Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Schulze method

I hope that, for this year's Arbitration Committee elections, we could use the Schulze method as we used for the last Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. A Horse called Man 18:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an idea that should be considered, but perhaps next year when there's time to ask the community. One of the problems with Schultze is that it's much harder for voters to understand. Tony (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion here. A Horse called Man 11:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is my RfC proposal. A Horse called Man 20:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Period

I was wondering why there is a set time for users to nominate themselves. I don't think there'd be any harm if a candidate declared he was running now. And it would allow for more scrutiny of candidates. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is simply a formality; there's nothing stopping editors declaring publicly they want to run for a place on the Arbitration Committee now. The "nomination period" is just when such declarations will be recognised, to keep the election period short and simple for prospective voters. Skomorokh 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

As per past precedent, I imagine we can post a watchlist notice at the appropriate times - but since it's been questioned in the past, I requested comments on such a notice at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's on the to-do list. I was thinking of doing two; one for the opening of nominations, one for the opening of voting. Skomorokh 12:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I went back to last year's elections and found that they did just that; both applications were successful. It might be good to mention that when applying for the notice this time. Tony (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, could I just check who will organise the application for this? Tony (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already been requested at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Arbcom Elections 2010. –xeno^talk 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. Tony (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Secret ballot again?

What's the rationale for using the secret ballot again? The previous debate had little participation. As to the results, it is not self-evident that it produced a notably superior arbitration committee than previous, open polls. It is, however, undeniable that as a result of this system there is no public record of the 2009 election, unlike previous years. Rather than simply assume that the secret ballot is what's wanted or needed, there should be at least the pretence of a debate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed WP:ARBCOMRFC2. Best, Skomorokh 12:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The one that split 7:5 in favour of secrecy? No I didn't miss that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

... and Wikipedia:ACE2009/Feedback. A Horse called Man 12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're worried about "openness" and "transparency" in the voting, it's much easier to commit voter fraud in the old system. Secure poll logs the IP address of each voter, and duplicates are thrown out. But in the old system I can just get a bunch of usernames and passwords and vote how I wanted, with no way of catching me except for checkuser. DC T•C 15:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing openness and transparency with security. I was never kept awake at night worrying about ballot-stuffing. EEMLesque block voting, something which did vaguely concern me, is now entirely invisible to all but the scrutineers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There are pros and cons for and against the SecurePoll and open voting, as we all have experienced. Open voting (as seen with RFAs) tend to cause groupthink which causes voters to participate later in the election to merely "go along with the trend". SecurePoll eliminates that, but you also eliminate the transparency, and, as demonstrated with the May CUOS election, may make it harder to determine a good consensus. Given, this is different from CUOS in that the standards required to run for ArbCom are far lower, and there is no pre-vetting. –MuZemike 01:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Who decides how how we vote? A Horse called Man 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This really should be left in the hands of the Community; ideally, the self-appointed coordinators would have opened a RfC that was well-published and get as much input as possible regarding what approach we take to the elections in late 2010 (if they actually did this, I wasn't informed of it). This would include considering any changes we make to the elections. Nevertheless, a poll or RfC could still be opened...if anyone has the time to set it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArbCom secret ballot → was the RFC we had last year on this, which also mentioned the Schulze method. –MuZemike 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Writing RFC draft right now. We would need to hurry to get comments in, as I am told that the Developers need time to set up the SecurePoll for the election (likely so what we don't have a repeat of May 2010 CUOS). We'd only be left with about a 10-day window to leave comments and have discussion. –MuZemike 21:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure, already added to WP:CENT. Please note the 10-day-window as I have posted above. –MuZemike 21:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to set this up! I think the window is going to be OK; in the unlikely event that a few more days are needed, then things can be pushed back a little bit if necessary (but at this point, I don't think those circumstances are going to arise). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Two more questions need to be addressed

Though this is assuming we will be using SecurePoll again for this election, this could also apply in the chance that we don't:

1. What would the minimum threshold of support for appointment to ArbCom be?
2. What do we do if there are not enough candidates (we need 10) to meet said threshold?

I'm strongly considering starting a 2nd RfC on these two questions, because even if we stick with SecurePoll, we do not want a repeat of May 2010 CUOS. If we did an RfC for this, where would we post it (i.e. on a separate RfC subpage again like with the voting procedure RfC, just discuss here, etc.) and how long, knowing that this would need to be closed before nominations start on November 14? –MuZemike 02:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The answers to both questions as things stand (i.e. from WP:ARBCOMRFC2 and precedent) are "none/nothing" or "it's up to Jimbo". I was happy to let that remain the case for this year, but it probably ought to be settled sooner or later, so I would be inclined to raise it at the ongoing RfC. Skomorokh 02:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jimmy already stated that he'd not appoint anyone who didn't get over 50% support. I expect this still holds. — Coren ^(talk) 03:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, but whether it still holds remains to be seen, as we haven't hit that informal threshold. Skomorokh 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy seriously needs to rethink his 50% thing. Tony (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that there were 24 candidates in 2009 (22 after two withdraws) I don't think question 2 is much of an issue. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We always get a few candidates who have little realistic chance. The 24 led to 8 above 60% and 14 total above 50%, not a huge margin. Q2 may be worth a bit of consideration, at least enough to set out some broad route to resolution if it did not come through. After all nobody anticipated CU/OS 2009 either, and the real issue that caused the problem was that when it did happen was not really the results themselves, but the perception that every resolution was potentially "changing the goalposts" after the event. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about 2010, the "nobody anticipated" is inaccurate; it just happened later than what (apparently) the minority of users expected. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

IMHO: The answer to the first question is "Whatever percentage NOTA gets, or 50%, whichever is higher. Someone who cant beat the preference for noone, and can't get at least half.. probably shouldn't be an arb. The answer to the second question is "run shorthanded till next year". (again, IMHO) I strongly agree that these need wide discussion. I suggest adding them to the current RfC though. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FT2's point above about voters being angry about shifted goalposts is significant. Fact is, we as a community have not discussed these issues conclusively, so nobody should be under the impression that anything is set in stone here. As things stand, should Jimbo decide not to seat 18 arbitrators, to appoint candidates with less than 50% support, or to come up with some novel distribution of term-lengths or extensions, voters should not be surprised or angry. Skomorokh 11:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The community decided that the Committee would be 18. He can't appoint a committee of fewer than 18. Tony (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Through 2009, no arbitrator had been appointed with less than 60% support, and that percentage held in the 2009 election (with one exception - Shell Kinney had 59.9%, such that 1 additional support vote would have hit 60%). We don't have a formal minimum, but we certainly have precedent. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I have to choose between number of arbitrators and candidates meeting a minimum support level, I will select the minimum support level 98 times out of 100. Having more members on the committee does not actually correlate with the ability of the committee to be productive; historically, there have always been a handful of members who are very active, and several who are very minimally active. It is better to have fewer members, all of whom have more than majority support from the community, than it is to arbitrarily say we will take the first XX past the post regardless of their level of community support. I am concerned that we would see a situation where, in order to fill all the seats, we must accept candidates who have more opposition than support; or worse, that we create a situation where the pressure to fill all the seats means that individuals who have not been scrutinized by the community during the current election cycle could be appointed.

Equally important, I would urge that *all* appointments to the committee be for 2 years; this backfilling of partially expired terms is unhelpful and increases the level of instability of the committee, with no perceptible actual value.

I oppose the idea of the NOTA vote; it is, simply put, a backdoor way of trying to demolish the Committee. If the community wishes to dismantle the Arbitration Committee, it needs to be done directly and not behind the scenes like this. I note that these are my personal opinions and not anything from the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Risker (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started an RFC statement related to this point here Risker (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

After being notified of these issues, here is what Jimbo had to say:

I suppose the core question here is what I am supposed to do in the event that there are fewer than 18 arbitrators available with at least 50% support? The options would include, at least in theory, that I appoint someone who ran but gained less than 50% support, or that I appoint fewer than 18, or that I extend terms of existing arbs who weren't running for election, or that I appoint people on the advice of the arbcom and others based on past experience, or that I call for a second round of elections. Risker's proposal would suggest that I remove some of those options - precisely the ones that I wouldn't consider in the first place, though.

We traditionally have annual elections, but I have the right to call additional interim elections in case of a shortfall in staffing. What I think would make sense is that if, at the end of the election, we have a shortfall of a seat or two, I would likely treat it the same way I treat resignations throughout the year... basically, I would leave the seats vacant. If we had a bizarre situation in which there is a serious difficulty in finding candidates with at least 50% approval at all, I think it would be wise to consider that a serious signal that something has gone wrong with the entire process, and I would call for a wide-ranging discussion about ArbCom composition, function, etc.

One of the core advantages of our traditional "constitutional monarchy" system is precisely that in case of breakdown of process in some way - which is bound to happen although hopefully less and less frequently over the years as we gain experience and deal with various issues, we have an "answer", which is that I am theoretically free to dismiss ArbCom and even dismantle the entire system in favor of something else.

Imagine if the ArbCom angers 51% of the community, and a poll is held which involves 51% of the community demanding that the entire ArbCom resign immediately. Or imagine your own favorite meltdown scenario. There is no rule or policy which would give the general community the right to do something like that, and there are good arguments against it. (One thing we want from our judges is a certain amount of political independence and the ability to take unpopular decisions that are right for the encyclopedia, within bounds of course.) We have the choice of either trying to a priori figure out every possible thing relating to such scenarios, or we have the choice of what we do now: don't worry about it and try to do something sensible based on whatever the conditions are at that time. I think that's a good thing to continue. :)

I am happy when there are processes (like Risker's RfC in this case) that give me sensible guidance, not specific to a particular possibly inflamed situation) as to what to do in weird circumstances. It is my strong preference to do nothing at all, rather acting as a conduit and insurance that thoughtful and deliberate moves aimed at broad consensus in support of our encyclopedic mission is always the guiding principle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh 11:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• It certainly will be much easier if we get enough over the 50% line this time. I believe that next year, much earlier than October, the community should ensure that it has in place a system that will automatically deliver a viable outcome, without the slightest risk of producing such conundrums that Jimmy mentions above (it doesn't require rocket science to achieve this, actually). At this point, I support Risker's proposal as a simple practicality. It is, of course, rather late in the day to be making significant changes beyond this for the election that is almost upon us. Tony (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests for help by co-ordinators

There are always requests for help during the elections - a user seeing a disruptive thread on an ACE subpage, an issue needing attention, a question of process, etc. We don't usually tell people how to handle these even though co-ordinators exist and usually hear about them. Would anyone object to adding this sentence to the instructions at WP:ACE2010#Election process:

"...and voting periods. Disruption or other matters needing attention during the election may be passed to the community's volunteer co-ordinators (here). Any users wishing to help the election to run smoothly may also watchlist this page."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Something along these lines would be appropriate, yes. Skomorokh 02:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Added. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. One thing I might question would be whether it would be better to direct discussion to this page, like last year. This is still a low-traffic event, and queries will get more eyeballs here. Skomorokh 11:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Save this page for discussing the election and its procedures. Concerns raised to co-ordinators will often relate to attacks or disruption and don't need more oxygen. Let those who want to watchlist that stuff do so, and keep this page for more measured discussion of the election. If people are told to post issues for co-ordinator attention there and co-ordinators and others watch that page, it'll get the attention it needs. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but the effort may be futile. You're going to get that posted here in any case; splitting it between two venues will yield only unbalanced responses. Skomorokh 12:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are currently six coordinators. Four are administrators, Tony1 and I are not. I, however, have no trouble with that, and am more than willing to delete disruptions. That being said, my standards for what is and is not disruption are slightly different from that of the rest of the community sometimes (in that I can be stricter than average.) I will only delete blatant violations ("Candidate A 'likes' little boys" and other such nonsense). Personal attacks and other blatant policy violations will be removed, offenders issued warnings, and if needed, oversight and AVIV will be contacted. I will not, however, be dealing with anything ambiguous. It's not that I'm completely incompetent, but as recent events on this page have shown, I am rather inexperienced in the matter, and have much to learn about exactly what Wikipedia's standards are. Watching this unfold, will help, but I'm reluctant at this point to get involved in anything that is not clear cut. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion period

During last year's election there was a week after nominations and before voting to discuss the candidates and ask them questions. Now there are just two days. I realize there was a problem with too many general questions, but this really restricts the more important (to me at least) individual questions. DC T•C 04:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Voters are free to discuss and question declared candidates throughout the election, not just over two days. Skomorokh 07:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As a clarification, if a candidate announces his or her candidacy early during the candidacy process, will his or her questions page be posted at that time so that the questioning process can begin then? I think many candidates would want to have an opportunity to answer the individual questions posed to them before the voting begins, and given the number of questions that have typically been asked, I don't know that two days is realistic for that, unless the candidate is going to spend those whole two days at the keyboard. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, candidates are instructed to create their question pages as soon as they've posted their nominations (if they don't, we'll do it for them). Likewise, once a legitimate nomination statement has been posted, voters are free to ask a question of the candidate. I'll review the wording of this on the various pages later to ensure this is clear. Skomorokh 10:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's consistent with how it's worked in the past, as well, as you know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this was an issue last year, but are questions are allowed once voting starts? DC T•C 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the only time questions are not allowed is after the voting ends. Skomorokh 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I only brought it up because I remembered this, where it was stated candidates can remove late questions. DC T•C 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see. Last year was somewhat of a marathon, so there was time for separate questions and voting periods. It's better to extend the questioning during the voting in case some information relevant to the candidacies comes to light. Skomorokh 17:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If removal is to be allowed, then I would feel more comfortable if candidates didn't have to do the removal, that way it's clear it is impartial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• As I understand it the recess between the nominations and the voting periods is useful for several reasons: to allow time for candidates who entered the election late in the nominations period time to receive and answer questions before voting begins; to allow enough time for follow-up questions to be followed where appropriate; and to allow the inevitable problems with candidacies, discussions, voting, and other aspects of the process to be resolved. That is awfully much to squeeze into two days.

  No matter what happens, though, we ought to begin at the same time, or earlier than, last year, when there was an unacceptable tardiness in the release of the election results (we were told because one arbitrator or another had not posted their final thoughts to the mailing list, or something). AGK 20:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're coming from with this. Arbitrators had nothing to do with the elections last year, except perhaps for putting the organisers in touch with developers/scrutineers. They certainly had no say over when results were released. There was an unreasonable assumption that the scrutineers would be able to sift through the hundreds of votes and pronounce the voter log clean in a matter of hours; I say unreasonable because it was our first time running the ArbCom elections with SecurePoll and scrutineers.

To cite the scrutineers – volunteer contributors, from other wikis, with no vested interest in how we at En.wiki run our affairs, who volunteered for this task with no recompense and little thanks – for "unacceptable tardiness" is tactless ingratitude, and you would do well to withdraw that remark. Skomorokh 20:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Skomorokh, except that the scrutineers were identified wholly by the coordinators without reference to arbitrators. On the two-day fallow period: this is for technical reasons—the develop needs to upload names, check, recheck, test. Questions and discussion are expected from 14 November to 6 December; that is, from the opening of the call to nominations to the closing of the vote. That is 22 days. Yes, it will be less for late nominations, but the odd last-minute candidacy still provides up to 12 days' discussion. No one has to vote at the start of the voting period, which is why it is a full 10 days in duration. Could I remind users that last year's election period was 49 days, and quite a few users—volunteers all—have to put aside a lot of time to manage the proceedings. This year's 22 days plus a week or so for the tally and announcement is still one month every year. Tony (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Scrutineers mainly have to check that voters are eligible and not recorded twice (under the same or different accounts). The actual count is very quick to verify once these things are confirmed as once the list of voters is confirmed the actual voting is a matter of tabulation and addition ( a short job with a spreadsheet). Verifying the legitimacy of the list of votes received does not require knowledge of the votes those users cast. The bulk of scrutineers work is examining the list of voters to date and checking they are all legitimate - adding up the actual tallies is trivial once that's confirmed.

So in principle, scrutineers could begin checking the list of names (although not having access to their actual votes) on day 4 or 5. History from open elections shows the bulk of votes are probably cast by day 3. Thereafter they need to just check the extra voters daily to ensure no duplicates have crept into the list. In other words I don't see why the list of accounts that voted could not be verified by a day or two after the election by starting mid-election, possibly taking a day more for any last odd queries (which will probably not be material to the results). Checking the tallies is a few hours work thereafter.

Maybe scrutineers should have access to the list of user accounts that have voted (but not the actual votes) from day 4, and begin checking validity of the voter lists from then. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Early nominations

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates

It appears we have an early nomination prior to the November 14 start date of the beginning of the nomination period? -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. Somebody official can go instruct the user. I am uninvolved (this year). Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully somebody official will post back here, after they have done so. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird, it was up there for a week and no one noticed. But if he does run, is he allowed to serve as a volunteer? DC T•C 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think not? -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a (successful) test of the nomination setup by one of the coordinators, no need for alarm. Skomorokh 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I dropped a message at his talk page (I'm not official but I feel like he should know). DC T•C 19:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sven made the candidacy after I requested people do so to test the new interface. It's intentional. Skomorokh 19:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Skomorokh is correct about the reasoning. I put up a notice that it needed to get canned on the coordinator noticeboard, but it apparently went unheeded. I figured it was bound to be noticed sooner or later, so no harm done. Cheers, Sven Manguard _Talk 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. No worries! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can one of the passing admins take my "gangsta rap" from my ArbCom test run and place it at user:Sven Manguard/Sandbox please. I made a section for it, it won't be that hard to find. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 20:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it back on my own. One day, years from now, it might just make a return, in my own real ArbCom nomination. Gwa ha ha ha ha. No, really, I can't see myself running for Arbcom in the forseeable future. I might donate it to someone as a manner of endorsement, but that's not likely either. Next year if I become a coordinator again, It'll make a showing though, I can promise that... Sven Manguard _Talk 20:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's gone right around the net that you're standing ... Just joking Tony (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Centralised transclusion of the voter-guide talk pages

Now, after all the discussion above, is anyone going to object to an FAC-type transcluded page where our long-suffering voters can see discussion on all of the voter-guides in one place; and click to edit; and watchlist individual pages they have edited? It seems like a common courtesy to voters. Tony (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I indignantly object for the sake of indignantly objecting? Seriously though, this seems like a good idea. The more centralized we have everything, the easier it will be for the voters to find, and the more accountability everyone will be forced to have. I do intend on monitoring all the comments made about the candidates, both on these pages and the candidate forms, for underhanded electoral practices, libelous sabotage, and other such horrific nonsense that would taint the election. I do hope I find none of that. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I think the coordinators should think twice, and then think a few more times, before removing any comments about the candidates. Removing comments that do not clearly, blatantly "cross the line" would "taint" the election a lot more than leaving up some comments that come close to the line. "Libelous" statements, ok, but "libel" implies false statements of FACT, like "Candidate X is not an admin" when Candidate X really is an admin, or "Candidate Y only has 1,000 edits" when Candidate Y really has 50,000 edits. Statements of opinion, like "Candidate X is not a good admin", or "Candidate Y's 50,000 edits have not really helped build the encyclopedia because they were all at AN/I or XfD" (assuming the factual part is correct), should be fair game. There will be closer cases where a statement is factually true, but its significance may be a matter of interpretation. Let's say Candidate Y really does have only 1,000 edits, but all 1,000 have been on bringing articles up to FA status, and he is personally responsible for bringing 150 different articles up to FA status. I think the answer is that you leave alone the statement that he has "only" 1,000 edits, and it is up to Candidate Y or his supporters to post the "whole story" in an appropriate place. I hope there will be sufficient guidance for voters on where that "appropriate place" to comment and respond to comments would be, it was kind of confusing last year. Neutron (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about me. I just sat through the pure evil of the American electoral cycle, I know exactly where the line is. My removals will be of things where an account with five edits in two hours is railing on an admin for something that that account would logically have no knowledge about (i.e. removing sockpuppets.) Even there, the benefit of the doubt is to poster, and unless it's blatant, I'll put a "this user has few or no edits outside this page" tag in and move on. I do think that having MuZemike around will be a plus in this regard.

Personally, I'd semiprotect the entire electoral area once nominations begin, but that would be undemocratic... Sven Manguard _Talk 01:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an argument, though, that an admin who pissed off the sockpuppets must be doing something right. I'd want us to hedge very close to removing nothing at all, if possible. When we did the open voting, we wouldn't even remove bad votes, unless they were obvious personal attacks - we'd indent and annotate them, so that the process was as transparent as possible. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's definitely a better option. As long as the responses don't breed more and more and more repsonses from people with little or nothing new to add but plenty of emition (see AN/I) this tactic should be fine. I'll refrain from deleting anything except for pure and blatant vandalism (i.e. jkehkhrkrhh29299291njejfbewbu!!!1! or (user) is a poop head! type stuff, which is completely uncontroversial to remove anyways.) Thanks for the insight. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think that will be too big a page to be worth anything. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A transclusion would be much too long: I suggest a template as in past years. I'm still unsure if I will write a guide this year, but if you want something to mess around with for design, see User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2010. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting the voters out

Are there any plans yet for increasing voter participation? For the last couple of years, the vote has hovered around the thousand mark, which seems pitifully low. How's about election announcements in the big wikiprojects to catch those people who don't hang around the usual places?  Roger ^talk 06:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How about a bot that leaves an announcement with links to the election pages when voting is open on the talk pages of every single, unblocked, registered user account on the English Wikipedia? Would that operation take up too much server memory? Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. I've no idea how feasible it is though (but I expect someone will be along shortly to explain the pros and cons). While I remember, notices need to list the candidates. (Helps make it real.)  Roger ^talk 08:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How about every unblocked/registered account that is WP:autoconfirmed and edits in November? The only way to get attention of people who are not active is to email them, because English Wikipedia doesn't have user talk email notifications (bugzilla:5220) unlike many of the smaller projects (bugzilla:15031) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Any proposal to sent notices to talk pages should be limited to editors who are actually eligible to vote - autoconfirmed accounts might not have made 150 mainspace edits before November 1, for example - so we'd be inviting them to an election in which they cannot vote. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And to users who meet some kind of criteria that suggest they could have an interest, for example "30+ non-userspace edits in the period August - November 2010". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• According to the coordination page, the list of eligible voters has already been prepared. The bots could use that list to leave user talk page messages. To be honest, I do not see an advantage in not including "old" accounts; people do return periodically. Risker (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's posted on-wiki and the users aren't blocked for the election period that makes some sense. If they're not involved they wouldn't notice the talk page post anyway, and if they're noticing their talk page then they could be interested in other things. How about this:

Hi, this is a message to let you know that the Arbitration Committee elections 2010 are opening soon! This is the most significant annual election the English Wikipedia community holds. It appoints the panel of users trusted to make final decisions on major disputes where editors disrupt Wikipedia's editing. The same users also supervise access to the Checkuser and Suppression (Oversight) tools, administrator status removal due to abuse, appeals of bans, and privacy related issues such as harassment that cannot be handled on a public wiki.

As you can see these are serious roles and it's fundamental to Wikipedia's editorial process that candidates are carefully and thoughtfully scrutinized by the community and that the highest proportion of users vote. Ten users will be appointed for a two year term. Even if you do not regularly participate, please consider helping the community choose the best it can.

Thank you

Your friendly Bot <name>

As a draft, it needs much copy-editing, but that kind of approach might catch people's attention by explaining why it matters. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A few questions/points: (1) Is the voting list public before the election starts? (2) Can any candidate with the technical know-how generate a list of those eligible to vote? (3) Leaving messages effectively tells everyone who is eligible to vote; (4) My immediate thought was that people could try and contact people inappropriately (and in private) to 'secure' someone's vote (hopefully that would be reported if it happened). That might happen already, of course, but it should be considered. If there is no public vote, and in the absence of opinion polls, the only way to know your projected support level is to ask people "are you voting for me?" - but I think that is generally considered bad form and candidates are expected to just answer the questions, and then sit back and trust that those answers and their record will gain them the needed support. I actually support increasing the number of voters, but the risk is that it will result in a much more 'political' campaigning-style election. Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The criteria are public and based on their on-wiki editing, so anyone can generate such a list in principle. But you need toolserver access and a little knowhow. The list isn't "private" though for that reason. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm really opposed to spamming talk pages. A watchlist notice should suffice, and maybe mentions at ANI, AN, VP, etc. I know the goal is to get more voters, but I suspect turnout won't rise much because the average user isn't affected by arbcom. DC T•C 04:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It might work well, and if it did, it's one notice, not a huge thing. Thinking about it, it's probably worth the experiment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a possible added bonus, as well - users who rarely edit, but who regularly read the encyclopedia, will see the new messages flag and check their talk pages - which might get them involved in editing again, maybe. Ir maybe not, but one or two editors who jump back in would be a positive, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm against the mass spamming idea. I'd rather a small group of experienced and knowledgeable editors, people that are around enough to know what makes a good candidate and how do preform due diligence, be the basis for Arbcom elections, than to have ten times as many voters with a possible reduction in quality. If we can get a bot to alert, say users with any of the applied for rights (autopatroled, reviewer, rollbacker, edit filter manager, administrator) and only editors that have that meet that criteria and have edited within the last 45 days, then we would cut get the voters that know what they are doing, and won't task the poor bot with tagging 13 million pages. BTW, I'm not saying we should exclude other voters, just to be clear. This is only regarding who the bot should inform. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to tell people, we should tell all eligible voters, not just those in certain groups. DC T•C 04:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, all eligible voters should get the same amount of notice. Neutron (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, the only thing else we did not do with the Pending Changes series of RfCs was to bot-spam all users' talk pages. Remember that, despite listings on WP:CENT, the Signpost, the Village pump, and the admins' noticeboards, people were still complaining that they were not informed as to what was going on. –MuZemike 22:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I'm still vehimently against the spamming. Then again, I bribe my mail carrier to skip my box when he delivers mass mailings. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. I think it would be better to post notices the day that voting opens rather than before. I think people would be annoyed if they got notices before they were able to vote.--Chaser (away) - talk 15:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Election guides

I am inviting wider participation in this discussion on election guides. Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There has been some discussion about voter guides at WP:BN#RfA canvassing. See for example Template:ACE 2009 guides for guides to the previous Arbcom election. I think these sort of guides should be allowed on users' own pages but should not be linked to via a template featured on the election pages. This may allow several established insiders to have an unfair influence on an election that is already heavily stacked towards established insiders. Please comment. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For context, these sorts of guides have been written for years, but until last year there was no publicised centralised place for viewing them. They were added to the footer last year as an attempt to foster discussion and critical review of the candidates, due to concerns that these would be stifled by the move to the secret ballot system. To quote the closing statement in the just-concluded RfC,

"The argument supporting open & transparent discussions about the different candidates are compelling, so I believe it would be in the best interest to facilitate these discussions. Further, if a formal method is not found forcing people to rely on informal fora to discuss the differnet [sic] candidates, then all Wikipedians must respect this process, & anyone attempting to suppress this discussion can be expected to be reported to WP:AN/I to face the appropriate sanctions."

To get an indication of the level of collective insight and debate on last year's candidates, you can see the entirety of the discussion at this collection page and those linked here. I'm not dead set on including voter guides on the election pages, but I find it very troubling that the entire field of candidates is getting less public review than an above-average RFA. Skomorokh 16:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Public review is one thing. A small set of established insider's user spaces being linked to is another. The personality of the commentator is encouraged to be the driver rather than the completely unchallenged substance of their comments. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the issue, but anyone is free to make their own guide. And I must admit I did read them last year because there were just too many questions to go through. And if anything is blatantly false or libelous in the guides, wouldn't that be a breach of policy which could be acted on (by removal of said material and sanctions against the offender)? DC T•C 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure you've fully reviewed the situation last year; all known voter guides were included, without regard for the editor's "tenure" or stance, and points of contention were challenged and amended. Rather than public review is one thing, I would say that public review is the crucially important thing. An election with an uninformed electorate is ripe for gaming by savvy politicos. If you or anyone else has ideas about how to foster productive review, please do be forthcoming, as I am scratching my head here. Regards, Skomorokh 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but firstly guides hosted in userspace with no right to reply are not a good thing. Secondly the inevitable happens and a few insiders are the only ones to publish election guides and this magnifies the importance of those insider's views in an election already attended mainly by insiders. People wishing to climb the greasy wikipedia pole to stardom tend to go to their favorite senior editor of the moment and follow them like sheep. This is encouraged by the system of linking to these guides which essentially say "this is how I, a senior member of wikipedia view these candidates". Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The mistake here is in thinking that userspace of others is a place where people have no right of reply. That is not true and the attitude that people 'own' their userspace and user talk space needs rolling back, or putting in context. If someone is doing their own thing in userspace and not affecting anyone else, leave them alone. If people are doing things in user space and user talk space that counts as public comment on matters elsewhere, or trying to affect things happening elsewhere, then that turns the space from a 'private' one into a public one, and fair game for comment and replies. Carcharoth (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak for others but my guide has always had a disclaimer saying it's my view only, make your own decisions. It also has a talk page, run the way I run my talk pages, that is, anyone's welcome to comment, and very little if anything is ever hidden away merely because I disagree with it. There have been lively discussions there in the past, some of which caused me to change my views on candidates. Further I think there was a template listing all known guides earlier than last year, see User:Lar/ACE2008 for example. (two years back). I'll be doing one again this year, whether it's linked to and put in a template is up to others, not me, but I will be doing one (and asking my standard questions). ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be better to post opinions along with a right to reply in a public forum. users like yourself can still have your own guides but not linked to in the main election template which inevitably give a few user's views pride of place. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember, however you run your user talkpage it is still run by yourself (in your case very well Lar) and I bet the majority of people going to your guide will not look at the talkpage anyway. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd wager a large majority of the electorate is not going to look at your public forum either, if it isn't linked prominently on the election pages. Skomorokh 17:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

P2: I'm not following you about pride of place... what do you mean exactly? Nor about public forums. This entire wiki is a public forum... see User:Mindspillage/userpages (which all my pages, as all of everyone else's, are governed by, whether they acknowledge it or not)... As far as right to reply... again I don't follow you. What right of reply are you denied on my talk pages? We're not talking about pages where the user busily shuffles off anything they don't like, after all. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You essentially control the content of your userpage. Yes there are restrictions but you still essentially control it. I do not think it is right for users to be encouraged to go and specifically look at (for example) Lar's view on the candidates on his userpage. The argument that any wikipedian can post a guide is fairly poor as this simply does not happen. The idea that we are encouraged to look at the guides of senior wikipedians is disproportionate as it tends to swing the election to the views of the innermost circle of wikipedia. Even if this is unintentional. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand your view. I don't agree, especially with the notion that "senior wikipedians" (and the connotation that term carries) are the only ones doing these pages. Barring some explicit prohibition, I will be doing my page again this year, as I have for several years, as well as asking my questions again this year, as I have for several years. Who links to it and where... is out of my control and concern (except that if links are made I would expect to be included the same as everyone else, or not included, the same as everyone else) I hope that clarifies my position, and that we can agree to disagree. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I had thought last year was the first time we did that, my mistake. Thanks for catching that Lar. Skomorokh 17:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, maybe silly question, but what insiders are you talking about? Anyone is welcome to make a guide and have it linked with the others. — Coren ^(talk) 18:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about this "innermost circle" issue. I've never written an election guide, but if you read a few of them, they do give you a good feeling on the key issues and perceptions going round. For a user who may not know 2/3 of the candidates at all, that can be a positive thing as it suggests what they might look for, strengths, issues to look at closer and so on. Users are not au fait with all candidates or compulsive Arbcom/admin trackers, so the varied insights of those who are is a very helpful starting point.

Also, because different users reading a guide will look for different things and different writers have a different perspective, some will see the same point positively which others see negatively. A more informed choice is possible with more insightful analysis, and the entirety of Wikipedia is predicated on "do your own research, this is just a starting point".

What could be good is one page where candidates respond to election guides - one section per candidate who wishes to comment, containing their comment and any resulting discussion. Then each election guide has a clear note "Candidates' have a right of reply. Their comments are at LINK." FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The one thing I would change is adding a standard disclaimer to each guide, something along the lines of This guide is strictly the opinion of its author(s). All users intending to vote are expected to form their own opinion on the candidates." DC T•C 20:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mine has said "You should do your own research, don't go by what I think, but in case you were wondering what I thought, there you are." for a while, but that disclaimer (instead?? as well?) is fine by me. A disclaimer seems a good idea (despite WP:DISCLAIM) in this case. ++Lar: t/c 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been running guides for a couple years now, and like that there is a central location for all the guides. For example, see Template:ACE 2009 guides. There is no "insider requirement" for creating a guide: Anyone who wants to go to the trouble of doing it can create one, and is allowed to add their guide to the template. Anyone who wants to rebut any comments on my own guide is welcome to do so on the talkpage, and I always link to those comments from the guide itself. I also routinely review other people's guides and comments, and sometimes change my own opinions based on those comments. I actually wish more people would provide lists of how they voted, as I find it useful and interesting. I miss the old open voting system. --Elonka 23:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well given that I have dedicated a page to ArbCom elections for the last two years, and I plan to do another this year, I suppose I should comment here. My reason for creating these pages is primarily for myself, to have my opinions and gathered information on often a large number of candidates on one page to look through, and also for the candidates themselves, given the low amount of feedback they get in these elections. I don't consider myself an insider or a particularly well known user, and I only originally created a page in 2008 because I wanted to and in response to others. I consider trying to influence others rather futile, and I do encourage others to form their own opinions, so adding DC's disclaimer would be something I would be happy to do. I would even go further and encourage people to create their own guides if they want, so people can read a broad range of opinions. I don't particularly mind whether or not the guides are linked to from the template, given that I usually summarise in one or two sentences my decision and comments for each candidate on the comments pages, with a link to the guide on the end in each case if they want more detail, so further linking is not necessary. However, if they continue to be added to the template I will add mine for completeness. I have stated explicitly every year during the election that comments and questions are welcome on the talk page, and some users (including candidates) did comment last year, to which I responded. When that did occur, I always added "See also: the talk page" to relevant material on the user page, so nobody missed anything. CT Cooper · talk 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of promoting discussion, I suppose it's reasonable to list the voter guides centrally. However, I think there should be a small-text, italicised note underneath saying that "The inclusion of an item implies no official endorsement in the election process." I also think that the election personnel should reserve the right not to list an item that contains inflammatory material or that comes close to the boundaries of acceptability WRT a WP pillar, policy, or guideline. Tony (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Common sense prevails when reading anything so there's absolutely no need to put disclaimers and what not for such guides (such a disclaimer can be put in the box which lists all of the guides, but that's not the election guide writers responsibility). If a candidate has a problem with what someone else says in their guide, that candidate can either: (1) approach the user who wrote the guide, (2) write a comment on the talk of the user guide (which is what most people sensibly do anyway), or (3) create a page in your own userspace with "responses to the election guides". It's not a good idea to attempt to silence people from outlining their views (and possibly why it is they came to those views) to the Community, particularly in the case of (1) a secret ballot and (2) users publically opposing/supporting certain candidates who they think are unfit/fit to be an arbitrator. If an editor is particularly angry about something that a candidate has done in the past or is still doing in the present, then the questions need to be asked so that the Community can understand the root of the problem. If there's extreme material, we'll deal with it through the usual means (rather than some election personnel). In any event, arbitrators who have been (directly or indirectly) advocating for nonsensical interpretations of WP:CANVASS (in more than one venue) may want to reconsider whether they can afford to do so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• The election guides of years past have definitely varied in quality, but I think they are generally helpful. If we end up using a bot to notify every en.Wikipedia editor of the election, then the guides may help some editors make decisions on who they vote for. I'm confident that the majority of editors are intelligent enough to perceive which guides provide insightful commentary and which ones don't so much. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I sorta think this is a non-issue. Let the community be a... community. Let people express themselves. And yes, collect links to the guides and place them in a centralized location. Consensus can only have value after healthy discussion and/or debate by a fair sampling of voices... • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Vocalist, your concerns may be satisfied by the creation of a centralised page for discussion on candidates. There are major advantages in locating discussion on each candidate in a place where the community can see all, without the need to go digging around in dozens upon dozens of talk pages. Tony (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Given that election guides aren't acually a discussion but a place where an user expresses their own views and why it was they voted a certain way, I don't understand what advantage you're talking about. We already have a so-called "centralized discussion page on each candidate"; election guide writers used that page and noted that they supported/opposed the candidate with a link to their election guide (unless my memory has failed); this was what happened when they voted in an open election. If an user wants to discuss that vote, they can continue to do so on the centralised discussion page which is why I don't think anything has been consolidated in the section below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't see the problem with having a place where the election guide comments can be put together. I do see a problem with users being strongly encouraged to go to an individual guide of a user they know by having it in the template. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Yup. There should a discussion of candidates, hosted in a neutral location, where anybody can comment. Making some users more equal than others by having their guides listed is unfair. Guides have been used for talking trash and settling scores. I wish certain guide writers would stop doing that. They know damn well that a candidate cannot respond to falsities and character assassination without appearing to be a whiner. These guides discourage participation in the election. If you've ever crossed a guide writer, their voice is given pseudo-authority by the guide template; and then they trash you. Jehochman ^Talk 11:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
            • You might want to name names and give examples, because accusing others of talking trash sometimes is just a way of talking trash yourself. I can't speak for how other guide writers treat feedback (or how they handle their talk pages in general) but I stand behind how it was handled on the talk pages of my guides. I changed my views, in some cases, because of it. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
              • No, I definitely don't want to name names. And I dislike that you accuse me of talking trash, because there is definitely a basis for what I am saying. Jehochman ^Talk 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the guide-writers should be given very wide latitude in discussing the candidates without having their opinions suppressed (or not linked-to from the election pages, see my further comments below) because they are viewed as "attacks." This is an election, not a discussion of an article. One person's attack may be another person's legitimate commentary. A candidate's "record" is relevant. Blatantly false statements are a different story -- such as, stating that a candidate has been blocked five times, when he/she has never been blocked, or stating that a candidate has never been an admin, when he/she has been one for years -- and should be subject to removal. Opinions, however, should be fair game -- and may of course be refuted on the guide's talk page or anywhere else where the election is being discussed. Neutron (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Consolidating ideas

Picking up on various ideas above, wouldn't it be easiest if guides were in, um, election space, as sub-pages in a designated area? Say:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides/Elonka

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides/SandyGeorgia

etc?

Such pages could then appear on the template be publicised and so forth in the normal way. Each guide would then have a natural and intuitive page for comment. Then all the guide talk pages could be transcluded to one central guide talk page at say. Thus:

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides/Elonka

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides/SandyGeorgia

This strikes me as a lot less chaotic and a great deal more transparent than the current setup, and it also removes perceived ownership issues of guides with user space.  Roger ^talk 09:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• But the perceived cachet of having your username so prominently featured in election space could lead to a glut of... dreck? • Ling.Nut (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure though the guides are already validated by appearing on the template. This is example of where a centralised place for editors with clue to tell the dreckmongers what they thought of their guides pays dividends. Anyway, it was loud and clear in the RfC that peope want more discussion, and easy places to find it, this helps that intention along.  Roger ^talk 09:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• How about a place where each user who wishes to is able to make a brief (100 word max) formal statement of their personal views on each candidate? This will mean that many more statements will be made and users won't be as likely to go and see a prominant individual's guide in isolation and simply follow their voting. Instead they will be able to see the brief statements all together on one page. Or does that happen already? It seems so much fairer to me. Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Individual candidate election talk pages seems the obvious place. And hopefully would encourage debate/discussion there.  Roger ^talk 09:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems more likely to cause issues. No firm evidence for this, but 3 possible reasons: 1/ I'd be concerned that a user seeing a set of 100 word posts on a user might be more inclined to vote based on pervasive themes in the posts, while a user who read a set of election guides about all candidates in individual users' userspace might be more thoughtful about it. 2/ It's easier to recognize reviewer bias or viewpoints when you can see all their reviews in context and side by side in one table. 3/ An election guide approach probably encourages users who want to comment on the field of all candidates, more than those with an axe to grind against some admin who blocked them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think the personal grude thing is an issue maybe it can be restricted to users who comment on all of the candidates. Maybe it will be easiest just to have a place where all the individual election guide comments are put together in one place for each candidate. This allows user's guides to be hosted on election pages but does encourage voters to read all of the comments on an individual candidate. Of course the guides will still be available as a whole on the individual user talkpages but not linked to from the template as instead voters will go to the amalgamated opinions on each candidate. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The first and second were more my concerns. Election guides tend to come with a rationale how they chose and what they looked for, which allows better understanding of the context of all their comments. If you read a user's election guide you get a very good idea of the reviewer's own viewpoint, bias and credibility of their insight. If you read their view on a candidate in isolation among a list of 20 other views of that candidate, it's much less obvious. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I don't wish to stop users posting election guides for you to go and read. I just have a problem with every keen novice turning up and going to the election guide of the most respected user they know and simply following their voting pattern. This is heavily encouraged by having the userpage election guides so prominantly featured right across the election pages in the template. I am trying to come up with a fairer way of incorporating them, which will actually be fairer to the candidates who may have got on the wrong side of one or two of the more prominant individuals who post these guides. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure that I've parsed the above correctly... you have no problem with people writing guides... you just don't want them linked in a central place. Is that right? So you're OK with the outcome of my writing a guide, not linking it, just mentioning on my talk that I did, and so only my 350 talk page watchers know about it (and possibly are influenced by it?), and similarly J Random Newbie writes one, it's not linked, just mentioned, and his 4 talk page watchers know about it (and possibly are influenced by it?). To you that's less skewing of influence than if J Random Newbie's guide is linked in the same place, and with the same prominence, as mine, so that if his is brilliantly written and incisive and mine is the same warmed over platitudes as 3 years in a row, it has more influence than mine does, based on merit? Is that what you're arguing in favor of? If not, could you please clarify what you mean by a "fairer way of incorporating them"? ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

←FT2, if the pages are already listed on a key election page, it is merely a practicality that the discussions be available to voters at one location. People have rightly complained in previous years about the hopeless fragmentation of discussion about candidates. It is a disservice to the community to spatter threads all over the place and expect voters to dig around picking up the pieces. Voters deserve to be able to compare discussions, issues and candidates as easily as possible. My only gripe is that I didn't think of it myself. Tony (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Community decides how things are supposed to work in this election by consensus; if certain users want to change something, they had an opportunity to propose it in the RfC that was opened for that purpose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Everything that isn't expressly permitted is forbidden". Are you sure that's right?  Roger ^talk 10:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Everyone else needs to get a Community consensus to change the process, but Roger Davies & Co. have been appointed by the Community to do whatever they like. My bad.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that that's right either. Editors are not required to seek consensus in advance for their actions. In fact, the opposite is encouraged. Roger ^talk 11:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose that is a good way of killing the conversation. However, is this not a discussion about election guides and not the election process per se. which is what the RfC was focussing on? Polargeo (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Yes it does appear that the RfC was focussed on the actual mechanics of the voting rather than the punditary (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure) Polargeo (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

About that idea of providing a location where voters could make 100-word judgements on candidates: we actually did that last year, with the Comments pages (as distinct from the Discussion pages). I didn't think this setup was very successful. Skomorokh 10:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So how about the consolidation of the guide comments in one place for each candidate? I am more interested in fairness than how "successful" something is. Polargeo (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the guides themselves or their talkpages? Skomorokh 10:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I mean all the guide comments consolidated on one page for each candidate. This seems to me like a win-win situation, fair, open, lots of wisdom in one place for voters to look at. Not too much work. Also it does not overly encourage voters to follow the voting pattern of any individual user as the present system does. Polargeo (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So if there were 17 candidates and 12 election guides, each guidemaker would have to make 17 different transcludable assessments so that all 12 assessments of each of the 17 candidates could be collected in one place, as well as all another place where all 17 assessments of each of the 12 guidemakers are collected, and someone else would have to run around transcluding these everywhere? It's doable, sure, and convenient for voters but it's a hell of a lot of work both to implement and to get guidemakers to go along with. If you mean just abandon the election guides and use something like the /Comments system of last year, then we are back at square one, because as Lar says above, the guidemakers are going to do their usual thing on one standard user subpage anyway. Skomorokh 11:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That strikes me as a significant "make work" project for no benefit. Cut and paste is against how we do things in general as it messes up attribution. ++Lar: t/c 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I just get the feeling you are placing barriers here. There are many solutions to this and cut and paste isn't very time consuming. The individual's who have made the guides could keep it up to date. I am sure Lar and other guide writers can easily police this if given a framework to do so. With little oversight required. Polargeo (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're on something of a one-man crusade here, so rather than let your proposals wither in the face of non-acceptance I am trying to get an idea of what an implementation would look like in practical terms so that the benefits of the various options could possibly be combined in an acceptable compromise. I say this sincerely: if I'm being unhelpful, I'll let you get on with making your case. Skomorokh 11:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what I am going to leave this discussion for a bit. See if anyone else comes in. It might be a good idea for some advertisment of this discussion in forums removed from the election (please any suggestions welcome) because I can see why some main election followers and guide publishers might wish to keep things as they are. It certainly could serve to make their individual opinions more important. Polargeo (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Skomorokh... I think you're raising problems that don't exist and I can't quite see why. If you review the guides from last year (I just did, it's very illumnating) you are going to find a diverse set of views on various candidates... it's not at all monolithic, nor is it even polarized along expected lines (which surprised me, I confess). And I think you're raising a straw dog about "more important" opinions or whatever. Nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from writing a guide. Anyone who does is welcome to ask that it be linked in, or ask that it not be linked in. WSC's provisions, below, seem very reasonable to me. If your opinions are reasonable, well thought out, and based on fact rather than polemic, you'll have influence. That's as it should be, in my view. Maybe it's me but I'm sensing a bit of tall poppy syndrome here. ++Lar: t/c 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I can feel the pressure winding up against me now in that comment about tall poppy syndrome. I simply want to say that I genuinely had a problem last year with the guides from the perspective of a novice user hoping to find genuinely fair elections. I am trying to put this novice user perspective over here. I will write my own guide if the system does not change, but I would prefer not to have to do this. Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with election guides provided that:

1. These pages, as with any page that is primarily one editor's take on the situation, belongs in that user's userspace
2. The process is transparent. - I'd be happy with a central list of such pages, very unhappy if say WikiProject Foo had a page on candidates' attitudes to Foo without some candidates having an opportunity to know that their position re Foo was being imputed by Foo without their chance of responding
3. Normal rules of civility apply (please don't let this degenerate the way RFA sometimes can).

ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a former candidate, I greatly appreciated the voting guides and their convenient listing in a centralized location. In fact, I wished that more editors had stepped forward to make one that are not "personalities". I certainly would have been disappointed if I could not find the guides of editors I did not routinely follow simply because they weren't listed! — Coren ^(talk) 14:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If user's guide comments are hosted on the election pages you will be able to find their guides. However, a novice user will not be encouraged to go straight to the user page of the most respected user and follow their lead. Maybe the guides worked well for you and hence you view them more positively than users like Jehochman do. Polargeo (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

An alternative to removing the guides from the election pages would be for the election monitors to show some moxy and sanction personal attacks posted in the guides and on the election pages. Candidates are severely disadvantaged in responding to character assassination. At the moment we even have a sitting arbitrator who was sanctioned for engaging in that sort of behavior. The elections ought to be cleaned up. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, at least one election monitor did show some moxy, but they weren't supported by the powers that be. [1] Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two principal reasons why volunteers have been generally loath to intervene in commentary from voters. Firstly, "personal attack" is a nebulous and subjective concept at the best of times, and tends to be roundly ignored at fora where assessments are invited of individual contributors applying for positions of responsibilities such as ACE and RFA. There is also the perspective that harsh criticism prepares candidates for what awaits them if they are successful, though it's not one I subscribe to.

Secondly, people don't take kindly to their expression being regulated by self-appointed busybodies; it tends to cause more trouble than it's worth. If we, as a community, want to come up with agreed upon standards for conduct in these election guides or more broadly for all the election pages, then let's get on that, but it's fruitless for one party to advocate an iron fist to the hostility of the rest of the electorate. Best, Skomorokh 15:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's quite simple. When somebody makes an obvious personal attack, you merely need to point it out, and ask them to refactor. At that point, if they fail to do so, they look bad, rather than the target of the attack. So no, I don't accept the excuses you've proffered. Had you been the target of such attacks, you might understand where I'm coming from. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't accept that election environments are any different from other discussion fora, why then would you not treat "obvious personal attacks" here as you would elsewhere? Do "obvious personal attacks" on article talkpages or ANI discussions go unpunished for the want of action by election monitors? I think not. Either particular standards need to be established for elections or personal attacks at elections get dealt with in the usual manner, by warnings and blocks by administrators. Simple as; I ain't in the business of making excuses. Skomorokh 19:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would treat obvious personal attacks the same everywhere. That's what I'm asking the election supervisors to do. Regrettably, the standards here have traditionally been lower than in other parts of Wikipedia. In the interests of free discussion, commentators seem to be given a free pass to poison the well and assassinate the character of those the want to settle scores with. That should not be. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as every user has the right to create their own guide and have it linked to that template somewhere at the official election page, I guess one basic criterion of fairness has been met. All the same, I don't wish to have these individual guides higlighted (also, could we call them "personal endorsements" or something, they don't really guide me). The reality is that not everyone will write their own guide (for reasons of time, personal sensitivity, etc), and I feel that this prominent linkage is giving undue emphasis to a small group of opinions. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think highlighting them by putting them on the template (or wherever really) is a good thing because (I believe someone made this point above) it allows more people to see them, and increases the chances of incorrect/slanderous statements being removed. DC T•C 19:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and to be honest, I believe (or hope) that the majority of voting editors don't blindly follow someone else's recommendation. (And to be honest again, part of what bothered me the last few times I looked at these guides was their quality). EIther way, I much prefer a centralized discussion where no one plays host or moderator with the ability to change section titles or remove entire posts as they see fit. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from a position of complete ignorance of the actual issues, the cure for bad speech is generally more speech. If there were 100 voting guides, each of them linked to the elections page, then no one of them would have too great an impact on the election. So, for people who don't like the existing guides, write one yourselves. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this right: Anyone with a pulse and 1000 article edits can nominate themselves and, judging from what has been allowed the last few years, post anything they want in their statements but I'm now about to censored and told how many words I'm allowed to use for no good reason except that a handful of people are afraid I'll hurt their feelings or fail to comment sufficiently on their candidacy? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case at all. As long as you're not blatantly lying about a candidate (This user is a witch, this user is a socialist who pals around with terrorists) you'll be fine. DC T•C 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

When did that ever happen? Solution looking for a problem. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are just hypothetical examples of things that could happen (taken from real life elections actually). I don't think anyone has shown evidence of anything malicious actually being incorporated in the guides. DC T•C 07:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Limitations

The consensus here seems to be for having guides. I don't think any further discussion will change that. Also, in 2009, there were links on the guides, and I don't see much consensus against that, so it's likely that this practice will continue.

That being said, I propose several editor groups be prevented from making guides. Those are:

• Candidates for the 2010 ArbCom elections

The reasoning behind this is simple. People with the possibility of something to gain with the guides (i.e. candidates) have too much of a vested interest in the results .

Furthermore, several groups should be forced to declare at the top of their guides that they are:

• Sitting members of ArbCom, including those whose terms end in 2010
• Former members of ArbCom
• Clerks of ArbCom
• Members of at least one of the ArbCom mailing lists

The other four groups have knowledge that other people may not have. This is done not to say "look at me, I'm a clerk, my opinion is much better than anyone else's and you should trust me," but rather it is to say "look at me, I've had nonpublic interactions and my opinions may be based off of facts or conversations that require advanced rights to verify."

Just my two cents. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say current arbitrators and clerks should be prevented from making guides too. DC T•C 07:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We should not prevent anyone from making a guide. And anyway, how would we enforce it? "Oh look, you created a voter guide in your userspace, we're going to block you from Wikipedia now"? Instead, anyone who wishes to do so should be welcome and encouraged to create a guide. Based on my own experience (to my knowledge, I was one of the first people to ever create a guide, along with MBisanz and Lar), it takes a lot of work to create one, especially one that contains information on each of the candidates. So I don't think there's a risk of too many guides: In 2008 and 2009, we had fewer than 20 guides each year. As in previous years, all guides can be linked from the central template, and shouldn't be sorted in any special way. That way no guide is given any special preference or prominence: The template is simply an informational tool, provided to make the links easily accessible, if anyone cares to use them. --Elonka 07:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had current Arbs in that section originally, but I figured that they would be the most qualified people to offer guides, and as long as they were not up for election, their advice would be valuable. There's still the notification to let us know of a potential involvements, but if we can trust people to be on Arbcom, we should trust them to write an unbiased guide. Sven Manguard _Talk 07:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Elonka, I would just be for not allowing candidates to link to the main template. I can't enforce anything. The point of my suggestion is that candidates writing guides on other candidates screams COI. Sven Manguard _Talk 07:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Very true, and any candidate who does such a thing, usually takes heat for it. But that doesn't mean we should prevent them from making their own mistakes... --Elonka 07:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I concede the point. I still think that all five groups need to self label. What's your position on that one? Sven Manguard _Talk 08:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

←I agree that they should self-label, but it's a better look if the election structure doesn't "force" them to. It's common decency to announce your possible interests, role, etc., and I'm sure editors will do it for them if they forget. Tony (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In real life candidates, and campaigners, are required to keep 75 feet away from polling places (in Connecticut). It would be a good idea for us to do something similar. Feel free to write your guides. We cannot prevent people from compiling their thoughts in their own userspace, but the election page headers and menus should not link to these user guides, though. If somebody wants to write a guide and leave links in the comments they place on the designated discussion pages, that's their choice. The election itself should not falsely give any endorsement or appearance of endorsement to the guides. This is essential. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman's concerns about some past guides are valid, and anyone who needs it spelled out isn't paying attention. He was seriously maligned in one guide, to the extent that I didn't endorse him last year because I knew that he was up against too much personally motivated vitriol to be able to succeed in the election. I suggested he stay away from certain parties if he wanted to be electable (to my knowledge, he has tried to do that, but I haven't followed closely). On the general subject, I don't know if I'll even write a guide this year (I'm more concerned that we might not have ten decent candidates, since many good candidates don't want to divulge their real name), but if I do, I most certainly do not want my "personal" opinion forced to Wikispace. I put it in my userspace precisely because it is my opinion (and if I do write one this year, I'll make that clear). But, more importantly, we should recognize why these guides are useful and used: the ArbCom election process has become such a morass-- with long, unbearably unreadable question pages and too much "process" attached-- that many editors would rather read the guides as a summary of the key issues. Most editors are completely capable of reviewing multiple guides to get different opinions, and factoring individual editors' known issues into their final decision. I'm not aware of any "guide" writer who "pegs it" every year. But as the Arb election process grows more and more cumbersome with lengthy "process" and question pages, the guides become more needed, and more useful. I don't care if mine is linked to a global template, but I do care that it remains my opinion in my userspace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. Have you noticed that this year, the official election period is down to 22 days plus probably a week or so for the final announcement—let's say 29 days? Last year, it was 49 days. Have you noticed that this year, the general questions are down from 2326 words (36 questions) to 584 words (eight questions); that's about a 3/4 reduction. Have you noticed that individual questions to candidates may be only up to 75 words, and that one question only per candidate per voter will be permitted? Do you have any more suggestions for streamlining the process?

Who was ever under the impression that voter guides by individual editors were not based on their personal opinion? Tony (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't had time to follow all of that, but those sound like moves in the right direction. Apparently, from some of the discussion above, many people thought it wasn't clear that what an editor writes in their own userspace is "opinion" (if I write one this year, I'll be sure to make that more clear for those who lack competence). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that candidates should be prohibited from posting opinions about the candidates (whether is called a voter guide, an endorsement, or just an opinion or comment or something else.) There really is no "conflict of interest" there. Candidates should have a right to state, in whatever "space" would be appropriate for a non-candidate, why they think they should be elected, and if they want to say which other candidates should be elected (or not elected), and why, there is no reason to prohibit them from doing so. The candidates do, however, need to understand that there are many in the community who would take a negative view of a candidate commenting on the other candidates, and therefore I would expect that most candidates would refrain from doing so. In other words, exercising your "rights" is not always necessarily conducive to getting elected. But it should be their choice. I do think that a "guide" in userspace should be required to include an identification of the writer as a candidate, sitting arbitrator, former arbitrator, clerk or member of an arbitrator mailing list (and I would also add, as a WMF employee, board member, constitutional monarch and anyone else in an "official capacity" as well.) I think I would limit such identification requirements to actual guides in userspace; I don't see how this requirement could be enforced on a talk page in project space (including "election space"); it would get pretty cumbersome for, for example, a former arb who gets involved in a threaded conversation about a candidate to have to say in every single post "I am a former arbitrator and I think...")

There is another group, however, that I think should be prohibited from posting "guides" or other positive or negative comments about the candidates, and that is the election officials, i.e. those helpful and essential folks who are running or helping to run this election. Maybe that goes without saying, but I have learned not to assume too much about anything; if this subject has been covered elsewhere, I have not seen it. Clearly, this restriction should apply to the "election administrators" and "scrutineers" of which there are appear to be a limited number and who seem to have been "appointed", though exactly how and by whom I am not certain. I have slight qualms about forcing this restriction on the "election coordinators" since that seems to be an "open volunteer" type of position without a set number of "seats", but it would still seem "cleaner" if they would remain neutral -- at least publicly, and the secret ballot allows them to exercise their right to vote without compromising their neutrality. I thank all of the election officials for their service, but they are the one group that I think needs to remain "above the fray" of the election.

Finally, I think that all "guides" should carry a standardized statement, perhaps a template, that this statement or guide or whatever expresses only the opinion of the author and not of Wikipedia or any of its whatever-whatever, etc. This is especially important for people who hold any position such as admin, bureaucrat, arbitrator, former arbtrator, Jimbo, or whatever, but it should go on all editors' guides just to be on the safe side. (The part about Jimbo is a joke, I know he knows better than to post his opinions about the candidates.) Neutron (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

On the point of election factotums holding our tongues, I think that is a sound (albeit personally frustrating) principle to adopt. For the record, the scrutineers and election admins were headhunted by us co-ordinators and are with one exception folks who successfully ran things last year.

A standardised disclaimer could be useful, although I would be loathe to impose it on editor's userpages without their consent. Perhaps make it a condition for being listed in the template? Skomorokh 23:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Frustrating but (I think) necessary, and I appreciate your being willing to abide by that suggestion in order to keep the election above reproach. As for the disclaimers as a condition for linking in the template, yes I think that is a great idea. As I suggest in the "poll" section below, one alternative to doing a template may be to have a category for the guides, although now I see it appears you have already done the template, so maybe it's too late for my suggestion. Neutron (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Should guides be linked from official pages and templates?

I am interested in hearing opinions. My feeling is that guides should only be linked from user comments. Our media, such as The Signpost or WikiVoices covers the elections and can provide visibility to the guides as well. My concern is that the opinions of a few, non-representative Wikipedians are given excessive prevalence when they are linked from all the election pages. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC), 14:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think, J, that if your worry is a hatchet job then the more guides people have at their easy disposal the easier it is for them to note outliers for what they are and evaluate the opinion accordingly. I'm in favor the the guides being listed prominently (and without discrimination) for that reason. The best solution might indeed be to encourage more editors to make their opinions known. — Coren ^(talk) 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have two separate worries. This section is not about hatchet jobs at all, but rather the appearance of an official endorsement for the guides. The voting venue should not highlight the opinions of a few editors who have the time to compile guides. This gives excessive weight to their opinions. As for hatchet jobs, the answer is for fair minded editors to stand up and point out a hatchet job, and declare it to be an odious thing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • And get blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Sadly, there's always that risk when one take a principled stand. Jehochman ^Talk 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • As I said above, the coordinators should give wide latitude to the expression of opinions about the candidates. That's how elections work. The applicable "principle" here is that a candidate for office subjects him/herself to both positive and negative views regarding his/her experience, record, behavior, character, qualifications and everything else that goes into a voter's decision. When you decide to run, your choices are to (1) get ready to be criticized, and learn to live with it, (2) respond to the criticism, or (3) change your mind about running. As I also said above, in an environment such as this, the coordinators could reasonably remove statements of fact that are demonstrably, unequivocally not true. When it comes to opinions, I think we should all try the best we can to be nice to each other, but there are going to be times when one person's honest expression of opinion is going to be someone else's "attack" or "hatchet job." There may be a line beyond which one cannot go (like a guide entry filled with profane name-calling), but I know I read all of the "guides" last year and don't recall seeing the line being crossed. We have to assume that the voters are going to read these things with a critical eye and not act like sheep, and if and when a "guide" writer seems to be filled with hatred and vitriol toward a candidate, to take that into account when deciding whether to heed that person's advice about all the candidates. Editing someone's opinion about a candidate to make it less harsh is a dangerous game. It's really contrary to the whole idea of an election. Neutron (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Or, in the words of an editorial cartoon that I saw probably about 30 years ago, and have tried in vain to find, or even find some reference to, on the Internet: "If you can't stand the Byzantine intrigue, perhaps you should get out of the cabal." Neutron (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• This is how it was done before. Absent clear evidence of an actual problem, which has not been given, I think we should continue this way. Disclaimers, as appropriate, have my support. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• I support keeping them too. Maybe we can note on the template anyone can create a guide? DC T•C 15:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Attack pages in userspace have never been allowed and if any editor encounters such a page or section of a page then it should be removed with prejudice. That issue is not specific to voting guides and we have a policy and process to deal with such things. Moreover, if anyone uses a voting guide to attack an editor with whom they are in conflict it reflects far, far worse upon the writer than the candidate. As far as linking to these from the election pages I agree with Jehochman. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. The most sensible way to deal with the guides is to provide them in a template on the election pages, just as has been done in years past. I also have no trouble with adding a disclaimer, or maybe a note like, "You can add your own guide here too!". The more guides, the better. --Elonka 18:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot speak on behalf of the other six coordinators, but I will be monitoring the election closely, and will not hesitate to intervene when needed. Out of the seven coordinators, 5 are admins and one of those five has Checkuser, so as a group we are capable of investigating and removing anything that needs removing. As to Sandy's concerns, I will be monitoring questions for length, and asking people to shorten them when the questions run too long. We need to decide on what to do if the questions run too long. I'm against deleting them, but I'd rather delete them than refactor them. I suppose if they don't shorten them after being told to, either option is fair game... Sven Manguard _Talk 19:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes as it makes it easier for voters to locate a variety of opinions so they can form their own judgments. I do share the concern that some might misinterpret these statements as having some official sanction, and therefore each such guide in userspace should have a standard "disclaimer" (see my comment in previous section.) Perhaps this concern could also be addressed by not having a template listing all the guides, but rather having a category for them, which would be linked from the election pages. This would (appropriately) seem less "official" while still allowing voters to find the pages. Neutron (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Originally, I would have voted no, but I understand the benefits of keeping them in the open. If an appropriate disclaimer is added (making it clear that everyone is free to have their guide being linked and making it clear that these are individual rationales and endorsements), then I have no reason to oppose. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. I made a guide in the last couple elections and I'm about as far from a power user as you can get. (I won't be making one this year since I don't have an appropriate grasp of the issues.) If the guide had any influence at all it was only so far as I made points that people agreed with. I would strongly encourage guidewriters to invite discussion, even from candidates, on their guides. I tried to invite discussion, a few users took me up on the offer, and certainly none were punished in any way for doing so. I think I was once so impressed with Coren's responses to my guide that I subsequently threw the support of my guide behind her candidacy and she squeaked out a victory. A final point: I'm sure it's true that the guides can sometimes feel barbed to the candidates, but if they are unable to deal with the stress of campaign guides it's a good indicator they are ill-suited for committee work. --JayHenry (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Even if you consider you are "far from a power user", I read your guide (and every other credible guide) to see what concerns you had before preparing mine, what issues you and others had covered, etc. Sometimes I agreed with you, sometimes disagreed, and sometimes you raised issues I wasn't aware of. Just saying, but I 'spose most voters do the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Which goes to the point I intended to make. The claim was made elsewhere that the guides were a tool of elite users or some such. On the contrary, they were a democratizing little thing. Jehochman says above that they are views of non-representative users. The only particular sense in which I'm "non-representative" is that I made the effort to write my views down and tried to show they were reasonable. --JayHenry (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Precisely so... I find your guide very useful and I'm sorry to hear that you won't be doing one this year. We disagree about stuff from time to time but I find your approach reasoned and reasonable. I hope you change your mind. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Lar here. JayHenry, I too found your guide to be interesting and useful. I didn't agree with everything you said, but I was strongly appreciative that you were taking the time to think about the candidates, and articulate your opinions. I hope you will make another guide this year! --Elonka 14:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it seems like the consensus might be to put up a disclaimer, something like "These guides represent the personal views of their authors. If you write your own guide, you may add it to this list by clicking here". Can we agree to that? Jehochman ^Talk 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I read this as a consensus for insiders who publish guides and other election insiders defending thier own positions. Of course these individuals wish to uphold their own importance. I think many of these users lost sight of the encyclopedia a long time ago. Polargeo (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

JEH: gladly. ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, other than seeing your name frequently pop up around ArbCom cases, I don't know anything about you or on which side of the bright line of ethics, scruples and integrity you fall, but "many of these users lost sight of the encyclopedia a long time ago" gives me a pretty good indication. I haven't endorsed anything here except that I want my own "opinion" left in my userspace, and one past guide writer brought off-Wiki issues to Wiki to malign Jehochman. Who are these "many users" you refer to? I agree that there is limited consensus for anything above, since most of those opining so far are guide writers. But I will add that minimizing the guides will only increase the sort of back channel campaigning that went on with John Vandenberg's election, so I prefer to keep my views very public where everyone can see, judge and respond to them, and discourage the sorts of e-mails that I don't like to receive. Fact is, history shows that well-known users will be on the receiving end of lots of e-mail around election time, so guides help keep views public and minimize backchannel campaigning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

At least private voting takes some of the wind out of backchannelling. Tony (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have enough evidence to know if that's true. It could be that I got less objectionable e-mail in the 2009 elections vs. the 2008 because private voting was used in 2009, or it could be because people knew I would speak up if I got the same kind of e-mail in 2009 that I got in 2008. I do know that I am very concerned, already, about backchanneling in 2010 for one potential candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

I judge there to be consensus above in favour of listing the guides centrally, and no significant opposition to a disclaimer; accordingly I have updated {{ACE2010}}. Some outstanding questions:

As conditions for having their guides centrally listed, should we require or encourage guide writers to (i)include a disclaimer, such as can be seen here? (ii)follow some pre-established standards (no inappropriately personal remarks, keep it relevant, no campaigning by proxy)? (iii)include {{ACE2010}} so that readers are linked to the other editors' guides?

I think we should encourage the third, no strong opinion on the other two. Input welcome, Skomorokh 11:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh 11:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for updating my temp page, Skomorokh; if any other centalized decisions are made (that I may not keep up with), please feel free to add them there. To the monitors, I hope that you will apply the following to guide writers: off-Wiki business stays off Wiki. It is unscrupulous and morally unethical to bring private e-mail or chats to a guide, knowing the ethical candidate cannot reply without divulging e-mail or private correspondence (which by definition would mean we don't want them serving as arbs, where confidentiality is a must). If that happens again this year, I hope you all will put a quick end to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Skomorokh: (iii) yes; (i) and (ii) probably not. Tony (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good standing

Am I an editor in good enough standing to post a guide? I added a link to the template then removed it when I realised there could be questions. The template states "These guides represent only the views of their authors; editors in good standing are invited to write their own and include it here." I intend to post a fair, honest and reasonably balanced analysis of the candidates but obviously I wish to get this issue sorted out before I spend some considerable time doing this. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

see discussion. Skomorokh 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)