Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:02, 5 November 2010

• WT:ACE2010

v t e 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Results Candidates Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Voter guides These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion. Aiken drum AGK CT Cooper DC Ealdgyth Elonka Heimstern Lar MastCell Ncmvocalist NuclearWarfare Offliner Piotrus Polargeo Privatemusings RegentsPark Rschen7754 SandyGeorgia Secret Short Brigade Harvester Boris Vyvyan Ade Basterd WereSpielChequers Wizardman Satires Volunteer Marek Geometry guy

Schulze method

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

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

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

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

Nomination Period

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

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

Watchlist notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secret ballot again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two more questions need to be addressed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skomorokh 11:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Requests for help by co-ordinators

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

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

FT2  02:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Added. FT2  11:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Getting the voters out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are eligible to vote in the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections 2010! Link to election pages

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

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

Thank you

Your friendly Bot <name>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion period

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election guides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Common sense prevails when reading anything so there's absolutely no need to put disclaimers and what not for such guides (such a disclaimer can be put in the box which lists all of the guides, but that's not the election guide writers responsibility). If a candidate has a problem with what someone else says in their guide, that candidate can either: (1) approach the user who wrote the guide, (2) write a comment on the talk of the user guide (which is what most people sensibly do anyway), or (3) create a page in your own userspace with "responses to the election guides". It's not a good idea to attempt to silence people from outlining their views (and possibly why it is they came to those views) to the Community, particularly in the case of (1) a secret ballot and (2) users publically opposing/supporting certain candidates who they think are unfit/fit to be an arbitrator. If an editor is particularly angry about something that a candidate has done in the past or is still doing in the present, then the questions need to be asked so that the Community can understand the root of the problem. If there's extreme material, we'll deal with it through the usual means (rather than some election personnel). In any event, arbitrators who have been (directly or indirectly) advocating for nonsensical interpretations of WP:CANVASS (in more than one venue) may want to reconsider whether they can afford to do so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• The election guides of years past have definitely varied in quality, but I think they are generally helpful. If we end up using a bot to notify every en.Misplaced Pages editor of the election, then the guides may help some editors make decisions on who they vote for. I'm confident that the majority of editors are intelligent enough to perceive which guides provide insightful commentary and which ones don't so much. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I sorta think this is a non-issue. Let the community be a... community. Let people express themselves. And yes, collect links to the guides and place them in a centralized location. Consensus can only have value after healthy discussion and/or debate by a fair sampling of voices... • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Vocalist, your concerns may be satisfied by the creation of a centralised page for discussion on candidates. There are major advantages in locating discussion on each candidate in a place where the community can see all, without the need to go digging around in dozens upon dozens of talk pages. Tony (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Given that election guides aren't acually a discussion but a place where an user expresses their own views and why it was they voted a certain way, I don't understand what advantage you're talking about. We already have a so-called "centralized discussion page on each candidate"; election guide writers used that page and noted that they supported/opposed the candidate with a link to their election guide (unless my memory has failed); this was what happened when they voted in an open election. If an user wants to discuss that vote, they can continue to do so on the centralised discussion page which is why I don't think anything has been consolidated in the section below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't see the problem with having a place where the election guide comments can be put together. I do see a problem with users being strongly encouraged to go to an individual guide of a user they know by having it in the template. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Consolidating ideas

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides/Elonka

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides/SandyGeorgia

etc?

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

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides/Elonka

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Election guides/SandyGeorgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Community decides how things are supposed to work in this election by consensus; if certain users want to change something, they had an opportunity to propose it in the RfC that was opened for that purpose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • • "Everything that isn't expressly permitted is forbidden". Are you sure that's right?  Roger 10:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Everyone else needs to get a Community consensus to change the process, but Roger Davies & Co. have been appointed by the Community to do whatever they like. My bad.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that is a good way of killing the conversation. However, is this not a discussion about election guides and not the election process per se. which is what the RfC was focussing on? Polargeo (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Yes it does appear that the RfC was focussed on the actual mechanics of the voting rather than the punditary (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure) Polargeo (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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