Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008

General questions redux

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

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

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

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

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

Lorem Ipsum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

(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)

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).

OK thanks, voting doesn't start for more than a week so there's still time for him to be unblocked and answer the questions before voting starts. ϢereSpielChequers 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best for Jimbo to delist any candidate that he would definitely not appoint. This will spare drama in the event that such a contingency occurs. Jimbo has already stated he won't appoint people who've been sanctioned recently. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

hear hear - as someone potentially affected by this, I think that would be the best thing to do too....perhaps you could flick Jimbo an email, Jehoch? Privatemusings (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Carefule there, PM, he might delist you. Then where would you be? Joke candidates have been dropping like flies of late. Not that your candidacy is a joke, mind you. ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

my candidacy most certainly isn't, though my chances of success probably are! I'm just keen to share a few ideas, and feel its only fair as someone who's been fiercely critical of arbcom as a body to go through the wringer of the whole election process, to show willingness to roll up one's sleeves and try to help. The fact that it seems the community aren't actually permitted to elect me to the committee raises my eyebrow, and if that is the case, I'd be happy for my candidacy to be removed by Jimbo. I don't believe it should work that way, but it would have the benefit of avoiding wasting mine, and others', volunteer time :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Jehochman! It's up to the community via a vote to select the next round of Committee members, and not a group of self-selected (although admittedly very competent and experienced) editors who chose to grace this page! Delisting candidates because they'll "probably not get in" is a slippery slope, and one I vehemently protest against sliding down. The status quo on 'unorthodox' or 'likely to be unsuccessful' candidates is—for once, on Wikipedia!—exactly where we want to be. AGK 11:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anyone here remove the listing. Though many seem to have forgotten, ArbCom is Jimbo's creation to do with as he pleases. Until that changes, people should not be mislead into thinking that things work differently. I do not think people should be offered a choice that they will not be allowed to select. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a candidate is unlikely to be selected by the voters. I am simply uncomfortable with making that decision on the voters' behalf. Oh, and the Committee itself is Jimbo's creation, yes, but the Elections are very much a Community creation. No candidate de-listing please! Let things run their course: which candidate choices the electorate are "offered" is not a decision you, I, or anybody organising the Election are permitted to undertake. AGK 13:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I would advise you, as a candidate, to not protest too ardently for the removal of another editor running, for obvious reasons. AGK 13:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not protesting at all. You seem to have misunderstood what I said, which is why I keep posting, in an effort to get my point across. If somebody's record disqualifies them for service, they would be wise to withdraw (and Jimbo would be wise to make that clear before, rather than after they hypothetically might garner >50% of the vote). How about we leave it at that? Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Now we seem to be saying the same thing. They would absolutely be wise to withdraw—a candidate blocked not two weeks before voting begins is never practically going to be Elected. My qualm was with sculpting the Election system such that any one user could make the assumption that the community isn't going to back that candidate, as seemed to be suggested above. Issue resolved, I suppose! AGK 18:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I raised this issue with Jimbo at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 39#G'day. Hopefully the election will not result in any situations where Jimbo and the Community disagree about the appointment or arbitrators. In large part I agree with what you are saying, except that candidates who cannot be appointed should be told up front. It is cruel to let somebody run thinking they could get appointed, when they can't, no matter how many votes they might receive. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, J., interesting reading. I suppose it partially illustrates my point, in that I wish conversations like that weren't happening on Jimbo's talk page, but that has little to do with what we're talking about here, I suppose. In any case, it appears you and I are largely in agreement, with the only exception being when Jimbo should indicate his opinion. I still think it should be after the vote, for the following reasons:

• If Jimbo and the current ArbCom are going to be able to veto someone, it's very useful for Jimbo, the ArbCom, and the community to know if this happens for someone who can garner more than 50% of the vote.
• Some current candidates are completely unsuitable to serve on ArbCom. 99% of these will be weeded out in the voting process. If Jimbo is going to "research" all of them, and indicate beforehand which are OK and which aren't, that's actually a gigantic amount of drama and hurt feelings. Better to limit intervention and drama, where required, to the 1% of people who get voted in, but still have some privacy-related thing that disqualifies them.
• As said above, waiting for disqualification until after the election helps move us away from relying on Jimbo; we see what the results would be if he weren't involved. If he disqualifies anyone beforehand, it doesn't allow him, and the community, to see how well the community would have made the decision.

I remain firmly opposed to disqualification by Jimbo prior to the election; more discussion of whether he should retain that right after an election is for another forum. --barneca (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good idea. I can't think of a better way to handle this. Friday (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto Friday. AGK 17:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

General discussion area

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

Other than this page, not as such. You might get some mileage out of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, but I don't know how visible a discussion there would be. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, strange. I would like to find out things like:

• Are there informal groups of candidates each trying to get majority in arbcom? If so, who belongs to which group?
• Which candidates have no chance or are joke candidates? Just so I don't have to waste my time assessing them. I know kmweber has no chance, but other than him?
• Other things that all the insiders know about this years election.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Almost. I just need a central page to find all those views. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this template then: Template:ACE guides ... if you know of other people doing collective views, or collating info, please add to it. MB and I (at least) already embed it so you can cross nav. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Candidates

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

Have you seen User:MBisanz/ACE2008 ?? Or do you mean a bot that generates voting standings so far? Or something else? ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Diablo means a quick summary of the candidates positions on different issues. Basically someone would read all the answers to questions and summarize them in tables. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's subject to observer bias, of course. MD says we had it last year, does someone recall the link? I'd be interested in what it looks like. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Summary_table which was mainly done by the since retired User:Sebastian. Similar to mine and Lar's tables, less our voting choices. MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. Looks like there's more guides out there than I originally thought! Good job in having the toolbox linking them together. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I created such a table at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/General Summary, where best should it be linked from? MBisanz ^talk 05:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=253575088.
Great guide, MBisanz! I've linked the guide on the main Election page, which is where the page's sister in the '07 ACE was linked.
AGK 11:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the deal with BLPs?

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

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

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

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

BLPs are simply, currently, the issue that most view as having the greatest capacity for actively damaging the project. Whilst vandalism and edit warring, for example, have the potential for, say, making an article inaccurate for a few minutes or giving the reader a disruptive experience of our encyclopedia for an hour or two (respectively), BLPs have the potential for getting the project sued—that in itself is a huge issue, and one we really need to treat seriously. Perhaps there is an element of "being tough on BLPs" just as there is in many political arenas with terrorism; but here, I don't think it is misplaced—rather, it's simply a case of trying to get the problem sorted before we get sued, rather than after. Hope this helps, AGK 11:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So far the actual evidence suggests that BLPs present a zero percent change of the project being sucessfuly sued.Geni 12:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So far actual court cases suggest that the foundations imunity under sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act holds.Geni 14:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Winning court cases isn't everything, Wikipedia relies on volunteer time and volunteer donations and is trying to get credibility as a encyclopaedia. All of those are at risk if we become known as a place for mud slinging via abusive biographies. ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A claim was made with regards to the legal position. This claim is not consident with results so far. Do you accept this?Geni 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

@Apoc2400: I think you need to do some background reading. BLPs are a very real issue. There are a quarter of a million or more of them. Many of them are about people who have very little real public visibility, and very few or no people watching their articles to guard against subtle vandalism. Many of them are about "one event" people, who 10 years down the road don't deserve the notoriety from having been a victim of something when they were 11. Many of them are the focus of subtle POV pushing. This has little or nothing to do with loudmouths at WR wanting their own articles deleted... but shame on us that it took discussion on WR to get sensitivity raised, and that it takes ideas from WR to spur our thinking. If you don't think there's a serious issue here that needs attention, there's a serious issue here with your thinking. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Close of Polls

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

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

Nominations closing

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

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

Again: final call. 1.5 hours and counting.

AGK 22:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

<cough> Then why haven't you filed AGK? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, are we going to be stuck with seven picks from this sorry lot? Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Shush you, Rlevse. :) I think we've enough wet rats jumping out of the Clerks boat as it stands... I'm happy where I am, thanks! AGK 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Of course. We don't have enough candidates yet. Jehochman ^Talk 23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree it should end 2400 on the 24th (another 24 hours), per Brad. As for Jehochman's comment, we have what we have. I highly doubt extending it for days would do much good. It should close as scheduled, midnight on 24 Nov, ie 24-25 hours from now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I dunno, Jehochman's comment sounded like sarcasm to me :-) I agree though, tomorrow at 23:59 would be better - and note for next year to be a little more clear. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's make sure we don't have the same ambiguity at the voting deadline. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As a Valley Girl would say, fer shure fer shure. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The main voting links, from the candidate statements, are hard-coded to open voting at 00:00 on 1 December. I've updated the main page to reflect that voting itself will end at 23:59 on 14 December. Any votes cast during that minute will be fine, but votes cast after that time (00:00 15 December or later) will be reverted. The idea originally was to have everything happen at 00:00 on Mondays (17, 24 November, 1 December, 15 December, etc), but I agree that the nomination deadline was ambiguious. Voting won't be. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hrm, my reading of it was that the 24th would mark the closing of the nominations page. "Through" seems to colour the specifics differently, however, solely based on the reasoning given by Newyorkbread. Closing the nominations page at midnight tonight seems to be what we're doing, then... AGK 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• • It was confusing wording, I agree, but we can now learn from this and ensure it's clearer next time - for the vote deadline. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem is it was clearer last time.Geni 18:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Gwen Gale's Statement

Gwen's statement is malformed, it was also transcluded on the 25th [6]. Can someone clarify if it is legitimate or not? Thanks. RMHED (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

One minute out. I think we can allow that, considering she created the statement subpage at 23:59. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no statement, just a template. Also the instructions clearly stated Statements will only be accepted after 00:00 November 10 2008 and before 23:59 November 24 2008 (UTC). Any statements transcluded onto this page (in other words, submitted to the election) outside this period will not be accepted, and may be removed by any user.

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

IAR? I think it was rather bad to leave it so late, but I think we can ignore the rules if the thing was posted only a minute or so late - maybe she was going by a different clock that wasn't the exact same time? It would be a shame to remove a candidate because of such a small thing, don't you think? I of course am interested in other opinions on this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd echo HDYTTO's statement; the more candidates the better IMO, and since we can't all run on well-oiled wiki time I'd allow (not that that's an excuse for last minute noms, but you never know what came up :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who makes an official ruling on cases like this? RMHED (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who cares I guess. Is it really such a big issue? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, either the candidature rules apply or they don't. They were very clear any statement transcluded after 23:59 UTC will not be accepted. RMHED (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear: Is it really such a big issue in that it'll affect the election somehow? I think a minute late nom won't do anything at all. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who can say whether Gwen's candidature will effect the election result, that's the point. There was no need for Gwen to leave it so late, it was an unnecessary risk. So either Gwen's candidature is accepted and the rules ignored or it's removed and the rules upheld. RMHED (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll ignore the rules then. Goodness, it was only a minute... – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To ignore the rules for one individual would be unfair to all the other candidates. RMHED (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for the fuss this stirred up. This was not an easy decision for me to make and I didn't know the statement had to be up before 00.00. Whatever y'all want to do about it is ok with me, if I was too late, then I was too late, I only want to help the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you write up your statement quickly and we'll pretend this never happened? ;-) – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My statement is up. By the way, my computer is a FreeBSD machine sychronized to Swiss time servers, I knew I was posting the template less than 60 seconds before the deadline. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• OK then, I'm fine with letting Gwen's candidature stand. It might be an idea to get the views of the other candidates as they are the ones who could be directly effected by this. RMHED (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur that letting this go is the best way forward, missing by a minute is not the playing field altering kind of issue that the rule was designed to deal with. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah I missed the nominations are closed note by about 30 seconds.Geni 05:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)