Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:26, 17 November 2008 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits →Lorem Ipsum: At Privatemusings: I concur on both points, and have killed both the collapse box and the edit protection.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:10, 21 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(720 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3 |counter = 6
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(8d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archive box|auto=long}} {{archive box|auto=long}}


== The argument that Carcharoth won the election ==


'''The following was discussion occurred on ]:'''
== Free speech zone ==


As could be expected, one of the candidates (Vassyana) has a higher ''percentage of supporters'', but another candidate (Carcharoth) has a higher ''net number of supporters'':
In the last few years some administrators have used 'civility' as the new censorship. For example, Giano has been improperly blocked several times for a lack of 'civility' when there wasn't any such thing, when he was simply speaking inconvenient truths.
:Carcharoth 237 119 '''118''' 66.6%
:Vassyana 197 95 '''102''' 67.5%


This is happening because candidate C. has 45,000 edits, whereas candidate V. has only 11,000 edits. Fewer people know anything about candidate V., and therefore they do not to vote for him, one way or another. Obviously, ''net number of supporters is the more appropriate metrics''. The percentage works against candidates that are more dedicated to the project. In a more extreme case, candidate A might receive 100 net votes (150 support and 50 oppose), but candidate B might receive 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.] (]) 03:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The American election process (and I'm sure other countries as well) has a long standing tradition to not censor or interfere with candidates advertisements. This is in contrast to non-election broadcasts where broadcasters can be fined if people complain about their emissions.


:Could be counter-argued that the first one was opposed by more people, and therefore a greater percentage of the active Misplaced Pages community. Orderinchaos 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that this year's Arbcom election be a free speech zone for the candidates - where they can participate freely and openly without fear of getting blocked by some petty little administrator because they speak an inconvenient truth. This should extend to candidates only because of the potential for troll abuse. --] 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:I'm uncomfortable applying American ideals to a website that is firmly global, and likewise, to any process therein. I don't think my discomfort is anything but immaterial here, however: I do not recall a candidate ever being blocked on the basis of what they have said in the course of the election, and I see no reason why that would change this year. ] 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::Ya, you're probably right. Screw any ''American'' ideal, such as free speech. --] 18:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::Come to think of it, we may need to bounce some people for certain atrocious behavior, such as injecting anti-American bigotry into an election. But maybe the arbitrators can be in charge of that. --] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Anti-American bigotry? How exactly was AGK dismissing free speech? He merely pointed out that we're a global website and therefore we can decide ourselves how to run an election. Now, I agree with your points about free speech. I just think we can improve on the media-circuses that are American elections. (Disclaimer: I'm a Brit.) Your demand that AGK is banned for not wanting a carbon-copy of an American election here is ]. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::That was entirely uncalled for, and I think you should consider redacting it. AGK presented a counterpoint, it in no way makes AGK bigoted for doing so. ++]: ]/] 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::OK, redacted, but to reemphasise; AGK's problem with my free speech suggestion was something about it being ''American''. I mean really ... go read what he said. --] 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::What on earth...? My comment was intended at exploring all aspects of what you said, and <u>not</u> to attack the American system and what it stands for. I'm British; attacking America would, on many levels, be attacking what I stand for and proudly support. Yet, here I go—]. I have nought to defend here, thankfully: some sane folks have piped up and pointed out that my comments have been completely misinterpreted. Good grief.<br />And my opinion stands. You're suggesting we modify the elections to compensate for a non-existent issue, Duk. Never has a candidate been penalised for what she or he has said in an election, and I anticipate no such problem this year, either. ] 19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Aside from the comments apparently accusing AGK of bigotry being ridiculously out of line, the U.S. is also an example of the incredible nonsense that occurs when there are no controls about lying, cheating, and attacking. Probably worth the risk in the real world, but I'm not convinced Misplaced Pages is similar enough to the United States of America to be making any policy decisions on U.S traditions.--] (]) 05:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


::That counter-argument is already dealt with by Biophys. Basically, the reason A has more opposes is because they have put themselves out there. The significant amount of supports counterbalances and outweighs the number of opposes, as indicated by the "net support" number, which is the only TRULY fair way to judge a candidate, in my view. SDJ 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:Saying "there is no chance you'll be blocked, whatever you say" sounds like a recipe for chaos to me. At the same time, I hope and expect admins will be restrained in dealing with issues that come up in the course of the election. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


::I agree, with the exception that candidates should be sanctioned for personal attacks as normal. A candidate statement that calls out individual arbitrators for being douchebags, for example, would be right out. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Nope. Too much risk of legit critism being viewed as personal attacks.] 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't believe calling someone a "douchebag" is ever a legitimate criticism, even if the person is a douchebag. Criticism is always welcomed, but assumptions of bad faith, in particular, need to be avoided. There's no reason to accommodate a "race to the bottom" as in United States elections. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::"Person X has been entirely infectual as an arbcom memeber and has endangered the project something I intend to try and reverse" Personal attack Y/N?] 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::No, of course not; neither is "I don't trust person X". But compare "Person X has intentionally made Misplaced Pages worse" or "Person X is a habitual liar". There's no reason we cannot have high expectations for collegial and professional discussion. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


'''My reply:'''
== Voting pages, Templates, and You ==


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


::BEFORE the election, a good argument could certainly have been made that the next election should use "net support" rather than "percentage support". But making that argument after the results are in doesn't work very well, because there's no way to distinguish whether you're arguing about electoral theory or whether you're arguing candidate merits. Indeed, it's easily possible you could be arguing that one electoral system is better than another simply because, in your experience, it gave the "correct" results in this election.
As for the templates, I have three so far for your review. {{tl|indentvote}} cites the 150 mainspace edits requirement, and adds a link to the user's 150 namespace 0 (mainspace) contributions prior to 1 November - in theory, if there are earlier contribs, the user has suffrage. {{tl|newuservote}} links to the User creation log for the voter, again to verify that they were registered after 1 November. {{tl|anonvote}} is for IP voters, and links to the Why should you register. All three templates link to the Election process page, which states the mainspace and registration requirements.


::Imagining other elections that could have occurred in alternate universes in which Carcharoth would have won isn't helpful-- if we lived in a universe where net support mattered, people would have changed their behavior accordingly, making sure that they took the time to "pile on" support even if a clear percentage difference occurred. There's no way we can determine who would have won that kind of an election.
I've given ] a voting page, ], where I added some dummy votes and indented them. Please have a look and let me know what you think. I plan to code a template for Duplicate votes, and one for blocked/banned sockpuppets linking to the checkuser or what-have-you, but are there other in-line voting templates that would be of use? Thanks for the input, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 14:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


::It's a little like looking at the stats from a basketball game and then trying to deduce which team would have won if they had been playing a game where only three-point-er counted. There's just no way to tell. If the game HAD been scored that way, all the players would have forgotten about fouling, dunking, free-throw shots, etc, and instead they would have just tried to make three pointers-- it would have been an entirely different game. You can't just look at the results from an NORMAL game, see who made the most three-pointers, and then jump to the conclusion that you now know which team would have won if they were playing 3-pointer-only basketball.
:Maybe one for alternate accounts, as in "Voter X is a declared alternate account of Voter Y, duplicate vote struck". Other than that, I cannot think of anything you missed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


::For better or for worse, the election was held with the understanding that the votes were tallied according to percentage votes. The results are in, Carcharoth didn't win, and nothing can be said to change that, I'm afraid. The only question now is whether it would be good for the project to appoint someone who lost the election to elected to the post anyway. --] (]) 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::Easiest option there might be a parameter on the duplicate vote template. "User has already voted (For/Against) this candidate (Using the alternate account X)." It should be trivial to write up a switch to make sense - my only dilemma is that {{tl|dupevote}} is already in use as an AFD duplicate !vote template. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 14:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


::We get this every year; people will say someone with 200 supports '''HAS''' to get in, or someone with 100 opposes '''CANNOT''' get in, and other worthless metrics. ]]] 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::For clarity and to keep the voting pages as uncluttered as possible, I'd rather see one non-subsituted template with a simple #switch statement to determine the output. So <code><nowiki>{{ACE|editcount}} ~~~~</nowiki></code> instead of <code><nowiki>{{subst:indentvote}}</nowiki></code>. The actual content looks very good and extremely transparent. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I note, still with some interest, that those who are blithely defending the "we must decide this by %support" position are still ignoring the hypothetical situation where editor A receives 9 supports and 1 oppose (90%, +8 net support) and editor B recieves 255 supports and 45 opposes (85%, 210 net support). Who should be appointed? Vass isn't even CLOSE to the top 7 in net support OR raw support. He is in 7th in %support by 0.9%. This is a classic example of my extreme hypothetical, and one should not so dogmatically cling to the %support metric as to ignore common sense. '''SD'''] 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I've now created {{tlx|ACE}} as an amalgamation of all these templates. <font color="forestgreen">]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">]</font> 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::] is a very, very well-studied topic, and there are a million methods to use to take a group of individuals and collapse their individual preferences down into a single decision. It's not that using net-support as a metric is a crazy idea-- it's a fine idea. It might even be a better idea than percent support. BUT, it wasn't the idea that got picked to run the 2008 Arbcom election.
::::Making the argument about the 2009 elections is entirely above board. Making it in retrospect about elections that have already concluded, though, sucks all the force out of your argument, because in any election, there are always going to be people who are unhappy with the outcome who will try to argue their side should win based on x, y, and z.
::::I'm not saying you're actually doing that-- I'm just saying, it's not going to be very effective to make that argument in that manner at this time. --] (]) 00:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


:::::Until we get a voting cohort that is above 1% of the active editing population (or even close to the 30%+ one sees in regular elections) I tend to think endorsing this as the will of the people instead of self selected elites is kind of wrong. That being said, we have some kind of non-secret ballot system where it's generally understood by most who vote that the top X will get in. I would argue that the electoral system needs work and we should look at it for future elections, but turning the thing on its head in a way which can be easily gamed by said self-selected elites (and I do not exclude myself from this definition) is not particularly democratic or fair to either the voters or the candidates. ] 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Absolutely the way to go. How do we get the User and Editcount parameters to work, though? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I figured it out, and added a second parameter. Now {{tlx|ACE|editcount|Ultraexactzz}} returns {{ACE|editcount|Ultraexactzz}}, which shows that I have suffrage. Great template, Happy-melon. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 15:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
:An obvious question: why not semi the vote pages? After all, nobody who is not autoconfirmed could have sufferage. No need to indent anon votes then. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
::Maybe the answer isn't as obvious? Ping? &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I can see it both ways. Semi-protection would prevent ineligible voters from voting, which is simpler overall. It's less transparent, though - there's something to be said for letting anybody vote, and then disqualifying votes based on objective and measurable criteria. Unless they're personal attacks or what-have-you that would be removed anyway, the votes remain in place as statements of the voter's sentiments for or against the candidate - they're just not counted. I'm inclined to leave the pages unprotected, but I certainly wouldn't object if consensus disagrees. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 14:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Anons would still be welcome to comment on the associated talk pages, though. Personally, I think that there is a net gain to preventing non-autoconfirmed accounts from editing the page altogether, but I don't feel so strong about it that I'd make a fuss unless people are already in general agreement. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::That's my position as well - unless there's a groundswell of support for semi-protecting the vote pages, I'd say we should leave it be. We might consider leaving the option on the table if there are a lot of shenanigans; most of the options for reporting severe disruption involve a report at ANI, which would probably trigger protection anyway. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


===Reply to reply===
== A question regarding running ==
''No, this is not the argument that Carcharoth won the election.'' Please realize, I do not support anyone personally here. What I said was an ''obvious'' thing for someone who used to interpret data. My message was intended to Jimbo if he wants to select the seven people who have the highest community support (the highest ''number'' of net votes). I do not seen any changes of rules because the candidates are selected by Jimbo if I understand this correctly.] (]) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


:Fair enough-- there's two different ways to view it: carcharoth won the election under a certain metric that wasn't the previously-agreed-upon metric, so he should be appointed as the true winner. OR carcharoth lost the election, but in general he should appointed anyway.
Jimbo, Arbitrators - as we all know, Jimbo has stated he will retain the power of veto over any candidates whom he or the Arbitrators would consider not to be a good, safe, and trusted appointment for the community. With this in mind, perhaps if there is anyone running who you would consider would '''not''' be such an appointment, could you advise them to withdraw (either publically or via email)?


:The truth is, honestly, nobody really knows whether Jimbo can select candidates at will or not. My suspicion is that he can no longer appoint anyone too far from the top 7. In some year past, he automatically re-appointed the sitting arbs even though they lost the election-- but I don't think he could do that this year. I suspect he could still veto a candidate in order to appoint the next in line of percent order and it would fly-- but this may be the last year that's the case. --] (]) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I would imagine it would be far better to prevent these occurances before they arise; allowing candidates to run knowing that they wouldn't make it even if they did win is a waste of everyone's time. I cannot think of anything that would cause more heartbreak for the candidate, or hysterical, scabrous Wiki-drama, than nixing someone who came in the top five (six?) of the "popular vote".
::Jimmy can reappoint Forrester and Matthews if he so chooses. He has final say. I think there would be a ] if he did, but that is still within his power to do. '''SD'''] 15:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::He definitely has say, but I doubt seriously he has final say. We just don't work that way anymore. There's some act, how far out it is who can say, but there is some act that would result in jimbo being drummed out. We'll probably never know where that line is, because he IS a sane and good and wise leader. But, the line exists, and I suspect doing something crazy like, appointed two people with 20% support, would be on the other side of that line. --] (]) 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


== FYI: The "fight" for #7 is actually between Jayvdb & Coren ==
I am especially interested in finding out if it's worth my running; I think I'd make a good arbitrator, but if I'm going to run only to be told at the end "actually, no thanks", I'd rather know now. Thanks. ]&amp;] 09:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:It might be worth cross-posting this to Jimbo's talk page and the arb-l mailing list, since I doubt Jimbo reads this page, and some arbs may not be paying close attention to it yet. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


I'm sure someone could easily and trivially take the basic four metrics on ]:
:: The thing about Jimbo's role is, it's not likely to be needed often (it hasn't been for the last several elections) because it's likely in most cases that the community's decision will be a good one. Even if there were a candidate who would not be likely to be okay, there's not likely to be need for Jimbo to pre-empt anything or step in most times, because the community is historically extremely likely to say so themselves by means of usual voting. The bigger problem would be if the community as a whole began to go "off the rails" and became an unmoderated battleground without the backing of users and admins who had the ability to enforce the historical view that it's purely an encyclopedia. ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 11:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


# Suppose
:::If you see a candidate listed who has some sort of horrible, but publicly unknown, history of policy violations that would make them unsuitable, will you all say something promptly, or will you let them and the community waste a huge amount of time considering their candidacy? This is a hypothetical question. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
# Oppose
# Net
# Percentage


And then math up each person's standings in each, from 1-28th. Just inverse the value of the Opposes (so Casliber is 1st, rather than 28th, here--low scores are preferred). I would imagine whomever has the highest overall average would be the correct top 10, mathematically. I began with the top 10 by percentage:
::::I'm not sure where the concept of the ideas "the community is wrong" and "Jimbo is always right" came from. Other Wikipedias manage to have an ArbCom without the intervention of a divine leader. Other communities manage to get it right every time. If the community appoints somebody, that should be respected by Jimbo, and not chucked back in everyone's face as a complete waste of everyone's time. Jimbo ''never'' needs to step in. This is not 2003 anymore. We are perfectly capable of making our own decisions, thank you. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Other communities do not have an ArbCom as complex or as important to the general running of our project as enwiki does, Majorly. Additionally, the point being made is that the community ''could'' be wrong—hence Jimbo having the power of veto over the appointments—but ''in practice'' it rarely is—hence his never using that power. It's important to understand the theory behind the safety-valve arrangement, and I'm not sure you do. ] 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


# Casliber
::::::*You clearly under-estimate the importance of other communities' ArbComs. ArbCom is there to arbitrate user disputes primarily; that they choose to involve themselves with other things is not my business (well, it is, but nothing I can do about). The community isn't ''wrong'' - the idea "everyone" made a mistake, and Jimbo was the only person in the right, is utter nonsense. We don't need, or want a "safety-valve" - I don't trust Jimbo's judgement one bit in this arena (remember his appointments of Kelly Martin, Essjay, Jayjg etc, all without community approval, all disasterous). I understand the theory behind the "arrangement", but don't understand why we need it. The community is, in fact, never wrong (read ]). People can make mistakes individually, but there's never, ever a case when ''everyone'' is wrong, and therefore justifying the right of one man to make the decision on behalf of us is an extremely bad one. Again, this isn't 2003. We have grown up, and don't need someone making decisions for us. We are a community, and what the community agrees with (i.e. consensus) is what goes. Always. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
# Risker
:::::::*I totally agree, and I want to reiterate my earlier suggestion that we hold a vote on whether the community's choices should have an automatic mandate. ] (]) 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
# Roger Davies
:::::::*For my money, I remain undecided about whether the JIMBO veto should continue or not, but I do think it would be good to propose a "]" policy that actually assesses which of the powers traditional held by JIMBO are supported by community consensus is. My strong suspicion is that all of them are still supported-- but it'd be a useful to actually establish that as a fact, rather than a guess. --] (]) 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
# Cool Hand Luke
:::::::*I attempted that some time ago over at ]. It rapidly devolved into something descriptive rather than prescriptive, though of course Misplaced Pages mythology states that that's the nature of all policy. Anyway, if you want to pick up that torch, you certainly have my blessing. ] (]) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
# Rlevse
::::::::Works for me-- all involved should peek at ] to see if I've missed any of Jimbo's powers. --] (]) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
# Jayvdb
# Vassyana
# Carcharoth
# Wizardman
# Coren


And ended up with this (correct?) top 10 based on the averages:
== Jpgordon is resigning ==


# '''Casliber'''
Jpgordon is at the end of the current term. Therefore, another seat will be open, and this needs to be updated on the page. &ndash; ] (]) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
#: Support 377/1st; Oppose 33/1st; Net 344/1st; Percentage 92.0%/1st
:{{done}} ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
#: Average: 1.0
# '''Risker'''
#: Support 302/3rd; Oppose 45/2nd; Net 257/2nd; Percentage 87.0%/2nd
#: Average: 2.25
# '''Roger Davies'''
#: Support 218/8th; Oppose 54/3rd; Net 164/5th; Percentage 80.1%/3rd
#: Average: 4.75
# '''Cool Hand Luke'''
#: Support 294/5th; Oppose 106/11th; Net 188/4th; Percentage 73.5%/4th
#: Average: 6.0
# '''Rlevse'''
#: Support 306/2nd; Oppose 111/14th; Net 195/3rd; Percentage 73.4%/5th
#: Average: 6.0
# '''Vassyana '''
#: Support 197/9th; Oppose 95/9th; Net 344/9th; Percentage 67.5%/7th
#: Average: 8.5
# '''Jayvdb'''
#: Support 299/4th; Oppose 138/22nd; Net 161/6th; Percentage 68.4%/6th
#: Average: 9.5
# '''Coren'''
#: Support 154/10th; Oppose 87/8th; Net 67/10th; Percentage 63.9%/10th
#: Average: 9.5
# '''Carcharoth'''
#: Support 237/6th; Oppose 119/18th; Net 188/7th; Percentage 66.6%/8th
#: Average: 9.75
# '''Wizardman'''
#: Support 226/7th; Oppose 117/17th; Net 109/8th; Percentage 65.9%/9th
#: Average: 10.25


Digest as you will. ] (])(]) 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
== General Questions ==
:This is tongue-in-cheek, right? ] (]) 22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::It's what you get when you have an election without clear rules. ] (]) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::6SJ7, yeah on the title, but the math is as basic as you can get for the curious--based on the averages, I mean. And Duncan, yes. In the absence of rules or until the editors just take over the election wholly, this is the literal baseline result of the averages. ] (])(]) 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


::::An alternate metric occurs to me. Obviously, admins are more experienced members of the community, so their votes should count more. But that doesn't mean we should disregard the votes of non-admins either. So let's tally up the votes, where an admin vote counts as "one vote" and a non-admin vote counts as "three-fifths" of a vote.
OK, based on the discussion above, and on Anthony's excellent proposal, I've put together the General Questions page at ]. The page provides instructions for posting a question for all the candidates. The questions themselves go onto a list at ], which can be substituted onto a Question page for each candidate on 17 November. Individual questions can then be asked to specific candidates on that same page. Please doublecheck me; if this format works, then I'd propose adding a request for questions to the main election page. Thanks! ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
:Two questions:
:#When will it be appropriate to put some questions to the page?
:#How does everyone feel about the propriety of a candidate placing questions there?
:I ask, because there are a number of questions I feel raise important issues that I would like to see all candidates answer, and given that those questions are uniformly asked of all the candidates, ''I'' see no ethical concern with it but I also know I haven't been designated the Fount of all Morals by anyone. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
::We had discussed asking the community for questions on 3 November, but hadn't in the absence of a format. Wouldn't bother me a bit if you went ahead and added your questions (just remove my example question). As for candidates asking questions... it might seem hinky to voters, just as some voters have problems with candidates voting against their opponents. But I don't think there should be a rule against it, necessarily. Besides, there aren't any candidates yet - so it's no problem. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 02:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


::::Or, we could have switch from having the founder abstain to having the founder vote, where a founder vote counts as "six thousand eight hundred and two" votes. :) --] (]) 23:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Hearing no objections, I'm going to go ahead and post a request for questions at WP:AN, WT:ARBCOM, and WP:VP. I can't think of any other good venues, nor do I think the general questions warrant a watchlist notice. Besides, people checking nominations will also see the link to add questions, so that'll take care of itself, I imagine. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
::::What's with the a/s/l question that Giggy added? I can see why he put it there, but surely there is a better way to phrase it. ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
:::::I don't mind it. It's lighthearted in formulation, certainly, but it's succinct and harmless. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


:::::No, no, no! Arbitrators obviously have the biggest weight, since they are the best and most important Wikipedians (and of course the most trustworthy). Following that are bureaucrats who were elected in 2004 with seven votes, then administrators with at least five block log entries. Only then do the least important votes get looked at, the community's. C'mon, it's not difficult to work it out {{mono|1=;)}} ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
== User:Example's Candidacy ==
::::::You're all delusional. Top Seven Userpages By Design. ] (])(]) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::In that case, Jimbo should appoint me. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I invoke Thunderdome. Twenty-seven candidates enter, seven candidates leave. --] (]) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::No-one opposed me, not a soul. I claim victory! ] (]) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Which makes my point, and that's why one should look at net notes, which gives fair measure to both supports AND opposes. '''SD'''] 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::And we were having so much fun, why d'ya have to go make it all serious again... {{mono|1=:D}} ]‑] 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


Actually, Alec made an interesting point about the "scoring" mixed in with the jokes. Assuming that Jimbo does give more weight to supports/opposes from Admins and Arbs--and to be frank, even my own voting was affecting by that--then a scoring system combined with the average method above would probably be the simplest possible way to figure this out "accurately". Yes, this concedes that admin/arb supports/opposes count more, but who ever pretended they didn't, here or in RFA, or RFBot, or RFWhatever?
Perhaps it's because things are slow today, but I decided to put together the candidate pages for next week. Please have a look at ], which shows the format for candidate statements when everything is added in. We have the usercheck, for the useful links about the candidate (contribs and whatnot) - though we might swap that with {{tl|admincheck}} if we want to include blocks and deletions and whatnot. I've put together a mockup ] page, which shows where the general and specific questions would go. Next, we have the discussion page - per consensus above, this will be the talk page for the candidate's Vote page. In this case, it's at ]. Finally, the voting page, seen at ]. I think these formats are consistent with the discussion above, and should work well for when we begin to get nominations in 6 days (!). Please pick these apart, if you could, so they're solid on Monday. Thanks again!


* Non-admin: 1 to 1.
:Ultraexactzz, please remove the self-identification section from the Candidate statements/Example and Vote/Example. Jimbo has already stated that it is not required unless the candidate is offered an appointment, and it gives an unfair advantage to candidates who choose to do so. I suggest a mandatory question for all candidates instead: "Do you meet all requirements for membership on the Arbitration Committee, and if you are offered an appointment to the Committee, will you provide the necessary identification information to the Wikimedia Foundation?" ] (]) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
* Current Admin: 1.5 weight.
* All seated/non-expiring Arbs are Admins, so they count as 1.5.
* Just do a simple multiplication on each support/oppose based on that formula.


A tiny nudge up and down in the numbers, which I don't have the time to hash out, but if a math nerd wants to run down my average system above with that modifier and re-post the weighted Top 10 by average, it would be damned curious, especially as the only strength and authority the AC enjoys is from the Admins carrying out it's decisions. ] (])(]) 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::{{done}}. Those were a holdover from the proposed format, and I didn't mess with them. As for that question - you can certainly post it now, if you like. No objection here. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
:Actually I'd say that ArbCom's greatest authority comes from its power to command the stewards. Even if every admin on the site rebelled, ArbCom would still 'win'. Whether there'd be anything left to have authority over is another question entirely, of course. ]‑] 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::Well sure, they can desysop, but they can't force people to use tools is my point, and they certainly don't have the time to carry out the executions of their various decisions, up to and including paroles/probations etc. If every admin just stopped working AE or carrying out their decisions, they can't desysop everyone just not taking action, and they'd be swamped immediately. That's what I meant by them needing the support and patronage of the admins. ] (])(]) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Certainly they badly need the support of the admin community; as you say they couldn't enact the kind of sanctions they do now without a large body of sysops prepared to do AE. With steward support but no admins, they would be hard-pressed to keep up with the amount of work they generate, but it could in principle be done given that the entire ArbCom are administrators. On the other hand, if any individual admin defies ArbCom (wheel warring over its actions, etc) then they are desysopped, there's no competition. It's all very academic since neither is really plausible, and it's irrelevant to this discussion anyway as AFAIK no stewards voted in this election, so we don't need to weight their vote. ]‑] 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
*Surely no one ''seriously'' believes that admin votes should count more than non-admin. If you ''are'' serious, that brings up some '''''very''''' ] here in the States. '''SD'''] 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::Yay!! someone got the three-fifths reference! :) good work. And I know _I_ sure don't believe that admin votes count more, but ya never know, Misplaced Pages is a diverse group. If the discussion goes long enough, someone will probably mention that we also could use edit-counts to weight the votes, if we wanted to. <grin> --] (]) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
* A royal waste of time. The decision now is in the hands of Jimbo, so what is the use of this? ] <small>]</small> 23:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
*:True enough, but the discussion has some intellectual value, and who knows? Perhaps Jimbo may find our views useful as well. '''SD'''] 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
*:What Dean said. And statistics is never a waste of time. Sports statistics and politics are the Great American Pasttimes. Put them together, and you get insights into things. Just look at the wild success of what happens when you put a sports statistical genius and authority like ] on the case: . Unless Jimmy has no interest in what we have to say, which would be short sighted and a recipe for his ouster as head of the AC eventually, I'd hope this stuff is useful. That's why I posted that modified Top 10 based on the averages, when I noticed that Coren had done better in some areas--so that people didn't just go Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage.] (])(]) 00:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
*::It is great to see that no matter which way the numbers are sliced and diced, the top 10 remain static.
*::The challenge is to come up with a reasonable and mathematical method which places ] in the top 10. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
*:::Well, Elonka managed to deduce that , with a straight face, no less. Anything's possible with the right fuzzy logic. ] (]) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
**:::Oh, now ] is , as well. Elonka I can chalk up to ignorance, but Tony is just flat out lying. ] (]) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Obviously any speculation which pushes me down the ranking is way out of line and ] is in order! Regarding giving more wieght to admin votes, rootology suggests many of us were affected by admin and arb votes more than other votes, so their votes are already having an effect greater than the single vote that they cast. This is one of the benefits of an open voting system. I don't see any benefit in giving admin votes a different weighting, except as a backdoor approach to encourage more non-admins to vote and vote well, and that it might ignite a revolution - I wonder when we will see a non-admin as an arb. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
*Well, ''I'' certainly hope it will rather than later. '''SD'''] 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
*:I probably wouldnt have bothered being a candidate this year if it . <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


*:''I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.''
== Process details ==
Truly the voice of experienced editors need to be given more weight than ordinary voters as they know Misplaced Pages and its process.But From what is written above it is clear a Candidate also needed to get balanced support both from the admins and non admins a candidate with 95% admin only support may not go through but also a candidate whom 95% admins oppose will also not go through .I do believe Jimbo will see which candidates faced negative external campaigns.Anyway the elections are over and fully trust Jimbo Wales will have a satisfactory solution on Saturday.] (]) 04:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
:I read into Jimbo's words a tacit recognition that in general, admins tend to be among the more experienced users and represent a useful proxy for the experienced-user community, rather than a strict reliance on the "status" of being an admin. Jimbo is probably more interested in the views of the grizzled veterans than the voters with 151 mainspace edits. I could think of one or two very experienced non-admins whose views have carried significant weight in this election, and that is as it should be. I trust Jimbo to be looking for balance and consensus, since I'm not able to observe where he hasn't done that in the past. ] (]) 05:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


You guys will probably go insane trying to fill all the time until Saturday with speculation, so I'm sorry if this contributes to anyone's insanity, but it's worth noting that the different metrics rootology discusses above have indeed been looked at by Jimbo in the previous elections. As he said, he's taking the time to study the voting carefully. The opinions of all who voted are important. --]&nbsp;(]) 05:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey all. I'm preparing for transclusion tonight, and I had a number of practical questions that pop up:
#Should the empty voting page be there, or do we leave a redlink until voting opens?
#*Corollary: if we put the voting page in now, shouldn't there be a standard "Don't vote yet" message at the top?
#Same with the question page. Redirect to the general list until answer time comes? If I understand right, the plan is to subst the general questions into the candidates' pages on the 17th; does this mean that no individual questions will (can) be asked until then?
&mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


:To quote Star Wars-- about this statement above from Bainer. --] (]) 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
:I think that the voting page could be created, perhaps with a template (statement at top, links to questions, support/oppose sections). And yes, there should be a note, just in case people forget.
:I was under the impression questions could be asked whenever people wanted to, so I'd surely expect pages to be created more-or-less immediately. Best of luck by the way. &ndash; ] (]) 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:: Answers for Coren:
::#There should be no voting link. You'll use {{Tl|Arbitration Committee Elections statement}} to create your statement, which incorporates a ] to hide the voting link until voting is open. (When voting does open, the candidate—or any bystander—can subst: the necessary material onto candidate voting pages. This can be done a few days before voting opens, if desirable, but for now, voting pages can remain non-existent.)
::#Please redirect until we have created a template for individual question pages, detailing instructions, terms of usage, and so on. Oh, and no—questions can be asked of candidates immediately after nominations start being accepted, I believe... Or have I missed a discussion regarding not accepting individual questions until 17 November?
::Good luck with your candidacy! ] 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Hm. Reading back, I think you're correct about the 17th for individual questions. I'll redirect to the general question page, then. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I really don't think a template for question pages is needed - all it will be is headers such as "Questions from John Doe". It doesn't really need any template to make that. I don't see why questions can't be opened as soon as nominations do. &ndash; ] (]) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, I think the point is consistent instructions, and a pointer to the general list for those questions best asked all candidates. We probably want to have that ready soon, though. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
*Yes, I think it's best if we allow individual questions to be asked as of 10 November 2008 (ie., as soon as the respective candidate statement is live). It fits in better with the principles behind candidate statements: once we start accepting statements, we are saying "we as a community want to find out how suitable each candidate is for the ArbCom."<br />Point of enquiry: do we stop accepting questions at the same time as we start voting? I think that's the best course of action, but it wasn't the way we did things last year. Thoughts? Do we stop allowing questions to be asked on 1 December (when voting opens) or on 14 December (when voting closes and the election therefore concludes)?<br />] 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::Once the election is over would be better. No point in stopping questions unnecessarily. &ndash; ] (]) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm in favor of stopping as voting opens; or at least some time before voting closes&mdash; I don't think questions at the bottom of the 9th are productive, or fair. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm with Coren on this one. It's fair—questions stop on the 9th, and voting opens on the 10th. How Do You Turn This On, would you be adverse to—for now—stopping questions on the 9th...? ] 22:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Where do you get the 9th from? I though voting opened on the 1st? &ndash; ] (]) 22:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::My apologies; yes, I meant stopping questions on 1 December 2008. ] 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I'm thinking for users who aren't around for the time questions are open. This is a very important election, and it doesn't seem right to bar people from asking a question just because they weren't around at a certain time. Just my opinion. &ndash; ] (]) 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed. It's a difficult issue, actually. If you'll allow me to be extreme for a moment: do we allow people to vote in January simply because they didn't notice the Election was live? The election is advertised in the ] from tonight until late December; I am quite sure folks will be able to get their question in. Should we cut questions off on 1 December, but extend the deadline if we notice a lot of folks wanting to ask more? Would that be a good solution? ] 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, I really can't see any benefit in a deadline. People should be able to ask questions whenever and wherever they like, of the candidate, even once the election is over. &ndash; ] (]) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Personally, I think allowing questions after voting has started is unfair to the people who ''already voted'' most of all. Strictly speaking, every vote should be for the same package: statement, questions and answers. There is also concern about a question posed far into an election that throws a curveball that may take some time to answer properly and would be prejudicial. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


=== "Simple" solution ===
== Am I allowed to vote? ==
I ''suppose'' that he could simply increase the number of seats in tranche beta by one (which seats Vassyana), and let the other four all have one year terms in tranche gamma. : ) - ] 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:More likely would be to expand every tranche by one seat each, seating Vassyana in the two year seat and the last three for one; moving all tranches to an even six seats. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
::That's what I was essentially suggesting. Note that prior to deskana's resignation, there was to be only 1 occupied seat in tranche gamma (not counting the two who were moved there: FloNight and Thebainer). 1+4 =5. And one of those in tranche gamma would likely be moved to tranche alpha. That makes 6 seats in each tranche.
::Of course Deskana's resignation modifies this somewhat. (Commenting on that below.) - ] 10:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


:With the recent spate of resignations, I would '''support''' the idea of a bigger committee so these open seats caused less of a deficit in the committee (as a percentage of the total committee). -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi!


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


Here are what I think the results look like, in light of Desk's resignation. (obviously, this is doesn't factor in any Jimbo-magic.) As always, please double-check my math. --] (]) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess rules of being eligible to vote will be the same as in ], right? Let's quote the relevant part:


<nowiki>{{User:Alecmconroy/ACE2008 anticipated results}}</nowiki>
''"Who can vote?''


:I think Stephen Bain would actually be moved into Deskana's spot, while the spot of whoever Stephen Bain was supposed to replace (Paul August?) would be allocated to Jayvdb. This follows precedent of extending terms of current members who have terms of less than three years. Of course, this whole thing is merely speculation. —'''<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]]</span>''' 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
''In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process 1 November 2007."''


::All this juggling of people from slot to slot is very confusing - why not just have people serve the terms they were appointed to? ] (]) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
(of course, "2007" will be replaced with "2008").
:::Ask Jimbo about that. I'm just predicting using precedent. —'''<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]]</span>''' 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I doubt he'd answer me. ] (]) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


:I think the point of the seat moving is to try to give the "alternates" (who came close percentage-wise) at least a total of three years.
Now, here is interesting problem: I was eligible to vote, according to these rules, in the previous year (and I successfully exercised my right to vote), but now shows that I made only 143 mainspace edits. IT IS WRONG! Some articles edited by me (good articles IMO) has been deleted since previous elections and now edit count shows less edits in mainspace than I have really performed.
:If that's the case, then FloNight's third year ends in 2009, and thebainer's ends in 2010.
:So thebainer is likely moved to Deskana's seat in tranche alpha (which expires in 2010).
:And the top eight (or so) fill tranche beta and gamma.
: If both tranches are increased to 6 seats, then all ten could be seated.
:He could even make it clear that the expansion is temporary only until the (likely) resignations lower the seat numbers again. - ] 10:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::If all tranches are expanded to six seats each, the top eleven would be seated, not ten. That's the eight open seats plus three new ones. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 19:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I didn't say ''all'' tranches to 6 : )
:::I wasn't suggesting that tranche alpha be increased in my comments above.
::: Since the discussion seems to be concerning the fact that 7,8,9,10 all were rather close in percentage of each other, and as such, looking for ways to seat them all, rather than it come down to such a slim variance; there would be no "need" to increase the seats of tranche alpha. Merely move thebainer there to Deskana's seat as noted.


:::To list:
So, my question is: am I allowed to vote in 2008 ArbCom elections or not?
:::*'''Tranche Alpha:''' NYB, FT2, FassalF, Sam Blacketer, Thebainer
:::*'''Tranche Beta:''' Calisber, Risker, Roger Davies, CHL, Rlevse
:::*'''Tranche Gamma:''' Kirill Likshin, FloNight


::: With Carcharoth, Coren, Jyvdb, Vassyana, and Wizardman being possibly added, depending on how one evaluates the numbers.
If the answer is "no", than I think that this would be pretty absurd outcome, because I was able to vote in previous elections (somehow related: ]).


:::Incidentally, I don't believe that there is anything saying that Jimbo Wales ''must'' seat arbs in the empty seats. He could leave Thebainer in Tranche Gamma (leaving it with only 3 occupied seats, and leaving Alpha with 4 occupied seats), and only select the top 5 for Beta. - ] 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. ] (]) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


== Vacant seats ==
:I'm of the opinion that the number to go by is the number listed under ] which is the "total" number on the tool you link to, which says you have 242 edits and are therefore eligible to vote. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::Not all tools calcalate edits the same. Some don't count deleted edits, but Prefs does count them. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


With Deskana's , I take it there are now a total of eight open seats instead of seven? I don't know all the details about the Tranches, but will there now be 5 three-year terms, 1 two-year term (to fill Deskana's), and 2 one-year terms? If so, the '''Vacant seats''' section needs to be updated. --] (]) 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Where are the published voter criteria (if they are published)? I think last year it was 150 ''mainspace'' edits, which isn't something that you can get from special:preferences. Also, I'm not sure how you check the prefs number of someone else - of course the edit totals need to be verifiable by others. MBisanz, can you explain how that works? ]] 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:I updated the section yesterday. I also added the new terms to the history charts; probably the most intuitive way to see what's going on is to look at the recent chart:
{{tlx|ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent}}
:]‑] 23:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:Deskana reverted, not sure why. My version is . ]‑] 23:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::I did notice your change, but I see that Matt Yeagar has the section some more. --] (]) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


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


http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
== Candidate question pages ==


3 year terms:
&#123;&#123;subst:]&#125;&#125;.<br />This should be added to every candidate's "/Questions for the candidate" page.
:*
::*Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse
:*(expansion seat)
::*Jayvdb


2 year terms:
Assistance in doing this would be appreciated.<br />] 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:*
:All candidates that were submitted at this point in time have had their question pages sorted (or, in a few impressive cases, have taken the initiative to do it themselves!). If any bystanders could watch for new candidates and give their question page the treatment, it would be much appreciated: this will be very much an on-going process. (Or perhaps I should simply tweak the instructions such that the candidates create their own question page...?) ] 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::*Vassyana, Carcharoth
::It would be better to fix the instructions I expect (Where are they by the way, I was meaning to add a note to them but couldn't work out where they were located) &ndash; ] (]) 18:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:(expansion seat)
:::Yes, I had to do a complex bit of fiddling with Extension:Inputbox to get the instructions page. It's located at ].<br />I've an instruction to it which should now have all new candidates create their own question page with the desired template.<br />] 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::*Wizardman


1 year term:
== Usercheck et al ==
:(expansion seat)
::*Coren


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


===Transition?===
*{{usercheck-short|Ultraexactzz}}
A few technical questions, out of curiosity. Are these new appointments effective immediately? And how exactly is the transition process handled regarding the cases where departing ArbCom members have voted already? E.g. there are several currently accepted ArbCom cases at different stages of arbitration process (three in the evidence phase and one in the "Motion to close or dismiss" phase). What exactly happens with these cases during the transition? Similarly, there are a few outstanding ArbCom requests where decisions to accept or reject them have not yet been made. How are they supposed to be handled? ] (]) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
*{{admincheck|Ultraexactzz}}
:We are participants now, but can't vote til 1 Jan. Arbs who are leaving are "active" on cases they voted on. Come 1 jan, new arbs can go active on any cases already in the pipeline. Does this help?<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:(e/c)By tradition, the new members will become officially active on Jan 1, and may move themselves as "active" on any open case or RFAr. The current arbitrators may (but are not obligated to) remain active on the cases that are open at the transition. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::OK, interesting, thanks. I am wondering about the Piotrus case where the proposed decision is a very long and complicated one and where there is a good possibility that the case will not have been closed by Jan 1. Do I understand you correctly that, should that happen, both the departing arbs and the newly appointed arbs (if they decide to move themselved to "active" status on that case), may vote after Jan 1 on the proposed decision and the motion to close there? ] (]) 04:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, that is correct, but as you say it's so long, I doubt many of the new arbs will take up the case.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::::OK, thanks. ] (]) 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


=== The beginning of the end for tranches ===
Thoughts? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Through the combination of Jimbo being confused about which tranches had which open seats, and the clarification of Jimbo's announcement that's currently on ], the results are that we now have 7 arbs in Tranche Alpha, 6 in Tranche Beta, and 4 in Tranche Gamma.
:FWIW, I've used {{tl2|admincheck}} from the get go myself, so I obviously wouldn't be opposed. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::Admincheck renders an annoyingly long utility that is somewhat less pretty than usercheck-short, but otherwise, it does seem like a more thorough option, yes. I therefore offer my support to your proposal, for what it's worth. ] 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:::As Coren notes, it's an option - no problem either way. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


But ] says that this could set up a transition to two-year terms next year. I would certainly approve of that.
== Recorded debates and discussions ==


The "tranche" system was created under some assumptions that didn't turn out to be realistic:
'''Candidates and the community''',
* 3 years is a reasonable term for an arbitrator
* Most arbitrators will serve out their full term
* The size of ArbCom will stay relatively constant
* Elections will generally fill the seats of people whose term is up


If in the future we thought only of open seats and expiration dates, not tranches, I think the elections would be greatly simplified. No more of this stuff with "well, arbitrator X was in Tranche Omicron but retired early, so new arb Y will fill the remainder of X's term instead of getting their own term in Tranche Pi". There are just a particular number of seats on ArbCom, and we hold elections for 2-year terms to fill the ones that are unoccupied (through a term naturally expiring, an arb resigning, or Jimbo creating a new seat) at the start of the new year. ] (]) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the ]. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, ]. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email
:Agreed, especially regarding the first point. On Misplaced Pages even one year is a rather long time, and three years is already at the order of the age of the universe. Two years is probably a much more realistic term of service for an abitrator. ] (]) 23:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think it's necessarily correct to conclude either from the current position or Jimbo's statement that we're looking at "the end for tranches". If we do transition to a two-year-term system we'd abandon the old tranches, yes, but naturally find ourselves with two new ones, call them delta and epsilon or perhaps delta and zeta. There is as you note no way to construct three properly balanced tranches out of the current set of sitting arbs, but the previous version is just as close as the curent one. I think it ''is'' fair to say that Jimbo has set us a rather interesting tetris challenge here, but I don't think we need throw our hands up in dispair. We can arrange the arbs so that one tranche is entirely correct and the two others are slightly off, in at least two different ways. We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds to see which way the system is going to swing. ]‑] 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found ] at our meta page.
:::Why is it "despair" to get rid of the tranches? What purpose do they serve, and why should we turn future elections into "Tetris problems" to satisfy some constraints that don't make sense? ] (]) 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Concur with Rspeer. Tranche was just a book-keeping word-- it never had to be part of the system. When will the next pope be elected or the next US supreme court justice be confirmed? Well.... when a new one is needed!
The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested ] by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found ] at our meta page.
::::The only danger that I would foresee with the demise of the tranches is going too long without getting a substantive election. Reducing terms to two years has been suggested, and that would solve things. --] (]) 01:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Well, a key difference between what I suggested and the Supreme Court or the Pope is that we'd still only have elections at the scheduled times. I don't think you were proposing we have an election every time an arb resigns, but that's what you get if you take the analogy too far. And I think there's no need to worry about going too long without a substantive election: the turnover rate is so high that there will always be seats to fill. But I still support 2-year terms. ] (]) 04:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.
::::::I think Alecmconroy sums it up best: the tranches are book-keeping aides, we should keep them if they continue to be relevant, and discard them if not. I merely think it's too early to say at this stage which way it's going to develop. ]‑] 11:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

01:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

''WikiVoices''

''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup>

== 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... - ] 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. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 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. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 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. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

== Views? ==

As an arbitrator I find myself conflicted on something.

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

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

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

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

How would other users wish me to resolve this dilemma?

]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 15:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
:Juggling your hats is a difficult game. Play it by ear, I'd say, and handle on a case-by-case basis: if you really need to speak up on a particular point, I would say do so. Staying silent (and maintaining "neutrality," which silence seems so often to be called) is going to be less helpful than speaking up and making sure the best candidates are Elected this year. Oh, and I would point out that the weight your comments are given is very much an unofficial phenomenon, and a positive one; you shouldn't need to sculpt your contributions around not having your comments being given weight, because that the community pays serious attention to what you say is a clear sign that we want to hear what it! (Ie., so don't deny us that!) ] 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
::communicate, FT! better out than in, and to do less would be akin to spreading fud at this point... it all comes out in the wiki wash regardless :-) ] (]) 07:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
==Lorem Ipsum==
It's not a great look in my book to have ] 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, ] (]) 07:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
:care to suggest a suitable linky ? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
::John: Privatemusings is referring to ], 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 {{Tl|Lorem}}. ] 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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 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, ] (]) 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Agree on both points, Privatemusings: (and guidance for confused voters given); and, page . ] 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:10, 21 March 2023

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Shortcut

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2008-12-15

  • Confirm number and nature of seats on Committee up for election. There are 5 seats for three year terms and 2 seats for a one year term open.
  • Confirm all Page / Subpage setups including;
  • Election Main Page  Done
  • Voting Process (Indenting/Removing Votes, etc)  Done
  • Quickvote Done
  • Individual Candidate Statements (format)  Done
  • Individual Candidate Discussion Pages (format - Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate/Vote)  Done
  • General Question page (List of questions for all candidates)  Done
  • Individual Question Pages, to include General list plus candidate-specific questions (Format)  Done
  • Voting Pages (Format)  Done
  • Confirm 'electoral roll' - Registered Users with 150 Mainspace edits on 1 Nov 2008  Done
  • Watchlist notice: 10 Nov - 24 Nov - "Nominations are open"  Done
  • Watchlist notice: 1 December - 15 December - "Voting is open"  Done
  • Confirm / setup Election Results reporting (Courtesy User:Mathbot per )  Done
  • Add {{subst:ACEQuestions}} to the "/Questions for the candidate" page of every candidate that runs.  Done.
  • At end of election (00:00 15 December), cascade full-protect all voting pages as per 2007, to ensure clean cut-off.  Done

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The argument that Carcharoth won the election

The following was discussion occurred on User talk:Jimbo Wales:

As could be expected, one of the candidates (Vassyana) has a higher percentage of supporters, but another candidate (Carcharoth) has a higher net number of supporters:

Carcharoth 237 119 118 66.6%
Vassyana 197 95 102 67.5%

This is happening because candidate C. has 45,000 edits, whereas candidate V. has only 11,000 edits. Fewer people know anything about candidate V., and therefore they do not to vote for him, one way or another. Obviously, net number of supporters is the more appropriate metrics. The percentage works against candidates that are more dedicated to the project. In a more extreme case, candidate A might receive 100 net votes (150 support and 50 oppose), but candidate B might receive 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.Biophys (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Could be counter-argued that the first one was opposed by more people, and therefore a greater percentage of the active Misplaced Pages community. Orderinchaos 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That counter-argument is already dealt with by Biophys. Basically, the reason A has more opposes is because they have put themselves out there. The significant amount of supports counterbalances and outweighs the number of opposes, as indicated by the "net support" number, which is the only TRULY fair way to judge a candidate, in my view. SDJ 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


My reply:

Biophys and SDJ, you tread on dangerous ground-- the road you speak of, though good intentioned, is a road to hell.
BEFORE the election, a good argument could certainly have been made that the next election should use "net support" rather than "percentage support". But making that argument after the results are in doesn't work very well, because there's no way to distinguish whether you're arguing about electoral theory or whether you're arguing candidate merits. Indeed, it's easily possible you could be arguing that one electoral system is better than another simply because, in your experience, it gave the "correct" results in this election.
Imagining other elections that could have occurred in alternate universes in which Carcharoth would have won isn't helpful-- if we lived in a universe where net support mattered, people would have changed their behavior accordingly, making sure that they took the time to "pile on" support even if a clear percentage difference occurred. There's no way we can determine who would have won that kind of an election.
It's a little like looking at the stats from a basketball game and then trying to deduce which team would have won if they had been playing a game where only three-point-er counted. There's just no way to tell. If the game HAD been scored that way, all the players would have forgotten about fouling, dunking, free-throw shots, etc, and instead they would have just tried to make three pointers-- it would have been an entirely different game. You can't just look at the results from an NORMAL game, see who made the most three-pointers, and then jump to the conclusion that you now know which team would have won if they were playing 3-pointer-only basketball.
For better or for worse, the election was held with the understanding that the votes were tallied according to percentage votes. The results are in, Carcharoth didn't win, and nothing can be said to change that, I'm afraid. The only question now is whether it would be good for the project to appoint someone who lost the election to elected to the post anyway. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
We get this every year; people will say someone with 200 supports HAS to get in, or someone with 100 opposes CANNOT get in, and other worthless metrics. Grandmasterka 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I note, still with some interest, that those who are blithely defending the "we must decide this by %support" position are still ignoring the hypothetical situation where editor A receives 9 supports and 1 oppose (90%, +8 net support) and editor B recieves 255 supports and 45 opposes (85%, 210 net support). Who should be appointed? Vass isn't even CLOSE to the top 7 in net support OR raw support. He is in 7th in %support by 0.9%. This is a classic example of my extreme hypothetical, and one should not so dogmatically cling to the %support metric as to ignore common sense. SDJ 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Voting theory is a very, very well-studied topic, and there are a million methods to use to take a group of individuals and collapse their individual preferences down into a single decision. It's not that using net-support as a metric is a crazy idea-- it's a fine idea. It might even be a better idea than percent support. BUT, it wasn't the idea that got picked to run the 2008 Arbcom election.
Making the argument about the 2009 elections is entirely above board. Making it in retrospect about elections that have already concluded, though, sucks all the force out of your argument, because in any election, there are always going to be people who are unhappy with the outcome who will try to argue their side should win based on x, y, and z.
I'm not saying you're actually doing that-- I'm just saying, it's not going to be very effective to make that argument in that manner at this time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Until we get a voting cohort that is above 1% of the active editing population (or even close to the 30%+ one sees in regular elections) I tend to think endorsing this as the will of the people instead of self selected elites is kind of wrong. That being said, we have some kind of non-secret ballot system where it's generally understood by most who vote that the top X will get in. I would argue that the electoral system needs work and we should look at it for future elections, but turning the thing on its head in a way which can be easily gamed by said self-selected elites (and I do not exclude myself from this definition) is not particularly democratic or fair to either the voters or the candidates. Orderinchaos 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to reply

No, this is not the argument that Carcharoth won the election. Please realize, I do not support anyone personally here. What I said was an obvious thing for someone who used to interpret data. My message was intended to Jimbo if he wants to select the seven people who have the highest community support (the highest number of net votes). I do not seen any changes of rules because the candidates are selected by Jimbo if I understand this correctly.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough-- there's two different ways to view it: carcharoth won the election under a certain metric that wasn't the previously-agreed-upon metric, so he should be appointed as the true winner. OR carcharoth lost the election, but in general he should appointed anyway.
The truth is, honestly, nobody really knows whether Jimbo can select candidates at will or not. My suspicion is that he can no longer appoint anyone too far from the top 7. In some year past, he automatically re-appointed the sitting arbs even though they lost the election-- but I don't think he could do that this year. I suspect he could still veto a candidate in order to appoint the next in line of percent order and it would fly-- but this may be the last year that's the case. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy can reappoint Forrester and Matthews if he so chooses. He has final say. I think there would be a civil war if he did, but that is still within his power to do. SDJ 15:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
He definitely has say, but I doubt seriously he has final say. We just don't work that way anymore. There's some act, how far out it is who can say, but there is some act that would result in jimbo being drummed out. We'll probably never know where that line is, because he IS a sane and good and wise leader. But, the line exists, and I suspect doing something crazy like, appointed two people with 20% support, would be on the other side of that line. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: The "fight" for #7 is actually between Jayvdb & Coren

I'm sure someone could easily and trivially take the basic four metrics on User:ST47/ACE 2008:

  1. Suppose
  2. Oppose
  3. Net
  4. Percentage

And then math up each person's standings in each, from 1-28th. Just inverse the value of the Opposes (so Casliber is 1st, rather than 28th, here--low scores are preferred). I would imagine whomever has the highest overall average would be the correct top 10, mathematically. I began with the top 10 by percentage:

  1. Casliber
  2. Risker
  3. Roger Davies
  4. Cool Hand Luke
  5. Rlevse
  6. Jayvdb
  7. Vassyana
  8. Carcharoth
  9. Wizardman
  10. Coren

And ended up with this (correct?) top 10 based on the averages:

  1. Casliber
    Support 377/1st; Oppose 33/1st; Net 344/1st; Percentage 92.0%/1st
    Average: 1.0
  2. Risker
    Support 302/3rd; Oppose 45/2nd; Net 257/2nd; Percentage 87.0%/2nd
    Average: 2.25
  3. Roger Davies
    Support 218/8th; Oppose 54/3rd; Net 164/5th; Percentage 80.1%/3rd
    Average: 4.75
  4. Cool Hand Luke
    Support 294/5th; Oppose 106/11th; Net 188/4th; Percentage 73.5%/4th
    Average: 6.0
  5. Rlevse
    Support 306/2nd; Oppose 111/14th; Net 195/3rd; Percentage 73.4%/5th
    Average: 6.0
  6. Vassyana
    Support 197/9th; Oppose 95/9th; Net 344/9th; Percentage 67.5%/7th
    Average: 8.5
  7. Jayvdb
    Support 299/4th; Oppose 138/22nd; Net 161/6th; Percentage 68.4%/6th
    Average: 9.5
  8. Coren
    Support 154/10th; Oppose 87/8th; Net 67/10th; Percentage 63.9%/10th
    Average: 9.5
  9. Carcharoth
    Support 237/6th; Oppose 119/18th; Net 188/7th; Percentage 66.6%/8th
    Average: 9.75
  10. Wizardman
    Support 226/7th; Oppose 117/17th; Net 109/8th; Percentage 65.9%/9th
    Average: 10.25

Digest as you will. rootology (C)(T) 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is tongue-in-cheek, right? 6SJ7 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It's what you get when you have an election without clear rules. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
6SJ7, yeah on the title, but the math is as basic as you can get for the curious--based on the averages, I mean. And Duncan, yes. In the absence of rules or until the editors just take over the election wholly, this is the literal baseline result of the averages. rootology (C)(T) 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
An alternate metric occurs to me. Obviously, admins are more experienced members of the community, so their votes should count more. But that doesn't mean we should disregard the votes of non-admins either. So let's tally up the votes, where an admin vote counts as "one vote" and a non-admin vote counts as "three-fifths" of a vote.
Or, we could have switch from having the founder abstain to having the founder vote, where a founder vote counts as "six thousand eight hundred and two" votes.  :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no! Arbitrators obviously have the biggest weight, since they are the best and most important Wikipedians (and of course the most trustworthy). Following that are bureaucrats who were elected in 2004 with seven votes, then administrators with at least five block log entries. Only then do the least important votes get looked at, the community's. C'mon, it's not difficult to work it out ;) Majorly 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You're all delusional. Top Seven Userpages By Design. rootology (C)(T) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In that case, Jimbo should appoint me. Majorly 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I invoke Thunderdome. Twenty-seven candidates enter, seven candidates leave. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No-one opposed me, not a soul. I claim victory! DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Which makes my point, and that's why one should look at net notes, which gives fair measure to both supports AND opposes. SDJ 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
And we were having so much fun, why d'ya have to go make it all serious again... :D Happy‑melon 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Alec made an interesting point about the "scoring" mixed in with the jokes. Assuming that Jimbo does give more weight to supports/opposes from Admins and Arbs--and to be frank, even my own voting was affecting by that--then a scoring system combined with the average method above would probably be the simplest possible way to figure this out "accurately". Yes, this concedes that admin/arb supports/opposes count more, but who ever pretended they didn't, here or in RFA, or RFBot, or RFWhatever?

  • Non-admin: 1 to 1.
  • Current Admin: 1.5 weight.
  • All seated/non-expiring Arbs are Admins, so they count as 1.5.
  • Just do a simple multiplication on each support/oppose based on that formula.

A tiny nudge up and down in the numbers, which I don't have the time to hash out, but if a math nerd wants to run down my average system above with that modifier and re-post the weighted Top 10 by average, it would be damned curious, especially as the only strength and authority the AC enjoys is from the Admins carrying out it's decisions. rootology (C)(T) 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd say that ArbCom's greatest authority comes from its power to command the stewards. Even if every admin on the site rebelled, ArbCom would still 'win'. Whether there'd be anything left to have authority over is another question entirely, of course. Happy‑melon 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Well sure, they can desysop, but they can't force people to use tools is my point, and they certainly don't have the time to carry out the executions of their various decisions, up to and including paroles/probations etc. If every admin just stopped working AE or carrying out their decisions, they can't desysop everyone just not taking action, and they'd be swamped immediately. That's what I meant by them needing the support and patronage of the admins. rootology (C)(T) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Certainly they badly need the support of the admin community; as you say they couldn't enact the kind of sanctions they do now without a large body of sysops prepared to do AE. With steward support but no admins, they would be hard-pressed to keep up with the amount of work they generate, but it could in principle be done given that the entire ArbCom are administrators. On the other hand, if any individual admin defies ArbCom (wheel warring over its actions, etc) then they are desysopped, there's no competition. It's all very academic since neither is really plausible, and it's irrelevant to this discussion anyway as AFAIK no stewards voted in this election, so we don't need to weight their vote. Happy‑melon 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Yay!! someone got the three-fifths reference! :) good work. And I know _I_ sure don't believe that admin votes count more, but ya never know, Misplaced Pages is a diverse group. If the discussion goes long enough, someone will probably mention that we also could use edit-counts to weight the votes, if we wanted to. <grin> --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously any speculation which pushes me down the ranking is way out of line and reeducation is in order! Regarding giving more wieght to admin votes, rootology suggests many of us were affected by admin and arb votes more than other votes, so their votes are already having an effect greater than the single vote that they cast. This is one of the benefits of an open voting system. I don't see any benefit in giving admin votes a different weighting, except as a backdoor approach to encourage more non-admins to vote and vote well, and that it might ignite a revolution - I wonder when we will see a non-admin as an arb. John Vandenberg 00:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.

Jimbo Wales said hereTruly the voice of experienced editors need to be given more weight than ordinary voters as they know Misplaced Pages and its process.But From what is written above it is clear a Candidate also needed to get balanced support both from the admins and non admins a candidate with 95% admin only support may not go through but also a candidate whom 95% admins oppose will also not go through .I do believe Jimbo will see which candidates faced negative external campaigns.Anyway the elections are over and fully trust Jimbo Wales will have a satisfactory solution on Saturday.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I read into Jimbo's words a tacit recognition that in general, admins tend to be among the more experienced users and represent a useful proxy for the experienced-user community, rather than a strict reliance on the "status" of being an admin. Jimbo is probably more interested in the views of the grizzled veterans than the voters with 151 mainspace edits. I could think of one or two very experienced non-admins whose views have carried significant weight in this election, and that is as it should be. I trust Jimbo to be looking for balance and consensus, since I'm not able to observe where he hasn't done that in the past. Franamax (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys will probably go insane trying to fill all the time until Saturday with speculation, so I'm sorry if this contributes to anyone's insanity, but it's worth noting that the different metrics rootology discusses above have indeed been looked at by Jimbo in the previous elections. As he said, he's taking the time to study the voting carefully. The opinions of all who voted are important. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To quote Star Wars-- I've got a bad feeling about this statement above from Bainer. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Simple" solution

I suppose that he could simply increase the number of seats in tranche beta by one (which seats Vassyana), and let the other four all have one year terms in tranche gamma. : ) - jc37 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

More likely would be to expand every tranche by one seat each, seating Vassyana in the two year seat and the last three for one; moving all tranches to an even six seats. — Coren  16:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was essentially suggesting. Note that prior to deskana's resignation, there was to be only 1 occupied seat in tranche gamma (not counting the two who were moved there: FloNight and Thebainer). 1+4 =5. And one of those in tranche gamma would likely be moved to tranche alpha. That makes 6 seats in each tranche.
Of course Deskana's resignation modifies this somewhat. (Commenting on that below.) - jc37 10:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
With the recent spate of resignations, I would support the idea of a bigger committee so these open seats caused less of a deficit in the committee (as a percentage of the total committee). -- Escape Artist Swyer Contributions 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Expected results

Here are what I think the results look like, in light of Desk's resignation. (obviously, this is doesn't factor in any Jimbo-magic.) As always, please double-check my math. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

{{User:Alecmconroy/ACE2008 anticipated results}}

I think Stephen Bain would actually be moved into Deskana's spot, while the spot of whoever Stephen Bain was supposed to replace (Paul August?) would be allocated to Jayvdb. This follows precedent of extending terms of current members who have terms of less than three years. Of course, this whole thing is merely speculation. —kurykh 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
All this juggling of people from slot to slot is very confusing - why not just have people serve the terms they were appointed to? DuncanHill (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ask Jimbo about that. I'm just predicting using precedent. —kurykh 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I doubt he'd answer me. DuncanHill (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the point of the seat moving is to try to give the "alternates" (who came close percentage-wise) at least a total of three years.
If that's the case, then FloNight's third year ends in 2009, and thebainer's ends in 2010.
So thebainer is likely moved to Deskana's seat in tranche alpha (which expires in 2010).
And the top eight (or so) fill tranche beta and gamma.
If both tranches are increased to 6 seats, then all ten could be seated.
He could even make it clear that the expansion is temporary only until the (likely) resignations lower the seat numbers again. - jc37 10:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If all tranches are expanded to six seats each, the top eleven would be seated, not ten. That's the eight open seats plus three new ones. -- Escape Artist Swyer Contributions 19:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say all tranches to 6 : )
I wasn't suggesting that tranche alpha be increased in my comments above.
Since the discussion seems to be concerning the fact that 7,8,9,10 all were rather close in percentage of each other, and as such, looking for ways to seat them all, rather than it come down to such a slim variance; there would be no "need" to increase the seats of tranche alpha. Merely move thebainer there to Deskana's seat as noted.
To list:
  • Tranche Alpha: NYB, FT2, FassalF, Sam Blacketer, Thebainer
  • Tranche Beta: Calisber, Risker, Roger Davies, CHL, Rlevse
  • Tranche Gamma: Kirill Likshin, FloNight
With Carcharoth, Coren, Jyvdb, Vassyana, and Wizardman being possibly added, depending on how one evaluates the numbers.
Incidentally, I don't believe that there is anything saying that Jimbo Wales must seat arbs in the empty seats. He could leave Thebainer in Tranche Gamma (leaving it with only 3 occupied seats, and leaving Alpha with 4 occupied seats), and only select the top 5 for Beta. - jc37 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vacant seats

With Deskana's resignation, I take it there are now a total of eight open seats instead of seven? I don't know all the details about the Tranches, but will there now be 5 three-year terms, 1 two-year term (to fill Deskana's), and 2 one-year terms? If so, the Vacant seats section needs to be updated. --Pixelface (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I updated the section yesterday. I also added the new terms to the history charts; probably the most intuitive way to see what's going on is to look at the recent chart:

{{ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent}}

Happy‑melon 23:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deskana reverted, not sure why. My version is here. Happy‑melon 23:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I did notice your change, but I see that Matt Yeagar has updated the section some more. --Pixelface (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Committee named

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

3 year terms:

  • Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse
  • (expansion seat)
  • Jayvdb

2 year terms:

  • Vassyana, Carcharoth
(expansion seat)
  • Wizardman

1 year term:

(expansion seat)
  • Coren


Transition?

A few technical questions, out of curiosity. Are these new appointments effective immediately? And how exactly is the transition process handled regarding the cases where departing ArbCom members have voted already? E.g. there are several currently accepted ArbCom cases at different stages of arbitration process (three in the evidence phase and one in the "Motion to close or dismiss" phase). What exactly happens with these cases during the transition? Similarly, there are a few outstanding ArbCom requests where decisions to accept or reject them have not yet been made. How are they supposed to be handled? Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We are participants now, but can't vote til 1 Jan. Arbs who are leaving are "active" on cases they voted on. Come 1 jan, new arbs can go active on any cases already in the pipeline. Does this help? — Rlevse • Talk • 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)By tradition, the new members will become officially active on Jan 1, and may move themselves as "active" on any open case or RFAr. The current arbitrators may (but are not obligated to) remain active on the cases that are open at the transition. — Coren  04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, interesting, thanks. I am wondering about the Piotrus case where the proposed decision is a very long and complicated one and where there is a good possibility that the case will not have been closed by Jan 1. Do I understand you correctly that, should that happen, both the departing arbs and the newly appointed arbs (if they decide to move themselved to "active" status on that case), may vote after Jan 1 on the proposed decision and the motion to close there? Nsk92 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct, but as you say it's so long, I doubt many of the new arbs will take up the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the end for tranches

Through the combination of Jimbo being confused about which tranches had which open seats, and the clarification of Jimbo's announcement that's currently on WP:ACE2008, the results are that we now have 7 arbs in Tranche Alpha, 6 in Tranche Beta, and 4 in Tranche Gamma.

But Jimbo in particular says that this could set up a transition to two-year terms next year. I would certainly approve of that.

The "tranche" system was created under some assumptions that didn't turn out to be realistic:

  • 3 years is a reasonable term for an arbitrator
  • Most arbitrators will serve out their full term
  • The size of ArbCom will stay relatively constant
  • Elections will generally fill the seats of people whose term is up

If in the future we thought only of open seats and expiration dates, not tranches, I think the elections would be greatly simplified. No more of this stuff with "well, arbitrator X was in Tranche Omicron but retired early, so new arb Y will fill the remainder of X's term instead of getting their own term in Tranche Pi". There are just a particular number of seats on ArbCom, and we hold elections for 2-year terms to fill the ones that are unoccupied (through a term naturally expiring, an arb resigning, or Jimbo creating a new seat) at the start of the new year. rspεεr (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, especially regarding the first point. On Misplaced Pages even one year is a rather long time, and three years is already at the order of the age of the universe. Two years is probably a much more realistic term of service for an abitrator. Nsk92 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily correct to conclude either from the current position or Jimbo's statement that we're looking at "the end for tranches". If we do transition to a two-year-term system we'd abandon the old tranches, yes, but naturally find ourselves with two new ones, call them delta and epsilon or perhaps delta and zeta. There is as you note no way to construct three properly balanced tranches out of the current set of sitting arbs, but the previous version is just as close as the curent one. I think it is fair to say that Jimbo has set us a rather interesting tetris challenge here, but I don't think we need throw our hands up in dispair. We can arrange the arbs so that one tranche is entirely correct and the two others are slightly off, in at least two different ways. We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds to see which way the system is going to swing. Happy‑melon 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is it "despair" to get rid of the tranches? What purpose do they serve, and why should we turn future elections into "Tetris problems" to satisfy some constraints that don't make sense? rspεεr (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Rspeer. Tranche was just a book-keeping word-- it never had to be part of the system. When will the next pope be elected or the next US supreme court justice be confirmed? Well.... when a new one is needed!
The only danger that I would foresee with the demise of the tranches is going too long without getting a substantive election. Reducing terms to two years has been suggested, and that would solve things. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, a key difference between what I suggested and the Supreme Court or the Pope is that we'd still only have elections at the scheduled times. I don't think you were proposing we have an election every time an arb resigns, but that's what you get if you take the analogy too far. And I think there's no need to worry about going too long without a substantive election: the turnover rate is so high that there will always be seats to fill. But I still support 2-year terms. rspεεr (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Alecmconroy sums it up best: the tranches are book-keeping aides, we should keep them if they continue to be relevant, and discard them if not. I merely think it's too early to say at this stage which way it's going to develop. Happy‑melon 11:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)