Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive 4

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

General discussion area

Is there any page for discussing the candidates in general, rather than a specific candidate? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than this page, not as such. You might get some mileage out of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, but I don't know how visible a discussion there would be. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, strange. I would like to find out things like:
  • Are there informal groups of candidates each trying to get majority in arbcom? If so, who belongs to which group?
  • Which candidates have no chance or are joke candidates? Just so I don't have to waste my time assessing them. I know kmweber has no chance, but other than him?
  • Other things that all the insiders know about this years election.
--Apoc2400 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think some people may present their views of all the candidates in a way that is collected together. I have begun doing this already. That may not be exactly what you meant. ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost. I just need a central page to find all those views. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye on this template then: Template:ACE guides ... if you know of other people doing collective views, or collating info, please add to it. MB and I (at least) already embed it so you can cross nav. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Candidates

We had that last year, where someone would compile all the candidate's profiles with salient information at a glance, in tables. Would anyone like to do that again? - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen User:MBisanz/ACE2008 ?? Or do you mean a bot that generates voting standings so far? Or something else? ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Diablo means a quick summary of the candidates positions on different issues. Basically someone would read all the answers to questions and summarize them in tables. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
That's subject to observer bias, of course. MD says we had it last year, does someone recall the link? I'd be interested in what it looks like. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Summary_table which was mainly done by the since retired User:Sebastian. Similar to mine and Lar's tables, less our voting choices. MBisanz talk 21:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, something like that. Looks like there's more guides out there than I originally thought! Good job in having the toolbox linking them together. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I created such a table at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/General Summary, where best should it be linked from? MBisanz talk 05:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=253575088.
Great guide, MBisanz! I've linked the guide on the main Election page, which is where the page's sister in the '07 ACE was linked.
AGK 11:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Close of Polls

Voting begins on the first December and results are announced on the 16th, but when do polls close, and should we replace "Voting has not begun (starting 1 December 2008)" with "Voting has not begun (polls open 00.00 on the 1st December and close 24.00 on the ??th?" ϢereSpielChequers 12:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting runs for 15 days, and ends at 00:00 UTC on the 16th. At that time, all of the voting pages will be full-protected and late votes will be either reverted or moved to the candidate's discussion page. we'll probably take a look at the voter list and compare it to recent Requests for Checkuser, just to make sure no sockpuppets have votes that still count. Until voting kicks off, I'd say the more important date is the 1st, so we should leave that in place. Based on last year, I wouldn't expect results before Christmas - it all depends on how busy Jimbo is. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the deal with BLPs?

Many of the questions, especially Lar's, are about biographies of living persons. To put it bluntly, what's the big deal? I get a worrying feeling that it's like terrorism in real-world politics. Every politician wants to be "tough on terrorism" and create more anti-terrorism laws, but few consider if the laws will have any effect.

As far as I remember it started with an article about John Seigenthaler saying he killed some Kennedy. It seems to me that the problem was not lack of policies, that was a breach of just about every policy we have. Rather, simply nobody noticed the vandalism before he did.

Then two or three very loud people at Wikipedia Review wanted to have their articles deleted, and eventually got it after a lot of drama. I have no idea if they were right or not, but my gut feeling is that they were looking for attention rather than trying to avoid it.

I don't write about living people much so I haven't kept up the discussions about it, but it seems to me that the policies we already have (including BLP should be enough. What I'm asking for is more reasons why particular measures are important, rather than generally calling for more BLP laws. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BLPs are simply, currently, the issue that most view as having the greatest capacity for actively damaging the project. Whilst vandalism and edit warring, for example, have the potential for, say, making an article inaccurate for a few minutes or giving the reader a disruptive experience of our encyclopedia for an hour or two (respectively), BLPs have the potential for getting the project sued—that in itself is a huge issue, and one we really need to treat seriously. Perhaps there is an element of "being tough on BLPs" just as there is in many political arenas with terrorism; but here, I don't think it is misplaced—rather, it's simply a case of trying to get the problem sorted before we get sued, rather than after. Hope this helps, AGK 11:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
So far the actual evidence suggests that BLPs present a zero percent change of the project being sucessfuly sued.Geni 12:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Eh? ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
So far actual court cases suggest that the foundations imunity under sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act holds.Geni 14:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Winning court cases isn't everything, Wikipedia relies on volunteer time and volunteer donations and is trying to get credibility as a encyclopaedia. All of those are at risk if we become known as a place for mud slinging via abusive biographies. ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
A claim was made with regards to the legal position. This claim is not consident with results so far. Do you accept this?Geni 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
@Apoc2400: I think you need to do some background reading. BLPs are a very real issue. There are a quarter of a million or more of them. Many of them are about people who have very little real public visibility, and very few or no people watching their articles to guard against subtle vandalism. Many of them are about "one event" people, who 10 years down the road don't deserve the notoriety from having been a victim of something when they were 11. Many of them are the focus of subtle POV pushing. This has little or nothing to do with loudmouths at WR wanting their own articles deleted... but shame on us that it took discussion on WR to get sensitivity raised, and that it takes ideas from WR to spur our thinking. If you don't think there's a serious issue here that needs attention, there's a serious issue here with your thinking. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominations closing

For any editors harbouring an innate desire to run for this year's Election, please note that the Nominations page will close at midnight tonight, UTC. The time currently, UTC, is 10:33pm; if you wish to enter a last-minute candidacy, you have just under one and a half hours in which to do so.

Don't be scared of jumping in at the deep end. ;)

Again: final call. 1.5 hours and counting.

AGK 22:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

<cough> Then why haven't you filed AGK? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no, are we going to be stuck with seven picks from this sorry lot? Jehochman Talk 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Shush you, Rlevse. :) I think we've enough wet rats jumping out of the Clerks boat as it stands... I'm happy where I am, thanks! AGK 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Time out. The elections page says that nominations are accepted "through 24 November." No time on 24 November is specified, which conventionally would mean through midnight (or 11:59 pm) tomorrow (November 24), not tonight (November 23). At a minimum, prospective candidates could reasonably have read it that way and therefore should be accorded the extra day. Comments immediately, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course. We don't have enough candidates yet. Jehochman Talk 23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree it should end 2400 on the 24th (another 24 hours), per Brad. As for Jehochman's comment, we have what we have. I highly doubt extending it for days would do much good. It should close as scheduled, midnight on 24 Nov, ie 24-25 hours from now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm I dunno, Jehochman's comment sounded like sarcasm to me :-) I agree though, tomorrow at 23:59 would be better - and note for next year to be a little more clear. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's make sure we don't have the same ambiguity at the voting deadline. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
As a Valley Girl would say, fer shure fer shure. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The main voting links, from the candidate statements, are hard-coded to open voting at 00:00 on 1 December. I've updated the main page to reflect that voting itself will end at 23:59 on 14 December. Any votes cast during that minute will be fine, but votes cast after that time (00:00 15 December or later) will be reverted. The idea originally was to have everything happen at 00:00 on Mondays (17, 24 November, 1 December, 15 December, etc), but I agree that the nomination deadline was ambiguious. Voting won't be. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hrm, my reading of it was that the 24th would mark the closing of the nominations page. "Through" seems to colour the specifics differently, however, solely based on the reasoning given by Newyorkbread. Closing the nominations page at midnight tonight seems to be what we're doing, then... AGK 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • It was confusing wording, I agree, but we can now learn from this and ensure it's clearer next time - for the vote deadline. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Problem is it was clearer last time.Geni 18:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked candidates

User:NWA.Rep has been blocked for a week for disruption, etc, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Perhaps_one_useful_thing_can_come_of_this. Since he is a candidate for Arbcom, how should his candidacy be handled. Do we need to put a note on his question page that he obviously won't be able to respond to questions? MBisanz talk 20:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How about WP:NOTNOW? User:Jimbo Wales is not going to appoint somebody who's been blocked for disruption during the campaign. Why clutter the page? Jehochman Talk 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest annotating his questions page to that effect, yes. As for whether a blocked candidate should have his statement indefinitely delisted: I am inclined to disagree with that suggestion. The question of whether a candidate who has recently been blocked is suitable for the office of Arbitrator or not is one that should be handled by the entire Community when it goes to the polls, and not by a select few editors who grace this page.
Perhaps you'd like to annotate the question page, MBisanz, in a few minutes, after any observing editors have had a chance to comment? (Although there does, I note, seem little to discuss: it seems like common sense to put a note on his question page, in my opinion. The question of whether to delist his candidacy perhaps requires a little more discussion.) AGK 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 Done [1] MBisanz talk 21:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Since he can't edit his own talk page, can I suggest that someone who knows him drop him an Email, and ask him if he wishes to withdraw? ϢereSpielChequers 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I know him; he doesn't want to withdraw. Also, the only reason at present that he can't edit his talkpage is that I've protected it, on his request (there was edit warring on it). I'll unprotect if he asks me to. See also this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC).
OK thanks, voting doesn't start for more than a week so there's still time for him to be unblocked and answer the questions before voting starts. ϢereSpielChequers 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best for Jimbo to delist any candidate that he would definitely not appoint. This will spare drama in the event that such a contingency occurs. Jimbo has already stated he won't appoint people who've been sanctioned recently. Jehochman Talk 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
hear hear - as someone potentially affected by this, I think that would be the best thing to do too....perhaps you could flick Jimbo an email, Jehoch? Privatemusings (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Carefule there, PM, he might delist you. Then where would you be? Joke candidates have been dropping like flies of late. Not that your candidacy is a joke, mind you. ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
my candidacy most certainly isn't, though my chances of success probably are! I'm just keen to share a few ideas, and feel its only fair as someone who's been fiercely critical of arbcom as a body to go through the wringer of the whole election process, to show willingness to roll up one's sleeves and try to help. The fact that it seems the community aren't actually permitted to elect me to the committee raises my eyebrow, and if that is the case, I'd be happy for my candidacy to be removed by Jimbo. I don't believe it should work that way, but it would have the benefit of avoiding wasting mine, and others', volunteer time :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
No, Jehochman! It's up to the community via a vote to select the next round of Committee members, and not a group of self-selected (although admittedly very competent and experienced) editors who chose to grace this page! Delisting candidates because they'll "probably not get in" is a slippery slope, and one I vehemently protest against sliding down. The status quo on 'unorthodox' or 'likely to be unsuccessful' candidates is—for once, on Wikipedia!—exactly where we want to be. AGK 11:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not suggesting anyone here remove the listing. Though many seem to have forgotten, ArbCom is Jimbo's creation to do with as he pleases. Until that changes, people should not be mislead into thinking that things work differently. I do not think people should be offered a choice that they will not be allowed to select. Jehochman Talk 12:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Such a candidate is unlikely to be selected by the voters. I am simply uncomfortable with making that decision on the voters' behalf. Oh, and the Committee itself is Jimbo's creation, yes, but the Elections are very much a Community creation. No candidate de-listing please! Let things run their course: which candidate choices the electorate are "offered" is not a decision you, I, or anybody organising the Election are permitted to undertake. AGK 13:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I would advise you, as a candidate, to not protest too ardently for the removal of another editor running, for obvious reasons. AGK 13:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not protesting at all. You seem to have misunderstood what I said, which is why I keep posting, in an effort to get my point across. If somebody's record disqualifies them for service, they would be wise to withdraw (and Jimbo would be wise to make that clear before, rather than after they hypothetically might garner >50% of the vote). How about we leave it at that? Jehochman Talk 15:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Now we seem to be saying the same thing. They would absolutely be wise to withdraw—a candidate blocked not two weeks before voting begins is never practically going to be Elected. My qualm was with sculpting the Election system such that any one user could make the assumption that the community isn't going to back that candidate, as seemed to be suggested above. Issue resolved, I suppose! AGK 18:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We, as a community, need to be moving further away from relying on Jimbo's opinion for everything, not closer. When a child grows up and leaves home, the first step is to start making decisions by themselves, not asking Mom and Dad for help with everything right up until the moment they leave. When it isn't clear whether we should run to Jimbo for help or not, we should err on the side of not. I see this election as essentially a true community-based election, with Jimbo retaining a theoretical right of veto. One that someday very soon, we can suggest that he give up, after we've proven we can do this without help. This isn't going to happen if we feel candidates have to get his approval, or even acquiescence, to run first. In this specific case, it doesn't matter, as the candidate in question won't garner anywhere close to 50% of the vote. In the more general case, having Jimbo announce ahead of time that he would, or wouldn't, promote a candidate is going to cause more unnecessary drama, not less. If a candidate that Jimbo would not promote can get more than 50% of the vote, that's information that Jimbo, and the community, need to have. No one should be removing any candidate that meets the nomination criteria. --barneca (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I raised this issue with Jimbo at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 39#G'day. Hopefully the election will not result in any situations where Jimbo and the Community disagree about the appointment or arbitrators. In large part I agree with what you are saying, except that candidates who cannot be appointed should be told up front. It is cruel to let somebody run thinking they could get appointed, when they can't, no matter how many votes they might receive. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, J., interesting reading. I suppose it partially illustrates my point, in that I wish conversations like that weren't happening on Jimbo's talk page, but that has little to do with what we're talking about here, I suppose. In any case, it appears you and I are largely in agreement, with the only exception being when Jimbo should indicate his opinion. I still think it should be after the vote, for the following reasons:
  • If Jimbo and the current ArbCom are going to be able to veto someone, it's very useful for Jimbo, the ArbCom, and the community to know if this happens for someone who can garner more than 50% of the vote.
  • Some current candidates are completely unsuitable to serve on ArbCom. 99% of these will be weeded out in the voting process. If Jimbo is going to "research" all of them, and indicate beforehand which are OK and which aren't, that's actually a gigantic amount of drama and hurt feelings. Better to limit intervention and drama, where required, to the 1% of people who get voted in, but still have some privacy-related thing that disqualifies them.
  • As said above, waiting for disqualification until after the election helps move us away from relying on Jimbo; we see what the results would be if he weren't involved. If he disqualifies anyone beforehand, it doesn't allow him, and the community, to see how well the community would have made the decision.
I remain firmly opposed to disqualification by Jimbo prior to the election; more discussion of whether he should retain that right after an election is for another forum. --barneca (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Jehochman and this [2] I do not believe that the community will elect a blocked candidate or a unworthy candidate in the first place however .Jimbo Wales will veto a candidate if and only if there are specific reasons for which he is doing so.His leadership is outstanding.If for argument sake a candidate who won is later found to be below 18 years he/she will be removed and a Arbcom member should be uniter rather than divider hence those with blocks ,serious disputes ,socking particurly recently because the main function of Arbcom is dispute resolution.All involved parties should trust every Arbcom.Here I find Jimbo's comment totally valid I would be strongly disinclined to appoint anyone who has been reprimanded by the ArbCom less than a year ago for sockpuppeting and inappropriate BLP editing It is truly correct as the Arbcom is for dispute resolution in our common goal of building of Encyclopedia and I do not see point in having anyone with serious disputes recently being there of course a user with a serious dispute over 5 years ago may be considered.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

fwiw - my reading of the processes are that this community election serves as an advisory process for Jimbo, and each appointment is 'considered in detail [by Jimbo] and in consultation with the ArbCom, Arbs Emeritus, and other experienced users'. - from this thread on Jimbo's talk page. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The nearly-zero-drama way to implement the Jimbo veto

My suggestion to Jimbo on how to do this would be:

  1. Jimbo shouldn't veto anyone before or during the election.
  2. In the unlikely event that halfway through the elections, one of the leading candidate is someone who is viewed as controversial by Jimbo, then Jimbo should tell the community about his concerns, in so far as possible, before the election is over.
  3. The community can then take Jimbo's advice into consideration, and people can reconsider whether they still support the candidate in light of Jimbo's opinion. Realistically, very few will still support the candidate, but everyone still gets to make up their own mind.
  4. In the extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely, nearly unthinkable event that such a candidate still was a leading candidate at the conclusion of the election, Jimbo would still have the final option of exercising his post-election veto.

This way, Jimbo's veto power is exercised _through_ the amount of trust we have in him, rather than by fiat. This way, nobody gets an unhappy surprises that they have been lost despite "winning" the "election". And, this way, we still have the safeguard of the Jimbo veto. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I can't think of a better way to handle this. Friday (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Friday. AGK 17:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
May be workable. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't like point 4 - if the community has, in full knowledge of Jimbo's concerns, decided to elect someone, why should Jimbo be able to veto them? The only situation in which I can see that being a good thing is if Jimbo has confidential information which invalidates a candidate, in which case Jimbo should just veto the candidate (it may be worth waiting until after the election in order to avoid unnecessarily tarnishing someone's reputation), there is no point in taking the election result into account so there is no need to tell the community of the concerns before they vote. So, in short, if Jimbo can tell us his concerns he should just do so and then leave the decision to us, if he can't, then he can veto (although I'd still rather the veto power was held by more than one person). --Tango (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's Statement

Gwen's statement is malformed, it was also transcluded on the 25th [3]. Can someone clarify if it is legitimate or not? Thanks. RMHED (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

One minute out. I think we can allow that, considering she created the statement subpage at 23:59. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no statement, just a template. Also the instructions clearly stated Statements will only be accepted after 00:00 November 10 2008 and before 23:59 November 24 2008 (UTC). Any statements transcluded onto this page (in other words, submitted to the election) outside this period will not be accepted, and may be removed by any user.

So by those rules Gwen's candidature isn't valid. RMHED (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IAR? I think it was rather bad to leave it so late, but I think we can ignore the rules if the thing was posted only a minute or so late - maybe she was going by a different clock that wasn't the exact same time? It would be a shame to remove a candidate because of such a small thing, don't you think? I of course am interested in other opinions on this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd echo HDYTTO's statement; the more candidates the better IMO, and since we can't all run on well-oiled wiki time I'd allow (not that that's an excuse for last minute noms, but you never know what came up :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Who makes an official ruling on cases like this? RMHED (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who cares I guess. Is it really such a big issue? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, either the candidature rules apply or they don't. They were very clear any statement transcluded after 23:59 UTC will not be accepted. RMHED (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear: Is it really such a big issue in that it'll affect the election somehow? I think a minute late nom won't do anything at all. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Who can say whether Gwen's candidature will effect the election result, that's the point. There was no need for Gwen to leave it so late, it was an unnecessary risk. So either Gwen's candidature is accepted and the rules ignored or it's removed and the rules upheld. RMHED (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
We'll ignore the rules then. Goodness, it was only a minute... – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
To ignore the rules for one individual would be unfair to all the other candidates. RMHED (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry for the fuss this stirred up. This was not an easy decision for me to make and I didn't know the statement had to be up before 00.00. Whatever y'all want to do about it is ok with me, if I was too late, then I was too late, I only want to help the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you write up your statement quickly and we'll pretend this never happened? ;-) – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
My statement is up. By the way, my computer is a FreeBSD machine sychronized to Swiss time servers, I knew I was posting the template less than 60 seconds before the deadline. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • OK then, I'm fine with letting Gwen's candidature stand. It might be an idea to get the views of the other candidates as they are the ones who could be directly effected by this. RMHED (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I concur that letting this go is the best way forward, missing by a minute is not the playing field altering kind of issue that the rule was designed to deal with. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah I missed the nominations are closed note by about 30 seconds.Geni 05:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The candidacy should stand. For applicable precedent, see here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

United States District Court precedent isn't really applicable to Wikipedia. The thinking therein is, I suppose. AGK 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, I realize that. I found the tone of the opinion humorous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The opinion seems quite earnest. Could you explain the joke? Jehochman Talk 20:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Quite earnest? Really? Are you reading the same thing I am? Avruch T 21:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The judge seems quite fair. They have given the other side leave to file a brief four minutes and thirty seconds late, and supporting documents some seventy-two minutes late. See how careful the judge is to be fair. That's quite admirable. Jehochman Talk 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, he should have a spine and enforce the rules! Rules are rules for a reason, after all, and if you let the scum break them they'll take your arms, your legs, and any other part of you that comes off next. He should probably have held Microsoft in contempt, or fined them $10 million a second for the gap between the deadline and submission. And then summarily denied the motion for summary judgment. (And sorry for flubbing your nick in the edit summary). Avruch T 21:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I know. :) Just thinking aloud that I find it odd that we're citing court documents in the course of our discussions! AGK 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Has it happened before on arbcom cases or in related discussions? It seems more odd if this is the first time. Very curious, but not concerned. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding categories to Questions for the candidate pages

The /Questions for the candidate pages are currently not categorized. Can I (or someone) add Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2008 to the (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/*/Questions for the candidate) pages so edits to those pages (answers by the candidate) will show up when the related changes of that category are checked? Also, when voting opens on December 1, could Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2008 be added to the /Vote/ pages as well? --Pixelface (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm making up the vote pages once noms close; I'll add the category to the template. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I just remembered that edits to /Questions for the candidates pages are shown when the related changes of the /Candidate statements page is checked. But if there are no objections, I would still like to add Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2008 to the 35 /Questions for the candidate pages. --Pixelface (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gotten the questions yet, but the Voting pages are done. They include the proper category. If we categorize the questions pages, it might not be a bad idea to include them in a subcategory - but it'll work either way. I've also formatted the quickvoting page at WP:ACQV. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought about adding subcategories to the pages, but I just added Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2008 to the 34 /Questions for the candidate pages. --Pixelface (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ACE Guides

I see that User:Ameliorate! has posted sharp criticism of the guides, and his page was nominated for deletion. My own feeling is that the unofficial user guides should not be linked here. This page is for official information only. Some of those maintaining this page have published their own guides. I feel that might be a little bit problematic. So, I have removed the guide links. If anybody thinks they should be restored, let's talk about it. Looking back at WP:ACE2007, I see no such links there. What changed this year? Jehochman Talk 20:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that AGK has moved the link to the bottom in the See also section. That seems like an excellent resolution. Jehochman Talk 21:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Vote stats

From past experience, the vote stat pages were fairly crucial. Not least for the nerves of candidates. We have historically had two - mathbot and gurch's. They're still marked as "later". Can someone urgently confirm if they will be live, and try to get them live if not yet done? I think people will be wanting to read them on a regular basis, in a couple of hours.....

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember Gurch saying he was not going to do it anymore after last year. I don't know if anyone has stepped up to do it this year. Grandmasterka 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I don't seem to have the code any more. Looks like I've got half an hour to whip something up, then... be back later -- Gurch (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Who owns Mathbot? Alternatively, we could ask on here for someone to make one. I don't think it would be very difficult. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on setting up a bot, as soon as I find last year's charts so I know what to make it look like. ST47 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Mathbot output, and GurchBot's. These were updated frequently - 5 mins I think. As a candidate, it was appreciated. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Results available at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Results. (Being posted by a hastily-modified copy of Huggle :D) -- Gurch (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of adding 2 items: "net" and vote page link? (and kill user:Example) Otherwise - thanks !!! FT2 (Talk | email) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Added. -- Gurch (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
And "last updated at" above the table (and User:Example is still being shown)  :) FT2 (Talk | email) 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
done -- Gurch (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading User:Example correctly, the bot is counting all the lines in the support collumn even when they've been indented for lacking suffrage. It should probably only count the numbered lines. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
done -- Gurch (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(Undenting) Thanks very much Gurch! This is a great tool and you put it together in amazing time. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not if you take into account the fact that I've been working on the framework since about the time the last of the last ArbCom elections... -- Gurch (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I had pinged Mathbot's operator earlier this month, and again this morning; Gurch has it under control as usual, though - Well done, that. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for your work Gurch. Much appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement banners

Anywhere I can steal one? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


How I shall vote on 14 Dec-- supporting the winners of the election

Continuing on some of the earlier thoughts on the matter...

As I've stated above, a groovy way to implement the veto power would be for Jimbo to tell us, ASAP, if he has concerns about any of the leading candidates during the election, so that we have time take his opinions into account. Even if the substance of his concern were to be highly confidential, just saying "I am concerned about candidate X" would probably suffice to bring community election results in line with Jimbo's advice.

In order to underscore my belief that Jimbo's input is best given DURING the elections, rather than after the fact, I shall take the following actions.

  • At 0:00 Dec 14 UTC, I will look to see who the top 7 candidates (in terms of support percentage) are.
  • Regardless of who those seven candidates are, I will vote to support them-- saying that based on the election results, they are the 7 individuals I believe should be appointed.
  • Again, anyone who is not in the top seven, I will vote to oppose-- saying that based on the election results they are not the 7 individuals I believe should be appointed.

I know some people feel Arbs should mostly be picked by Jimbo after receiving some input from the community. But many other people feel that Arbs should be picked by the community after receiving some input from Jimbo. As someone in the latter category, I will act in the above manner to underscore my confidence in the electoral process.

I would encourage anyone who similarly feels En.Wiki has grown up enough to elect our own arbs to act similarly-- by ultimately supporting the top 7 candidates who won the election and by gently opposing the many excellent candidates who did not.

I hope this can be a "gentle" way to nudge our community towards maturity, but without being dramatic, insubordinate, abrasive, or revolutionary. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How long until we grow up enough that we can resolve our own disputes without needing a committee... -- Gurch (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If the past is any guide, we'll probably reach that stage a few years after the German wikipedia does.  :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course everyone who waits till the 14th and voted for the top 7 cedes control of the election to those who vote earlier. But there is a slightly modified tactic that voters could adopt, review the candidates, support the ones you really want to win, oppose those you really don't want to win and then leave the neutrals till the end. In the last 24 hours of the campaign review the candidates in 7th and 8th place and any other candidates whose share of the vote is very close to them, and vote support or oppose on those candidates you were neutral about according to which of the marginal candidates you want to be in the top seven. ϢereSpielChequers 10:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ahh-- you wisely point out that I didn't explain things well.
I'm not suggesting we wait until the 14th to vote-- indeed, I've already voted my personal preferences. But on the 14th, I will abandon my personal preferences, strike those votes, and change my votes to unilateral support for the winners of the election, whoever that winds up being. I hope others will do likewise. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you should assume good faith with respect to Jimmy Wales. I do not think he will muck with the results for political reasons. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of doubting Jimbo's good faith-- if he appoints someone who didn't win in the election, he will do it because he thinks its best for the project and because so many in the community want him to act in that manner. Good faith is not in doubt in the slightest.
I'm just saying, I have faith in the wisdom of the community, and I'm confident I will be willing to support the winners of the election, whoever they might be. I'm also saying that I would oppose a candidate who didn't win the election, no matter who that might be.
And I have to announce all this now, within the first hours of voting, before all the votes come in. If I waited to Dec 14th to make that statement, it might just look like I'm supporting seven people I happen to like, rather than supporting the community's pick in general. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing by Jewish Internet Defense Force

Spotted via a thread on the Dread Site Of Horrible Evil, http://www.thejidf.org/ has a scrolling anti-Jehochman message in it's news feed thing on the top right. This is apparently payback for Jehochman having blocked Einsteindonut, who claimed no connection to the JIDF, which I guess is now debunked. It says "ACTION ALERT: - WIKIPEDIA - VOTE "OPPOSE" AGAINST JEHOCHMAN FOR ARBCOM" and links to his voter page. rootology (C)(T) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a little bit late to be doing that, more fool them... they should have put it up six weeks ago when their readers would have had time to gain suffrage :D. No quarter for sockpuppetry in this election, I'm afraid... and I will support unconditionally any use of checkuser etc whatsoever in the furtherance of a fair election here. We get enough crap in polls that are no big deal... Happy‑melon 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For reference, the exact text is "Action Alert: Play the Wikipedia Game! Vote "Oppose" for this Guy", linking to Jehochman's vote page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Inactivity": on opposing Sam Korn

I'm worried about the numerous opposes for "inactivity" against Sam Korn, including even some who switched from "support" as the inactivity meme took off. It's hard to tell how large a proportion of these opposers are under the impression that Sam is currently an arbitrator, and an exceptionally lazy one; but it's quite clear that some are, and that that is their reason for opposing. See for instance Durova and others referring to him as a "sitting arb". A few voters are, equally clearly, talking about inactivity in other fields than arbitration (ex. John Vandenberg, who of course knows the real situation.) Sam was actually a member of the committee in 2006 only, and is thus not tainted by the mistakes of the current lot, nor can he reasonably be thought of as an "inactive arbitrator." (You'd think people would read his brief statement all the way through before voting.. grumble, grumble.. anyway.) Can anything be done to raise these voters' awareness of the facts? Would it be inappropriate for somebody to spam them with a little information? Probably. And people don't want to "be told how to vote," no doubt. It's not a good situation however you look at it. Any ideas? Bishonen | talk 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

Durova is referring to YellowMonkey who is a "sitting arb" (who voted "oppose" right above her). 96.15.121.254 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right, my mistake. See for instance Ryan Gerbil, then. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC).
Fear not, I have sorted it beyond a shadow of a doubt [4]. Giano (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the situation. My oppose was based upon the lack of activity at RFAR from Sep 26 2006 to the end of 2006 [5], when he was a sitting arb. --Kbdank71 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else, but I opposed Sam, among many other reasons, because he's barely active as an editor. I also note a link in my oppose, where it shows he was inactive on ArbCom from September-December 2006. Don't want a repeat of that thank you very much. Majorly talk 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Since Sam as (unfortunately) withdrawn his candidacy it's rather moot, but I wanted to clarify that my oppose as well was based on a number of factors and that I well understood that Sam had not been a sitting Arbitor (active or not) for the last couple of years. I also want to add my sympathies for a good candidacy doomed by an early vote and the start of a pile on. Hopefully tonight I'll get around to writing an essay detailing lifebaka's extensive experience dealing with some of Wikipedia's most contentious deletion debates. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I've only just realised that the voting period has started -- I have been rather unwell for the last week or so and haven't been able to be on Wikipedia to answer questions and otherwise participate in the election process. As it is too late for me to do much about this and as I won't be able to give due attention for another couple of days (term is coming to an end on Friday -- busy-ness ensues!), I think I must withdraw my candidacy for this election. I would appreciate if someone could deal with the process. I very much appreciate the support I have received and apologise for this necessity. Many thanks, Sam Korn 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, I've taken care of the red tape. Thanks for offering to serve, anyway. AGK 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify, in case anyone misses the point: I'm not withdrawing because I'm not going to be elected (it's a little early for that...) but because I can't commit the time over the next couple of days that I need to if I'm going to give this a proper and reasonable go. I don't want to waste anyone's time. Sam Korn 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Get better soon, hey? Kylu (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

hot from the news desk....

2nd Dec 2008 - Arbcom Election Fever!

folk who are interested in listening to audio stuff can here some conversation 'hot off the press' from the live IRC channel, from User:ST47, User:Daniel, User:Pharos, User:WJBscribe, and myself :-) - it's a bit of fun, and turned out in my view to be quite interesting... I'm sure WJB and myself are happy to answer questions in terms of our candidacies, and I thought folk here might be interested... it's at the 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly page, and the Community Portal as per usual too.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Individual questions

While updating the tenses on the project page, I noticed the statement that individual questions to candidates can be asked until December 1. Is it actually intended that as of now, no new questions may be added? I do not believe such a restriction was discussed or is necessary, but in any event the matter should be made clear one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerks or any neutral editors

Could you relocate the threaded discussion under Ryan Postlethwaite's comment on this vote page just like my discussions with Durova and Elonaka were moved from the main vote page? Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Did, reverted, further action on hold pending more discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by banned user

Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been using sock IPs to post questions to the candidates' questions pages. He is banned. Could the election clerks please keep an eye out for this and minimize the disruption. I believe some of the candidates may hesitate to take the necessary action themselves for fear of criticism. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

He's posting through IP's. Should the pages be semiprotected? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised they weren't semi-protected already. I think only people eligible to vote should be allowed to ask questions. Majorly talk 15:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Technically, people who aren't eligible to vote are still allowed post their vote and opinion, but it is not counted in the total. Presumably anyone should be able to ask a question if they are not banned. What if a newbie with 9 edits had been abused by a candidate. Shouldn't they have the ability to ask a question about the incident to raise awareness? Jehochman Talk 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it says at the top of the pages that those who are eligible to vote may ask questions, although that doesn't mean that we should go around striking others' questions. As a practical matter, though, I think semi'ing the question pages should be fine at this point. (I would think the voting pages could be semi'd too, but that's a separate question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
And what if the banned user had been abused by a candidate? Banned users are not unpeople. Majorly talk 15:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No, but they aren't allowed to post, and there is no except for these elections. Okay, NYB, since there is actual disruption that cannot be controlled by blocks, I agree to semi-ing all those pages. Jehochman Talk 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I personally have been reverting and blocking Moulton for the majority of these incidences - and I suspect I will have blocked half of Boston before this is finished--Tznkai (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ironically that's more disruptive than the edits themselves. Nice job. Not. Majorly talk 23:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we cascade semi-protection (I didn't test yet with my bit over on commons). If so why not just cascade semi all the voting pages and their talk pages? As this is "established" user business, IPs shouldn't be participating there--only people on their real accounts. rootology (C)(T) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK cascade does not work with semi or move protection, only full protection. MBisanz talk 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Shame if so, that'd be a hell of a nice feature. Just semi-cascade all the active RFAR pages, for one example, as people actually aren't allowed to use socks there per the AC. rootology (C)(T) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've full moved protected and semi-ed all the question pages the old fashioned way.--Tznkai (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Damian

This user appears to be blocked and banned by Jimbo, and Jimbo's directions were not to unban without permission from either himself or ArbCom. User:Peter Damian II has recently voted on several candidacies. I am not familiar with the situation. Why is he being allowed to edit under a sockpuppet, and are his votes being allowed to stand, being that he appears to be banned? ST47 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai seems to think he's not allowed to edit the Wikipedia namespace, and started indenting his votes. Since he was doing so incorrectly, I used the tool I developed to indent them all correctly before confirming his allegation. My edits were intended to limit damage and make it easier for him to finish his task, and since I didn't actually check the 'terms of his unblock', I have no opinion at this time on the validity of this user's votes. ST47 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the damage, was about to fix it when you and your fancy-shmancy tools went and did it all before I could get my walker up the stairs. According to Peter Damian's unblock terms he is not allowed to edit outside of very restricted space, pending Arbcom action. Changing actual reason now.--Tznkai (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I like my fancy-shmancy tools! Thanks for the link, I didn't see that whan I made my first message. Amazing how much drama they're able to create in less than two hours... ST47 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Main / alternate account

I've enforced a wikibreak on my main account, Bencherlite, to make sure I do some work etc between now and the end of the year. This non-admin account of mine wouldn't by itself qualify to vote in this election, but is there any problem in using it as a "proxy voter" for my main account? If there is or might be, I'd be grateful if a passing admin could delete my monobook temporarily so I can vote. Thanks, Bencherheavy (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, shouldn't your main account be bencherheavy, and the alt be lite? :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a problem if you give a short explanation of the situation on the pages you vote on. --Conti|✉ 13:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the two accounts are clearly tied together. So long as only one of them votes, you shouldn't have a problem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The process wording is "In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2008." so that would allow a person with an account which meets this requirement to vote. Our general sock puppet rules would forbid a person using alternative accounts from multiple voting. So as long as that wouldn't happen (and in this case couldn't happen), then it would be acceptible. But an explanation would be needed to avoid drama. It might be easiest to just pause the wiki-break to do the voting and then set it up again. I'll be happy to delete the wikibreak from your monobook, and I'll drop you a line. SilkTork *YES! 10:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination requirements

Many of the nominees are administrators. Is it safe to assume that all of them are? Also do all the nominees have a certain number of edits? Do they all have a block-free record? In other words what are the minimum requirements the nominees were asked to pass before contesting for elections.VR talk 16:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Most are admins, I don't think there was a minimum criteria but there is a guide at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/General Summary which includes number of edits in column 3, whether they are admins, crats etc in column 2, and for their block record click on blocks in column 1. Hope that helps ϢereSpielChequers 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Many of the nominees are not admins, but of the leading candidates, it appears that the community consensus is that admin status is an essential pre-requisite for arbitrator status. In terms of number of edits, there's usually a thousand-edit minimum, but there was some SNAFU this year that allowed less-experienced candidates to be nominated for some reason. All those candidates seem to be getting massive opposes, plus a few minor sympathy votes. For a list of who is and isn't an admin (and other comments), check my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 19:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"Massive" opposition is a misleading exaggeration. For example, despite his obvious "joke" candidacy, the majority of those voting for The Fat Man Who Never Came Back have supported him, and he currently leads several administrators in the results table. There is a large sector of the community that inherently mistrusts your average administrator. Furthermore, I know several who wouldn't be caught dead with admin tools who are even more popular, more intelligent and more prolific in their edits than the Fat Man and would win even more votes if they were to stand in next year's election. I have no doubt the community will one day elect a non-administrator to the Committee. Free your mind from tired old ways of thinking.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those popular intelligent and prolific non administrators you mention tend to shy away from ArbCom for the same reason they shy away from administrator tools. It may happen some day - but its going to require more shifting in the Wikipedia culture first. As for eligibility - give them information, and if they still want to risk the gauntlet, let whoever wants to run run.--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Near as I can tell, the 1,000 edit minimum required to run was dropped inadvertantly when the main election page was cleaned up and reformatted. Given the fact that we now have 5 years of history to point to, a statement that "While Adminship is not a requirement to run, please note that no non-administrator has ever been elected" might not be a bad idea. I agree that a minimum is in order - I seem to recall candidates with as few as a dozen edits, back in the day. Kudos to the editors offering moral support, too - it's easy enough to get discouraged by a NOTNOW close on an RFA, how would this feel to a sincere new editor wanting to pitch in? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I like UltraexactZZ's idea and wording. --Elonka 20:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think by "massive opposes" Elonka was refering to the candidates with fewer tahn 1000 edits not the non-admins. There are non-admins who are doing fairly well, though none look likely to make the top 7, but no one with under 1000 edits is making a credible showing. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. --Elonka 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I misunderstood.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

New category on vote chart? Admin vote?

Hey all, it would be interesting to see how everyone compares if only votes from admins are counted. Is it an easy thing to calculate with some form of bot? Jimbo has noted he has always looked at it in this thread. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What! After all these years adminship is a big deal? What a fool I've been. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone often say "voting is evil"? (Robert Mugabe maybe, but let's restrict ourselves to the sane here). DuncanHill (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Voting is "evil" when used as a way to settle content or user disputes, where some editors' legitimate opinions are ignored because others can outvote them. The same principle doesn't really apply to elections (or it's a necessary evil), since selecting arbitration committee members on a large wiki by consensus is very unlikely to be effective. —{admin} Pathoschild 10:25:38, 06 December 2008 (UTC)

Strike me please

My candidacy is causing more heat than light at this point. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 03:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Someone else should double check of course.--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanding

Has there been any comments (e.g. from Jimbo) about whether new seats might be created on the Committee this year? Dragons flight (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said, but I would very much consider the idea of an expansion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility to vote for future elections

In the #Eligibility discussion above it has been suggested that the process criteria for voting eligibility "catches the innocent, but the guilty will game the rule." I agree that if the intention is to avoid sockpuppets then it may be healthy to re-examine the way we do it, and to check it is effective enough. While our founding principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that principle does not have to extend to the community's voting process. To vote intelligently in an ArbCom election does require some understanding of the Wikipedia community, and the needs of having an ArbCom. Such intelligence may be unlikely to be gathered by involvement in the community of only 1 month and/or by a low number of edits. For the majority of long-serving Wikipedians the activities of the ArbCom are unseen and unfelt. There are Wikipedians who involve themselves in the discussions, and there are Wikipedians who are touched by some of the incidents under discussion, but most Wikipedians are simply going about building the project with little knowledge or concern for the events happening off-stage. So allowing someone with only one months (apparant) experience, the freedom to come in and have an influence that may impact on future disruptive behaviour may need looking at. After all, the sort of person who would come to an ArbCom election with such minimal Wikipedia experience may have little understanding of the implications, or if they did may possibly be a sock or a person with an intention to cause disruption.

  • If there is a need to avoid sock puppets or ill-considered voting then we could consider setting up a Voter registration system for ArbCom elections. Requirements for registration could be 3 months active editing and email enabled, and on registration the software invisibly picks up the IP and email addresses and matches them against other registered voters. Whatever.
  • However, if there's not much evidence of sock puppet use then the present system is successful in preventing a quick easy sock being created. The need to create a sock one month in advance and then use that sock to make 150 mainspace edits is likely to deter most people. And I assume if someone is that willing to game the system they would game the system no matter what we do.

Unless there's evidence that our present system is letting in too many questionable votes, then it's a decent enough system that appears to be working. SilkTork *YES! 11:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas here. But as you said, this, nor probably any method, would not stop serious puppeteers, like the ones who create multiple socks and edit with all of them on dynamic IPs. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility - mainspace edits in a given period?

Would 150 mainspace edits from January 1 08 through November 15 08 have been acceptable? Hard to automate? Jd2718 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It could potentially adversely affect administrators and other dedicated, longterm editors whose contributions have evolved to one or more of the specialised namespaces; for example, certain editors/admins work almost exclusively in template/project space, and some administrators may make most of their edits in project space and/or user space, depending on what issues they focus on. Perhaps a higher number of total contributions, including logged actions (for those who do new page patrol, upload images, or carry out logged admin actions), might be a reasonable compromise. Risker (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned vote

Spotted an unsigned vote here. Could an election clerk or someone else neutral deal with it? Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Another one here and one more here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done by ST47, who really ought to use edit summaries for that sort of thing, but does a good job otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I think he uses an automatic tool to neutralize votes by those without suffrage. It may be necessary to drop him a user_talk page not, requesting an improvement in the code to include a (pertinent) edit summary. AGK 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unindented stricken vote

There is currently an unindented stricken vote on my vote page. See here. Could it be fixed please? Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Tactical supports"

I am merely curious... What tactical value is there to a "tactical support" of a candidacy as far behind as that of Dream Focus? Grandmasterka 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The usual suspects at WR had some kind of Grand Master Plan where they'd all switch their votes around midway through the elections. I can't quite remember what, if anything, it was supposed to achieve, but it may be something to do with that. Or it may not. – iridescent 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Trying to make Kmweber come in last, rather than getting anyone elected? Wkdewey (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought of that, but Kurt's too far ahead of last place for that... Grandmasterka 10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No: if each of the bottom candidates got just six votes, Kurt would be in last place. Actually, only AnthonyQBachler needs six votes. The rest only need four or less. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, all right. Grandmasterka 04:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility of borderline users

I've indented the votes of a user, User:Spidern, who is the closest user I have seen come to the deadline without meeting the criteria. If you look at it edit-wise, he isn't even borderline/close, 24 edits away from the deadline. But time-wise, he's only seven hours over. Opinions? ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This might require more thought, but my first instinct is that we should be strict as we have denied a vote (but not a voice) those who met the total, before the deadline, but over multiple accounts that were undeclared at the time. Verbal chat 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that we should be consistent - he/she should be able to vote, but his or her votes should be indented as commentary. This year and in the past people who barely fall short of the threshold have been denied the opportunity to vote (it happened to me, as a matter of fact). That will happen with any edit count requirement, though, so offering an alternative that is not actually voting is preferable to making exceptions that can't be consistently applied. Avruch T 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Secret ballot...

As a user undergoing current arbitration request, I hesitate to vote in sections regarding current arbitrators: we are all human, and in theory, a vote from me could influence their decision in my case. It shouldn't, of course, but... therefore I wonder: should we have some form of secret ballot that would allow users undergoing current arbcom proceedings to cast their votes in secret, with those votes being attributed after a given arbcom case has ended? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems pretty obvious to me that we should be voting by secret ballot. And since the foundation elections were by secret ballot earlier this year, the format of the arbcom election is a regression. I thought about this yesterday, and decided to wait until after this election is over to start a discussion on how to fix this in the future. I think it's too late at this point to change anything for the present election. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We definitely should have secret ballots. Some voters may be concerned to vote against a leading candidate, knowing that the candidate will probably win, and may then have their views colored. For that matter, what about the fear of voting against a losing candidate and having them take retaliatory action. I think secret ballots are an excellent idea. I have even seen one instance of a voter offering to switch her vote for specific consideration. Jehochman Talk 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We used to use Special:BoardVote to do arbcom voting until boardvote was moved offsite. I imagine for next year we could just use the old BoardVote interface and call it something like ArbVote for our purposes of better privacy without the expense of a separate server. MBisanz talk 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a secret ballot would be better, though perhaps with more use of talk pages for some of the comments currently made with !votes. An additional advantage that I don't think has yet been mentioned is that the Arbcomm members have to work together and therefore several of our voters who are closest to the process are not voting - but could with a secret ballot. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. The idea by MBisanz (talk · contribs) sounds like a good way to implement this in the future. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely against the idea of secret ballots, but I like the open system as well. Especially for the few candidates where I'm fairly neutral, reading the "support" and "oppose" comments can help me make up my mind, or can bring up factors that I hadn't considered. The open nature of the voting allows me to make more informed decisions. However, I do agree that there is that little bit of hesitancy when I'm opposing a candidate, as I'm aware that if that candidate does get elected anyway, that that "oppose" may come back to haunt me later in a future case. I'd like to think that all of the candidates who end up elected are emotionally mature enough to not allow the oppose votes to bias their future impressions of an editor; but, human nature is human nature, so it can't be entirely discounted, either. Maybe allow for a mix, so that a voter could choose to vote openly or secretly, whichever they were most comfortable with? So if they're voting a candidate where they never edit in the same topic areas as that candidate anyway, they can stay open, but if they're voting for a candidate that they're going to have to work with in the future, they have the option of casting a secret ballot? --Elonka 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ooh.. I rather like the non secret aspect of this system. But I think there's merit in bouncing around ideas on allowing but not requiring secret ballots... as soon as you vote publicly, you can't vote secretly on that candidate, or the like. Needs thrashing out but it might be interesting to see if it has legs. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, and was again this year, but has failed to gain consensus. This is quite possibly due to inertia, and Piotrus concerns are quite real. On the other hand, open voting allows for open checking of voter sufferage, and allows people's opinions to be influenced by the votes of others. Some see this as a negative; but without taking several hours to review each candidates contributions, reading their answers to the questions and seeing the opinions of those editors who I have interacted with and hold in high respect is the best way to guage their sutibility for ArbCom. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I was wrong. The discussions earlier this year focused exclusively on whether to use atraight approval voting, candidate ranking, or the current support/oppose system with no explicit discussion of secret ballot. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree with the above. The last thing this wiki needs is more secrecy. >Radiant< 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It is perfectly possible to have an election where how you !vote is secret (or optionally secret) but who voted is not. You can even have the facility for a checkuser or crat to strike the !vote of invalid !voters ϢereSpielChequers 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not only possible, we did it for the foundation board election... — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Radiant and Elonka: secrecy in knowing who voted for who is much different than secrecy in the results. Essentially every election I have ever seen was done by secret ballot, because its merits are so widely known. But the results were widely publicized. I appreciate there is a "wiki aspect" of threaded discussions, but it's outweighed by the problems of intimidation (as Piotrus says) and social pressure among colleagues. Honestly, I never expected that this election wouldn't be done by secret ballot, which is why I never looked into it before the election started. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the same system we use for WP:RfA as well as "votes" on policies, RfC's, and article deletion AfD. It's theorhetically a discussion resulting in consensus rather than a pure electoral system, but despite the name even ArbCom elections aren't straight elections. (Though like many others I'd welcome changing that). Compare how votes are taken in a legislature or indeed by any board or committee. The secret ballot is the norm in governmental elections because the cost of political intimidation is so high and campaigns have wide opportunities to diseminate information. Open ballotting, as here, essentially combines the election with the campaign which can be efficient in cases of general political ignorance. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The two-week question/answer period is the "campaign" so to speak. The board vote is also not a straight election, if I remember correctly the current board can veto candidates if they want to. I don't see either concern as a reason not to use a secret ballot when we already have the software to do so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
If the fact that someone has power to veto the results makes an election "not a straight election", then this is not a "straight election" either. The appointments to the committee are made by J. Wales, based on the advice given to him by the community in this "election." However, in light of the fact that he has appointed who was "elected" (almost always, at least), there is no reason why the same principles that apply to a "real election" should not apply here. One of those is secrecy of the ballot. Another is that if you want to tell people who you support, or oppose, and why, you can. Elonka and others raise a good point, but I suspect that the technical details involved in some people voting openly and some people voting secretly might get a little complicated. How about this: Everybody votes secretly, but there is a discussion page for each candidate where each person can give a brief statement of support or opposition, and link to a larger statement (as a number of people have this year) -- or, ignore completely. The discussion pages, in addition to allowing "campaigning" (a fundamental part of any election), would also function as sort of an "exit poll" -- and just like a "real" exit poll, it could give a misleading impression of what the real results are going to be. But once again, that's how elections work. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What I would like for us to do next year is have a parallel vote using the traditional wiki way, and one using the board vote method or similar. I don't think either is clearly superior; there are strengths and weaknesses to both. I suspect that the results would not differ by much in the end, but it would certainly be interesting to see. I think we can say the following: a secret ballot would make things freer for "dissenting" votes to be cast more freely, and that's a good thing. But a secret ballot is also likely to produce candidates who are less a "consensus" than this method, and that's not a good thing. Our processes work best when they are a constructive and rational dialogue which weighs several competing concerns, and the decision method has checks and balances to make sure nothing weird happens. The current method is pretty good at that, of course depending unfortunately as it does on me personally (in consultation with the Arbs and ex-Arbs and other prominent members of the community) to not do anything weird.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, are you suggesting that a person would have the option of voting in the "Wiki" procedure, or the "boardvote" (or similar method), or both? That is the only way that adding the "boardvote" would really add anything to the process. However, if you do that (and I think it is a reasonable idea), I think you would need to specify in advance which one "counts" in case of a different result. Given the voting patterns this year (and in the past), it seems quite likely that someone could be in 7th place (or whatever the lowest "winning" position is) in one procedure but in 8th or lower in the other, even if the difference is just a few votes. Or to put it another way, I think you need to tell the voters, in advance, what they need to do to make sure their vote "counts." My preference, as suggested above, would be that the "boardvote" method is the one that counts. While I understand your desire for consensus, I don't think that ideal is being achieved anyway, nor can it be in a voting process. If the election were over right now, one candidate would come in 7th with 67.2 percent approval, and one would come in 8th with 66.3 percent approval. Given your practice for the last few years, it is reasonable to expect that, unless you had a major issue with one of the top 7 that caused you not to appoint them, you would appoint the top 7 -- even though candidate #7 has an "approval level" only slightly higher than candidate #8. That is a fair and reasonable way to decide an election, but it is not "consensus". And, incidentally, if one of the current top 7 were rejected and the dividing line were between candidates #8 and 9, it is noteworthy that the current separation between those two candidates is less than one vote. So I think the balance should definitely fall on the side of "counting" the result that allows people to keep their votes to themselves, and the computer that counts them. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Technical" question

Two last columns in results table [6] are "Net" and "%". One could reasonably argue that "net number" of supporters ("Net" column) is a more appropriate measure than net percentage of supporters. The results are obviously different. Which measure is used and why? Biophys (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Net is number of support !votes minus number of opposes (which is why this can be negative); % is percentage of support and oppose that is support. The latter is used to decide who is in the top 7, subject that is to Jimbo's power to override. ϢereSpielChequers 18:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I asked why should one include people with highest net percentage, rather than with highest net total number of supporters. For example, candidate A received 100 net votes (150 support and 50 oppose), but candidate B received only 10 net votes (10 support and zero oppose; nobody cares about candidate B). Why should candidate B be elected?! (a support of100%). Obviously, candidate A has a 10 times higher number of votes. You can order the Table either by "Net" column or by "%" column and see two very different outcomes... P.S. That would not be a problem is all users who want their 7 candidates to be elected, simply voted "oppose" to all other candidates. Then the result of elections would be as in "Net" column (that is why I believe the using "%" is wrong) Biophys (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I had just finished writing the following when Biophys answered, and will post it without revising, even though it's somewhat redundant to his post:
I was reading Biophys's question to mean, not how is each of these calculated, but why is the %support rather than the "net" support used as the measure on which the candidates are ranked? It's something I have wondered myself. Percentages are notoriously bad metrics to use statistically, since they're not anchored to anything. To use an hypothetical example for purpose of illustration, someone with 9 supports and 1 oppose would have 90% support and would rank very high in the %support ranking, but by any common sense measure they shouldn't be in the top ranking because of the very low level of enthusiasm they've generated in the community. Percentages, in other words, can't tell you anything about the absolute level of support, and that's an important consideration. Also, I prefer to look at net support because the sign (plus or minus) is an immediate indication of the number of supports relative to the number of opposes. Sure, with percentage, you can keep in mind that if someone has less than 50% support, that's the same as saying that their net support is negative, in other words they have more people opposing them than supporting them, putting their net support in the negative range. But I think it's much more straightforward to read that directly from the net supports rather than intuiting it from the percentages.
There is a short thread on this subject on the talk page of the election results, but it doesn't really answer the question we're asking, just says that percentage is what Jimbo has looked at for the last couple of years and so that's what everyone looks at. It's not really a very satisfactory answer.
Just out of curiosity I looked at last year's result to see how it would have been different if "net" support had been used instead of percentages. NYBrad and FT2 would still be in the top two places. Deskana would be third instead of 5th, FayssalF would be 4th instead of 3rd, Raul would be 5th instead of 8th, Rebecca would be 6th instead of 7th, Sam Blacketer would be 7th instead of 4th, and Bainer would be 8th instead of 6th. Looking at the actual numbers, it's even more striking; Bainer and Sam Blacketer had significantly lower absolute levels of support than the other candidates. Maybe it doesn't matter ultimately, since it's just an advisory vote anyway, but I'm surprised more people aren't raising questions about the vote-counting metric when so much effort is put otherwise into choosing the best candidates out of the list. Woonpton (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The tradition to count percentage probably came from voting during elections of individual administrators, which is very different from the elections of multiple candidates. This is very important. Jimbo always selects only the top candidates to show his fairness. If one counts "%", Vassyana will be elected. If one counts "Net" number ("support" minus "oppose", third column from the right), WJBscribe will be selected. Only the latter is right, speaking scientifically. This is just a matter of fairness (I voted "oppose" to the both).Biophys (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems here is that changing how we calculate official support/oppose mid stream, however good the reasoning, would seriously damage the fairness of the advisory election - voters had an expectation of how it will go after all. I'd suggest you start planning now on a good metric for the next election.--Tznkai (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, except I would like to see for myself where exactly that "expectation" was spelled out so that voters knew to be expecting it; I've been looking for weeks for any explanation of how the votes would be counted, and haven't seen any. It was only when the results tally went up with the % column highlighted, that I guessed (to my consternation, I must say) that %support was the metric that was going to be used, but nowhere I know of does it actually say that. Or have I missed something?Woonpton (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure - I'd guess its one of those pesky unwritten traditions we've got - its just the way we've always done it, sorta like Great Britain's constitution. --Tznkai (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The percentage column reflects the % of support votes against the total of votes for a candidate (Support votes / Total Votes * 100). What could be an interesting number would be the percentage of support votes against the total number of voters. That metric is not there at this moment, but could be very useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think you may be missing the point. We *know* how the % support column is calculated; what we're saying is that it isn't an appropriate metric for determining the ranking of the candidates. To follow your suggestion and change to using supports as a percentage of total voters would change the election significantly, as it would take into account only supports and not opposes, but that doesn't strike me as something the community would be in favor of; people really do want to look at who has real opposition in the community as well as who has real support. The "net" support gives that information, as well as avoiding the problem that %support has, of not being anchored to the level of support. In other words, I agree with Biophys that the "net support" column is the much better way of calculating who's ahead. Jossi's suggestion would turn it into something more like a regular election where people would just vote "for" someone rather than "for" some people and "against" other people. Woonpton (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
See my comment below. In the example I give below, I would prefer to go with the candidate that has 75% support rather than the candidate that got 66% support, despite have 400 supporters. The reason? 200 oppose votes are a substantial enough opposition and more double the number of support votes of the other candidate in that example... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, 200 is double 150? I seem to have stumbled through some kind of wormhole on this page and am now in some alternative universe where ordinary math is out the window and some other system is operating; now 83 is "just a hair shy of" 150, 400/600 is 50%, and twice 150 is 200. It's an interesting place, but I'm not sure I'd want to spend very much time here.
But seriously, I don't agree with your reasoning for choosing the candidate with 150 supports and 50 opposes (100 net support, %support 75) over the candidate with 400 supports and 200 opposes (net support 200, %support 67). What you're saying is that you would prefer someone who generates very little support in the community over someone who is hugely popular but also controversial. I would much rather have the person who has generated so much support that even in spite of significant opposition, his support votes still outweigh his oppose votes by 200, in fact his support votes are double his oppose votes. The fact that his opposes are more than someone else's supports doesn't seem even relevant to me; all it means is that the other person doesn't have much support; why would I want someone with little support on the committee? The person with 400 supports, and half as many opposes, is the person I'd want to see in the office, rather than some bland person who has never done enough in the community to garner either much support or much opposition. And I'm having some trouble with the inconsistency of your arguments; a few minutes ago you were arguing for a measure (supports as a percentage of total # voters) that puts total weight on the number of supports and ignores the oppose votes altogether, and now you're arguing that you don't care about the level of support at all; you would prefer to ignore the support level altogether and make a judgment based on absolute number of opposes. The two arguments don't fit together well.
If I might say so, (this directed not to Jossi but to the community) if this is the mindset of the community, that you really would prefer nonentities who have comparatively little support or opposition, and if you have deliberately chosen a measure that selects for that kind of person over someone with more support and more opposition, then you can only blame yourselves if it seems you've chosen a committee with people on it that seem ineffectual or not well prepared for the job. It's a natural consequence. Woonpton (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the comments above, one can argue that % as currently calculated, may not work for those that get a small number of support votes and a smaller yet number of oppose votes. On the other hand, if a candidate receives a substantial number of support votes as well as very large number of oppose votes, it provides a valid point for consideration. What is best? A candidate with 400 support votes and 200 oppose votes or a candidate with 150 support votes and 50 oppose votes? The former will have 200 net votes at 50% 66% and the latter 100 net votes at 75% ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Goodness, is there any doubt in your mind which is best? A person with net support of 200 vs someone with a net support of 100? The percentage simply doesn't give you the information that's most useful. But by the way, you calculated the first person's percentage wrong; it would be 67% not 50%. A person's score would be 50% only if the number of opposes is exactly equal to the number of supports. Woonpton (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
(sorry about the math) Don't you think that a person with 200 oppose votes is pointing to a real problem? I do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think a person with 200 oppose votes is pointing to a real problem, as I've said above. I can't tell anything from the absolute number of opposes without balancing it with the number of supports. If someone had 200 opposes and 100 supports, yeah, I'd say that was a real problem. And if someone had 200 opposes and 200 supports, yeah, still a problem. But 200 opposes and 400 supports? That's a guy I'd probably want to have in there, although I'd want to look at who is opposing him and why. Sometimes the opposition comes from people who don't want someone doing a good job at being an administrator or whatever; I think that kind of opposition can be safely ignored. Besides, a lot of people don't like Obama, but I still think he's going to be a great president. Woonpton (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I like how you guys just spent two pages arguing over how best to make a decision you have no control over -- Gurch (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(lol) - not an argument for decision, but a useful discussion I would say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. I do think it's a useful discussion, but more than that, whether Jimbo follows the rankings given him by the community or not, I would think you would at least want to think about the decisions you make that determine the rankings.Woonpton (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No reason to argue. If it still matters after the end of voting, I will place a brief notice at the talk page of Jimbo. My concern is that using percentage works in favor of candidates who are relatively less known and creates a disadvantage for users who are more dedicated to the project (as in V. versus W. case).Biophys (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it's not really an argument, but do I think it's important to raise the question. Someone has already put a question on Jimbo's talk page, but it's the wrong question: it asks whether Jimbo pays more attention to "net support" or to "% support" in deciding whom to appoint. We already know that it's % support he relies on, because last year he appointed the bainer and Sam Blacketer over Raul, and I assume he uses % support because that's what the community gives him to work with. Last year there wasn't even a net support column in the results tally.Woonpton (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think net support is probably a better measure both of the level of a candidate's overall support and of his or her suitability for the job, and I hope that is taken into account when determining the successful candidates. It seems to me that a candidate with 160 net votes in support has a lot more community support than one with only 80, regardless of the relative percentage of support for either.
Percentage is also more likely to reflect relative profile, which is to say a candidate who has not engaged much in dispute resolution is more likely to get a higher percentage than one who has, but then the percentage does not reflect competence or experience, it just reflects the fact that the former has kept a lower profile and made fewer opponents.
I think if you click on the sort button at the top of the net support column in the voting table, you get a far better reflection of who has community support and who doesn't than you do from the default percentage-sorted column. WJBScribe and Jayvdb each have almost twice as many net votes as Vassyana, but if the vote is taken based on percentage as of this moment, Vassyana will get on the committee and one of the other two will miss out. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
If candidate that has 160 net support has 400 opposes and 560 supports, would they have more community support than someone with 80 supports and no opposes? Granted, that situation doesn't exist, but I'd be careful about simply writing off percent support. A large number of votes means only that there is high interest in voting.--Tznkai (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Since we are talking hypotheticals, what if the other candidate only got 3 votes, all in support? By your method, he would have to go onto the committee because he has a higher percentage of the vote. That would clearly be ludicrous.
In reality though, both these situations are hypotheticals. In practice, any serious candidate will get far more votes than that. If you look at the current table, you see that candidates who are in the running on percentage have at least half as many votes as the candidates with highest net support. So using your own analogy, if candidate A got 960 votes overall, with 160 net supports (58%) candidate B would get not 80 votes but around 500, let's say he got exactly half as many votes or 480. In order to match candidate A in net support, he would only actually need 320 votes, or 66.67%. So a candidate with only half as many votes would still have an excellent chance of defeating candidate A on net support alone, because 66.67% is an eminently gettable proportion. In other words, net support still gives a reliable indicator of community support, even with large discrepancies in the total number of votes. If on the other hand you use percentage as your determinant, a candidate with only a fraction of the net support of another candidate could win. That's why I believe net support is a better indicator of the community's will. Gatoclass (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI - rule is that anyone who gets more than 50% approval by the community is eligible to be appointed. And then I get to choose from the pool who have been approved. I have traditionally looked at the total % in making that selection, but I don't have to do so. I am unlikely to deviate from it, but if I were to, it would likely be precisely for the sort of reason that has been mentioned here: if there was a candidate who had a radically low number of net supporters, and if there were other indications of irregularities, I might take that into account. Reviewing the situation at the present time, it looks like there are no major discrepancies in this area - the two rankings are roughly similar.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Jimbo. I guess it's a little late in the day to be having this discussion in any case, but I think for future reference, it might be a good idea for the community to have a good think about it and then make a concrete proposal, which may save us all some future angst in the event that we do get a substantial discrepancy at some stage between the two counting methods. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Archive_4"