Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

How it works

Hi, could somebody please explain to me how the election process works. Let's say we have 21 candidates for 11 sits. Let's say from 11 candidates, who got the most percentage of support versus oppose votes 5 candidates have less than 50% of supports. Would their nominations still be successful? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure precisely what you mean, but here's how it has worked for the past few elections: whatever happens with the outcome of the vote, the final decision on how to fill the seats is ceremonially left to Jimbo. He is constrained by the following principles:

• Successful candidates are appointed according to their ranking in the poll (so, for example, the best-supported candidates get the longest terms).
• Candidates are ranked by their percentage of support, calculated as supports/(supports + opposes) (note than neutral votes have no effect).
• The RfC preceding this election established as a non-binding suggestion that only editors who achieved net support (i.e. at least 50% support by the above metric) in the most recent election may be appointed to ArbCom.
• The previous year's RfC established consensus that ArbCom be composed of 18 members, elected to two-year terms (note that Jimbo has liberally interpreted the latter principle) .
• As things stand, there will be 12 vacant seats on the Committee at the end of this year.

So the main question is what is to be done if there are fewer than 12 candidates with net support. At the moment, that is up to Jimbo to decide. I suggest that a community discussion be held to minimise drama surrounding the inevitably unsatisfactory decision.

P.S. If people think these items ought all be mentioned on the election page overleaf, do say so. Skomorokh 19:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. It is strange that to become an admin one need 2/3 supports votes I guess, but to become an arbitrator less than 50% might be enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the 3rd point, 9 two-year terms are up for grabs this year, as well as 2 one-year terms (to fill vacancies left by resigning arb who's terms expire after next year's election) DC T•C 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not necessarily gospel, and as the second RfC linked above indicates, quite a few editors would prefer to see uniform two-year terms to curb the unbalancing effect of resignations. Skomorokh 22:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I think it was actually my suggestion that two people have one year terms. The support for it was almost nonexistent, and at this point even I see the virtues of uniform two year terms. I don't think there's been a single year in recent memory without resignations or disappearances, or at least a long term absence. If we have 11 successful candidates, and they stay active and as members for their full terms, I'd be surprised. Sven Manguard _Talk 18:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My view on this is that 2 year terms work well, but only if you stick strictly to exactly half the seats being up for election each year and accept the unfortunate necessity of a prematurely-vacated seat staying empty for a whole year (plus the time from when the seat was resigned). If that had been in place this year, there would have been only nine seats up for election, not eleven, thus reducing the pressure to find enough candidates to have a viable election. The idea that a two-year seat vacated early must be filled at the next election is not actually that logical. It also unbalances the field from year-to-year, as you may have 10 excellent candidates ones year, but only 9 seats, and another year with 10 excellent candidates and 11 seats. As a caveat to this, I would say that if a seat is vacated before it has been held for 6 months, then an interim appointment should be made, and/or in the next election a separate election be held just for a one-year term to fill that seat. You might even get more candidates coming forward for the one-year election than the 2-year election. Carcharoth (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

probably a stupid question but...

...is there any special regime (Election silence) for the candidates just before or once the elections start? Are we still allowed to answer questions or to add an additional statement for example?  Dr. Loosmark  23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as far as Q&A and discussion go, the fun continues until the end of voting. I'm not sure what you mean by adding an additional statement, but the word limit at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Loosmark/Statement for example still applies, and speaking personally I think it would be poor form for a candidate to substantially alter her statement this far into things. Skomorokh 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh but I don't want to alter my statement, I am happy with it. What I wanted to do is to address some aspects which I couldn't within the word limit, I mean by linking to the original statement. I agree that altering the statement during the elections would be poor form. Anyway, thanks for answering.  Dr. Loosmark  13:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I don't think anyone would object to you adding a link or two here or there; the guidelines explicitly allow for this. Skomorokh 14:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No special restrictions on voting just because you're a candidate

A rumour is going around that candidates should not vote, on moral or ethical grounds. Let me dispel this immediately. Candidates are perfectly welcome to vote; any candidate who has ethical issues about voting for themselves, please let me know and I'll recommend a consultant psychiatrist in their area. Tony (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they could find one on the wiki? Privatemusings (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

O har har...could see that one coming a mile off :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. This is consistent with Robert's Rules of Order. There is no common prohibition from voting for oneself. Some candidate may have done so in the past, in the era of public voting, to avoid the appearance of over-eagerness but that was unnecessary.   Will Beback  talk  13:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In the pre-secret-ballot era, candidates usually avoided voting in order to avoid the potentially-awkward situation of being elected along with a candidate they had opposed, and having to somehow put that expression of mistrust aside; sitting Arbs generally abstained for the same reason. In a secret ballot, that is of course not relevant. Happy‑melon 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Arbs or potential Arbs are Wikipedians too, so it is just as important that they have a vote in the election process as any other Wikipedian. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

HM, I'm sure I recall (some) candidates' voting openly against their colleagues in just the situation you refer to, in the times of public voting. To digress a little, it's another reason the way we vote is our own business nowadays. It applies equally the relationship between the Comittee and the community. I'd not be comfortable as a party in an arb case knowing I'd openly voted against the drafter of the decision. Tony (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and it was often a source of Drama™. Now there is, as you say, no such concern. Happy‑melon 15:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, everybody is certainly entitled to their own opinion, but what about conflict of interest which such voting inherently puts candidates in with current system of voting? Should candidate vote 'oppose' to everybody else (to get themselves elected) or to vote according to the merits of the other candidates? Looks as a rather clear conflict of interest to me (and as I understand, dealing with COI is what ArbCom members are expected to detect). Ipsign (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I still see the problem, but given the replies I agree that it is probably not an individual problem, but a systemic one, and will probably try to push an idea of prohibiting candidates to vote (after this vote is completed, as SirFozzie has suggested). My argument for such prohibition would be avoiding inherent conflict of interest. Ipsign (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the "oppose other candidates to get elected" issue is a problem we need to be worried about. First of all, we should assume good faith. Secondly, assuming roughly 1,000 voters (wasn't it around that number last time?), the vote of each candidate amounts to 0.001% of the vote. I suppose it is possible that it might matter in circumstances where the difference between a candidate getting 2 years, 1 year or nothing is a single vote, but I think this is unlikely. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss it after elections (given the responses, I admit it was a mistake on my part to raise it during elections in the first place). Just one note: if I understand it correctly, during ACE2009 margin between last elected and first non-elected was just 8 votes (or "votes of just 4 people was enough to overcome it"). Ipsign (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

0.1% is 1/1000. Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeez yes. Sorry. Total brain fail on my part. I need at least a thousand fingers to perform complex math like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• As volunteer election coordinator, I have removed several attempts to improperly discourage voting by a qualified editors. Ipsign is entitled to their opinions and may debate them here or in another proper venue. However, they should not spam their opinions and taint the question talk pages of the candidates with chilling accusations. Everybody who is qualified is encouraged to vote, including candidates. Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  While I certainly disagree with definition of "improperly discourage voting", I have no problem with discussing this whole issue after the elections (apparently, it is not individual one but a systemic one); actually, before you've removed my comments, I've already crossed them out. Ipsign (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  I see. Thank you for that. Let's keep the discussion centralized. Here is a good place for now, though I think the discussion has gone as far as it can. You should probably take this up in the post-election feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

About post-election feedback: this is exactly my intention. Ipsign (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ipsign has obviously never seen the pictures of US presidential candidates casting their votes on polling day. Or does he imagine they are honour bound to vote for the other guy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly widely considered bad luck to vote for yourself... but not as bad as the feeling of not doing so and then losing by one vote... :D Happy‑melon 01:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That happened to me in the AUSC elections, didn't vote for myself and lost by one vote. Didn't feel that bad though. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would see this as an opportunity to question the candidates. Ask them the following question: "Do you think candidates in an election such as this should: (a) not vote; (b) vote just for themselves; (c) vote for themselves and oppose everyone else; (d) vote for whoever they think are the best candidates? The trouble is that everyone will answer (d), but some will actually do (c). I suspect the only solution may be to ask for the voting system to be tweaked so that candidates can only vote support or neutral, and are not allowed to oppose. People often compare these elections to real elections, but it is the presence of "oppose" voting that complicates most matters. Move to a "support"-only system, and most of the problems disappear. Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Guides written responsibly and in good faith"

Tony and Skomorokh, I'm reading the general election page and seeing this sentence about voter guides: "All guides written responsibly and in good faith are welcome for inclusion." No doubt meaning, also, that if they're not written responsibly and in good faith, they're not welcome, right? I have a concern about Elonka's guide, in which she goes out of her way to insult Jehochman, who she regards as a personal enemy — that's something she has made very clear over a long timespan. In her candidacy comment on PhilKnight, she writes "In terms of his administrative work, I have observed and interacted with him quite a bit in areas of arbitration enforcement, and I have been concerned by his support of disruptive editors such as ChrisO and Jehochman." NuclearWarfare and I have independently of each other asked her to remove her aspersions on Jehochman and the other user (I don't know if ChrisO is also an "enemy" of hers, but presumably so). Calling these users "disruptive" in passing like that is fairly awful. It isn't even relevant to a voter's guide; it's not like they're candidates. Elonka just seems to be having a bit of fun. I hope she removes the silly attacks promptly next time she's editing, and sees our comments. If not, perhaps you'd like to have a word, and possibly also give some thought to the status of her guide with respect to the template. I post this for your consideration without waiting for her to turn up, since it's already very late in my timezone; I need to go to bed; and the time these guides are relevant to anything is intrinsically quite short. Bishonen | talk 02:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Never mind. I removed it myself. The adjective is negative and ad hominem. Our basic AGF rules prohibit it and hence removed unequivocally. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cas. Bishonen, I agree; the reference was inappropriate under ordinary behavioural guidelines (soapboxing springs to mind). These pages are supposed to enlighten underinformed voters, not serve as a god-given platform to air grievances. While a certain amount of respectful negative commentary about the candidates is an inevitable part of an effective guide, there is no call for casting aspersions on other committed Wikipedians. Skomorokh 11:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh, you write above that these guides are supposed to enlighten underinformed voters, but is that really so? At least in my case, with a few exceptions, most of these "guides" simply oppose me because I am not an admin. It seems to me their purpose at least in part is simply to perpetrate the old mantra that non-admins are bad candidates for the ArbCom. And it just show how deeply wikipedia has sunk that writing utter nonsenses such as "Not admin, Oppose" is considered enlightening underiformed voters. In my opinion these "guides" should be renamed to "opinions about the candidates" because that's what they are. And I question the sense of having them linked on the official webpage about the elections. Usually when I go to vote I don't get a guide for whom to vote next to my ballot.  Dr. Loosmark  14:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a happy medium would be that editors can write whatever guides they like, but these guides should not be given Wikipedia's imprimatur by being linked from all the election pages. I don't know of any real world polling place that hands out voter guides. This is a matter that could be debated after the election. Nothing is going to change until next time. Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Jehochman and Loosmark on this one - real elections have plenty of pundits, but voting according to the instructions of one person is known as a 'slate', and is generally considered a bad thing. I would also agree with Loosmark in the next thread. Why on earth should anyone expect an editor to get into trouble for reminding other editors to vote. Come to that, since this is a vote (a real one), why are candidates not allowed to canvass. Packing out a husting to shout down the guy on the podium was a problem with open ballots in the 1920s - we've come a way since then. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the guides is to allow individual voters to express their opinions in a single location, and the template provides ease of access so that other voters can easily peruse the different guides. If an opinion would be legitimate to state on the talkpage of a candidate, then it should be legitimate to state in a guide. --Elonka 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions pages

Is there a reason why Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Questions is not a collection of transclusions of the questions pages like the discussion and candidates pages are? It would also be helpful to have a list of all the candidate question pages in one place, and more prominently linked, as currently to get to a candidates question page, you have to click on the candidate statement and then the questions link. I'm concerned that not everyone is actually managing to find the questions pages before voting. Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Size. But it can be done. Skomorokh 11:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe at least a listing of candidate question pages when people click on the "questions" page from the template, rather than the template listing of the questions? Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A fine idea; I've reworked the questions page accordingly. Let me know if you had something else in mind or further suggestions. Skomorokh 21:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Encouraging others to vote

Couldn't find any guidelines for this. Are editors allowed to encourage others to vote in the election if they think they would be interested, or is this not how things are done? I've been here for four years and I think this is the first time I've voted and I was wondering whether to give a reminder to a few less experienced editors then myself to vote (only people I know who's editing I have a lot of respect for and vice-versa). Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The promotion for these elections is embarrassing. There is nothing, null, nada, ZERO. I'm ready to bet 90% of editors don't even know there are elections going on or have no idea what is the ArbCom. Maybe they see the word "ArbCom" and think WTF is that? For the last what, 2 weeks, I see a big pic of Jimbo asking for donation every time I join wikipedia. Why is there no banner advertising the elections with a link explaining what is the ArbCom!?  Dr. Loosmark  21:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, this was discussed, and theoretically someone is supposed to place messages at several predetermined locations. I will say consensus was definitely not in favor of having a bot place a message on everyone's page. I would think, in answer to Shake's question, that if you were to post a personal message on the talk pages of a few editors you know, and you're not trying to convince them to vote in any specific way, that it would be okay. If you're messaging everyone you know, that might be a different story. As to Loosemark's concern, I would certainly hope that if someone doesn't know what ArbCom is, they either a) learn or b) don't vote. I am all for wide participation, but IMO, just about any remotely seasoned or experienced editor knows about ArbCom. I'll go nudge the person that was supposed to place the messages. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Messages have already been posted on several different noticeboards, and there is a watchlist notice for it already. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sven Manguard, I want to ask you something, how many editors have the right to vote and how many do actually vote usually? Is the voter turnout for past elections published somewhere?  Dr. Loosmark  22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The results from last year are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009. The actual list of voters was at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Voter log. If you do some checking, I'm sure you can find other years. As to how many have the right to vote, no clue. I don't think there's a list. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You can view the list of users that voted by clicking on the list link for any of the elections listed here. For ArbCom elections anyone may vote as long as they have 150 mainspace edits and are not blocked I think. Hope that helped, Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs} 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As to how many have the right to vote, no clue. I am not surprised... the page about the Arbitration Committee comittee claims about the Arbs, quote: They are volunteer users—usually experienced editors and administrators—whom the community of editors at large elects to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite. The description is IMO misleading in that the editors never make it to the ArbCom, only administrators sit there. The claim that the community of editors at large elects is at best debatable. I suspect the reason why the voter turnout number is swept under the carpet is the number is embarrassingly low.  Dr. Loosmark  22:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is actually not the case. There are already 321 voters for this years ArbCom elections according to [1]. I have noticed that people are more likely to oppose non-admins running for ArbCom. I assume that this is just because, especially these days, becoming an admin is a really big test of how much the community trusts a user. Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs} 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There were around 1000 votes total last year, IIRC. –MuZemike 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr R00t, what is actually not the case? I don't understand. I want to know how many editors have the right to vote and after the elections I want to know the voter turnout number. Is that too much to ask? Even Saddam in Baghdad had these numbers (obviously in his case rigged), are you trying to say we do not have them?

As for becoming an admin being a test of how much the community trust a user, ROFL. Be serious man, the only way you can become an admin these days is to keep a low profile, avoid any possible conflict area, make no enemies, fight vandalism and some babble about helping the project. So the community doesn't even know who are they trusting. On the other hand once you spent some time editing in any problematic topic area your chances in a RfA are next to nill ;)  Dr. Loosmark  23:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So now we're Saddam Hussein? I don't appreciate this comparison, and I'm sure you can find someone with toolserver access to give you the full list of eligible users. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments everyone, seems I've started quite a debate. I do have to agree that the term "Arbcom" is off-putting to newer users and more needs to be done to explaining things. I've never felt inclined to vote before and that would suggest that things need to be made simpler.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakehandsman: the comments here have noting to do with you. They have taken a turn from your original intent and in my mind I hold you in no way responsible for any of it. I hope your question has been answered satisfactorily.

Loosmark: I asked. There are people with toolserver access that can generate that information. It will be worthless. Let's do some math and find out why:

> There are just over 13,000,000 registered accounts:

> Of those users, some are socks, some are vandals, some are doppelgangers, some are legitimate alts, and none of them would be able to vote.

> Of the legitimate accounts, some are new, and don't meet the 150 edit threshold.

> Of the eligible accounts, only so many are active. I have no intention of counting that number, but you can, it's at special:activeusers. Keep in mind that the list linked there dosne't account for the factors I'm listing above or below.

> Of the eligible, active, accounts, many people are content workers, who do lot's of good work in the artile space but don't want or don't need to have anything to do with the underling processes. They are not likely to vote, even if they know about the voting.

> Finally, of the eligible, active, and interested accounts, some people are away for American Thanksgiving holidays, and will miss the voting stages.

I think you ask a valuable question. I think you deserve an answer. So go figure it out! In order for you to answer your own question, you will need to spend hundreds of hours and cross reference a half dozen lists, but the question is certainly worth it. Of course, I, having seen the results from the previous elections, am guesstimating that roughly 1000 people will vote this year, give or take 50 people. I'm also guessing that the number you come up with will be somewhere within the same range. Enjoy the searching, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I asked someone to run a query on the number of eligible users (NOT accounting for inactive accounts, alternate accounts, etc.) and the number is around 170,000. Of course, I also estimate that about 1,000 will actually bother to vote, based on previous years. I hope this satisfies your question, Loosmark, because there's no exact way to tell. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OTOH I expect that most people will vote on the last couple of days. Candidates are still answering quetsions, and it takes time to digest and explore all candidates' record and views. I intend to vote on the last day. And I agree that people who know little about ArbCom should not be encouraged to vote. The best think ArbCom can do is to make itself as little known as possible. As for admins vs editors, I think another reason people tend to vote for admins is because a fair amount of administrative and dispute resolution experience is required for Arbitrator's role. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(...is thought to be required). And in last year's election over 500 people voted in the first three days (about 1,000 people voted overall-see Special:SecurePoll/list/80). DC T•C 04:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody who tried to answer my question. I have to say this: I am totally shocked by the estimate provided above. Only 1,000 out of 170,000 eligible users are expected to vote!? That's bloody 0,5% for crying out loud. What kind of bizarre elections are these? I disagree with the wiki logic demonstrated by BorisG above, in a free and democratic elections one should encourage as many voters as possible to vote, deciding that the great majority of editors does not know enough to vote is weird to say the least. And I totally disagree with the idea that the ArbCom should make itself as little known as possible!?!?!? The ArbCom should be known to as many editors as possible and elected by the largest possible majority of them!  Dr. Loosmark  11:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr Loosmark, if I've never agreed with you before, I agree with you now. If we are going to elect people by a ballot of users, then we need as many users as possible to vote, and feel they are involved in the organisation. I'm sure it could be said of half the population of the UK that they don't know enough to vote, but we don't deal with that by restricting voting to men of the moneyed class any more.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is how "active" is defined-- 170,000 "active" users is highly dubious. In fact, the 1,000 number makes sense to me-- that is about the number of active, involved, knowledgeable editors, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. Comparisons with the election of a democratic government are misleading. Wikipedia is neither a government nor a democracy (though some processes try to be democratic). ArbCom is not a government, though some think it should be and some think it shouldn't be. Probably a better comparison is a group of active editors (numbering about 1000) appointing a board to deal with dispute resolution. Something like the elections to appoint District Attorneys, or police chiefs (or commissioners), where those positions are electable, comes to mind, rather than the election of a government. Does anyone know how the turnout for those sort of elections compare to national elections? Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - I don't know where the large figure comes from either, but I have seen it said in many places that Wikipedia has a core of about 3.5k editors. I suppose 1000 from that is about the same turnout in a UK local election, but in the UK they saturate the place with election advertising to achieve even that. I can't help wondering whether if we did more advertising of the elections, we'd get more regular editors voting. As it is, those who don't go near the noticeboards and don't know anyone who is involved in the process, may not get to hear about it. That's one advantage of allowing canvassing - the candidates get the message out - but my gut feeling is that too much of the community gets too much canvassing from politicians back home to ever want it to be allowed on Wikipedia. Discouraging people from advertising the election, or encouraging people to vote, is not the right answer either thought. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A bigger problem, IMO, is why we have a Committee of 18 to adjudicate such a small number of active editors and a dwindling number of cases. We do *not* need a committee of 18 in the current environment, and I hope we don't see appointments of members with low support percentages (say, less than 65%) just to fill up the Committee to an unnecessarily large number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so long as there is a vacancy filling mechanism. I fear if we went to 12, normal attrition and a major scandal causing three or four arb resignations would bring us down to a number where the remaining arbs might throw up their hands. I agree with Sandy on the low support issue. we are electing arbs to do things that are effectively irreversable and have access to sensitive information, with a support level much lower than admins, whose work is often like building sand castles with the tide coming in, since any admin can reverse the actions of any other admin, subject to WP:WHEEL. As I just agreed with Sandy, that is a sign of the Apocalypse, so as the world is coming to an end, it's a moot point.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a smaller committee can handle the current workload, but I think over 55% is acceptable, and the RfC seemed to indicate (IMO) that over 50% is OK. I don't think anyone with less than 50% would enjoy the confidence of the community, even if Jimbo did try and appoint them. My view is that it is better to leave seats empty, but retain the size of 18 in case the committee workload increases (this might happen if various reforms to delegate tasks ever get implemented). Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Only 124 editors participated in the RFC (versus about 1,000 voters), and support was for 60%, not 50%. I am very troubled by arbs being appointed which half of voters don't support, and that it is easier to become an arb than an admin. We don't need a pre-determined size (like 12 or 18); we just need to see where a natural break occurs in voter support tallies. In the last two years, we went unnaturally low just to fill up the Committee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Sandy Georgia: how would you know how many editors are knowledgeable? Who has the right to make that call?

How big is your watchlist? How many editors do you see doing most of the work across a broad spectrum of articles? I guess if it has to be spelled out for you, that answers the question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have over 3,000 articles on the watchlist and I am unable to judge how many editors are knowledgeable just by observing how much work do they do. In facts I have seen some morons doing a lot of work and some very intelligent people doing relatively little work. So we are back to square A1, how do you make these calls?  Dr. Loosmark  13:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually much simpler-- there are probably about 100 editors doing most of the real work on articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Carcharoth: the official line given on the ArbCom page is that "the community of editors at large elects the ArbCom". And it makes sense, since the Arbs are supposed to arbitrate to everybody, not just the selected 1000 elite ones, they should be elected by everybody. It's as simple as that. I am not buying this 99,9% of the community is not knowledgeable, not active, not whatever enough to vote. Inform them about the ArbCom and you might get positively surprised.  Dr. Loosmark  13:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The time to move for changes to the number of arbs, the voting system, etc, is next year. Not too late next year, either. Tony (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tony, that's not the point. Loosmark isn't talking about the number of arbs or the voting system. What he's saying is that there isn't enough advertising to encourage people to vote, and that shouldn't be something that we need an RfC on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost coming out in a day and a half (if Sko and I get time to write it ...). We have already decided on the timing of a round of ads aside from the SP exposure. Tony (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the time is now-- the RFC called for 60% support, and the RFC was always poorly formulated in that it didn't allow for mutually exclusive or unforeseen events. An unforeseen event is a committee of 18 made up of members who are only marginally supported. In which case, we should go back to the more important 60% support that the RFC also supported. A good arbcom is better than a large arbcom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would refuse to stand if I don't get at least as much support as David Cameron. Srsly, why are we doing this to ourselves again. Regardless of whether I get elected or not, my New Year's resolution is to get a proper 'how to run an election' document drafted up, and a proper discussion about it started. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Loosmakr, I did not suggest voting should somehow be restricted to active editors, however defined. However I do think many editors do not know much about ArbCom, and this includes many delligent contributers. If you edit an uncontentious area, you will hardly encounter any disputes, let alone ArbCom. Why on earth they need to worry about ArbCom? We are building encyclopedia, not some government structure. Everyone can edit and the majority does just that. (Nearly) everyone can vote, but trying to force everyone to vote (like we do here in Aus) would be ridiculous. I know you have not advocated this, but encouraging people to vote on something which they are not interested in sounds totally unnecessary. To vote with confidence, one needs to spend many hours exploring record and views of every candidate, and this will disrupt your editing if not your sleep. To give an example, I have never been interested in these elections before, and I don't think it was bad for me, for the community or for the project. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BorisG, I appreciate that you probably mean well, but that set of comments leaves me speechless. I appreciate that in the real wiki-world, Skomorokh and Tony are actually making significant efforts to publicise the election. Your idea that good content editors need not trouble their little heads about how the project is actually run is simply appalling. The whole concept of Wikipedia is that everyone can become involved. That includes giving them the choice whether or not to become involved in the elections. That does not include giving important decision making processes such a low profile that only the select few ever find out about it. There is no area of the encyclopaedia that does not have the potential to become contentious - a minor edit war was going on the other day over at Mince Pie. Any editor may accidentally stray into the territory of a bullying editor that can only be removed by an Arbcom case. It is naive to assume that editors do not need to know about these thinks. The least we can do is to give them the choice not to want to know about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads is right, all I am saying is that the elections should be publicized more. BorisG, you are wrong above when you assume that me or anybody else wants to "force" editors to vote. What I would like to see is the majority of editors being informed of what the ArbCom is and that there are elections in progress. Then it is up to them.  Dr. Loosmark  16:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just make the watchlist-notice bigger (font-size: 20px; padding: 20px;). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bigger, bolder and in the same fungoid green box as all the other election notices. Even when I went looking for it, it took three goes before I actually saw it (mind, my eyesight isn't so good these days.....:)Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have checked my watchlist like 7 or 8 times since the elections started and never noticed the notice was there. The unnoticeable notice :P  Dr. Loosmark  20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, guys, I am not against increased publicity, but I am not appaulled by low turnout either. And to dispell any notion that I am promoting some elitist view, let me say that I put myself into this second category of editors whose vote may not be useful. In the last few weeks I have spent countlewss sleepless nights (it is bloody 3 am here in Melbourne) trying to explore candidates's record, their answers, voter guides, asked my own questions etc. I still feel that I am only scratching the surface and will be unable to make an informed choice. If you are not a 'seasoned' insider, it is a duanting task! And I am an interested person, if only marginally! How on earth one can make this choice if they have only passing knowledge of ArbCom? If you know a solution, please let me know. It is a lot harder than in any political election because there you usually have to choose among candidates from a handful of established parties. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to do a round of reminders tomorrow to catch weekend editors; suggestions welcome. Skomorokh 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Timing of resignations

Noticed this on the front page: "Thus, the election of 12 new arbitrators is expected, provided no more sitting arbitrators whose terms will not expire at the end of this year resign or are removed before 31 December 2010." I'm not sure the bit from "provided" onwards is correct, as voters in the past have complained bitterly about not knowing how many vacant seats there were (this was more the case when you could see how many people were likely to obtain a seat, but is still the case under this voting system as some people try to support x candidates, where x is the number of seats available). But more than that, I don't think that there is any precedent for how to deal with arbitrator resignations between various points such as the end of voting, the announcement of results, the appointment announcements by Jimbo, arbitrators taking up their seats, and the date of 31 December 2010. My view is that once the announcement of the new arbitrators is made, it is not right to go back and change things and any subsequent resignations should not be accepted until 1 January 2011. I also think that the cut-off point for resignations should be fixed in any community discussion that follows these elections (Steve Smith resigned one day before voting opened, which in my opinion is the latest any resignation should be accepted, given that we have no control over when such resignations are made). It was unfortunate that some candidates withdrew before voting started (stating in some cases that they thought there were enough candidates for 11 seats), their decisions may have differed if they had known Steve Smith would be resigning. H. J. Mitchell withdrew at 01:52, 24 November 2010, N419BH withdrew at 23:11, 24 November 2010, Steve Smith resigned at 05:36, 25 November 2010, voting opened at 00:01, 26 November 2010. The other consideration is that nominations closed at 23:59, 23 November 2010, so the timing of resignations in relation to that might also be something that a subsequent community discussion would want to consider. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In UK and US elections, there is a cutoff isn't there, and any seat which becomes vacant after the election process has started must be filled by some other process (in the UK it's a byelection). We should have a cutoff, because its all very well saying "no resignations", but what if some poor Arb goes under the wheels of a bus? (Hopefully never happens, goes without saying). We shouldn't suddenly be saying "we'll elect 11 oops, make that 12" because as you say, it throws the whole thing into doubt. Would people have resigned?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, it's hard to stop an editor from resigning. What's the worst about the current situation? Tony (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No one can stop an arbitrator resigning, for whatever reason, at whatever time. The question is, how far into the process can a resignation's empty seat be filled in that election? Happy‑melon 17:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Insisting that arbs don't resign until the day after polling finishes is not the problem. The issue is that if we have advertised that this election is for x arbs, it is not reasonable to announce on the day polling starts, and after certain candidates have withdrawn on the grounds that we now have sufficient nominations, to announce that it has gone up to y arbs.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Elen. And as I have stated, there should be an election to fill vacant seats coincident with the functionary elections.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur also. If more than 11 places are filled as a result of this election, we need an RFC. It would be preferable to avoid such drama (unnecessary strife) preemptively by restricting the number of places to 11. Who knows, if there had been 12 seats available I might have been tempted to run! Geometry guy 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Until a firm community-derived solution for conducting the elections is reached, the elections remain for better or worse ultimately advisory, with the appointments left in Jimbo's hands. As such, statements as to the number of vacant seats and expectations as to how they are filled do not constitute binding constraints. Skomorokh 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Posing questions for former and current arbitrators

For full transparency and disclosure, I'm stating here that prior to casting my vote I've been reviewing the statements and questions and answers relating to current and former arbitrators standing in these elections, but doing so from my perspective as a sitting, and soon-to-be-former, arbitrator (my term expires at the end of the year). I've decided to do this following the discussion here. I've also disclosed this to the rest of the Arbitration Committee so they are aware of my intention to do this. I am doing this in part because these elections have a large number (seven) of current and former arbitrators standing, and I think that it is important that for such candidates both the public and non-public part of their service as an arbitrator is reviewed, and that any claims made by the candidates about the non-public part of their service as an arbitrator is corroborated or questioned (as the case may be) by their colleagues at the time. I'm hoping other former (or soon-to-be-former) arbitrators will also comment about the record of the current or former arbitrators standing in these elections. I've contacted these seven candidates by e-mail, asking if they are willing for me to ask them questions on their questions page and its talk page, and I'll ask questions there as I get replies. Later in the week, to avoid an excessive focus on former and current arbitrators, I'm planning to ask the other candidates questions based on my experience of what the role will involve if they are elected. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Question - revisiting the Special:SecurePoll/vote/130 page, without submit?

Question - If one were to revisit the page, Special:SecurePoll/vote/130, without hitting "submit", a 2nd time, does just the visit itself set all prior votes to "neutral", or is the vote from the 1st time still recorded, and not changed until one hits "submit" a 2nd time? -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to click submit to cause anything to happen. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks. That is what I thought, just wanted to make sure. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Abstain votes" and consideration of election process here

The instructions say that "Abstain votes are not counted." Given that there is no voting option called "Abstain," the meaning of this is unclear to me. The ballot is what's called in voting circles a Range 2 ballot, where there would be five possible votes:

1. No vote at all, voter has expressed no opinion on any candidates. In this case, this might be moot; in cases where some absolute majority is required, this kind of abstention can have an effect.
2. No explicit vote on one or more candidates, but voting on one or more others.
3. Oppose.
4. Neutral.
5. Support.

There are three possibilities for the meaning of "abstain votes," we can eliminate the first above, leaving two. The question is whether or not "Neutral" votes will be "counted." The decision-making process is not explicit, which is an error, because how people vote does depend, in reality, on how they understand the process, the effect of the vote. Formally, this vote is only advisory, but how the "advice" will be presented is important.

(The decision being made by this election is how to present results to Jimbo, not the actual appointments.)

Before I vote, I'd prefer to know specifically how "Neutral" votes will be treated. Will they be reported? Will they affect the ordering? --Abd (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

extended discussion of the voting process and possibilities. Long. Abstruse for some. --Abd (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an Approval voting process, as described on the project page, as to how results will be presented, except that the issue of majority consent is not addressed. In any organization operating under Robert's Rules (and other rules of parliamentary procedure) no election is effective unless supported by a majority of those voting, and "those voting" includes all ballots cast. In public voting decisions, where voting on multiple options is allowed (such as multiple conflicting ballot questions), the option prevails which has the highest Yes vote, not the one that has the highest Yes/No ratio, which would warp results toward more confusing or lesser-known options, where people abstain because they don't know enough to form an opinion for or against. The same ballot could be used as a Range 2 ballot, which I saw used in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election by CBS for polling. The poll used Yes/Neutral/No format, and it did predict the results of the nominations very well, as well as the ultimate election result, when most polling at that time failed rather badly. In a Range 2 ballot analysis, Support would have a value of +1 vote, Neutral a value of 0, and Oppose a value of -1. However, the results are reported as numbers of votes in each category, not as merely the sum. The sum does create a kind of ranking, but doesn't, for example, indicate whether or not there is majority support for an option. When "majority" is not considered, you can have an outcome that is actually opposed by a majority, plus a possible loss of an outcome that would win any two-candidate contest. The largest problem here is the use of what is similar to Plurality-at-large methods for what might be, alternatively, a kind of proportional representation. Plurality-at-large will over-represent the majority, it's easy to understand. The majority could, if organized, elect only candidates acceptable to it, insuring that all other candidates gain no seats. Of course, the voters here are not organized, presumably, but the same phenomenon occurs spontaneously, to some degree. Minority views tend to be suppressed with this kind of election system, which is not conducive to accurately representing community consensus. For the future, if we were to decide that a more representative ArbComm is elected, we'd do well to consider Asset voting. Yes, that article was deleted. Even though the idea of Asset is over 120 years old, that name is modern and there is only one non-notable election that's ever been conducted using Asset, the election of a steering committee, a year ago, for the unincorporated Election Science Foundation, with 17 voters, that elected a three-person Steering Committee through a process that ensured that every voter was fairly represented on the committee. No wasted votes. That's a trick that no other election method can approach. The result was not as expected, no other voting system would have, from similar or more detailed ballot information, elected the same commmitee, and the result would have been more majoritarian and less fully representative. The actual criteria for appointment to the Committee is best reserved, in the present case, for Jimbo, until we have some better option (it could be a WMF Board decision, for example), but what we should be seeing ourselves as doing is presenting Jimbo with clear data on which to base an informed decision. Given the nature of the ballot, this is the data that should be extracted and presented. For the election: Total number of ballots. Blank ballots (i.e., any submissions without votes for anyone). For each candidate: Total number of Support votes. Total number of Neutral votes. Total number of Oppose votes. Percentage Support/Total number of ballots. Absolute net Support: (Support - Oppose)/Total number of ballots Specific support ratio: (Support/(Suppport + Oppose) Rating: (Support - Oppose)/(Total number of votes for the candidate) (of all three kinds of explicit votes) In what order should the candidates be presented, then, in the list? As stated in the procedure outlined, it seems that it would be "Specific support ratio," which is problematic because it could rank a candidate highest with only one support vote and no oppose votes (100% specific support ratio). For a fuller understanding of the election, one would want some deeper consideration. The simplest method that could be used would be Bucklin voting. A proposed application would be this: Consider only the Support votes. Rank those with majority support ("Percentage support") in order of the vote counts. Then add to these votes the "Neutral" votes, and add in the remaining candidates in order of the totals, indicating when the "majority approval" threshold is passed, i.e., the listing is no longer of candidates approved or at least considered acceptable by a majority. Generally, electing any of the latter would be offensive, unless it is being done to represent a minority faction. But this process could still elect a candidate who would lose a pairwise comparison, using the ballots, with a candidate who won. So to go deeper requires looking at the individual ballots to determine ranking. (The data can still be, with any method I'd recommend, compiled as a summary using a matrix, whereas with the equivalent of Instant runoff voting, it's more complicated, and, still, a beats-all winner, among remaining seats to be elected, might lose. For each candidate pair, determine who would beat the other, i.e, by being ranked higher on more ballots than the other. "Elect" candidates, i.e., add them in order, to the list to be presented, who beat all other candidates. If there is a Condorcet cycle, order them by absolute net support within the cycle members. Each time a candidate is elected to the list, devalue all remaining ballots whose votes were used to elect that candidate, so that excess votes remain active for selecting further seats. This is, so far, similar to Single transferable vote. And, really, there are piles of considerations which should be reviewed to choose the best election method for our use. Many think that Arrow's theorem denies the possibility a best method; however, Arrow's theorem disallows the use of a multivalent ballot as an assumption, and, as well, the possibility of equal ranking, both of which are characteristic of the present ballot. There is an alternative formulation of the Arrow's Theorem criteria which has been shown -- it's claimed, the math is horrific -- to suggest a unique social ordering, in an article which was about what they called Rational Utilitarianism, this was Dhillon and Mertens, and the method is basically Range voting, voted by voters according to Von Neumann-Morganstern utilities, which, in short, is what people call "strategic voting." I.e., don't cast useless votes! Long story.... The present ballot, with the same number of options, could be used for a better analysis if the explicit votes were not as shown, but were Prefer/Good/Accept, with Oppose being the default if a ballot is cast with no vote for a candidate. A quite simple process could be used if those who receive votes can publicly re-cast them if those votes are not used for their own election. In this concept, this would be a Proportional representation election and there would be a quota to be elected. So if one has votes over the quota, one could recast those votes to help someone else reach a quota. Or if one does not have enough votes, one could pass votes on to others to help elect them, or similarly, receive votes to be elected. In this concept, no votes need be wasted, this is Asset Voting. It's important that the re-voting be public. Lewis Carroll invented what was later called Asset Voting (quite recently) in order to address the problem presented by Single Transferable Vote -- he was the prime 19th century theorist on STV -- that most voters did not have enough information to rank more than one or two candidates. With Asset Voting, one can simply vote for the candidate most trusted, and let that candidate negotiate how the vote will actually be used. --Abd (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The election co-ordinators will be able to provide a definite answer, but what I think happened here is that whoever wrote the documentation considered "Abstain" and "Neutral" to be synonymous (not everyone has in-depth knowledge of voting system terminology). To answer your specific question, as far as I'm aware, the results will be reported as they were last year, with (IIRC, though someone should be able to link to last year's results) the neutral votes reported along with the supports and opposes, but the percentage will be calculated as S/(S+O). Someone does need to double-check that is all correct, though. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth. A problem I see with the current system is the assumption that votes should be ordered as described, not necessarily the most accurate social ordering that could be compiled from the data. If total ballot count is V, a truer measure of of social ordering would likely be S/V, with S/S+O having an obvious defect. (This is a common debate among those studying Range Voting, whether to use absolute Range, where the "score" is simply the sum of votes -- Range Voting allows fractional votes, in effect, and the Range usage of the present ballot would count "neutral" as one-half vote -- or to use Average Rating. Those who propose average rating realize the problem, so they propose various Quorum Rules, to require some minimum approval rating or number of persons who have rated a candidate.) Range analysis (sum of votes, with "Neutral" having a value in between Support and Oppose, could be 1, 0, -1, or 1, 0.5, 0, or 2, 1, 0, it doesn't really matter) is theoretically best for social utility approximation, single-winner, and for a list would show the overall relative acceptability of each candidate.

I've never seen a clear discussion of the philosophy behind the use of polls like this to determine ArbComm membership, the largest elephant in this living room being that the method shown under-represents minorities, so ArbComm does not fairly represent true community consensus, necessarily, but rather majority opinion. --Abd (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think User:Tony1 (one of the current election co-ordinators) has commented before about the voting systems. Maybe ask him? You might even be able to suggest an article in the Signpost about voting systems? Be careful not to send the readers to sleep though. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Irregularities with candidate Loosmark

The English wikipedia checkusers were informed this morning of possible irregularities with Loosmark's editing, and after multiple checkusers, who neither currently serve on ArbCom, nor are currently running for ArbCom, have investigated the issue, it is clear that Loosmark has been running multiple sockpuppet accounts for a long time, apparently evading various sanctions as well as outright dissembling to the English Wikipedia electorate.

The socks have been tagged and indef blocked, and the Loosmark account has been blocked as well. Decisions with respect to the continuation of Loosmark's candidacy are left to the election volunteers and the community.

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have verified Avraham's CU results above, as, I understand, with several others. The community is reminded that, per the requests for comment held prior to this election, candidates are not allowed to withdraw from the election. It should be left to the community as far as whether any other actions should be taken or any other sanctions imposed. –MuZemike 21:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As one of the checkusers conducting these checks, I further confirm these results. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Are the community to have access to the details of the sockpuppets? Don't worry I see them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved and non-Arb (and largely disinterested, to be honest) checkuser, I can also confirm these results as stated here - Alison ^❤ 22:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevant page is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(Own comment removed,  Sandstein  22:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

Probably out of place to make any recommendations whatsoever since you're both candidates. There are plenty of non-candidate eyeballs on this. Just saying. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think that I am out of place to make a mere recommendation in my normal capacity as editor and administrator, but since you think otherwise, I've no problem with removing it.  Sandstein  22:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Sandstein is the one who placed the original sanction that was evaded, it is eminently appropriate for Sandstein to bring this to the attention of uninvolved administrators. I think it would be appropriate Loosmark's block to one year as a matter of arbitration enforcement under WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. He's been socking to evade a six month topic ban. The matter is further compounded by Loosmark lying in the candidate statement where he did not declare any of these socks. So we have WP:SOCK, WP:DIGWUREN and WP:GAME violations of a very serious nature. If the community wishes to consider an site ban, I would also support that. Jehochman ^Talk 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, this place is awash in socks, and we all know it. They come back time and time again. I, at least, am straight about it. nb: LM was certainly not going to get a vote from me simply on the face of things. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This aside in no way is intended to minimise the seriousness of this discovery, but just a funny thought that your comment triggered in my memory: This reminds me of the old joke that only a small number (6?) of people actually edit Wikipedia. We're all just socks of the 6 : ) - jc37 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<joke>ya, I already have six seats on the committee and expect to pick-up at least four more, this time. I'm every CU, too.</joke> Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(unrelated, but I just suppressed some edits here. Forgot to log in and revealed my IP. Derp!) - Alison ^❤ 22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Should this information be placed on the candidate's discussion page? I'm struggling to think of the appropriate thing to do here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, visit WP:AN ;) I don't believe we can remove the account from the voting, but do believe the name can be changed to something such as 'blocked troll'. Jack Merridew 22:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine here, and I think the candidate should be removed, this is a special circumstance which warrenties removal of the candidate. Secret ^account 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably not the right person to say this, but I think you've either got to remove him or put the information prominently on his discussion page or somewhere similar. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

While I do agree, unfortunately the ballot cannot be modified once voting has begun. Loosmark will remain on the ballot, but as many voters will almost certainly change their votes now, he is essentially out of the race. In the extremely unlikely event he is still a top candidate, remember that this election is only to determine who we as a community recommend Jimbo appoint to the position - he reserves the final decision on the matter, and I don't see him appointing someone who controls several dozen accounts. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is inaccurate, Jimbo has agreed that he is bound by the election results. It'd be pretty silly otherwise ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic, yes, but then other options remain. Both ArbCom and the community could act in such a hypothetical case (not so hypothetical, as this might not have been uncovered until after someone was appointed to the committee). ArbCom would certainly act, and failing that, the community would act. So this is either an argument that a benevolent figurehead is not needed, or it is an argument that such a figurehead is needed. YMMV. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OH, you guys are discussing this. Well, I already linked to this section moments ago. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010#Election process #1, he is not a valid candidate. So why can he not be removed? - jc37 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because there are restrictions on what it is possible to change in SecurePoll once it has been set up. Presumably to avoid tampering with the results. From what I know, it is a black box from the moment voting starts until voting ends, and you can't dig around inside it while voting is in progress. I believe you can change the viewing interface, but not much more than that. Again, the election co-ordinators (or a developer) should be able to say more. Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we differentiate between "unable to change the ballot papers" and "candidate will not be allowed to stand". If a candidate in a UK election goes to jail 48 hrs before the polls open, we might not be able to reprint the ballot papers, but he can't be elected, and votes for him are discarded. I understand the issue with Secure Poll, but can we determine whether he is barred from standing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the upcoming ban should take care of that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think so to. So it's back to, should the election organisers note somewhere on the candidate pages that the candidate has been banned from Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

don'-worry,-be-happy... Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That should do the trick :) :) 40 socks. Bloody hell! Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is someone that can be contacted to change the secure poll name, I think. Sko and Tony are the people that have dealt with secure poll. I will say though that there is currently a one year block for violating the terms of the EE ArbCom page, and an indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. The pending site ban will change little in that technically, even if elected, he cannot serve on the committee. I will send a message to Sko and Tony about contacting... Roan... I think it is. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The number of options in the poll can only be changed by a Wikimedia sysadmin (Roan is our friendly local shell user in that respect); but no such change can be made at this stage without risking corruption of existing votes. The names of candidates can theoretically be changed (effectively re-localised in a similar vein to MediaWiki: namespace system messages) by the election administrators: MBisanz, Mr Z-Man and myself. However, as was established prior to the start of the process, no changes to the ballot will be made until after the close of voting. That was originally intended to refer only to candidates who wished to withdraw themselves, but applies equally to candidates being forced to withdraw. Also consider that Loosmark has not, in fact, withdrawn; rather we have a number of other editors asking us to withdraw him against his will; you would not wish us to comply with such a request for other candidates.

Of course that is a false analogy because no other candidate is in such a position; but that is in fact the entire point: this is an entirely academic exercise because there is now zero chance of Looksman being elected, whatever we put on the ballot paper. The community will not support him, Jimbo will not appoint him, ArbCom will not accept him. There is no need to burn the rulebook to heat the snowball in hell. Happy‑melon 00:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interjecting out of place to say I concur with HM that while we could strike his name, we agreed beforehand not to do so for withdrawn candidates and that I don't see a compelling reason to revisit that decision in light of the current LM matter. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm anally retentive. I want there to be a rule about this. :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Now the real question is: What will happen if they get enough support to take office? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it will not matter, as they are not a viable candidate, so any votes for or against are automatically considered neutral and discarded. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, can we distinguish between 'cannot reprint the ballot paper' and 'candidate will not be allowed to remain standing'. When this election closes, first thing I'm going to do is write a draft for the rules of the next one. There is a reason the committees of Working Men's clubs have 2 inch thick rulebooks. All this does is make us look like a zoo. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CREEP. He was found out, there is no way he will ever be on ArbCom, he's about to be banned. The problem is solved. There's no need for a new rule as our existing system is dealing with it already. Less Bureaucracy More Common Sense Solutions. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If I thought it was dealing with it, I'd be happy. But once we decided to go down the road of a ballot rather than consensus, we've tied ourselves to needing that flippin' rulebook. Avi has said the same as me - even if we can't reprint the ballot paper, we discard the votes. But Hersfold said that Jimbo wouldn't appoint the candidate, which Privatemusings disagrees with, while Carcharoth offers an each way bet. In the meantime, without clear authorisation in any procedure, Seb and Jehochman both stick a notice on the candidate statement, while Happy Melon says we ought not to be forcing him to withdraw. I don't want to descend to 'point of order chairman' levels, but this makes us look like a zoo. I don't think it's helped that Tony and Sko are having a (well earned) night off, and everyone is doing their best, but even so..... Anyway, there's nothing more to be done tonight, so I'm for bed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter as there is near unanimous support for a full site ban. He obviously cannot be on the committee if he is banned. Consensus will win the day and he will not be allowed to serve even in the extremely unlikely event that he had enough support to be elected. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This specific set of events aside, I think I would have to agree with EotR. This should at least be clarified in the rules (policies/guidelines/whatever) better than it is now. - jc37 01:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've compared the list of socks with the real-time voting log and none, including LM, have actually voted, so the Election Scrutinizers will only have to muck about with legit votes that occur (including all the other loose sock farms, of course). Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Of note, the election co-ordinators have already indicated that there should be an RFC for next year's elections after this year's election process has been completed. However, and this is the big however, it is entirely dependent on community participation and willingness to act. After last year's election, there was an RFC, some suggestions were made that *nobody* followed up on, and the RFC that confirmed that we would use SecurePoll this year was so late in coming that there was little time to assess community views on other election-related proposals. Just because everyone agrees in January what next year's rules will be, doesn't mean that everyone in October will still agree. Let's not make any grand promises of next year's election until we get through this one, please. Risker (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we make a placeholder page for next year's RfC, and note some issues to be brought up when it does open? --Elonka 04:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever works, Elonka. It's probably quite reasonable to have something of a debriefing/RfC shortly after the election, but the time for finalizing process issues, particularly if SecurePoll is to be used again, is July or August. That way, there is sufficient time for the developers to make requested modifications (such as the ability to return to one's prior vote without having to start from scratch), but not so much lead time that there is a lot of room for changes of opinion. It's a suggestion on my part, because this is a community process, not an Arbcom one, but it's in everyone's interest that the little things are taken care of in advance so that everyone can focus on the candidates instead of peripheral issues. Risker (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been off-site all day with RL work, and Sko is not around for at least another few hours. In my view, there is no reason for drama: the candidate will be site-banned and could not take up a seat on ArbCom even in the event s/he were among the 12 most successful candidates in the tally (that's not going to happen). A rule change is unnecessary, and the election admins have provided reasons that changes cannot be made once the vote starts. Yes, SecurePoll, true to its title, is a "block box" until the close of voting; at that time, and not before, a button appears that says "Tally", which will be used by the scrutineers. The community is robust enough to cast this off as an unfortunate blip. Tony (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Having Jimmy Wales do the appointments resolves this and all similar problems. If there is a late breaking revelation that shows a candidate to be unfit, Jimmy will not appoint them no matter what the election results. There is no need for any formal rule. Jehochman ^Talk 09:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is important to remember, and the situation makes a lot more sense if you do, that the ballot is not the entirety of the election process. The ballot produces as its outcome a list showing the extent of community support for each candidate. How Jimbo translates that list into a set of appointments is an entirely separate concern; if anything, this incident highlights why we should not codify that second process any further than we already have. The application of WP:IAR and WP:SENSE must always be allowed in there to handle out-of-the-blue incidents like this.

So in this academic exercise, all we are considering by asking "should we leave him in the ballot" is "should we produce a measure of community support for him?". We know that he is inelegible; we also know the general form that the results are bound to show. There is really no need to worry that leaving him on the ballot is somehow leaving him the chance to be elected. Happy‑melon 11:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Having Jimmy Wales do the appointments resolves this and all similar problems.". Bollocks. This line of argument by Jehochman, Happy melon and others is understandable, but simply reinforces the idea that Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales' personal fiefdom (if indeed it ever was, and if indeed it was ever something that Jimbo desired). I thought we had moved away from the notion that appointment was by fiat. We will only grow up as an organisation if we accept responsibility for making decisions and setting rules. It's not that hard, really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed, or rather, doesn't answer the question that you think it does. There is indeed a debate about how much dictatorial control Jimbo does, or should, have here, and how that level has changed over time. That is entirely tangential to the fact that having Jimbo appoint candidates gives the opportunity to avoid being battered with our own rulebook when unexpected situations come to light. The fact that having Jimbo as a benevolent dictator provides such advantages, does not imply that such a leader must ipso facto be a good idea (and hence that if you do not accept the latter, you must also reject the former, as you suggest). You can argue that Wikipedia should "grow up" and move towards a more rule-based system, without denying that Jimbo currently fills the corresponding gap in our 'infant' structure. To justify labeling that quote as bollocks, you would have to show that even in the benevolent dictator system, the problem is not solved. You're arguing that we either have, or should have, moved away from such a system, which (if true, and I don't think you've properly demonstrated that it is) renders the question moot, not false. Happy‑melon 20:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have the theoretical possibility that the community could elect someone who then identifies to the office as being 15 or an AI experiment, unlikely but in my view more likely than Loosmark getting elected whilst blocked. In real life I don't worry that candidates such as Lord Buckethead or Ms Whiplash might get into the house of commons, why worry about this chap? I wanted provision in the process for candidates to withdraw if they so chose, but I see no reason to kick someone out who will probably come last anyway. ϢereSpielChequers 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

While this incident may be resolved, clarity is needed for everyone's sake, Jimbo included. In the last few years, we have rapidly moved towards a system in which Jimbo's constitutional role, beyond being a highly influentual and respected editor (and I am one of many who respects him), is similar to that of the Queen in the UK: as an unelected head of state, she can only intervene if the fate of democracy itself is at stake.

Having Jimbo as a safety net is not an excuse to walk the tightrope without the right training or equipment. We should do everything we can to make our practices robust enough that Jimbo's intervention is not required. While it may be clear that a community banned user is unelectable, we do not want to turn to Jimbo when an elected candidate has a block log longer than your arm: that is a matter for the community. In order to be a "benevolent dictator" (the quotes indicate that the title is just a role) Jimbo needs to know the parameters, so that he only intervenes with his constitutional hat where such intervention is strictly necessary and not contrary to the community view. Geometry guy 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That's precisely the point I'm making. Yes, we have a get out in this situation, but let us learn from it, and create something that means next time we can just point to it and say "X applies", whether that's an arb quitting the day polling starts (we still don't know whether we are electing 11 or 12 candidates - there seems to be no agreement on this) or a candidate getting the heave ho while the election is in process). Yes, we will still need Jimbo for those occasions when the fate of the project is at stake, but for everything else, we can come to an agreement as to process - or at least what considerations should inform a decision. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think an RfC on various matters concerning ArbCom and the election is virtually inevitable by the middle of next year. This will be aside from the referendum on the new ArbCom constitution (i.e., the policy), which I suspect will be early in the year. Tony (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Number of voter guides == Number of candidates

I find the fact that we now have 21 candidates and 21 guides to the candidates quite humorous. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of an election where there weren't mote people that expressed their opinions than people running for office.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Expressing an opinion is one thing, but even counting issue-advocacy junk mail, I never receive more than 2-3 voter's guides per real-world election, which typically contains 10 or more races. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In the real world you have a dozen newspapers, each noisily giving their own assessments. We don't have that. – iridescent 10:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voting guide to the template. How do I go about that? Thanks, Geometry guy 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Election's over hombre, sorry. Skomorokh 00:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got no objection to Geometry guy adding his guide to Template:ACE2010. --Elonka 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, was I too late? :) Geometry guy 01:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Voting closed at midnight UTC, so about an hour and a half ago. But I still think it's worth adding your guide to the template, for future reference. It's not unusual for folks to go back and read guides from previous years, so it'll be good to have yours in the mix. Better late than never! --Elonka 01:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it passes the "all guides written... seriously..." bit of the template :) but I don't mind including it if you think it does! Geometry guy 01:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) PS. Luckily I voted a couple of hours ago.

Candidate guides, recusal and canvassing

Q1: if one posts a public voting guide (like the ones listed here), declares that s/he is voting "oppose" on a given candidate and that candidate is nonetheless elected, would this be a sufficient ground for this candidate to recuse him/herself from the case involving the editor who posted this guide in question?

Q2: is it possible to offer similar guides off-wiki, in private, or would that constitute a violation of WP:CANVASS? To be clear, I don't mean a call "you should vote thus and thus", but an explanation "I have voted thus and thus because...", just like the public guide pages listed above (but disseminated privately, not publicly). In other words, if one of the authors of the linked guides decided instead of making it public to send it to several editors, would he be violating WP:CANVASS? The appropriate section of the policy is Wikipedia:CANVASS#Stealth canvassing. The policy states: "the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications". Would a concern about making powerful, public wiki-enemies be considered "a significant reason"?

Q3: would an off-wiki notification that one has made a public on-wiki voting guide be a canvassing violation?

Q4: would an off-wiki notification about the very elections be a canvassing violation?

For a few days I've been thinking about making a voting guide myself, but I am afraid that if I make one publicly, I will make some enemies, and if I make one privately, I may violate the canvassing guideline... I'd appreciate your thoughts.

PS. I do believe that majority of arbitrators (and candidates) would not pay attention to how one has voted, being above such petty considerations. However, there are always exceptions - humans are just humans, in the end (and eliminating prejudice from elected to electors was one of the major rationales behind the secret ballot, which we have adopted a while ago, with the very same rationale - see statement by CBM and Statement by Seraphimblade for proof that I am not alone in this line of thought). Even if only one out of twenty arbitrators is influenced by the "who voted for/against him", that's enough. Not only have I seen several important arbitration votes swung by ONE vote; I have also seen, on one occasion, a (former) arbitrator react very strongly to being asked (in private) if s/he should not recuse, and using this (private) request as a justification for several proposals/votes.

As a counter argument, I can see one saying that a voter posting a public voting guide and declaring his/her votes relinquishes his rights for vote privacy. If we don't want to give them protection in form of guaranteed recusal (which could be potentially abused), this further suggests to me that they should be allowed to exercise their free speech and express their views without running afoul of the canvass policy (otherwise, the situation is "stay quiet, or be damned"). Comparing the situation to the real world, this latter version seems better: in non-totalitarian regimes, one has the right to discuss real world politics and how one votes in private; presumably, one should have the same right with regards to the wiki politics (or is wiki a regime where one has no right to discuss politics in private?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the last 3, but the first one shouldn't be grounds for recusal. DC T•C 19:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No. 1 could be gamed too easy. Demanding recusal on that point alone would let me make a guide opposing all the candidated likely to be elected. If I did that now then again next year within 13 months I could demand a full 2/3rds of arbcom recuse from any action agaiinst me. (Not that I'm accusing you of this, just the possible consequences.)--Cube lurker (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for my own guides, I know that some of the candidates have watched them closely, and even participated in discussions at the talkpages. But I have no expectation whatsoever that any candidate should recuse from cases involving me, because of what I did or didn't say about them on my guide. Think of it this way, too: In previous years, all votes were public, so a candidate could easily see everyone who opposed them. It would not have made sense for any candidate who became an arbitrator to then recuse because someone opposed them in an election. Next, regarding Piotrus's desire to create a guide: I encourage you to do so! I think that the more guides, the better, and I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts. --Elonka 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll go ahead and create a guide with some positive endorsements. I am still not convinced about the wisdom of making negative endorsements publicly, though. I cannot see how it can hurt (me) for people to see who I support/respect/endorse, but I still have qualms about possible grudges from people who will see me criticizing them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

From a candidate's perspective: I have yet to see anything (about me, anyhow) that would make me want payback in the least (Lar called me terse, wah!), and in any case I think the people above have it right that it could be gamed. Voters guides are what they are: the opinions of single contributors representing a surprisingly broad segment of the community. I don't really consider the last questions to necessarily be a violation of canvassing, although I confess that I don't see any good reason for crafting guides and soliciting comments off-wiki for an on-wiki process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I don't see any good reason for crafting guides and soliciting comments off-wiki for an on-wiki process". To recapitulate from my post: "a concern about making powerful, public wiki-enemies". And while I agree with you that majority of arbs and candidates are unlikely to bear a grudge, there are surely some editors out there, myself included, who are hesitant of trusting those in power too much. Frankly, a clear statement - from the community, sitting arbitrators, and candidates - that one can discuss wiki-politics in private would do much to alleviate such concerns (in retrospect, it would've made a good question to the candidates - "do you care if you and your election bid are being discussed in private"). The candidates who don't care, are the one unlikely to bear a grudge; those who do... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

For myself (I can speak for none other) I take the view that if successful, I would have been elected to provide a service for the whole project (a bit like a politician has to represent everyone in his constituency, not just the ones who voted for him). If someone gives a reasonable ground in their opinion for opposing, I would hope if elected to overcome that objection and prove I could do the job. If not elected, I'll almost certainly have forgotten about the whole thing by Xmas anyway.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much what Elen said. Given the relative quietness of the discussion pages, the more guides the merrier really. The elections are weirdly quiet compared with when I ran seeing the votes mass up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a guess, but that could be a side effect of the secure poll, and from the other side, of the new "rules" regarding questions and such.

While this doesn't represent my feeling, I can indeed imagine others thinking: "If my voice (in the civil way I wish to present it) is not gonna be heard, why participate?" - jc37 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the guides, I think that they exist is fine, but I really dislike that they are linked in the template. "Here's how I voted, and you should too". And to me, having them in the template gives a pseudo-sense of endorsement of the opinions on those pages by the election committee. I realise that's not the intention, but that's how it comes across. (And yes, I can read, but you can place as many disclaimers as you want. Having them directly linked as part of the election template puts that idea across.)

Wouldn't it be better to have them listed on a page somewhere and have a link to that page in the template instead? It still gives access, while (hopefully) at least removing the sense of endorsement. - jc37 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of the template because it gives ease of access. And I'm not too worried that anyone is going to look at a single voter guide and think, "Oh, I'm expected to vote this way, I guess I'll toddle along and vote without thinking." I'd like to think that most people who are taking the time to vote in an ArbCom election are smart enough to use the guides as what they are, just some data to help them make their own decision. If I do have a worry though, it's that some guides might be created as a kind of WP:COATRACK to support a particular unsuitable editor. For example, a very disruptive editor with a long block log might run for ArbCom, and then a bunch of his friends get together and make seemingly independent guides where they all support him. To an outside observer, it might look like there was strong community support for the disruptive editor, whereas in reality it was just an illusion created by his friends. But again, I have to trust that the people reading the guides would be smart enough to see that, and if they see a guide that is supporting an obviously inappropriate candidate, then they'd know that the rest of that guide should probably be taken with a grain of salt as well. --Elonka 00:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this an abstract worry, or did you have a particular concern for this election, seeing that there were three candidates with significant block logs at one time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

More of a hypothetical. I haven't seen any indication of throwaway accounts creating guides. Of the 22-odd guides we've got so far, about half have been created by admins, most of the rest are by well-established users (5K+ edits). There are a couple that are by less-active users: One by an alt of an account that is no longer active, one by an editor with only about a thousand edits, but I don't see anything nefarious going on. I've also been doing some number-crunching to see if the amount of data in the current guides is in any way a predictor of how the actual votes turn out. It'll be interesting to see the similarities and differences! Based just on guide data, so far you're coming in 5th, btw.  :) --Elonka 06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I agree its something that might be an issue for a future election (who'd have thought we'd have a candidate with a 40 sock farm in this one). I think the guides are useful when linked to some kind of criteria used by the editor who drew it up, less useful when it's just a vague "seen him/her around" type comment, but each to their own. AGK says he doesn't read anything that the candidates write, which is a novel approach. 5th! eh. I'm a bit worried that one of the guide writers thinks I'm a hobbit though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I could give several diffs for each of my statements as my guide mostly rests on my view of contributions and my thoughts on how these show the candidate's potential as an arb. I just don't think that a high level of structure works well in my guide so I have purposefully kept out diffs and detailed criteria in favour of carefully considered images which I use to portray the candidates (I think yours is quite flattering). If you want to see a guide written with an FA perspective go and look at SandyGeorgia, If you want one with a BLP perspective go and look at NuclearWarfare. There are guides for everyone. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I do like your pictures, I must say, and I do know your guide is based on a view of contributions. I think there's something for everyone in this set. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(to Piotrus's original concern) The point of the secret ballot is that you are not obligated to make your preferences known in order to have your vote counted, not that you are disallowed from expressing your opinions on the candidates. Choosing to make an election "guide" places you in no greater peril than simply voting before 2009; nor would I expect any elected candidate to be vindictive towards those who did not vote for them (or at least, said they would not). I certainly paid no heed to who had voted for or against me in 2008, and would not have recused on that ground. — Coren ^(talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think negative statements, on election guides or elsewhere, could, but should not, influence opinions of the Arbitrators. Recusal is unnecessary. In any event we have more than one Arbitrator. I mean we do have some trust in the Arbs, don't we? - BorisG (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)