Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 1 December 2008

• WT:ACE2008

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

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

Electoral system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Coren, I may have got this wrong but my reading of the Schulze method as opposed to the single transferable vote (STV) is that though they will produce the same winner if there is only one seat contested, they should give very different results if two or more seats are up. With seven vacancies STV would elect a candidate who was the first choice of over an eighth of the electorate even if the rest of the electorate marked that candidate last; whilst Schultze in my understanding would produce the seven most acceptable candidates to the electorate as a whole, and if there were eight or more candidates would not elect someone who was the first choice of 13% and the last choice of 87%. So if our intent is to elect a diverse ArbComm that reflects all significant views within the community we should choose STV, if however we consider this more of a job interview where we want the seven candidates with the broadest support we should use Schultze. I can see advantages either way, but they would involve very different ArbComms. In any event I suggest that after this election we review the system, and code the agreed system well before the next election. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

My thoughts on the methods proposed here so far: Plurality-at-large (where you must vote for 7 people if there are 7 slots) sucks. It has no desirable properties of the kind you can read about at the voting system article. I'm a fan of Condorcet-based methods in some situations, but they actually perform badly in environments like Misplaced Pages -- they have unique failure modes when you can see the votes as they're coming in, because voters can vote strategically to cause Condorcet cycles, either preventing a victory for a candidate they don't like or making that victory appear less legitimate. (This actually happened in a Misplaced Pages discussion that tried Condorcet.) STV is nice because of proportional representation, but I am unsure that we want proportional representation on ArbCom; that could make it easy for a constituency of raving loony trolls to get a seat. What we've got now -- which you could describe as either approval voting or range voting -- is a system that is very well-suited to the task at hand. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked candidates

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

How about WP:NOTNOW? User:Jimbo Wales is not going to appoint somebody who's been blocked for disruption during the campaign. Why clutter the page? Jehochman 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest annotating his questions page to that effect, yes. As for whether a blocked candidate should have his statement indefinitely delisted: I am inclined to disagree with that suggestion. The question of whether a candidate who has recently been blocked is suitable for the office of Arbitrator or not is one that should be handled by the entire Community when it goes to the polls, and not by a select few editors who grace this page.

Perhaps you'd like to annotate the question page, MBisanz, in a few minutes, after any observing editors have had a chance to comment? (Although there does, I note, seem little to discuss: it seems like common sense to put a note on his question page, in my opinion. The question of whether to delist his candidacy perhaps requires a little more discussion.) AGK 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz 21:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since he can't edit his own talk page, can I suggest that someone who knows him drop him an Email, and ask him if he wishes to withdraw? ϢereSpielChequers 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I know him; he doesn't want to withdraw. Also, the only reason at present that he can't edit his talkpage is that I've protected it, on his request (there was edit warring on it). I'll unprotect if he asks me to. See also this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May be workable. FT2  16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Summary of Candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the deal with BLPs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close of Polls

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

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

Nominations closing

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

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

Again: final call. 1.5 hours and counting.

AGK 22:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding categories to Questions for the candidate pages

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

I'm making up the vote pages once noms close; I'll add the category to the template. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just remembered that edits to /Questions for the candidates pages are shown when the related changes of the /Candidate statements page is checked. But if there are no objections, I would still like to add Category:Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee Elections 2008 to the 35 /Questions for the candidate pages. --Pixelface (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Gwen Gale's Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States District Court precedent isn't really applicable to Misplaced Pages. The thinking therein is, I suppose. AGK 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I realize that. I found the tone of the opinion humorous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The opinion seems quite earnest. Could you explain the joke? Jehochman 20:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite earnest? Really? Are you reading the same thing I am? Avruch 21:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The judge seems quite fair. They have given the other side leave to file a brief four minutes and thirty seconds late, and supporting documents some seventy-two minutes late. See how careful the judge is to be fair. That's quite admirable. Jehochman 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, he should have a spine and enforce the rules! Rules are rules for a reason, after all, and if you let the scum break them they'll take your arms, your legs, and any other part of you that comes off next. He should probably have held Microsoft in contempt, or fined them $10 million a second for the gap between the deadline and submission. And then summarily denied the motion for summary judgment. (And sorry for flubbing your nick in the edit summary). Avruch 21:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I know. :) Just thinking aloud that I find it odd that we're citing court documents in the course of our discussions! AGK 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Has it happened before on arbcom cases or in related discussions? It seems more odd if this is the first time. Very curious, but not concerned. John Vandenberg 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ACE Guides

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

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

Vote stats

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

FT2  21:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember Gurch saying he was not going to do it anymore after last year. I don't know if anyone has stepped up to do it this year. Grandmasterka 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I don't seem to have the code any more. Looks like I've got half an hour to whip something up, then... be back later -- Gurch (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who owns Mathbot? Alternatively, we could ask on here for someone to make one. I don't think it would be very difficult. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on setting up a bot, as soon as I find last year's charts so I know what to make it look like. ST47 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mathbot output, and GurchBot's. These were updated frequently - 5 mins I think. As a candidate, it was appreciated. FT2  23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Results available at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Results. (Being posted by a hastily-modified copy of Huggle :D) -- Gurch (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of adding 2 items: "net" and vote page link? (and kill user:Example) Otherwise - thanks !!! FT2  00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Added. -- Gurch (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And "last updated at" above the table (and User:Example is still being shown)  :) FT2  00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

done -- Gurch (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading User:Example correctly, the bot is counting all the lines in the support collumn even when they've been indented for lacking suffrage. It should probably only count the numbered lines. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

done -- Gurch (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Endorsement banners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How long until we grow up enough that we can resolve our own disputes without needing a committee... -- Gurch (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If the past is any guide, we'll probably reach that stage a few years after the German wikipedia does.  :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course everyone who waits till the 14th and voted for the top 7 cedes control of the election to those who vote earlier. But there is a slightly modified tactic that voters could adopt, review the candidates, support the ones you really want to win, oppose those you really don't want to win and then leave the neutrals till the end. In the last 24 hours of the campaign review the candidates in 7th and 8th place and any other candidates whose share of the vote is very close to them, and vote support or oppose on those candidates you were neutral about according to which of the marginal candidates you want to be in the top seven. ϢereSpielChequers 10:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh-- you wisely point out that I didn't explain things well.

I'm not suggesting we wait until the 14th to vote-- indeed, I've already voted my personal preferences. But on the 14th, I will abandon my personal preferences, strike those votes, and change my votes to unilateral support for the winners of the election, whoever that winds up being. I hope others will do likewise. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should assume good faith with respect to Jimmy Wales. I do not think he will muck with the results for political reasons. Jehochman 15:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of doubting Jimbo's good faith-- if he appoints someone who didn't win in the election, he will do it because he thinks its best for the project and because so many in the community want him to act in that manner. Good faith is not in doubt in the slightest.

I'm just saying, I have faith in the wisdom of the community, and I'm confident I will be willing to support the winners of the election, whoever they might be. I'm also saying that I would oppose a candidate who didn't win the election, no matter who that might be.

And I have to announce all this now, within the first hours of voting, before all the votes come in. If I waited to Dec 14th to make that statement, it might just look like I'm supporting seven people I happen to like, rather than supporting the community's pick in general. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing by Jewish Internet Defense Force

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

It's a little bit late to be doing that, more fool them... they should have put it up six weeks ago when their readers would have had time to gain suffrage :D. No quarter for sockpuppetry in this election, I'm afraid... and I will support unconditionally any use of checkuser etc whatsoever in the furtherance of a fair election here. We get enough crap in polls that are no big deal... Happy‑melon 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Secret ballot...

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

Yes, it seems pretty obvious to me that we should be voting by secret ballot. And since the foundation elections were by secret ballot earlier this year, the format of the arbcom election is a regression. I thought about this yesterday, and decided to wait until after this election is over to start a discussion on how to fix this in the future. I think it's too late at this point to change anything for the present election. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We definitely should have secret ballots. Some voters may be concerned to vote against a leading candidate, knowing that the candidate will probably win, and may then have their views colored. For that matter, what about the fear of voting against a losing candidate and having them take retaliatory action. I think secret ballots are an excellent idea. I have even seen one instance of a voter offering to switch her vote for specific consideration. Jehochman 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We used to use Special:BoardVote to do arbcom voting until boardvote was moved offsite. I imagine for next year we could just use the old BoardVote interface and call it something like ArbVote for our purposes of better privacy without the expense of a separate server. MBisanz 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a secret ballot would be better, though perhaps with more use of talk pages for some of the comments currently made with !votes. An additional advantage that I don't think has yet been mentioned is that the Arbcomm members have to work together and therefore several of our voters who are closest to the process are not voting - but could with a secret ballot. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

"Inactivity": on opposing Sam Korn

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

Durova is referring to YellowMonkey who is a "sitting arb" (who voted "oppose" right above her). 96.15.121.254 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, my mistake. See for instance Ryan Gerbil, then. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

Fear not, I have sorted it beyond a shadow of a doubt . Giano (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the situation. My oppose was based upon the lack of activity at RFAR from Sep 26 2006 to the end of 2006 , when he was a sitting arb. --Kbdank71 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)