While I agree there are some possible issues with public voting, I didn't see them as a problem in any way in the 2006 election. I'm not opposed to keeping public voting for the next election. Ral315 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I didn't vote at all in the last election because I think that open elections can cause problems. A lot of candidates dropped out mid-race. And there seemed to be some bickering IIRC. Boardvote seems to me to be a much better solution. — Ilyanep(Talk)21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With open voting the entire community can serve as election officials, being able to input on duplicate votes/members failing to meet sufferage, and other issues. With closed, we have to enlist election officials to handle all of this, not even looking at the transparency issue. — xaosfluxTalk14:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the usernames of people who have votes are public as in the Board elections, the community can check for duplicate votes and suffrage. The amount of transparency offered in the board elections was sufficient for me, and I would definitely prefer a secret ballot. As the ArbCom is elected and not discussed and decided by consensus, let us run proper elections. Kusma(討論)11:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's true since Jimbo theoretically has a lot of discression in how closely to follow the exact election ranking, so he may find the reasoning behind votes usefull. As a practial matter though, there seems to be a fair amount of sentiment in favour of a secret ballot. I would suggest a highly publicized straw poll in order to gauge consensus on whether we should change the system or not. It should be started fairly soon if we want to have the process ready by December. I propose
The same system as last year: An Rfa style ballot in which each voter can vote support or oppose on each candidate. All candidates with >50% support (i.e. as many supports as opposes) are eligible for appointment to ArbCom.
A secret ballot using Special:Boardvote: Aproval voting in which voters either support a candidate or do not. No limit on how many candidates a voter can support. The ten (?) candidates with the highest level of support are eligible for appointment to ArbCom.
I also support this, though I'd like a discussion page of some sort where we can...discuss...and possibly ask candidates questions like on RfA ST47Talk15:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do have question-and-answer pages for each candidate. On the candidate statements page, under each candidate's statement is a list to his or her question page. Newyorkbrad17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please hurry up and decide whether to use Special:Boardvote or not? If Jimbo has objections, can he please post them here? If we need election officials, can we recruit some here? My current thought is that if we use the RFA system I shall boycott the elections and petition others to do likewise. [ælfəks]05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection in principle to a secret ballot, but the standard wiki voting system is much more in line with our traditions and appears to produce better results. When we used Special:BoardVote, we saw a significant amount of trolling and negative campaigning. With the wiki system, we get much better behavior. Additionally, even though Special:BoardVote is theoretically "approval voting", the fact of the matter is that people have tended to use it incorrectly (in my opinion) leading to very low rates of approval. Wiki voting tends to produce high levels of support, and this is important for the confidence and credibility of the committee. We can use the same system as last year again this year, so that we can get things moving quickly, and then after that, we can talk about possible alternatives going forward.--Jimbo Wales18:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero confidence in any election process that makes individual votes visible. While it may seem open, the process of open ballot elections permits a level of bullying, favoritism, fear of retaliation, and groupthink that defeat the purpose of a free election. If Special:Boardvote is good enough for board elections, it should be good enough for ArbCom elections also. For these reasons, it's doubtful that I'll be participating in this election. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For more on why open ballots are such a bad idea, one needs look no further than our own articles on Secret ballot and Political privacy:
"The secret ballot guarantees that it is one's private opinion that counts. Open ballots are not truly free for those whose preferences defy the structures of power or friendship." -- Mark B. Cohen (From Secret Ballot
I suggest raising it to 3 months and 300 edits. Vandalfighting animated tools now make it easier to rack up a lot of edits without getting any experience... ++Lar: t/c19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too concerned about that. I'm more interested in makeing it hard to use sleeper accounts for voteing manipulation.Geni20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to one colon. How are edits counted? I am a newish user (April) and have 200 edits, but only of about 30 - 40 pages. Am I eligible to vote? Jd271822:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1000 edits minium. Doesn't effect those with any real chance and limits the election to those who can form a reasonable assment of their chances.Geni01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think there should be any sufferage for candidacy at all, voting yes, but for the candidates keep it open. Mike(TC)01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't scale with the RFA style elections. Firstly it takes effort to set up each voteing page and secondly we got complaints from voters about wasteing thier time on people with zero chance. From the candidate POV it was pretty clear that a number of those with low edit counts didn't realise they didn't have a chance.Geni02:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we limit eligibility to candidates with 1000 edits minimum (or thereabouts, per Geni) or to candidates who are nominated by editors with those qualifications? Of course, the utility of such a scheme would be scuttled by one person who feels that we should 'just give everyone a chance', which would leave us back where we started—scores of hopeless candidates.
Perhaps a two-stage process?
Stage one. Candidates put forward their names and a candidate statement. Editors may support the nominations only; there would be no oppose votes. Candidates would have to receive a minimum of ten (five? twenty? x?) nominations from individuals meeting some suffrage requirement to proceed to stage two. This would also be an excellent time for seasoned editors to encourage unlikely-to-succeed candidates to withdraw.
Stage two. All candidates who receive the required number of nominations would be eligible (but not required) to participate in the full elections.
This mimics the common election practice of requiring nominators to support candidates for office before those candidates get their names on the ballot. It would also provide opportunities for candidates to gracefully bow out, be screened out, or to rethink their approach.
It cuts down on the time spent reading up on hopeless candidates—individuals who can't drum up support to clear the nomination threshold aren't going to make it in the general election. As the 'shoo-in' candidates clear the nomination bar in stage one, their nominations can be flagged to again reduce the amount of reading that nominators will have to do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the voters find it wasteful to look at candidacies with no chance, and everyone with less than 1000 edits has no chance, then just include an edit count in the table of candidates and the voters can ignore people as needed. I don't see that this problem has to be resolved by any sort of central policy, especially one that requires us to speculate (needlessly) as to the minimum requirements for a viable candidacy. Christopher Parham(talk)06:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, I think candidacy requirements should be equal to voting requirements. What's the point of allowing their candidacy if they can't even vote on others' candidacies? Not sure about a minimum number of edits as high as 1,000, but certainly we should cut off at around the 3 month/150 edit mark. Ral315 (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If you can't vote for someone, you shouldn't be able to be voted for. (Apologies for the horrible grammar.) Someone who has edited a bit and is still around after 3 months is far more likely to know what they are getting themselves into than, for example, either an inactive 3 month old account or a one-week old account with 150 edits. I would like to see if there is consensus for this before moving on. If there is no consensus for any qualifications for candidacy, and I believe that this is the bottom of suggestions, then there is no point in proposals based on actual voting behavior, such as "must have been an administrator for at least three months". - BanyanTree20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really suggesting that there be a minimum number of edits to vote. (Of wich I stongley disagree, but will save my argument until someone confirms that is the idea) I do not think it is fair to have a minimum number of edits to run. Have you ver heard of a country that requires someone to work for 10 years so they have "experience" before they can run in an election?? I agree with Christopher Parham, noting the number of edits is the best way to go. (like RfA) And is it just me or is this a huge cas of Meta:Editcountitis, which says counting edits is to be avoided??? Please read that before continuingFlying Canuck17:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, you must be 35 years old to run, and have been a natural born citizen. Well 1000 edits is our way of saying that you must be 35 years old. — Ilyanep(Talk)21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150 edits last time. With the number of sleeper accounts around it is nessacery. Arbcom need quite a high level of knowlage about wikipedia. I doubt there are many people with 150 edits who have that and in any case they are going to have a hard time getting votes. Sometimes pragmatism has to overule idology.Geni18:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if we just let people run regardless of their edit count, we can have our ideology with no costs to the pragmatists. Anybody can run (and theoretically win if the community and Jimbo find them qualified), while voters who feel that low-edit count candidates are no-hopers can simply refrain from looking at those candidates. (Admittedly this presumes that voters are capable of looking at a number next to a candidates name and checking if it is greater than whatever their standard is.) I don't see what the problem is with this solution. Christopher Parham(talk)19:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No cost? Someone has to set up the election page. We had 68 candidates last time. This time without some restiction it is likely to be 100.Geni17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about whoever feel like running regardless of time, or edit counts? Let's a have another rule, no badgering the voters with so called disruption votes, and all yes, and all no votes should be counted, as well as a rule allow for no answers needs to be given? --Masssiveego09:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree that there is absolutely no need for any minimum requirements. I don't think that will bring any gain, and will just be extra rules and regulations. Let anybody who feels like running run. I see no problem with people dropping out of the race, be that even half of the people.
Besides, people have been saying that edit count is a bad metric. While it has some value in judging admin candidates, ArbCom elections are serious enough that I think one should allow people to candidate based on other standards, or even better, none at all. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the requirements for candidate should be "X edits before the 20th of September" rather than "X edits", to prevent newbies from rushing to this threshold. As for value of X, I agree that it should be at least 150. Conscious06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? Personally, I find the concept of self-nomination both highly distasteful, and leads to, as Geni says, an excess of problems with people putting their names forward without a "snowball's chance in hell", as it were. Just an idea. James F.(talk)15:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The TenofAllTrades approach is not bad at all, but adds a lot of process, doesn't it? This may be somewhat less process but still have a filtering effect. (but you have to put sufferage SOMEWHERE or new user A just gets nominated by new user B and we're back to the same situation except we had more process to get there)... ++Lar: t/c19:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TenofAllTrades' idea is very time, process and rescource heavy. I've never been happy about the idea of nominations. In any case most of the snowball candiates were very new. Even a fairly low entry requirement should be enough to make sure that the people running have a reasonable idea of their chances.Geni20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The simpler the procedures are kept, the better. Let anybody who feels like running run, no need for nominations, etc. In several days after the voting starts half of the candidates will drop or get very bad percentages (support divided by total). After that, one may start thinking seriously on whom to support from the top 10-20 candidates. Least effort this way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has bots. So do lots of other people. If candidates sign up with just their userIDs, running a bot to create whatever structure is needed (including fetching edit count info and time on wiki info and all the other good stuff... most of which you get with templates already anyway) is work, yes, but not THAT much work. Heck I could probably do it and I'm not actually very good with code. I expect someone will volunteer once the requirements are clear, we have time for that yet. So.. not a showstopper, IMHO ++Lar: t/c14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But still - it's a lot of work for the voters to sort through all the candidates. I'd be fine with a minimum edit count of 1000 (or even 2000 or 3000). No-one with less than that has any realistic chance and will be spared humiliation. But requiring nominations is just extra work which is hard to oversee. Haukur13:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a good idea to reduce the number of candidates just because Joe the voter will be overwhelmed. Besides, I don't think voters need to examine _all_ the candidates. Wikipedia's hive mind will quickly reduce the number of serious candidates to a handful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the number of candidates starting the process matters overmuch (although there is certainly no problem with giving them a realistic appraisal of chances of success, since nobody with under a few thousand edits is likely to get through), I think what needs to be done is to encourage people to withdraw once it is clear that they will not pass, and remove these from the main election page. If we can make the main campaign page just a list of names and current tally (or names, brief statement and current tally) - i.e. keep the long lists of sigs in a <noinclude> - and as I say encourage people to drop out to keep numbers down, that should achieve all we need to achieve. Anything else is vulnerable to end up as instruction creep. But I speak as one who does not consider the current process broken, just a bit unwieldy at times. Just zis Guy you know?10:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also like TenofAllTrades' nomination idea, slightly altered. You submit your name, and once you get ten people who nominate you, we pull your name and add you to the official candidate list. This prevents the spectacle of some popular people receiving 100+ nominations, while also politely rejecting those who have no real support in the community. NoSeptembertalk16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As someone recently noted on the administrators' noticeboard, we seem to be a bit behind schedule here. The page indicates that candidate statements may be posted as of October 1 and the election will be held in December, but there are no statements posted and it appears the election rules have not yet been finalized. What is the current status and plan? Also, is there any indication whether the current ArbCom members whose terms are about to expire intend to run for re-election? Thanks, Newyorkbrad20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the elections will be run in a simlar way to last year. Problem is that everyone except Jimbo thinks that way sucks but there isn't much we can do about that. No idea if which if any arbcom members will run.Geni21:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think things sucked that much last year. OK, the devil may be in the details, but that open vote with support/oppose was definitely much better than the closed vote with supports only for the Wikimedia foundation. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where should I look for the answers to these questions?
*How many positions are up for election?
*Are all the retiring arbitrators eligible for re-election?
Some information can be found here. It appears there are five seats to be filled and retiring arbitrators may run for reelection. The seats to be filled are currently occupied by Jayjg, the Epopt (Sean Barrett), Theresa Knott, Sam Korn, and one vacancy. Newyorkbrad18:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By way of update, Theresa Knott has stated on her talkpage that for time reasons, she is not going to run for re-election to ArbCom this year. The others either haven't decided (that I know of) or haven't responded yet. Newyorkbrad05:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And to be pedantic, I'm assuming that arbitrators currently in place in another tranche can't run for a seat on this tranche. Well, they could resign their seat and run in this election, but that would be silly. </pedantry> Carcharoth11:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Is there some board level committee that has total control over the elections (and is ready to do all the work) that I don’t know about? I have the freedom to advise and the freedom to warn. In this case I see no point in doing ether until the situation becomes a reality.Geni20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, only Geni seems to think that it sucked. Geni perhaps does not remember the previous year's vote which actually was a fiasco. Geni, in any event, is not in charge of the election process and actually has virtually nothing to do with it.--Jimbo Wales19:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
err User:Ilyanep and User:Alphax have comments on this very page where they take the positon that boardvote was less than ideal. Another example might be this one. I have also been around long enough to remeber all three arbcom elections. While of course it is true that I'm not running the elections (I do have some sanity left) the claim that I am not involved conflicts with the evidence that could be found in page histories. Surfice to say I am at least as involved as anyone else.Geni20:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat bemused about this myself. Apparently statements have been accepted since about a month ago, but as long as the page says "Note this is not a final version" it doesn't seem rational to submit a statement - and currently there aren't any. Presumably there'll be a "ready, set, go" moment when the page is finalised, and it becomes widely advertised that statements are being accepted - any idea when? Tomorrow will be a month until the deadline for self-nominations. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goiing by past experence. the version will be finalised about 15 mins before the start of voteing. Things are unlikely to chnage that much (special:boardvote is unlikely to be used).Geni00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone provide links to pages describing the positions, what they involve, and how long the terms are? Apologies if this is all already written in planning documents, but just not made public yet. Also, can someone clarify how current ArbCom cases are handled in the period of transfer when current members stand down and newly elected members take up their posts? Thanks. Carcharoth10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to increase the number of seats on the committee? The committee isn't always at full strength and maybe we need to expand a little more. I can't see any harm in adding another three seats, increasing the number up for election to 8. That would increase the committee to 17 and make it an odd number, a good idea in my mind for decision making committees. HidingTalk15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The committee at full strength is 15 members (there is currently one vacancy that is one of the seats being filled in this election), so there is already an odd number of members (and in any event, it doesn't matter that much whether the number is even or odd, because it never happens that all the ArbCom members sit in any given case). Newyorkbrad17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed the vacant seat when I counted up at the committee page. I don't see that it's too late to discuss it since the page states "the number of seats that will be up for election is unknown but will probably be at least 5". I'd say it's too late when voting starts. So, given the committee is rarely at full strength, is expansion in order? HidingTalk20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unknown because I don't know how many people will retire before their term is up. We expanded arbcom last year.Geni20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion would also be something that current arbitrators might have views on. Is their workload too much? Would they welcome an expansion? If something like this was really needed, I think it would have been suggested before now. Carcharoth13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's all up to Jimbo. Last year he increased the number of seats from 12 to 15 without any prior announcement or consultation. I suspect 15 is near the maximum practical number, but if there are more highly supported candidates then there are seats, he could conceivable do it again. Thatcher13118:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there were further increases, they would be in multiples of three (one extra arbitrator per tranche). Fifteen could very well be near the upper practical limit for the current system where all active arbitrators hear every case. --bainer (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bainer is probably right that if the number of Arbitors be extended to 18 or 21 it would make sense to split duties so that each member is assigned to only certain cases. I'd say 21, random assignment by senior member, each hear 50% or cases; but such a system may not be in the cards. Though it might be worth discussion as the caseload is likely to be increasing for the forseeable future. Seperately though, I see that there has been a vacancy on the arbcom since February only a month after the last election. If Jimbo didn't appoint anyone to that slot (as my reading of the election procedures suggests he could have), he presumably won't appoint anyone to fill vacancies in the coming year. Thus only five slots are likely to be filled based on these results unless someone without an expiring term resigns before the end of the year. Eluchil40412:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'm confused about. With the ongoing reorganisation of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, and Jimbo stepping down as Chair (see here), how does that impact Jimbo's relationship with the en wikipedia and its ArbCom? From the above, it sounds like business as usual, but I'm not sure. Carcharoth06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of that thread, the situation seems to be "normal level of clarity, to wit mud-like". Is there a centralised discussion of this anywhere, either on the (en) mailing list, or on-wiki, or just brushfire outbreaks of confusion and doubt? Call me a dangerous radical, but I'm of the view that a) the election should be just that, an election, not "voting followed by semi-correlated appointments"; and b) the terms of same should be made explicit in advance, rather than declaring the numbers of vacancies/appointments after the fact, which is an extension of the above "not an election" practices. In the worst case, if JW is declared to have "reserve powers" by the WMF (or by the community, or as seems likely, by himself, recursively), at least have the provisions for "vetos" or "captain's picks" made expressly and explicitly in advance, not after the fact tinkering. Alai06:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bit of an edit war#3RR block between User:FuManChoo and User:Avraham over a question that Fu asked Avraham. Basically, Avraham felt the Fu was poisoning the well, and he might have been. However, I'd like to suggest that during a process like this, a candidate should not be removing questions related to his candidate statement. It seems to me that, while it is appropriate to respond with "You are poisoning the well, and I won't dignify that with an answer", actual removal of the question (without even providing a link to a diff to make it accessible for those who might want to reach their own judgment) probably sets a poor precedent. - Jmabel | Talk17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I extended a significant amount of good faith in trying to answer him, and he always responded, in the words of another administrator, with “naked trolling”. As can be seen from my responses to the anonymous editor, if a question is asked in good faith, I answer it to the best of my abilities, regardless. As can be seen from Deut/Fu, I even extended good faith to an editor who has berated me, acted incivilly, and has basically attacked me on a number of occasions. There is a difference between AGF and feeding the trolls, and this editor clearly crossed the line, and revealed his a priori intentions with his behavior. Honest questions deserve honest answers; personal attacks, inaccurate allegations, and naked trolling need to be recognized for what they are and minimized so that wikipedia is healthier for it. Thanks. -- Avi20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly sounds reasonable. I still think it would have been better either to leave the question where it was and indicate why you weren't answering, or to delete it, link to the deletion, and (again) indicate why you weren't answering. I'm not saying that what you did was at all deeply wrong, just suggesting that there could be a slippery slope here, and that one does best to stay off of those. Not that I haven't camped on the occasional slippery slope myself. - Jmabel | Talk20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK if the questions are blatantly intended to attack, insult, annoy another user or troll, but otherwise they should assume good faith and let the candidate choose whether or not to delete it. Legitimate questions should not be deleted (especially when ArbCom candidates will likely need to answer the tough questions).
being a sockpuppet of another user: I haven't read through Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry, but it's generally advised against. Did you try to state your case with the blocking admin? And were you logged in or not when this happened?
harassing another user (to whom I apologized): Depending on the severity of the harassment, this can be 24 hours to indefblock+ban. I don't know what you did so I can't comment.
campaigning in an RfA: I assume you mean request for adminship, was it your RfA or someone elses? I would personally give a note on the user talk page (a level-0 warning some people would like to call it). An indefinite block is way over the top. --WikiSlasher07:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asking questions about bans ≠ encouraging ban evasion. The most troubling this is harassment, according to the banned editor was tagging other editors' comments with {{SPA}}. Childish I know but hopefully people learn. It would be a great help if you can provide diffs to back up the case of trolling. Happy editing, --WikiSlasher05:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to recommend consideration of an entirely no-nomination and non-partisan, electioneering-free system. Such systems have advantages such as offering more choice to voters as well as avoiding self-aggrandizement, partisanship, etc. Of course, any individuals so chosen could decline, but I believe a no-nomination system presents a better solution and is more in line with the consensus-building (rather than individualistic) aims and methods of Wikipedia. I think contributors are intelligent enough to make informed choices by witnessing the behavior of fellow Wikipedians without needing to read speeches. Brettz908:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already self-nomination (pure no-nomination would be impractical, since there are those who would possibly win yet have no desire for the job) and while technically non-partisan with the exception of candidate statements and questions, the true pain of partisanship comes from groups which tend to vote as a block, as innocently as "this person is my friend, so I'm going to vote for him" or as complex and sneaky as real-world politics infringing upon our elections. The largest obstacle to nonpartisan elections lies in between these two, where private campaigning amongst large groups of friends takes place in the vein of "If you vote for John's friend Charles in the ArbCom elections, our group will support your bid for Adminship when it comes up". None of that sort of thing will ever be visible in a diff, and is the most difficult type of vote-abuse to rout, as by the time it's discovered, the perpetrators are already entrenched in positions of trust. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your statement about the obstacle is I think correct, but I don't think that pure no-nomination is impractical since, as occurs in other such systems as exist in the real world, as I mentioned, "any individuals so chosen could decline". I really prefer to deal with non-self-promoters in the case of representatives (and feel I can trust them more since I chose them of my own accord in witness of their services); maybe if others agree to this, a statement could be put out as to its rationale; a referendum (vote count) could be put on whether to adapt the system. And if it is adopted, again, if those elected do not wish to shoulder the responsibility and honor bestowed on them, they can bow out after appointment, but people's choices, I believe, should not be restrained ahead of time. Brettz913:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will there be any guidance as to how many candidates an editor may support? should support? It doesn't seem like there is likely going to be an enforceable maximum or minimum, but is there a number we should aim for? or a number that makes good sense? or, if that's too tough, a number that really doesn't make sense? or are we on our own, guided by our best judgment? Jd271821:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who YOU would allow to make a decision over a policy you may have broken. As for a number, not none(useless vote), atleast 5(number of seats), not everyone(useless vote). ST47Talk22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as it will be support-oppose=total, then supporting or opposing everyone is actually not a useless vote, as a support/oppose vote has differing effects depending on how many oppose/support votes there are. Carcharoth12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually some fascinating "strategic voting" issues presented based on the format of the elections, about which each voter will have to decide. Newyorkbrad12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make more sense to support 5 or 6, my first choices to go on, or a broader group that I think would be reasonable, even if they go beyond my first chioces? Jd271802:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say decide who you think would be best for ArbCom and vote for them, regardless of how many or few make the grade for you personally. I think the real issue is deciding when to vote. To be honest, I'm still confused about how exactly the voting works. Is it exactly like RfA, or are there differences? Carcharoth02:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone expecting a rush of last-minute candidates?
Well, apart from the question of whether Jayjg will run for re-election, I was wondering if there is likely to be a rush of last-minute candidates? What happened in the last elections in January? There are currently 31 candidates for this election, and there were 68 in the last election. Also, what happens in the period between the closing of nominations (1 December) and the opening of voting (4 December)? Carcharoth12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edit-count qualification for candidates has kept the number down. Without checking, maybe 20+ candidates last time were hopelessly underqualified/inexperienced? So the number is not that far off. We have no way of knowning if there will be a late rush, a late trickle, or nothing, unless individuals tell us they will enter at the 11th hour. If I guessed a number, say 5 more (making 36), it would just be a guess. How could anyone know better? Jd271812:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there were a number of last minute candidates last time it is not imposible that the same will happen this time. Between the 1st and the 4th a voteing page and voteing subpages will be set up.Geni13:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What probably happens on December 2 and 3 (next weekend) is that the election officials/volunteers set up the voting page for each candidate. I would guess most candidates would have declared by now; the banner at the top of every page has been there for almost a month now. Newyorkbrad12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36 candidates, as of 13:40 UTC. Still over 12 hours to go before nominations close. Three new candidates nominated themselves recently (2 today), but an earlier candidate withdrew. Carcharoth13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Final count: 38 37. I knew one name that I thought would show up; hit never did. And then, in the 11th hour, another name that I have recently read so much about, appeared. This will be interesting. Jd271801:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I tweaked the date. Do you have a procedure worked out to archive pages of candidates that withdraw mid-election? There are bound to be a few. Carcharoth02:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some collaborative work has been taking place to produce the summary table seen here. There may be better tables around elsewhere, and the Signpost might also produce some useful summaries of information. I suppose the questions are:
Is the current form of this table acceptable. ie. does it strike a balance between usefully summarising information (good) and over-emphasising certain aspects of a candidate's record (bad)?
What needs to be changed and how can it be improved further?
Can it/should it be made more visible? Where is the best place to put the table? How can this be done without giving the wrong impression that it is in any way official? How can it be made clear that it is mostly produced by the voters, and not the candidates?
If the summary table is acceptable, I'd be happy to maintain and update it until the elections start, though I'd hope that it would also be maintained by the community, in the same way that it was built. Carcharoth02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian has been bold and moved the table to its own location at:
Pendantic and maybe slightly unnecessary, but I'm interested in a list of those candidates that nominated themselves and then withdrew. I guess I can get such a list by going through the history of the candidates statement page, but does anyone already have such a list? Carcharoth18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still went through the edit history and found some interesting withdrawn candidates - not all of them were unsuitable candidates, and some had interesting things to say. One I've found so far has an interesting questions page. See: Questions for QTJ. Carcharoth11:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than to say that it shouldn't be put on the voteing page (due to size issues) I haven't really formed a view on those questions.Geni23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost series of articles for this year and last year are also transcluded to the project page attached to this talk page. Carcharoth11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actions count more than nice statements, so I would like to see examples of how candidates handled tricky arbitration issues. To this end, I just added a column "Examples" to the Summary table - please help me populate it! I also encourage candidates themselves; and I think it's also fine to insert counterexamples. Thanks, — Sebastian(talk)21:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged that column into the notes, for now. It takes up a lot of space and it only applies to one candidate at the moment. If information is added for more candidates, it could probably be given its own column. Tra(Talk)00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-nominations were accepted up to 1 December 2006" - does this mean candidates can still be nominated by third parties, or is it completely closed now? If nothing else, this is relevant to a recent tense change on the main page. --Sam Blanning(talk)12:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording was originally intended to reinforce that the nomination process was by self-nomination, not nomination by third parties. As you point out, the change in tense that came with the close of nominations made this unclear. I've changed the wording. --bainer (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm surprised there wasn't a rush of early votes like last time, and that mine was the first vote - but I digress. In the elections in January there was a bot that calculated the running totals every hour. Is there going to be the same thing this time? Fys. Tafysaym. 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful!! That is a great way to track the elections, especially now these tables are sortable. You can see you has the most support and oppose votes, as well as sorting by percentage. Someone send this to the Signpost. I'll do that now. Should it also go on the official election page? Carcharoth11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just ask whether something can be put down somewhere about how status of the voters is being checked? Are there people dealing with this (more organised), or is it meant to be a collaborative community effort where everyone checks the votes (duplicates efforts). Carcharoth11:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not possible to move discussions that develop on the voting pages to the discussion pages of the vote pages, leaving a link behind showing that a discussion had started there? That would make the voting pages easier to read, and less, well, messy and argumentative. Carcharoth11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He vanished from the list. I went to vote oppose on him and now he's gone. Question page is there, but no vote page. He's not in the withdrawn candidates. Anomo14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avraham withdrew: [3], [4]. At the last elections a subpage for withdrawn candidates was maintained, although I don't think one has been this time. There is a section for withdrawn candidates on the voting page, for candidates who withdraw during the election, since it's useful to keep a record of candidacies that officially entered the voting phase. --bainer (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the candidate statements page will tell you who entered and withdrew/got kicked out during the nomination phase of the election. I've made a start analysing this at User:Carcharoth/ArbCom_Elections (down the bottom of the page). As you can see, I've only got part of the way through the history. The most 'interesting' thing I found was that Kohrs (the MyWikiBiz guy) tried to run as a candidate. Carcharoth15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided after much thought and the first few weeks of my new job, that it would be a disservice to wikipedie for me to run for ArbCom this year; fearing that my job would require too much of my attention. Perhaps next year, if I have settled into a routine, I will be able to devote the proper time to Arbcom. -- Avi16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see this recorded on this talk page or other election pages, so I thought I'd drop a note here in case the example can help in planning for future elections. The issue seems now to be resolved by example from sitting arbitrators. Anyway, the issue of whether and how (comments or no comments) candidates should vote against each other in the elections was raised by Cyde Weys, with sensible concerns about divisive commentary, and contested by Mailer Diablo and Jd2718. See here and here for examples of discussions (now, thankfully, halted). More discussions and history are scattered over the 37 candidate question pages. Anyway, as I said above, the issue seems to have been resolved as (at least 2) sitting arbitrators are leading by example and voting in the elections. Carcharoth16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is allowed. Indeed, candidates are allowed to vote for themselves. (Although I for one would consider it a black mark if any of them did) Fys. “Tafysaym”. 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree. What is your view on comments along with votes (not discussions, which are removed to the talk page as above, but comments). Some comments are particularly strongly worded (eg. Oppose not in a month of Sundays). Working with someone after that can be problematic. Would it be an idea for the new ArbCom to consider ethical guidelines that recommends that sitting arbitrators and candidates do not add comments to their votes? Obviously this would be a guideline only, as you shouldn't prevent people from expressing their opinions. Carcharoth16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, Arbitrators are longstanding members of the Wikipedia community who are deeply involved in its operation. In addition, they are (or ought to be, at any rate) intimately familiar with the responsibilities, rights, and obligations associated with being a member of the ArbCom. Candidates – at least those who have a chance of success – who have not previously been associated with ArbCom are nevertheless heavily involved in contributing to and/or administering the operation of Wikipedia, furthermore they have shown a willingness to commit the time to stand for (and participate in) ArbCom. In other words, the participants in the election are among the most active contributors to Wikipedia, and among the most intimately acquainted with our policies and practices. I think that we would do ourselves a disservice to muzzle these members of the community during such an important decision-making process.
On the other hand, I would expect all candidates to be unfailingly civil and decorous should they choose to criticise another candidate. Obviously the ArbCom needs to be able to function at least somewhat collaboratively, and I expect (and hope) that voters will punish candidates who can't be bothered to follow one of our most important user conduct policies in interacting with their potential future colleagues. (I also think we all would prefer to see people who can abide by WP:DICK on the ArbCom.) On the issue of candidates voting for themselves, I see no harm in it—but I would hope Jimbo will be reluctant to select candidates who need their own vote to clear a 50% approval threshold. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On that last point, I'd like to hope that Jimmy Wales will seek to 'ease' himself into the position of being an election official per se (or not directly involved), as opposed to the one person involved with a "preference vote" (with arbitrarily large weighting, indeed). Alai07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully he will vote right at the very end of the process, if at all. I'm waiting right until the end, but for other reasons (well, mainly because I haven't had time to read all the questions and answers yet). If votes at the end can influence the process (actually not that likely), that seems reasonable. Anyway, Jimbo can select any five above 50%, not just the top 5. Did Jimbo vote in the other elections? Carcharoth10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe he did, but personally I'd have no objection at all if he did so. What I do object to is the "selection" process that you (re-)describe: that's exactly what I was saying above. My point about "voting" being that for all intents and purposes, everyone else is just "hopefully expressing an opinion", JW is the only person with any effective "preference" or "electoral" franchise. Which seems to me to be highly unsatisfactory, since it's (as usual) as clear as mud whether this is by mandate of Foundation, whether JW personally has 'residual powers' (or indeed total power) as constitutional-monarch-without-a-constitution, whether this is being presumed to be by common consent, etc. Alai14:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we and some of the other large Wikipedias have the Arbitration Committee is because we're too big and Jimbo doesn't have enough hours in the day for him to act as the final arbiter of disputes as he used to. It seems reasonable to me that Jimbo should be able to choose who he likes to act as what is essentially his proxy, so long as they're more liked than loathed. Wikipedia is not a democracy, after all. --Sam Blanning(talk)15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sam, that saves me one c'n'p when I get round to composing a semi-standard question to that effect. But let me remind you the gloss of that point is "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting", not, "Its primary method of decision-making is Jimmy Wales, who may delegate as he wishes.", and that its scope is expanded to say "or any other political system", not that it's specifically something-else-other-than-a-democracy. I have to say that what bugs me most is not the exercise of such functions, but the murkiness under which they occur: which seems to be increasing, rather than decreasing. Why is it not possible to enumerate them, and make explicit why they're being exercised? Otherwise, when JW edits the Jimmy Wales article, and says 'don't change this without consulting me' or such like, it causes consternation as to whether this is a 'you'll be sanctioned by the arbcom if you then become further involved' matter. Does JW in fact exercise these in any other Wikipedia, whether large or small? (Note that throughout I mean JW personally, not on behalf of ther Foundation (which I recognise is in some senses moot, since he has a 'controlling share' of the Foundation, but again, I'd much prefer if it were made explicit what was and what was not a Foundation decision).) Alai17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In connection with WikiCast, would someone be interested in getting
'audio' statments from the candidates?
I know some candidtaes are standing in respect of certain issues,
statments on WikiCast would give them a chance to perhaps expand
on why they are standing...
Personally, I wouldn't be interested in recording a statement, since I don't own a microphone and I don't see what it would add to what I've said in text form. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other bots already and this one seems to have the colors backwards ... :) Interesting that there are several though. ++Lar: t/c12:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is that the candidates below 50% are safe from entering the AC so the are colored green ;-) Which ones those two bots are? It would be useful to link at least one of them from here. Tizio17:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I presume there is no problem if I link one (or possibly all) these report pages from here and from the votes page. I wouldn't have lost 20 min of my life had I known them... Tizio23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose linking this from the vote page, though I don't mind doing so here. My reasoning is that we shouldn't encourage voting based on percentages. Ral315 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see them either - in fairness the box they're in is titled how to vote, which probably caused it to escape parsing. Regards, Ben Aveling06:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three candidates have now withdrawn after less than two days. At first I was annoyed that I wouldn't get the chance to vote for or against them, but now I realise I can spend more time considering how to vote on the other candidates! :-) Carcharoth22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more candidate gone, now. Freakofnurture. Rather bizarre as well. Some reference to "IRC discussions" and oppose votes numbers 68 and 68 linking to what I can only describe as "swearing by proxy using one's contributions list" (from August 2006) - rather inventive, actually! So those who haven't voted yet now only have 33 candidates to choose from. Carcharoth17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to update it to reflect the fact that voting is now over; whether the process is ongoing or whether this is merely a historical record, the voting still occurred in the past :) I see Sam Blanning has just made the edit now anyway. --bainer (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not a historical record as long as the elections are not over, i.e., new arbitrators are not appointed. As may be seen from the page, new appointments were expected to be announced on Monday. Today is Wednesday. Does anybody know what is the reason for procrastination and where the announcement will eventually be made? --Ghirla-трёп-09:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the new terms begin at the end of the month, so there isn't a need for a rush. Incidentally, I wonder if Filiocht (elected in January but last real edit in December 2005 and currently away indefinitely) will be replaced. Fys. “Tafysaym”. 09:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a bit of drama and wile away the waiting time, here's a breakdown of absolute vs. relative support. I'd say competition for the fifth seat is still wide open... ~ trialsanderrors20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting graph, I love this sort of thing. I just want to point out a few things. First of all, there is a high likelihood that at least six people will be appointed to the ArbComm, given the recent resignation of one arbitrator who was not up for re-election. Also, in light of this post by Jimbo, I believe that if Jimbo decides to appoint from the top of the list (in percentage terms) down, and not skip anyone, the logical number to appoint would be seven. (This would seem especially logical in light of the comment by Fys above, regarding an arbitrator who seems to be missing.) There is a significant gap in percentage terms between #7 and #8, while #4 through #7 are bunched together and #6 and #7 were virtually tied (less than a half percentage-point apart.) Personally I am hoping that this is exactly what Jimbo does -- of course, my opinion is somewhat influenced by who I voted for, but I also think it seems logical. I also think that the logical ordering of the candidates is their percentage vote (the vertical axis on your graph) and not Support minus Oppose votes (the horizontal axis.) Actually, the real issue here comes down to the fact that Can't Sleep, etc., received an unusual number of total votes (99 more than anyone else), resulting in him having the highest number of Support votes and coming in fourth in Support minus Oppose, but (coincidentally) being #8 in percentage terms. I think it's just a question of how Jimbo chooses to deal with a situation that was probably unanticipated, but I don't see any logic to deciding in terms of raw votes. The real issue probably would be whether Jimbo decides to appoint the top 7 or the top 8 -- or something else entirely. 6SJ721:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is a rationale for looking at #Support – #Oppose, and that's that there were possibly more than 1,000 voters (I'm eyeballing here), the majority of which "voted" neutral for all candidates (Can't Sleep got the most total votes, but still less than 500). So ((+1)* #Support + (0)* #Neutral + (–1)* #Oppose) / #Voters (which can be normalized to #Support – #Oppose) is just as reflective of community approval as #Support / (#Support + #Oppose). And it does away with the (admittedly hypothetical) case of a candidate getting 85.7% approval based on 6 Supports and 1 Oppose. Of course this is all complete wonkery. ~ trialsanderrors21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the appointments will be from the top of the election winners and non-controversial. My bigger concern is that, as luck would have it, ArbCom has accepted four new cases within the past two days, and looks likely to accept at least two more currently pending applications. If the transition isn't managed well, that means the newly constituted ArbCom is going to start off the year with a huge backlog, which would be highly undesirable in terms of getting cases resolved promptly which has been the biggest problem all year with our arbitration policy. I've left a note for Jimbo urging that he make his appointments as soon as he reasonably and conveniently can so the new arbs can start getting up to speed. Newyorkbrad21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the graph, trialsanderrors; it certainly mirrors the way I was eyeballing the results. I would say that all of the top seven have clear community consensus to serve on ArbCom, but with six empty seats 7 is a tricky number to appoint since it leaves one Tranche bigger than the others. Jimbo, of course, has a variety of options, but I would say just appoint six and fill any vacancies that arise with whoever gets left out this time. Eluchil40404:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible that there really will be an expansion. Didn't Jimbo warn that this was possible? There are smaller breaks in percentage further down. I could see more than 7. And it doesn't bother me. Without refering to individuals, I am delighted with the overall profile of those with the most support. If a question mark were to be included, it would not reduce the overall effect. These were good elections. Jd271805:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder when Jimbo will appoint the new ArbCom members, since Mindspillage recently resigned then there should be seven appointed. I think the graph is kind of a good idea and let's see what Jimbo has to say. We shall wait for the results, excited to see who are part of the ArbCom. Terence Ong07:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deed is done![6] I think that it is an excellent and equitable solution, but the page needs to be updated. I'd do it but my prior unprotection request was declined :-) . Eluchil40405:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall the elections went smoothly. However, one thing I believe we should be stricter in next year is moving voter's comments to the talk page. It's probably best to move all such comments, but especially comments that are rather lengthy or contain diffs should be moved. The reason is that opposers tend to use these to cast the candidate in bad light by give a one-sided view of a situation he was involved in, in a manner that the candidate cannot really respond to on the voting page. Voters that feel the need to write a long story about the candidate tend to be people with an axe to grind, anyway. It would be easy to construct a bot to do the moving. >Radiant<13:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
