not worth the hassle: a better option would be to simply ping any candidate you have in mind to ask if they are interested in running. Good question, though, Random832. AGK 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What people in the WMF will get to see the new arb's names?

I wasn't sure where to put this but was just wondering which individuals in particular get to see the real names of the new arbs? As obviously prospective arbs might have their own opinions of the individuals concerned and that might effect whether they stand or not. I know that in general doubts about their personal info possibly getting out into the real world or something, are unfortunately causing some people not to stand. Sticky Parkin 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See the policy: "Each Arbitrator will make their own decision about how much personal information about themselves they are willing to share, both publicly, and with the rest of the Committee." – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
However, they need to identify; therefore Cary Bass does. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Do they? Where does it say this? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Archive_2#Identification. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What so they can tell the multiple checkusers who abuse their power. Giano (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This time they have to disclose their real names at least- or so people are saying. Some people don't want to because they might believe if it got out that they're on arbcom it might have some bearing on their career or something, or because of general risk of outing concerns, not everyone trusts people with those details or might have specific concerns about some individuals; I don't know.) Is it just Cary Bass? I assume not? Sticky Parkin 01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
They need to send a valid drivers license, a passport, or other acceptable identification (including real name, address and date of birth) to Cary Bass. He then adds the people to the Identification Noticeboard. They don't need to make any of this data public, and only Cary (to my knowledge) has access to the database of identification paperwork itself. Just to emphasise: they don't need to make public any information at all, however they do need to send the identification to Cary Bass, and Cary only. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thebainer-esque future situations

How about a community resolution that those who win one-year terms are eligible to be moved to other tranches to give them up to three years total if other arbitrators should retire before the end of this year, in order to systematize what was done in the Thebainer/Paul August situation and give it a community mandate? --Random832 (contribs) 03:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that Jimbo's evidently already decided it's okay, I think the community would look a little silly trying to systemize it. Otherwise I like it, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia tradition is to craft policy out of current practice. This is obviously current practice, so this should probably be plopped down somewhere in WP:AC. — Coren (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it enough current practise that we would expect that Jimbo would do the same thing in any future comparable situation? That's a real question, by the way, not a rhetorical one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
To answer your rhetorical-sounding-but-real question, I would assume Jimbo would do what he wants. (Meaning that he doesn't have a codified way of dealing with these issues.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant by that to note that short terms are eligible for tranche shift to extend them. Whether Jimbo chooses to do so is a different matter entirely. — Coren (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
But, in keeping with Jimbo's role as a decidedly non-constitutional monarch, isn't everybody eligible for extension? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing questions

Is the candidate allowed to blank questions from an eligible voter (an arbitrator, no less) without leaving a trace as to their removal?

Thoughts appreciated. Daniel (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did leave a reason in the edit summary (not that I condone it; mine was removed as expected and noted in my edit summary). I think that after seeing a wide variety of questions presented to the candidates, I suppose he can at least give an answer to these ones. Although I'm not sure any pressure should be used to answer them. Synergy 09:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking for where to raise this... Who "controls" the questions to the candidate page? I'm thinking it's not the candidate, but the community... That is, qualified electors have the right to ask questions of the candidate, within reason, and the right for those questions to be seen by other voters. Regardless of the candidate's views about the questions, or desire to hide them from voters. Is this a fair assessment? Because if it is, then what Kurt is doing, removed NYB's question, removing all the general questions, removing NYB's again plus one of Lifebaka's is... well... completely unacceptable. I think most people know in their hearts already that Kurt won't be winning this election, that he's doing this as a protest. But I also think that Kurt shouldn't get to skew the results. If he wants to stand before the community, he needs to do so. That includes leaving questions unanswered if he wishes, but it does not include removing legitimate ones. Every interested voter should know that Kurt has chosen not to answer the majority of the questions, without having to dig around in the revision history to find it. These pages belong to the community not Kurt. I think this issue needs to be made clear to Kurt, however forcefully. If that includes sanctioning him, so be it. ++Lar: t/c 11:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...sanctions for something that, at the time, there was at worst never any clear restriction against doing? Come on now.
Leaving up questions I'm not going to answer just adds clutter. Many of those questions are totally irrelevant to my candidacy anyway. Furthermore, for the general questions it says "All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit," making it quite clear that it's up to me to add them (or not) as I see fit. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious to me that all questions asked of candidates should not be summarily removed. Your candidacy gives every appearance of being pointy but that's still no reason for you not to get every last oppose you have coming to you for stating that you consider direct questions from a sitting arbitrator "irrelevant". "Respond as you see fit" includes not answering, yes, but not removing them completely. I'd ask why you can't be bothered to answer them in the first place, but that question pretty much answers itself, I think. Grow up, Kurt, spare us the wikilawyering, and stop being so disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
His candidacy may be trying to make a point, but it doesn't seem WP:POINTy. There's no disruption. He's running for ArbCom. You don't like his views. Don't vote for him. --barneca (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Wikilawyering?" I did exactly what I thought I was allowed do based on reading the instructions. If I was wrong I was wrong, but I wasn't nitpicking here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It should be acceptable to all parties to archive these questiosn to "Questions Kurt has declined to answer". WilyD 16:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Just don't assume I'm trying to do something nefarious when all I'm doing is trying to keep the page manageable for people. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Keep the page manageable?" Please, Kurt... Don't assume I was born yesterday. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It has been my experience that Kurt, though far from perfect, gets a lot less good faith assumed than he deserves. There's a big difference between "holder of very non-mainstream opinions" and "troll, obviously trying to be sneaky whenever he does something I don't agree with". The "Questions Kurt has declined to answer" is a perfectly fine solution that he has agreed to; why the continued sniping? --barneca (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
No matter how much of a pain in the ass some people may find me, I have always been up front and open about my intentions and motives, and have never resorted to the sort of sneaky, underhanded behavior you seem to be implying. Please do not claim to know my own mind better than I myself do. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm just judging outcomes not motives, but letting you know that your stated reasons strain my credulity. (who can ever know what motive someone else has for sure... and yet WP:SPADE applies. The outcome here was deceptive, whether you intended it to be or not) However the solution you've implemented works well enough, as far as it goes... You still need to do the same for all the general questions too, unless you plan to answer them eventually. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(<--)There's nothing requiring the candidates to answer the questions, but at the same time the General Questions page (here) does permit candidates to answer as they see fit - which is explained further down, where it reads, in part: "If you believe a question is immaterial or irrelevant in some fashion, you may note that fact in lieu of answering, but please do not remove questions from your own question page. If the question contains a personal attack or other offensive material, other editors will remove it for you." It's a transparency thing, as noted above; The questions were asked in good faith. Whether they are answered or not, or dodged, or misinterpreted, or what-have-you, is data that editors can use in evaluating the candidate. So, in this case, Kurt, while you're within your rights to remove the questions, I'd recommend leaving the questions in place, perhaps putting them in a collapse box (to reduce clutter), and stating your rationale for declining to answer them. Quite honestly, a reasonable statement of your intent is probably worth more than having the questions removed totally. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I find it difficult to imagine forcing the candidate to keep any question on his or her "own" page. The voters will have the chance to express their opinion on the candidate, and all of his actions (including any refusals to answer this or that question) in time. Having said that, Kurt has noted that he is not attempting to evade scrutiny through his blanking. The suggestion made by WilyD to place the relevant questions in a "Questions <candidate> has declined to answer" section seems a sound one to me. AGK 19:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
{{hat|declined question}} it. There for those interested, ignored by the lazy.--Tznkai (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suffrage - Calling the Question

OK, I want to doublecheck our consensus on suffrage, since there seems to be some confusion. The main election page currently states that editors must have 150 mainspace edits before 10 November to vote. However, the consensus I recall is that they need 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November, which would be 30 days prior to voting. This is how it was done in past elections, and I was under the impression that we were doing it that way again this year. If we want to change it, great, but I'm hesitant to do so after the deadline has passed. Either way, we need to be consistent; the Election page and Vote page say 10 November, while the instructions for the General Questions and the indented voting template ({{ACE}}) use 1 November. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been under the impression from the start that Nov 1 was the marker. I hadn't even noticed the switch to Nov 10; or perhaps it's just a typo or a brain slip because the 10th is when nominations started? — Coren (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishzilla withdrawing

Bishzilla is frantically doing research for the "General questions," and I'm, or we are, starting to realize the huge amounts of work involved in the life of an arbitrator. My RL in 2009 simply isn't going to allow it. Presumably, the general questions of Newyorkbrad are intended as a wakeup call about workload, and I hope all the candidates have read and considered those questions. [1] If anybody out there is listening, I want to make just one remark pertaining to the great quagmire of needed ArbCom reform: it's high time to bring in more arbiters, and to reorganize the committee in a way that puts a more reasonable burden on each individual, and allows them to remain part of the editing community. There have been various suggestions for how to accomplish this, and there's little point in naming my favourite among them. You, dear reader, can probably think of a few systems right off the bat.

Anyway. Of course I always knew that being an arbiter is a lot of work. But just how much work it is, is something I've only realized when trying to deal with this election, and all the general questions, and the background to all the general questions. I'm very sorry to have wasted people's time, but I'm withdrawing Bishzilla's candidacy right now, before the voting starts. While, or if, I have your attention, I want to emphasize that the Bishzilla candidacy was not a joke. If little 'shonen had run for ArbCom, she/we would also have realized round about now, for just the same reasons, that it wasn't realistic, and would have jumped ship. As for why Bishzilla ran rather than Bishonen... well, the distinction didn't seem important. And for another thing, Bishzilla is an admin and Bishonen is not. (Everyking's indignant remarks on Wikipedia Review about both of them being admins are mistaken.) My sincere thanks to all the nice people who have posted individual questions to the dino. all the bishes, 19:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

P. S. Oh, gosh.. still trying to figure out how to edit the "Withdrawn candidates" template.
I did it at [2] MBisanz talk 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, Bishzilla passed the test. The fact that she's cognisant of the impossible job description and recognizes her own limitations indicates that she has the judgement and perspective to be an excellent Arbitrator. Now please restore your candidacy so I can vote for you. :) MastCell Talk 19:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
['Zilla pulls insistently at 'shonen's skirt.] See? See? Please restore! ROARR! bishzilla ROARR!! 20:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC).
Impressive thoughts, Bishonen. I respect your decision to withdraw.
And apologies for the withdrawn candidate template—I created that trying to make things simpler, not more complicated. =\
AGK 21:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Bishonen: Frankly, I had every plan of opposing you, because I didn't think you were taking this at all seriously. Now, I am not so sure. In fact, I'd ask you to reconsider. Because the only way to get reform is from within, and a wide perspective of views on the inside is needed. You don't necessarily have to opine on every single case... I still like my suggestion put forth last year of dividing the committee into "circuits" and having some division of labor, but that's an implementation detail. Please reconsider your decision. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I had the same intention and for the same reason. While I was unwilling to vote for Bishzilla, I could see myself voting for Bishonen considering your comments make it clear you were taking your candidacy seriously. Avruch T 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Damnit Bishzilla, I planned to vote for you! -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
As did I, not being confuddled by the dino vs. the shonen which seems to have caused concern in others. I admit, I'd prefer Bishonen's clear prose rather than the dino-speak, but do see how the Admin account makes sense. Dino-speak aside, I considered you the best candidate running this year, and wish very much that you'd had the time to devote to this. I am now a sad puppy. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
That sucks. Can I still vote for Bishzilla? Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you can't, and sadly not for the forcibly withdrawn Catherine de Burgh (Lady), either. This means there are now 28 candidates, 28 of whom are male. :-( Bishonen | talk 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC).
Err, so was CdB Bish, unless you know something about Giano that I do not!  :-) I agree, however, that the lack of female candidates is disheartening. It's not like we can forcibly draft women to run for ArbCom, though. — Coren (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
damn --Justallofthem (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Archive_3"