Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008

Usercheck et al

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

• Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

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

FWIW, I've used {{admincheck}} from the get go myself, so I obviously wouldn't be opposed. — Coren ^(talk) 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Admincheck renders an annoyingly long utility that is somewhat less pretty than usercheck-short, but otherwise, it does seem like a more thorough option, yes. I therefore offer my support to your proposal, for what it's worth. AGK 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As Coren notes, it's an option - no problem either way. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

General questions redux

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

I think the original plan was to have them substed by default on the 17th, but that this was later dropped. I think that the main reason one would put questions on the general page is mostly one of convenience: it allows all candidates to see it without having to post it to a large number of candidate question pages. — Coren ^(talk) 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The plan was indeed to subst the entire list to each candidate's questions page, and let them answer as they saw fit. We never planned for individual questions before the 17th, though, so when editors began asking specific questions, some candidates began copying the general questions over and answering them on their own. At this point, on the 17th, we'll lock the list of general questions and post it to each candidate's questions page - unless they've done that on their own. In that case, I'll make sure that they have all of the general questions, and I'll note the fact somewhere on the page. The end result will be that all candidates will have all general questions, which is the whole point of having the list in the first place.

Nominations are open for another week after the 17th, so new candidates would get the entire list right away, as their question page is formatted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All candidates save one have received all of the General Questions. The remaining candidate had expressed an interest in formatting the question page in a particular way, and I screwed up the formatting when I posted the questions - so I reverted myself and asked them to do it in a manner to their liking. Thank you to everyone who posted questions. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Views?

As an arbitrator I find myself conflicted on something.

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

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

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

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

How would other users wish me to resolve this dilemma?

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

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

communicate, FT! better out than in, and to do less would be akin to spreading fud at this point... it all comes out in the wiki wash regardless :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lorem Ipsum

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

care to suggest a suitable linky ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

John: Privatemusings is referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote, and specifically to the collapse box. I created that box with the intention of detailing the voting criterion, but I've yet to do so; as a temporary fix, I filled it with {{Lorem}}. AGK 10:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he is suggesting that it points to some sort of discussion about the voting criteria, but I dont know if there is any current discussion about the voting criteria for this year .. ? He also suggest putting in some sort of estimate when a voting criteria will be announced. This is an important detail that needs to be finalised very soon. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

spot on, Jay - I see it's been updated now.... now it seems a little silly to have a collapsible box for one sentence - but it's no biggie! - I'm not sure I totally understand why it's protected, perhaps it would survive unprotection, and the regular wiki editing processes would whip into whatever shape consensus determines is best :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree on both points, Privatemusings: collapse box removed (and guidance for confused voters given); and, page unprotected. AGK 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, at this point - but wasn't the deadline for suffrage 1 November? It's now 10 November on the main election page as well, and I'm not seeing a clear discussion on changing it. Doesn't bother me either way, but it's a little odd to change it in mid-stream. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishzilla withdrawing

Bishzilla is frantically doing research for the "General questions," and I'm, or we are, starting to realize the huge amounts of work involved in the life of an arbitrator. My RL in 2009 simply isn't going to allow it. Presumably, the general questions of Newyorkbrad are intended as a wakeup call about workload, and I hope all the candidates have read and considered those questions. [2] If anybody out there is listening, I want to make just one remark pertaining to the great quagmire of needed ArbCom reform: it's high time to bring in more arbiters, and to reorganize the committee in a way that puts a more reasonable burden on each individual, and allows them to remain part of the editing community. There have been various suggestions for how to accomplish this, and there's little point in naming my favourite among them. You, dear reader, can probably think of a few systems right off the bat.

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

P. S. Oh, gosh.. still trying to figure out how to edit the "Withdrawn candidates" template.

I did it at [3] MBisanz ^talk 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Bishzilla passed the test. The fact that she's cognisant of the impossible job description and recognizes her own limitations indicates that she has the judgement and perspective to be an excellent Arbitrator. Now please restore your candidacy so I can vote for you. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

['Zilla pulls insistently at 'shonen's skirt.] See? See? Please restore! ROARR! bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

Impressive thoughts, Bishonen. I respect your decision to withdraw.
And apologies for the withdrawn candidate template—I created that trying to make things simpler, not more complicated. =\
AGK 21:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen: Frankly, I had every plan of opposing you, because I didn't think you were taking this at all seriously. Now, I am not so sure. In fact, I'd ask you to reconsider. Because the only way to get reform is from within, and a wide perspective of views on the inside is needed. You don't necessarily have to opine on every single case... I still like my suggestion put forth last year of dividing the committee into "circuits" and having some division of labor, but that's an implementation detail. Please reconsider your decision. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had the same intention and for the same reason. While I was unwilling to vote for Bishzilla, I could see myself voting for Bishonen considering your comments make it clear you were taking your candidacy seriously. Avruch ^T 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Damnit Bishzilla, I planned to vote for you! -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As did I, not being confuddled by the dino vs. the shonen which seems to have caused concern in others. I admit, I'd prefer Bishonen's clear prose rather than the dino-speak, but do see how the Admin account makes sense. Dino-speak aside, I considered you the best candidate running this year, and wish very much that you'd had the time to devote to this. I am now a sad puppy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That sucks. Can I still vote for Bishzilla? Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't, and sadly not for the forcibly withdrawn Catherine de Burgh (Lady), either. This means there are now 28 candidates, 28 of whom are male. :-( Bishonen | talk 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

Err, so was CdB Bish, unless you know something about Giano that I do not!  :-) I agree, however, that the lack of female candidates is disheartening. It's not like we can forcibly draft women to run for ArbCom, though. — Coren ^(talk) 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

damn --Justallofthem (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing questions

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

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

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

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

Seriously...sanctions for something that, at the time, there was at worst never any clear restriction against doing? Come on now.

Leaving up questions I'm not going to answer just adds clutter. Many of those questions are totally irrelevant to my candidacy anyway. Furthermore, for the general questions it says "All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit," making it quite clear that it's up to me to add them (or not) as I see fit. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that all questions asked of candidates should not be summarily removed. Your candidacy gives every appearance of being pointy but that's still no reason for you not to get every last oppose you have coming to you for stating that you consider direct questions from a sitting arbitrator "irrelevant". "Respond as you see fit" includes not answering, yes, but not removing them completely. I'd ask why you can't be bothered to answer them in the first place, but that question pretty much answers itself, I think. Grow up, Kurt, spare us the wikilawyering, and stop being so disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

His candidacy may be trying to make a point, but it doesn't seem WP:POINTy. There's no disruption. He's running for ArbCom. You don't like his views. Don't vote for him. --barneca (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikilawyering?" I did exactly what I thought I was allowed do based on reading the instructions. If I was wrong I was wrong, but I wasn't nitpicking here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be acceptable to all parties to archive these questiosn to "Questions Kurt has declined to answer". WilyD 16:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. Just don't assume I'm trying to do something nefarious when all I'm doing is trying to keep the page manageable for people. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Keep the page manageable?" Please, Kurt... Don't assume I was born yesterday. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been my experience that Kurt, though far from perfect, gets a lot less good faith assumed than he deserves. There's a big difference between "holder of very non-mainstream opinions" and "troll, obviously trying to be sneaky whenever he does something I don't agree with". The "Questions Kurt has declined to answer" is a perfectly fine solution that he has agreed to; why the continued sniping? --barneca (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No matter how much of a pain in the ass some people may find me, I have always been up front and open about my intentions and motives, and have never resorted to the sort of sneaky, underhanded behavior you seem to be implying. Please do not claim to know my own mind better than I myself do. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just judging outcomes not motives, but letting you know that your stated reasons strain my credulity. (who can ever know what motive someone else has for sure... and yet WP:SPADE applies. The outcome here was deceptive, whether you intended it to be or not) However the solution you've implemented works well enough, as far as it goes... You still need to do the same for all the general questions too, unless you plan to answer them eventually. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--)There's nothing requiring the candidates to answer the questions, but at the same time the General Questions page (here) does permit candidates to answer as they see fit - which is explained further down, where it reads, in part: "If you believe a question is immaterial or irrelevant in some fashion, you may note that fact in lieu of answering, but please do not remove questions from your own question page. If the question contains a personal attack or other offensive material, other editors will remove it for you." It's a transparency thing, as noted above; The questions were asked in good faith. Whether they are answered or not, or dodged, or misinterpreted, or what-have-you, is data that editors can use in evaluating the candidate. So, in this case, Kurt, while you're within your rights to remove the questions, I'd recommend leaving the questions in place, perhaps putting them in a collapse box (to reduce clutter), and stating your rationale for declining to answer them. Quite honestly, a reasonable statement of your intent is probably worth more than having the questions removed totally. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I find it difficult to imagine forcing the candidate to keep any question on his or her "own" page. The voters will have the chance to express their opinion on the candidate, and all of his actions (including any refusals to answer this or that question) in time. Having said that, Kurt has noted that he is not attempting to evade scrutiny through his blanking. The suggestion made by WilyD to place the relevant questions in a "Questions <candidate> has declined to answer" section seems a sound one to me. AGK 19:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

{{hat|declined question}} it. There for those interested, ignored by the lazy.--Tznkai (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Write-ins/draft

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

There never has been in the past. And that would be problematic wrt to people voting for ineligible minors. MBisanz ^talk 15:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should we do this? I don't really see the point in voting for someone who doesn't want the job. --Conti|✉ 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really a good place to do this, either. The best I could come up with would be templating the user's talk page urging them to run, sort of like the "An editor wishes to nominate you at RFA" template. They still have 6 days to nominate, so it's not too late at all. I guess you could support an existing candidate with "Since User:X isn't running, you'll have to do...", but that's a bit much, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This would raise all sorts of difficult questions. The creation of such a page both leads to difficulties with having a two-tier Committee (comprised both of "orthodox" candidates and of "other" candidates); difficulties with having such candidates properly scrutinised by those who do not know them (there would be no official statement, questions, and so on), which in turn raises problems with "cabal"y operations; and difficulties with, as noted by MBisanz, minors being voted for (a grand waste of time). It may also lead to the idea that the process of only voting for candidates who have submitted themselves should be superseded by the process of simply mentioning your preferred candidate, irrespective of whether they want to be on the Committee or not. It's really just not worth the hassle: a better option would be to simply ping any candidate you have in mind to ask if they are interested in running. Good question, though, Random832. AGK 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

See the policy: "Each Arbitrator will make their own decision about how much personal information about themselves they are willing to share, both publicly, and with the rest of the Committee." – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

However, they need to identify; therefore Cary Bass does. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do they? Where does it say this? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Archive_2#Identification. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What so they can tell the multiple checkusers who abuse their power. Giano (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This time they have to disclose their real names at least- or so people are saying. Some people don't want to because they might believe if it got out that they're on arbcom it might have some bearing on their career or something, or because of general risk of outing concerns, not everyone trusts people with those details or might have specific concerns about some individuals; I don't know.) Is it just Cary Bass? I assume not? Sticky Parkin 01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They need to send a valid drivers license, a passport, or other acceptable identification (including real name, address and date of birth) to Cary Bass. He then adds the people to the Identification Noticeboard. They don't need to make any of this data public, and only Cary (to my knowledge) has access to the database of identification paperwork itself. Just to emphasise: they don't need to make public any information at all, however they do need to send the identification to Cary Bass, and Cary only. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thebainer-esque future situations

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

Given that Jimbo's evidently already decided it's okay, I think the community would look a little silly trying to systemize it. Otherwise I like it, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia tradition is to craft policy out of current practice. This is obviously current practice, so this should probably be plopped down somewhere in WP:AC. — Coren ^(talk) 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it enough current practise that we would expect that Jimbo would do the same thing in any future comparable situation? That's a real question, by the way, not a rhetorical one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your rhetorical-sounding-but-real question, I would assume Jimbo would do what he wants. (Meaning that he doesn't have a codified way of dealing with these issues.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant by that to note that short terms are eligible for tranche shift to extend them. Whether Jimbo chooses to do so is a different matter entirely. — Coren ^(talk) 04:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But, in keeping with Jimbo's role as a decidedly non-constitutional monarch, isn't everybody eligible for extension? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suffrage - Calling the Question

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

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

Electoral system

We are electing seven people, subject to Jimbo's approval. If one can vote Support, Oppose or Neutral, are you limited to a maximum of seven support votes - as per some UK systems, or can you vote for as many candidates as you wish? ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that you may support or oppose any or all candidates (once per candidate, obviously). At least, that's the way it's been done in previous elections. — Coren ^(talk) 13:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct - you can support or oppose any or all of the candidates, as you wish. There is no limitation on how many candidates you can vote for (or against), though there are some other restrictions. You can't vote more than once for a candidate without indenting the previous vote, and you can't vote for (or against) yourself if you are a candidate. As for Neutral votes - we're not currently set up to do neutrals, though some candidates end up with them anyway. Voters who wish to vote Neutral should probably do so by commenting on the candidate's discussion page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of each person only having seven votes to cast in the election as it requires more thought in order to use the votes wisely. It would also result in less "oppose" votes, as people wouldnt waste their votes on opposes unless they had a good reason to do so, allowing candidates to more gracefully pull out. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean seven supports, I like that idea too and will be using it when I vote: seven supports for who I want on ArbCom, and everyone else will be opposed (since obviously I won't want them on it). Al Tally ^talk 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of an oppose based system, but would point out that if you vote for only seven candidates it still makes sense to only oppose those you least want to be elected - voting for seven and opposing all others only makes sense if you are neutral between all the others - and would probably have the same effect as voting for seven and not opposing anyone. If the system goes ahead as I now understand it, then I will divide the candidates into three groups, those I most want elected I will Support, those I least want to be elected I will Oppose and for those in between I will abstain. ϢereSpielChequers 14:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree to the seven support system, perhaps this should be considered in the future (I think it's a little late in the game now). Although it requires more checkups, it would save the sort of "opposing so as to make my vote count" votes I have seen in the past. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been doing a little reading, and I think if we limit the system to support votes only, and no more support votes than there are places we are considering, then the system we are talking about is Plurality-at-large voting. This would have the advantage of being fairly simple for both the voters and the tellers, and a major advantage over the current system of not involving opposes. But I for one would find it an artificial constraint to lump all the seven I support into one equal category, and by implication all the rest into a second group. My preference would be for one of the systems such as single transferable vote where you put the candidates in order for as far as you have a preference. Whilst I haven't yet read all the statements I suspect this will fit my eventual perception of the candidates better than a straight support/oppose choice. There is also a system I experienced once where you put the candidates in order of preference and your votes are distributed accordingly, so in a 28 candidate field your first choice gets 28 points your second 27 etc. I think this would be fairly straightforward to count and vote under (you don't need to list all the candidates); it should also be easy to automate the counting. ϢereSpielChequers 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem Were, is that ArbCom elections suffer from the same problem most elections do: people are more interested in immediacy of apparent result and tracking who "is in the lead" at every second that the ultimate fairness and representativity of the results. First-past-the-post systems where you simply count up an absolute value (or, in our case, a proportion) of number of votes are very visible, even if broken in a number of ways.

The Schulze method for instance, is demonstrably better in all respects than our current system, and no more complicated to participate in, but requires a slightly complicated calculation in order to determine who the "top N picks" are that is not amenable to simple horserace calling "X is in the lead, with Y percent ahead... but wait! Z is catching up...". — Coren ^(talk) 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion on the merits of the Schulze method, but the complexity daunted us, I think. Single-transferable vote works well, though it's probably too late to switch this time around. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from the voters' perspective, Schulze is essentially identical to STV, but validating and tallying really need to be done by an automated process because, while not complex, there are a lot of steps. One of the nice properties about voting systems that meet the Condorcet criterion is that there is no need to vote tactically — having to vote for someone you don't like because you fear someone whom you like even less will win; or having an otherwise good candidate fall by the wayside because of split vote. — Coren ^(talk) 23:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, after the election, I'm going to code up a reliable and transparent Schulze voting system that we can use whenever we want for on-wiki selections. Open source so it can be validated, and using the Wiki for recording and tracking so that it can be audited when running. Too late to use it now, at any rate, and it wouldn't be right for me to run in an election where I wrote the voting system.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Coren, I may have got this wrong but my reading of the Schulze method as opposed to the single transferable vote (STV) is that though they will produce the same winner if there is only one seat contested, they should give very different results if two or more seats are up. With seven vacancies STV would elect a candidate who was the first choice of over an eighth of the electorate even if the rest of the electorate marked that candidate last; whilst Schultze in my understanding would produce the seven most acceptable candidates to the electorate as a whole, and if there were eight or more candidates would not elect someone who was the first choice of 13% and the last choice of 87%. So if our intent is to elect a diverse ArbComm that reflects all significant views within the community we should choose STV, if however we consider this more of a job interview where we want the seven candidates with the broadest support we should use Schultze. I can see advantages either way, but they would involve very different ArbComms. In any event I suggest that after this election we review the system, and code the agreed system well before the next election. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 22 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 [4] 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).

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)

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)