Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008

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)

(undent) Actually, STV and Schulze will tend to elect the same top candidates in most cases no matter how many seats you're filling; but in more marginal cases and in ambiguities latter picks "least disliked" over "most supported by a subgroup". I agree that there is something attractive about being able to "represent" subgroup of editors with seats on ArbCom— but I think that, ultimately, the committee's job is one of conciliation and balance and I'm not sure polarizing it would be a good idea because it could lead to simply replaying the same divides of the entire community within the AC.

It certainly is an excellent question, and a philosophical discussion worth having, but I agree that this needs to be tackled well in advance of the next election and not at the bottom of the ninth.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 15:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on the methods proposed here so far: Plurality-at-large (where you must vote for 7 people if there are 7 slots) sucks. It has no desirable properties of the kind you can read about at the voting system article. I'm a fan of Condorcet-based methods in some situations, but they actually perform badly in environments like Wikipedia -- they have unique failure modes when you can see the votes as they're coming in, because voters can vote strategically to cause Condorcet cycles, either preventing a victory for a candidate they don't like or making that victory appear less legitimate. (This actually happened in a Wikipedia discussion that tried Condorcet.) STV is nice because of proportional representation, but I am unsure that we want proportional representation on ArbCom; that could make it easy for a constituency of raving loony trolls to get a seat. What we've got now -- which you could describe as either approval voting or range voting -- is a system that is very well-suited to the task at hand. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:03, 1 December 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)

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)

"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 [2]. 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 [3], 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....

not|the|wikipedia|weekly

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)

Eligibility

Mervyn Emrys vote has been stricken from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana but he complains that the eligibility tool shows him eligible.[4] The tool is clearly incorrect here as munaul counts show less than 100 mainspace edits and no deleted contribs. I can't fidn the error in the debug output. If this is an isolated case we should just appoligise and move on, but if it's a systematic thing we should not link a faulty tool from the vote page. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored the vote, but may have mis-read the main space part. Whoops...self-revert. RxS (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any mechanism for giving someone the benefit of the doubt in borderline situations? I agree with the minimal requirement to keep out obvious sock- and meat-puppets, but in Mervyn's case, he seems to be a genuine good faith editor who just spent more time on talkpages than actual articles. He did have over 200 edits prior to November 1, though he's just shy of the 150 mark for article edits. But as we all know, he could have been easily gamed this if that was his goal, by just making multiple small edits rather than a few large edits. He appears to be a "real" person, even an actual academic. And, when he checked whether he could vote or not, our utility did tell him that he was an eligible voter. My own feeling is that this is such a borderline case, that we should allow his votes to stand. --Elonka 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In a general sense, I don't think that making case-by-case exceptions on the basis of an assessment of an editor's good faith is wise. All voting cutoffs are arbitrary on some level, but selectively enforcing them makes them even more arbitrary. In this specific case, I'm a bit puzzled as well since the editor's userpage indicates he's retired and contains a lengthy complaint about and farewell letter to Wikipedia. I'll note for disclosure purposes that 2 of the 3 disputed votes agree with my own. MastCell ^Talk 05:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this editor's votes don't coincide with mine either (for example, he's supporting Jehochman, and I'm opposing). I also agree with MastCell that a certain cutoff is necessary. However, we did set up an automated "are you eligible" utility, and he clicked it, and it told him that he was okay, so he went ahead and voted. Since the screwup was ours, and since he's obviously such a borderline eligibility case anyway, I think it's worth giving him the benefit of the doubt. --Elonka 06:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I am surprised he supported me. Might this be an off by one error in the tool? If the discrepancy is small, giving the user the benefit of the doubt may be justifiable, as long as we do the same for all affected editors. Jehochman ^Talk 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed; the query wasn't correctly limiting by date. Sorry about the confusion. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:43:23, 02 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not asking for special treatment, just for FAIR treatment of all persons, including others who relied on a faulty account checker before we wasted so much time reviewing candidates and trying to participate in a constructive manner. Seems this election has been turned into one very poor joke. Perhaps it should be called off and started over again, given the large number of persons whose votes have been invalidated in this manner. If anyone wishes to discourage people from voting, this is an effective way to do that. Just waste their time. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a helpful attitude. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In the opening post of this thread, the editor's mainspace edits are described as "less than 100" and then later, in another post, he's described as "just shy of the 150 mark." As a statistician, I have to say that the difference between 150 and "less than 100" is hardly an insignificant discrepancy, unless the first post was in error as to the number of mainspace edits. I too was subject to misinformation about eligibility; an early discussion about eligibility pointed people to a link that gave total edit counts, and I was pleased to find that I was eligible by the count I was given at that link, something like 324. But when it came time to vote, and I saw that the actual eligibility requirement is 150 *mainspace* edits, I knew I didn't have that, not even close, and I haven't attempted to vote, being sure I wasn't eligible. However, I'm interested enough in Wikipedia that I have researched all the candidates and read all the questions and answers and discussions, and have arrived at an informed opinion of who I would vote for (and against) if I could, and I don't consider that wasted time and energy. I'd probably be a good Wikipedia voter (and I'd be a good Wikipedia editor as well, if the obstacles that keep me from editing articles were made less insurmountable) but I'm willing to accept that the rules for eligibility are the rules for eligibility.Woonpton (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the reason I said "just shy of the 150 mark", was because based on my (rough) count via copy/pasting his contrib list to Microsoft Word and then doing a line count, Mervyn Emrys had well over 150 total edits, and over 100 mainspace edits. If my count was wrong, I apologize. I'm not really enthused about going through and counting by hand to get an exact measure. My point is really that our utility told him he was eligible, so he voted, and then had his votes removed as being ineligible. If this had happened in a commercial establishment where I were customer service manager, for example if someone bought something that was marked on "sale", but a different database showed it as not on sale, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the customer, and let them buy the item at the lower price as it was marked on the shelf, even if the cash register disagreed. Now granted, we're not talking about a commercial transaction here, but the general concept is the same: We set up an automated utility, which told him that he passed. So I think his votes should be allowed to count. It's not like it's going to make a huge difference one way or the other, right? Last year the candidate with the top number of votes, NewyorkBrad, had about 500 votes. So, Mervyn Emrys can influence things by his .2%, we take responsibility for the bug in our own software, and in return, we get the goodwill of an academic who may be a useful addition to the project. --Elonka 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much common sense...we must cling to rigid rules and offend as many newcomers as possible. Volunteers are an expendable resource...(the preceding comments were sarcastic) If the vote checker was wrong, anyone who was given a "eligible" result at the time they checked should be allowed to vote. This will make no practical difference in the results, but it will create goodwill. Jehochman ^Talk 18:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The way the election is set up is that anyone - any editor whatsoever - can vote and make their voice heard. Then, and only then, editors with less than 150 mainspace edits, or who are unregistered, or who registered after 1 November, have their votes indented and removed from the votecount - NOT removed from the voting page. The votes remain for the world to see as a show of support/opposition. I feel bad that a coding error ended up misleading anyone, but that's not a reason to open a loophole in counting votes that would not otherwise be counted. We had another snafu where the 1000 edit minimum to be a candidate was dropped from the election page. The result is that we have several candidates short of that limit, all of whom are permitted to run; their chances may be slim at best, but there they are. If a similar discrepancy occured with the mainspace count, then I think the vote should be counted - but it didn't. Not a great situation, but the only fair way to deal with it is to count every vote undr the same rules, which - unfortunately - disqualify this voter. On point, if we counted votes that the checker would have OK'ed, then we have to count all such votes, whether or not they actually used the tracker - since AGF assumes that they did. So all of those sleeper socks in the votes count as well. Too many problems, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

@Elonka: My point was that this was presented as a "borderline case" where the discrepancy between his actual mainspace edits and the eligibility cutoff was very small, in addition to the fact that he was given wrong information about his eligibility, and others in the discussion were saying that as long as the discrepancy is very small, then it makes sense to make an exception for this editor. If the size of the discrepancy were an important factor in the decision to grant an exception, then it seemed to me that it would matter to point out that the discrepancy was hardly insignificant. But if that line of argument is going to be dropped in favor of allowing anyone who was misled about their eligibility to vote, regardless of the size of the discrepancy, then that's fine, but by that criterion, I too should be allowed to vote, since I was also misled about my eligibility. And the problem is, where do you stop, once you've started making exceptions?Woonpton (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I never did think edit count was a great way of doing this. What if he had 149 edits at 00:00 UTC on the day? I can make that many edits in 10 mins, so it's not going to prevent anything. I would bet my house there are sockpuppets voting here. The idea of the criteria is to prevent sockpuppet votes, is it not? I'll just say then, the current requirements wouldn't stop anyone determined enough. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The criteria catches the innocent, but the guilty will game the rule. Next year we should get help from computer scientists, mathematicians, or game developers to work out the process. Perhaps the votes should be privately correlated with their IP addresses, and for good measure we can scan low edit count voters for use of open proxies. I think such a protocol would provide much stronger deterrence against socking than what we have now. Jehochman ^Talk 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say there is some discontent amongst the community over the forum for voting, and that a shift to a secret ballot (with non-public [automatic?] scrutiny of voters for sock puppetry) would be preferred. That would require tying in with the system administrators, however, with a view to having Special:BoardVote restarted (and adjusted for an ArbCom election as necessary). AGK 19:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The 150 edits at start of voteing requirement was meant to stop straightforward socking (combiened with a a requirement that accounts be 3 months old). The number was due to a bunch of at that point recent AFDs where there had been a 100 edit requirement and was meant to catch socks left over from that.Geni 19:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I count 81 mainspace contribs prior to November 1st and 2 on that date, along with plenty of Wikipedia and Talk namespace one's as well. As such this isn't a 149 spirit rather than letter of the law case, though I don't suspect Mervyn Emrys is a sockpuppet. My primary goal was to get the counter fixed so that this doesn't happen to others. As for the general requirement, it seems a good way of filtering out most socks with relatively little, though unfortunately not no, collateral damge as most newbies won't want to participate anyway. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the discussion is pretty much completed and noone is really advocating that we change the rules. The only people who still seem to be commenting are talking about borderline 149 edit cases and about private voting, which is completely unrelated to the matter at hand. Elonka suggested he may support the votes being allowed if there were over 100 qualifying edits, there are 83. We are not selling a vote, we are running a democracy. That word essentially means rule by the people, but if we elected every user who interpreted it that way to ArbCom or whatever governing body you please, we would have a rather poor government. Disenfranchising the community from the 'advertised' fair vote is as evil as disqualifying a voter who failed to meet the criteria. This is not a borderline case. Anyway, typically when there's ongoing discussion regarding a rule, we enforce the written policy until a consensus develops to the contrary. As such, I have stricken the vote. If anyone would like to make an argument as to why this voter, who does not meet the criteria nor comes close, should be allowed to vote, please go ahead and make that argument. ST47 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ST47, I believe you are misrepresenting my comments. I said nothing about "over 100 qualifying edits" being the key factor here. I said that since our software said that Mervyn Emrys was eligible, and he voted based on that, that it makes sense to allow his votes to stand. And please don't say things like, "the discussion is pretty much completed", as that is disrespectful of the other people commenting here. For myself, I was actually thinking that it might be worth starting a poll to let people weigh in on whether the votes should be counted or not, to get a better sense of who thinks what. --Elonka 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was 149 edits, the only answer would be "sorry, the software was wrong, you're not eligible". There are lots of ways to check your edit count, so any other response would be unfair to people who didn't even try the eligibility checker because they already knew they didn't qualify.

Question though: does the 150-edit requirement include deleted edits? How does one count one's own deleted mainspace edits? Franamax (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there does not appear to be a clear consensus on whether Mervyn Emrys's votes should or shouldn't be allowed, I have advised him to go ahead and vote on all the candidates he chooses to, even if the votes are then indented as "not valid". As UltraexactZZ said above, at least the votes are still listed on the page that way. If we then reach a consensus that his votes should be counted, it's easy to "un-indent" his votes. And if not, at least he's able to make comments, and we can listen to them with respect. This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, would others agree? --Elonka 01:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what we've got here is a failure to enumerate. Like ST47 above, I thought this discussion was over a while back; the only people I see arguing in this thread for making an exception for Mr. Emrys are Elonka and Mr. Emrys, and he's not arguing for an exception for himself alone, but for everyone who may have been affected by the glitch. The people who would have to figure out the logistics of how to make that work have said it's not feasible. Everyone else has argued for not making an exception in this case, especially since it's not a borderline case; in fact, the editor in question has barely more than half of the required edits. As far as the "compromise" that's being offered, it's exactly how UltraExactzz has already explained the election is set up: anyone can vote, even those who aren't eligible, so all voices can be heard, but then the ineligible votes will be indented and not counted. That seems fair to me, but it also seems to me that's what is already in place, so not sure what you're proposing that's new.Woonpton (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In my enumeration, I missed one comment, by Jehochman, that supports the idea that anyone who was misled about their eligibility should be allowed to vote.Woonpton (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The tool was broken, but the rules were clear. Only editors that meet the requirements should be allowed to vote. Verbal chat 16:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This situation does point up that it's worth discussing eligibility to vote for future elections, and I'll open a discussion below. As for this election, I think the votes should be counted [classed] as Dimpled Chads and not allowed to count. Any fudge to allow the votes would create more drama than is needed at this time. SilkTork *^YES! 10:41, 5 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)

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)

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)

"Technical" question

Two last columns in results table [5] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Etiquette

Now what is the latest on etiquette in arbcom elections regarding opposes with no explanation? I have had a couple and was curious about the reasons, but didn't want to appear to be badgering anybody (for obvious reasons). Do we just accept the opposes as not-supports-for-top-seven-choices given how the process works? signed curious. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have amended my oppose - apologies if it appeared as rude or curt. Caulde 15:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Caulde, much appreciated and I can see why you voted the way you did. No worries. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If an administrator opposed your candidacy without leaving a rationale, I think it's acceptable to leave a note on his/her talk page asking what the reasons are. If non-administrators have been opposing you, I wouldn't bother inquiring further, since their votes don't count anyway.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

All votes from editors who have suffrage have equal weighting. I would discourage claiming otherwise to further a belief in an administrator "club", regardless of the merits of such a view; introducing confusion would be the only effect of such an action. AGK 14:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It does strike me as odd that these elections are held in the form of a poll. I thought "voting was evil"? On RFAs at least, we expect some sort of explanation, but for the most important elections on Wikipedia, it's a simple straight vote? Odd. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A straight vote would suggest every vote is considered equal and those with the top votes are guaranteed to be appointed. But that's not the case, as the Fat Man has pointed out, far more eloquently than I could hope to GTD 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted Mr. Wales' comments. In any case, when was the last time someone was appointed after an election who didn't win? 2006? – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't support Jimbo's role in ArbCom elections, I don't believe there is any reason to suspect he gives votes from admins more weight than votes from non-admins. --Tango (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A public vote, unlike a secret vote, has an inherent element of persuasion in it. For example SandyGeorgia put together a voting guide, a lengthy voting rationale, and has voted and linked accordingly. Between her reputation and her logic she seems to have manged to convince another of other voters to vote the same way she did. In that sense some "votes" count more than others. These votes are more than just a show of hands, they are forums for persuasion that ends in an advisory to a decision maker: who has always followed that advice. Merely stating your oppose makes your voice heard, and puts your reputation behind it - making your voice heard and attempting to persuade can do that much more.

Admins are disproportionately represented in positions of persuasion perhaps, and in the "top tier" of candidacies - but there is nothing particularly sinister about that, just the systemic bias of how Administration is viewed by the average wikipedian, and the tenancy for the more "active" wikipedians (active in dispute resolution, high profile functions, anything that shows up on the main page, and the AN related alphabet soup) to get themselves an admin bit as soon as they've achieved trust from the community - especially the portion that shows up to vote at RfA. --Tznkai (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For example SandyGeorgia put together a voting guide, a lengthy voting rationale, and has voted and linked accordingly. Between her reputation and her logic she seems to have manged to convince another of other voters to vote the same way she did. Not sure what you're saying here, Tznkai. There are about a dozen and a half voter guides besides mine, someone even made a meta guide summarizing all of them, and someone made a template of all of them at {{ACE 2008 guides}}. I made mine by shamelessly copying another editor after I discovered all of the others, and I left it off of my talk page even until I saw the template everywhere else. My track record in terms of predicting success seems to be about on par with everyone else's. So what is meant by I "managed to convince" others to vote accordingly and why am I singled out? I certainly prefer open and public rationale to anything private going around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to single you out like that, but you are interestingly !admin and have been cited in a number of votes. I may do a full tabulation of the various "per" votes later for my own edification in fact. At any rate, I certainly did not mean to offend, nor imply what you did was any way improper - just an example of how things are working, and how it is that some votes may at least appear to be worth more than others. If you prefer, I can strike, modify, or remove the parts of my comments that singled you out.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No need, I was just curious if I was missing something, because I merely copied others. Thanks for clarifying. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to answer Casliber's original question: I think we do. Evidence has suggested that Jimbo simply takes the top percentage without carefully and meticulously weighing the exactly relative strength of each comment (Jimbo may object to that characterization)- which I think is fair in a sense. We, the community bare the responsibility of nullifying votes we find objectionable, either by persuasion or voting against them outright.--Tznkai (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the collection and display of oppose votes in elections encourage all the very worst sorts of uncivil behavior that are commonplace in Wikipedia? Replaying and sharpening the axes of old grudges? The smarmy groupiness of obvious factions and block voting? Wouldn't the spirit and guidance of WP:Civility be better served and perhaps even advanced if only support votes were collected and displayed? And wouldn't the outcome be more fair to all concerned? I mean, why encourage and facilitate negative behavior in the manner of the current election? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That might work if sitting arbitrators were prohibited from running - as it is, it is vital for the community to have the opportunity of making it crystal clear when they feel that sitting members have failed. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm going to dodge your question - not because I believe you're wrong or that you're right, but because I'm still doing some unofficial election clerking and I prefer to keep my personal opinions on the validity of our voting structure to myself while I'm still doing that. I am going to say however, that whatever flaws there are in the current system, changing it midstream would be disastrous. Unfortunately, suggestions for improvement only come during the issue at hand, by the time next year rolls around, they will have faded a way. It will take someone with significant energy to, from the moment elections are over until the next elections, suggest and gather support for improvements. If that is you - good luck.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't every support vote in effect a vote in opposition to candidates who do not receive that support, without all the verbiage and bad vibes? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's one way of looking at it I guess....dunno if the voting patterns reflect that (or maybe they do). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If everyone voted for everyone, there would be no noticeable difference in opposing or not opposing. That is however, not the case. A lack of support is merely an abstention for a vote.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Realistically, what is the probability everyone would ever vote for everyone? Not very great in this Wiki, I think. But we could avoid all the ill-will generated by oppose vote statements. I could live without all that rancor. Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would there be any ill-will generated? Arbitrators are supposed to be able to surmount the fact that some editors might oppose them. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be arbitrators. Franamax (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments with voting, a requirement for next time

We've had an object lesson this round of voting, that allowing comments along side votes but not allowing discussion in voting allows too much latitude for 'well poisoning' style of negative campaigning in the Oppose votes.

No comments should be allowed at all with votes or anywhere on the voting page. There is ample space elsewhere for commentary and discussion on the candidates, the ballot box is not a soap box. --Barberio (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Either it needs to be a straight vote with all comments removed, or a standard free for all. Either would be acceptable. rootology (C)(T) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The comments are valuable for where they are. Leaving them spread out in other places effectively means there will be less information for many voters. Deal with those who attempt to game the system; but find a way to do so without restricting, limiting, making information less immediate for the vast majority of WPians who play fair. Jd2718 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Spread out"? There is a clear link on the candidate pages directing discussion of the candidacy to the talk page for that candidate's statement. If you support keeping discussion centralised, then you must mean putting all discussion in one place. The voting page is not that place, and leaving comments there is in direct contradiction of keeping discussion centralised. --Barberio (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, the supporting rationales for oppose/support !votes are not discussion - and I don't think that the candidacy talk pages are appropriate places for giving one's rationales. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They are discussion, in that they are the voter discussing the reason they voted, and they are very very often used to influence the votes of others. The difference here is that the discussion has no opportunity for dispute, correction or rebuttal.

Election for ArbCom should not suffer the same flaws as Request for Adminship did! --Barberio (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I much prefer succinct reasons on the vote tally, (but replies on talk or elsewhere - i.e. no indents there really). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Casliber. And I would trust a small group of self-selected volunteers to decide where 'succinct' ended. Jd2718 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with Casliber, and will point out that there was indeed a small group of self-selected volunteers doing a lot of this sort of cleanup throughout the election last year, and the year before. Risker (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it folks, the comments on the support section are not the problem. Postitive comments about a candidate are merely last minute campaigning. It's the trash talk with the oppose votes that demean and degrade Wikipedia, along with the candidates. Get rid of the oppose votes and the problem goes away. It's just nasty grafitti most of the time. Why encourage incivility here?

Isn't every support vote in effect a vote in opposition to candidates who do not receive that support, without all the verbiage and bad vibes? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:45, 7 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)