Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Number of voters

I'm curious about community participation in this election, as compared to previous years. Is there anyone who'd be able to use their magic programming skills to figure out how many Wikipedians voted for/against one or more candidates during the last 2 elections plus this one? I'm not sure about anyone else, but I have the sense that voter turnout is down this year. Risker (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Last year the numbers participating were artificially inflated by people coming to vote for/against Giano who didn't comment on any of the other candidates, so I'm not sure how accurate a picture that would give. "The numbers of regular contributors is down" isn't really news; someone (I think Dragons Flight, but don't quote me worked out a bunch of participation stats, which are somewhere in the WT:RFA archives. – iridescent 17:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

True, although they may have also been artificially inflated by the number of people who came by to vote in support of Newyorkbrad; that was over 500 people right there. Perhaps a better metric would be number of people who voted (total), with separate tallies of number of people who voted on just one candidate page and number of people who voted on two or more candidate pages. I'll see if I can find those statistics you mention, thanks. Risker (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tricky, as one also has to compare this with total number of users, active users, admins, and active admins, I would imagine (?). I'd be interested too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We'd have to hammer down what we consider "active." Plenty of wikipedians who put plenty of bytes to pages whos name we'll never encounter I'm sure.--Tznkai (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no need to differentiate between users and active users; anyone who was qualified to vote would be sufficient. For that matter, no need to differentiate between users generally and admins specifically; we all get the same vote regardless. The only question would be how many users were qualified as of the established date; someone could probably run a script to find out. Risker (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The AccountEligibility tool is not considering all cases; my User:Moby Dick account is 'eligible', but I'll not be seeking to use it ;) ^{(see also)}

There must by a huge number of accounts that are technically 'eligible', but a great many must surely be dead accounts that whomever has long since abandoned or lost track of. This leaves some sort of 'activity' criteria as needed to determine the true proportion of the community that voted. There are plenty of radical ideas one could consider; nag messages for active editors who've not voted? An edit governor? Anyway you look at it, turn out is low. The single largest factor is likely to be that most editors never get anywhere near the sort of issues the run across rfar daily. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vote page comments by those ineligible to vote

I feel that comments on the vote pages by those ineligible to vote should be removed, and their names simply added to a list at the bottom of the vote page, whether they support or oppose, under the heading "Ineligible voters". The comments could simply be removed, or with a diff of the removal, or a link to their user page with the comment moved and a reminder that they are ineligible. They can of course still take part on all the other pages. Verbal chat 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the comments by UltraExactZZ in the section above on Eligibility. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a new discussion and a new proposal. Verbal chat 20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It could (also) apply to the next election, which was the dual aim of my comment. Sorry for not making that clearer. Verbal chat 22:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you describe why we should do this, as opposed to simply indenting the votes as we have done in the past? What is the benefit of your proposed method? Avruch ^T 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that any such commentary should be moved to the talk page, where indeed any un-banned, un-blocked user is free to contribute. If commentary appears on the vote page itself and is not accompanying a valid vote, it is superfluous and should be moved to talk, per normal procedures. The benefit of the method I suggest is that it keeps "talk" on the talk page, rather than on the vote page. The vote page is for valid votes, optionally accompanied by short comments, possibly with very brief rejoinders. Franamax (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A valid point, but I'm not sure the problem presented by superfluous commentary on the voting page is enough to warrant a change - in this case, normal procedure is to indent invalid votes but leave them on the page. Avruch ^T 13:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, current electoral policies seem to encourage negative campaigning to continue right inside the voting "booth" as votes are cast, giving undue influence to passion in efforts to sway uninformed voters. This does not facilitate civility in other areas of Wikipedia. Better to have a straight vote counting supports without comments or opposes. The actual vote should count for more than the opinion justifying it. It is, after all, the number of votes that determines who wins, not the excess verbiage. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility

Mervyn Emrys vote has been stricken from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana but he complains that the eligibility tool shows him eligible.[1] The tool is clearly incorrect here as munaul counts show less than 100 mainspace edits and no deleted contribs. I can't fidn the error in the debug output. If this is an isolated case we should just appoligise and move on, but if it's a systematic thing we should not link a faulty tool from the vote page. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored the vote, but may have mis-read the main space part. Whoops...self-revert. RxS (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any mechanism for giving someone the benefit of the doubt in borderline situations? I agree with the minimal requirement to keep out obvious sock- and meat-puppets, but in Mervyn's case, he seems to be a genuine good faith editor who just spent more time on talkpages than actual articles. He did have over 200 edits prior to November 1, though he's just shy of the 150 mark for article edits. But as we all know, he could have been easily gamed this if that was his goal, by just making multiple small edits rather than a few large edits. He appears to be a "real" person, even an actual academic. And, when he checked whether he could vote or not, our utility did tell him that he was an eligible voter. My own feeling is that this is such a borderline case, that we should allow his votes to stand. --Elonka 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In a general sense, I don't think that making case-by-case exceptions on the basis of an assessment of an editor's good faith is wise. All voting cutoffs are arbitrary on some level, but selectively enforcing them makes them even more arbitrary. In this specific case, I'm a bit puzzled as well since the editor's userpage indicates he's retired and contains a lengthy complaint about and farewell letter to Wikipedia. I'll note for disclosure purposes that 2 of the 3 disputed votes agree with my own. MastCell ^Talk 05:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this editor's votes don't coincide with mine either (for example, he's supporting Jehochman, and I'm opposing). I also agree with MastCell that a certain cutoff is necessary. However, we did set up an automated "are you eligible" utility, and he clicked it, and it told him that he was okay, so he went ahead and voted. Since the screwup was ours, and since he's obviously such a borderline eligibility case anyway, I think it's worth giving him the benefit of the doubt. --Elonka 06:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I am surprised he supported me. Might this be an off by one error in the tool? If the discrepancy is small, giving the user the benefit of the doubt may be justifiable, as long as we do the same for all affected editors. Jehochman ^Talk 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed; the query wasn't correctly limiting by date. Sorry about the confusion. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:43:23, 02 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not asking for special treatment, just for FAIR treatment of all persons, including others who relied on a faulty account checker before we wasted so much time reviewing candidates and trying to participate in a constructive manner. Seems this election has been turned into one very poor joke. Perhaps it should be called off and started over again, given the large number of persons whose votes have been invalidated in this manner. If anyone wishes to discourage people from voting, this is an effective way to do that. Just waste their time. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a helpful attitude. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In the opening post of this thread, the editor's mainspace edits are described as "less than 100" and then later, in another post, he's described as "just shy of the 150 mark." As a statistician, I have to say that the difference between 150 and "less than 100" is hardly an insignificant discrepancy, unless the first post was in error as to the number of mainspace edits. I too was subject to misinformation about eligibility; an early discussion about eligibility pointed people to a link that gave total edit counts, and I was pleased to find that I was eligible by the count I was given at that link, something like 324. But when it came time to vote, and I saw that the actual eligibility requirement is 150 *mainspace* edits, I knew I didn't have that, not even close, and I haven't attempted to vote, being sure I wasn't eligible. However, I'm interested enough in Wikipedia that I have researched all the candidates and read all the questions and answers and discussions, and have arrived at an informed opinion of who I would vote for (and against) if I could, and I don't consider that wasted time and energy. I'd probably be a good Wikipedia voter (and I'd be a good Wikipedia editor as well, if the obstacles that keep me from editing articles were made less insurmountable) but I'm willing to accept that the rules for eligibility are the rules for eligibility.Woonpton (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the reason I said "just shy of the 150 mark", was because based on my (rough) count via copy/pasting his contrib list to Microsoft Word and then doing a line count, Mervyn Emrys had well over 150 total edits, and over 100 mainspace edits. If my count was wrong, I apologize. I'm not really enthused about going through and counting by hand to get an exact measure. My point is really that our utility told him he was eligible, so he voted, and then had his votes removed as being ineligible. If this had happened in a commercial establishment where I were customer service manager, for example if someone bought something that was marked on "sale", but a different database showed it as not on sale, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the customer, and let them buy the item at the lower price as it was marked on the shelf, even if the cash register disagreed. Now granted, we're not talking about a commercial transaction here, but the general concept is the same: We set up an automated utility, which told him that he passed. So I think his votes should be allowed to count. It's not like it's going to make a huge difference one way or the other, right? Last year the candidate with the top number of votes, NewyorkBrad, had about 500 votes. So, Mervyn Emrys can influence things by his .2%, we take responsibility for the bug in our own software, and in return, we get the goodwill of an academic who may be a useful addition to the project. --Elonka 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much common sense...we must cling to rigid rules and offend as many newcomers as possible. Volunteers are an expendable resource...(the preceding comments were sarcastic) If the vote checker was wrong, anyone who was given a "eligible" result at the time they checked should be allowed to vote. This will make no practical difference in the results, but it will create goodwill. Jehochman ^Talk 18:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The way the election is set up is that anyone - any editor whatsoever - can vote and make their voice heard. Then, and only then, editors with less than 150 mainspace edits, or who are unregistered, or who registered after 1 November, have their votes indented and removed from the votecount - NOT removed from the voting page. The votes remain for the world to see as a show of support/opposition. I feel bad that a coding error ended up misleading anyone, but that's not a reason to open a loophole in counting votes that would not otherwise be counted. We had another snafu where the 1000 edit minimum to be a candidate was dropped from the election page. The result is that we have several candidates short of that limit, all of whom are permitted to run; their chances may be slim at best, but there they are. If a similar discrepancy occured with the mainspace count, then I think the vote should be counted - but it didn't. Not a great situation, but the only fair way to deal with it is to count every vote undr the same rules, which - unfortunately - disqualify this voter. On point, if we counted votes that the checker would have OK'ed, then we have to count all such votes, whether or not they actually used the tracker - since AGF assumes that they did. So all of those sleeper socks in the votes count as well. Too many problems, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

@Elonka: My point was that this was presented as a "borderline case" where the discrepancy between his actual mainspace edits and the eligibility cutoff was very small, in addition to the fact that he was given wrong information about his eligibility, and others in the discussion were saying that as long as the discrepancy is very small, then it makes sense to make an exception for this editor. If the size of the discrepancy were an important factor in the decision to grant an exception, then it seemed to me that it would matter to point out that the discrepancy was hardly insignificant. But if that line of argument is going to be dropped in favor of allowing anyone who was misled about their eligibility to vote, regardless of the size of the discrepancy, then that's fine, but by that criterion, I too should be allowed to vote, since I was also misled about my eligibility. And the problem is, where do you stop, once you've started making exceptions?Woonpton (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I never did think edit count was a great way of doing this. What if he had 149 edits at 00:00 UTC on the day? I can make that many edits in 10 mins, so it's not going to prevent anything. I would bet my house there are sockpuppets voting here. The idea of the criteria is to prevent sockpuppet votes, is it not? I'll just say then, the current requirements wouldn't stop anyone determined enough. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The criteria catches the innocent, but the guilty will game the rule. Next year we should get help from computer scientists, mathematicians, or game developers to work out the process. Perhaps the votes should be privately correlated with their IP addresses, and for good measure we can scan low edit count voters for use of open proxies. I think such a protocol would provide much stronger deterrence against socking than what we have now. Jehochman ^Talk 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say there is some discontent amongst the community over the forum for voting, and that a shift to a secret ballot (with non-public [automatic?] scrutiny of voters for sock puppetry) would be preferred. That would require tying in with the system administrators, however, with a view to having Special:BoardVote restarted (and adjusted for an ArbCom election as necessary). AGK 19:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The 150 edits at start of voteing requirement was meant to stop straightforward socking (combiened with a a requirement that accounts be 3 months old). The number was due to a bunch of at that point recent AFDs where there had been a 100 edit requirement and was meant to catch socks left over from that.Geni 19:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I count 81 mainspace contribs prior to November 1st and 2 on that date, along with plenty of Wikipedia and Talk namespace one's as well. As such this isn't a 149 spirit rather than letter of the law case, though I don't suspect Mervyn Emrys is a sockpuppet. My primary goal was to get the counter fixed so that this doesn't happen to others. As for the general requirement, it seems a good way of filtering out most socks with relatively little, though unfortunately not no, collateral damge as most newbies won't want to participate anyway. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the discussion is pretty much completed and noone is really advocating that we change the rules. The only people who still seem to be commenting are talking about borderline 149 edit cases and about private voting, which is completely unrelated to the matter at hand. Elonka suggested he may support the votes being allowed if there were over 100 qualifying edits, there are 83. We are not selling a vote, we are running a democracy. That word essentially means rule by the people, but if we elected every user who interpreted it that way to ArbCom or whatever governing body you please, we would have a rather poor government. Disenfranchising the community from the 'advertised' fair vote is as evil as disqualifying a voter who failed to meet the criteria. This is not a borderline case. Anyway, typically when there's ongoing discussion regarding a rule, we enforce the written policy until a consensus develops to the contrary. As such, I have stricken the vote. If anyone would like to make an argument as to why this voter, who does not meet the criteria nor comes close, should be allowed to vote, please go ahead and make that argument. ST47 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ST47, I believe you are misrepresenting my comments. I said nothing about "over 100 qualifying edits" being the key factor here. I said that since our software said that Mervyn Emrys was eligible, and he voted based on that, that it makes sense to allow his votes to stand. And please don't say things like, "the discussion is pretty much completed", as that is disrespectful of the other people commenting here. For myself, I was actually thinking that it might be worth starting a poll to let people weigh in on whether the votes should be counted or not, to get a better sense of who thinks what. --Elonka 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was 149 edits, the only answer would be "sorry, the software was wrong, you're not eligible". There are lots of ways to check your edit count, so any other response would be unfair to people who didn't even try the eligibility checker because they already knew they didn't qualify.

Question though: does the 150-edit requirement include deleted edits? How does one count one's own deleted mainspace edits? Franamax (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there does not appear to be a clear consensus on whether Mervyn Emrys's votes should or shouldn't be allowed, I have advised him to go ahead and vote on all the candidates he chooses to, even if the votes are then indented as "not valid". As UltraexactZZ said above, at least the votes are still listed on the page that way. If we then reach a consensus that his votes should be counted, it's easy to "un-indent" his votes. And if not, at least he's able to make comments, and we can listen to them with respect. This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, would others agree? --Elonka 01:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what we've got here is a failure to enumerate. Like ST47 above, I thought this discussion was over a while back; the only people I see arguing in this thread for making an exception for Mr. Emrys are Elonka and Mr. Emrys, and he's not arguing for an exception for himself alone, but for everyone who may have been affected by the glitch. The people who would have to figure out the logistics of how to make that work have said it's not feasible. Everyone else has argued for not making an exception in this case, especially since it's not a borderline case; in fact, the editor in question has barely more than half of the required edits. As far as the "compromise" that's being offered, it's exactly how UltraExactzz has already explained the election is set up: anyone can vote, even those who aren't eligible, so all voices can be heard, but then the ineligible votes will be indented and not counted. That seems fair to me, but it also seems to me that's what is already in place, so not sure what you're proposing that's new.Woonpton (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In my enumeration, I missed one comment, by Jehochman, that supports the idea that anyone who was misled about their eligibility should be allowed to vote.Woonpton (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The tool was broken, but the rules were clear. Only editors that meet the requirements should be allowed to vote. Verbal chat 16:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This situation does point up that it's worth discussing eligibility to vote for future elections, and I'll open a discussion below. As for this election, I think the votes should be counted [classed] as Dimpled Chads and not allowed to count. Any fudge to allow the votes would create more drama than is needed at this time. SilkTork *^YES! 10:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility of Mervyn Emrys

Please see User_talk:Lar#Mervyn_Emrys and User_talk:Mervyn_Emrys#Your_votes for background on what I am about to say. I was asked to run a CU to validate the other ID that Mervyn was using. With Mervyn's permission, I have done so. He disclosed the ID to me independently of my running the check, and it matches... the user clearly controls the other account. That ID has another 90 or so mainspace (articles and lists... NOT article talk, user space, user talk space etc etc) contributions prior to 1 November. Mervyn disclosed to me why there were multiple userids used and I am satisfied that their use was for good and valid reason and was not in contravention to the sock policy.

In my view accounts controlled by this user have well over the required 150 mainspace edits prior to the deadline, and the community should strongly consider granting suffrage to this account. I am happy to answer questions as necessary, and as usual, invite review of my checks by other CUs. Thanks to Elonka for bringing this matter to my attention and urging me to investigate. ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lar. For the record, I too am aware of Mervyn's two accounts, and confirm that there was a valid reason for him to be editing under different names, and I have seen no indication that either account was being used to violate policies in any way. I have also examined the contribution histories of both accounts for myself, and concur with Lar that when combined, they meet the "150 mainspace edits by November 1" minimum standard. I support the idea that we should allow Mervyn Emrys's votes to be counted. --Elonka 04:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was given some of the backstory to this and I agree with Lar and Elonka that Mervyn Emrys should be granted suffrage here. The unfortunate need to create a different account and the reason for returning to the original are really quite unfortunate for Mervyn, and he should not be punished or penalized here for the disruptive behavior of another user. لennavecia 06:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Doing...Reinstating Mervyn's votes.--Tznkai (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Question: Should I restore Mervyn's vote after the fact on withdrawn candidate's pages? My inclination is yes - the vote was valid in the first place, we've just discovered this after the fact.--Tznkai (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In my view it is purely symbolic to do so but it pleases my sense of order to see it done so I would say yes. Votes are votes. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Lar, we should restore all votes, even on the withdrawn candidates. --Elonka 16:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments with voting, a requirement for next time

We've had an object lesson this round of voting, that allowing comments along side votes but not allowing discussion in voting allows too much latitude for 'well poisoning' style of negative campaigning in the Oppose votes.

No comments should be allowed at all with votes or anywhere on the voting page. There is ample space elsewhere for commentary and discussion on the candidates, the ballot box is not a soap box. --Barberio (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Either it needs to be a straight vote with all comments removed, or a standard free for all. Either would be acceptable. rootology (C)(T) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The comments are valuable for where they are. Leaving them spread out in other places effectively means there will be less information for many voters. Deal with those who attempt to game the system; but find a way to do so without restricting, limiting, making information less immediate for the vast majority of WPians who play fair. Jd2718 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Spread out"? There is a clear link on the candidate pages directing discussion of the candidacy to the talk page for that candidate's statement. If you support keeping discussion centralised, then you must mean putting all discussion in one place. The voting page is not that place, and leaving comments there is in direct contradiction of keeping discussion centralised. --Barberio (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, the supporting rationales for oppose/support !votes are not discussion - and I don't think that the candidacy talk pages are appropriate places for giving one's rationales. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They are discussion, in that they are the voter discussing the reason they voted, and they are very very often used to influence the votes of others. The difference here is that the discussion has no opportunity for dispute, correction or rebuttal.

Election for ArbCom should not suffer the same flaws as Request for Adminship did! --Barberio (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I much prefer succinct reasons on the vote tally, (but replies on talk or elsewhere - i.e. no indents there really). Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Casliber. And I would trust a small group of self-selected volunteers to decide where 'succinct' ended. Jd2718 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with Casliber, and will point out that there was indeed a small group of self-selected volunteers doing a lot of this sort of cleanup throughout the election last year, and the year before. Risker (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If there were editors poisoning the well against you, making false accusations, or engaging in off wiki canvassing against you, you might feel differently. It is fundamentally wrong to criticize people and not give them a chance to respond. A vote with a little description is fine (eg strong, weak, sorry), but leveling accusations against a person's character, without evidence, and without a chance for rebuttal, is nothing more than a personal attack. These elections violate Wikipedias core value of civility. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it folks, the comments on the support section are not the problem. Postitive comments about a candidate are merely last minute campaigning. It's the trash talk with the oppose votes that demean and degrade Wikipedia, along with the candidates. Get rid of the oppose votes and the problem goes away. It's just nasty grafitti most of the time. Why encourage incivility here?

Isn't every support vote in effect a vote in opposition to candidates who do not receive that support, without all the verbiage and bad vibes? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people prefer to save their 'not voting' for candidates who they don't have an opinion on. Say we have 200 regular users voting in the election. Candidate A isn't really popular, only 100 of the people voting know him. Of those 100, 75% like him, 25% hate him. Under our system he'd have 75% with a net of +50 and under a system without opposes he'd have a net of 75. Candidate B is the popular choice. Only 66% of the people who know him like him, everyone else hates him for his controversial stance on, oh I don't know, abortion. He'd have, under our system, a 66% with a net of +66, but without opposes he'd have a net of 133. Candidate B simply blows candidate A out of the running, even though they have fairly close net votes and % supports. Which one should win? That's one of the fundamental questions about this election system. It isn't really something we can answer with a debate, since people have different viewpoints. Jimbo has stated that he looks at both % support and net support and if there are any major discrepancies in turnout, he will take that into account. If we can't tell who's not voting because they don't like a candidate and who's not voting because they don't know a candidate, we are losing information about the election and that is not what we want to do. ST47 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the problem with comments: an editor can raise an objection that has never been mentioned or discussed before and the candidate has no practical opportunity to respond. Responding to oppose voters is virtual suicide for a candidate in this election. Votes should be allowed without comment. If concerns exist, they can be lodged as questions. Comments can be placed on the talk page where the candidate has an opportunity to respond. We should be talking to each other, not about each other. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  I am aware of at least one instance in the current election where a candidate questioned a !voters reason for opposing, and that !voter then changed their vote, so I do not feel that it is true to say that candidates have no practical opportunity to respond. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well, there is an exception to every rule. If candidates question an oppose vote, there is a very high risk of pile on opposes. Jehochman2 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well, that is possible - this particular candidate had no realistic prospect of being elected anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• ST47, I agree with Jehochman on this. At the most basic level, are elections really about merely giving editors an opportunity to vent, or are they about what is best for Wikipedia? Wouldn't Wikipedia be better off if we did lose some of the information that came with some oppose vote statements? Is Wikipedia well served if those statements drive some candidates away? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that, as in the real world, canvassing and campaigning shouldn't be allowed at the polling station/voting page. Perhaps a voting form, which asks for reasons, can be created. These reasons can then be put in an appropriate place for discussion (subpage, user subpage), possibly with a link from the voting page. These are merely my first thoughts on this issue. Verbal chat 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think it would be a good idea to remove campaigning, appeal to emotion, poisoning the well, ad hominem and similar types of remarks from the actual vote pages. At the moment the self-selected clerks are not neutral. Several of them have published their own voter guides and I would not expect them to be neutral towards the candidates. It would be better if we had an objective criteria that comments do not belong on the vote page. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Again, I agree with Jehochman. Hope this is not habit forming... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Personally speaking I think it shows incivility to vote against someone without giving a reason, except if there's an obvious reason or it is clearly tactical voting. (I agree with Cas that replies belong on the talk page, and I think there should be many and varied exceptions to deal with clearly bad faith or other situations.) Orderinchaos 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• I agree (note that my own votes are without comment). I think the situation where people campaign while voting (for example, by posting a link to their reasoning) or soapbox while voting affects the election in a bad way. It is easy for voters to just check what others said and follow them. That is what the question and discussion pages are for. Those, however, are so long that most people probably won't read them. Instead, the statements of other voters are far too influential. In any proper real world election, campaigning and voting are separate; here, they are together, with bad results. Kusma (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Again, I agree (not that anybody cares). Current electoral policies and structures encourage negative campaigning to continue right inside the voting "booth" as votes are cast, giving undue influence to passion in efforts to sway uninformed voters. This does not facilitate civility in other areas of Wikipedia. Better to have a straight vote counting supports without comments or opposes. The actual vote should count for more than the opinion justifying it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with most of what was already said. When I went to vote last month for President, I a) didn't see what everyone else had voted, and b) wasn't yelled at through the curtain about how good or bad a particular candidate was. I don't know if we can get to a point where these elections are anonymous, but we can certainly stop the campaigning/poisoning. --Kbdank71 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• An arbcom election shouldn't be just there to merely elect arbitrators. It should also point out why people who weren't elected why they weren't elected. So people should be required to provide a rationale when opposing (or supporting). Having said that, trolling and NPA violations should not be tolerated. On the vote page even humor shouldn't be allowed. Arbcom elections are supposed to be the most important annual event on en.wikipedia but it hardly appears as such. -- Cat ^chi? 12:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  You may always leave a comment on the candidacy talk page if you have a strong opinion you want to express to the candidate. There is no need to put your comment in your vote, other than to ensure that comment is seen by people while they are voting and not just the candidate. If you want to campaign against a candidate, there are also suitable places to do so.

  I think requiring people to leave rationales with their votes is bordering on the absurd, as the vast majority will just do as they did on AfD and RfA when such was required, and simply comment 'per username'. And it will perpetuate the issue of people being able to 'poison the well' without rebuttal. --Barberio (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Response time on clerking

Was looking over what had happened on the vote pages today and spotted this struck-out vote that was unindented (followed by this). It's been five hours now and it hasn't been corrected yet (I wasn't at a computer where I could log in, though e-mail was possible). There was a similar situation yesterday with inconsistent indenting of non-suffrage votes (some were indented on some vote pages, some weren't on other pages). Are election clerks watching out for things like this that need tidying? Is there a way to program a bot to pick up things like this? If there is a bot watching for double votes, presumably it would detect something like that where someone forgot to indent a struck-out vote. Not really a problem at the moment, but it might be at the weekend, though presumably by that point there will be more eyes watching all this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally scan over the vote pages randomly just with my eyes, but I believe other editors working as "clerks" on the matter use a combination of tools and the AceBot in the IRC channel to track ineligible votes. Basically, the watches probably went to sleep, we aren't organized at all.--Tznkai (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is it possible to make sure that some clerk or other is available throughout the coming weekend? Oh, my other concern (this time about the "results" table) is that if the bot being used breaks down at the wrong moment, chaos could ensue. A lot of people will be relying on that bot (run by ST47) to provide up-to-date results. Previously there were two bots, but now there is only one. Is there a backup bot around? Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the bots, but I'd be interested in the self-selected volunteers getting somewhat organized for the voting this weekend, or at least have a place where people know to report problematic votes.--Tznkai (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared for the weekend, I've got several bots up at the moment and two more on the way, one to ensure a clean closure of the election, and another to perform a full pass to check for any votes made by ineligible users, which were incorrectly or incompletely stricken out, or which are duplicates. ST47 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

q&a page sizes

Hi, a support vote recently commented that I hadnt answered all questions, so .. knowing that I had one of the largest Q&A pages a few days ago, .. I whipped up a script to regularly calculate the pagesizes of all of the Q&A pages, and placed the results at User:Jayvdb/AC question pagesize. I can update it every few hours, or whenever someone pings me, or I can give the script to one of the clerks who runs a unix box and wishes to maintain the wiki results page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet; a suggestion; make it sortable; add about that to the script. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Voting

Several of the problems raised in this election have had their roots in that Oppose voting is allowed, public, and counted in the results.

As I did before the election, I'm going to say that allowing oppose votes are a mistake.

Here are the effects oppose voting have had so far in this election -

• Tactical 'Oppose' Voting : Voters who do not oppose the election of someone to fill a vacancy, but vote oppose on them and all other candidates to give extra 'weight' to a support vote for their preferred candidate. This disenfranchises those who do not understand the complicated mechanics behind this, or those who wish to only vote 'oppose' on candidates they truly oppose. Someone tactically voting oppose has a greatly increased 'weight' in proportion to someone who votes support for one candidate. This makes the election results inherently unfair. The expressed votes of one person should count as much as the expressed vote of anyone else.
• 'Oppose' votes for campaigning purposes : Since comments on why the oppose vote is made are allowed, this has been used as 'Ballot Box Campaigning' to influence people as they vote with no chance of rebuttal or discussion.
• Issues when notable people 'Oppose' : A public 'Oppose' vote from a notable figure, such as sitting ArbCom members who are not up for election, or members of the foundation, carries significant impact on people's decisions to vote. Even if the vote was for tactical reasons, or other weak reasons.
• Inconsistency of vote count : This has lead to a significant differences in the result when counted as total support votes, net support votes, and percentage of support votes.

Clearly, allowance of Oppose voting has provided far too many problems. However, people do want to have some system of proportional representation in selection. Considering this, I propose that the system move to Cumulative voting.

The simplest implementation I can think of off the top of my head would be saying "You may use up to three votes for any candidate you wish, and may vote for the same candidate multiple times.", so voting would look like this...

• Alice

  3 Votes -- Alex

  1 Votes -- Brandy

  2 Votes -- Carl

  1 Vote -- Earl

• Bob

  2 Votes -- Brandy

  3 Votes -- David

  3 Votes -- Frank

• Claire

  1 Vote -- Carl

  2 Votes -- Earl

Which results in

Bob - 8 Votes, Alice - 7 Votes, Claire - 3 Votes,

This would require some clerking to ensure people voted only three times or more. But as we already need to check votes to ensure they meet the requirement, this isn't really that much additional work. --Barberio (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think very few people would go for this; I certainly want to oppose candidates I really don't like, and support more than three that I do like. This system would allow a candidate supported only by a very vocal minority to get in. Grandmasterka 21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, the 2008 election for the Wikimedia Foundation board used a system of preferential voting that let each voter rank the candidates. Something like this could be used for the Arbcom elections. It does get around the puzzlement of whether to use total support votes, net support votes, or percentage of support votes. Since ranking is used, there are no oppose votes as such, though you can get the same effect. That election was by secret ballot, though it's not a required feature of the system. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your conclusion that there is a problem that needs to be corrected. For example, under the current system, editors may vote for (or against) as few or as many candidates as they wish. The claim that this somehow disenfranchises those who do not wish to register a vote for every candidate would require a new definition for the word disenfranchisement. Dlabtot (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking the issues point by point:

Tactical 'Oppose' Voting - I am not sure that this is really a problem, except that it artificially depresses the eventual support percentages. Tactical voting is a bug/feature of many voting systems. Voting this way makes ones supports marginally more valuable but decreases the value of ones opposes, so I am not sure that the final result will actually be distorted by this.

'Oppose' votes for campaigning purposes - This is just as (potentially) true of support votes. While a seemingly unrebutted oppose may seem powerful, I doubt that one effectively disputed on the vote talk page would carry much weight with voters. As I argued above, campaigning (in the broad sense) is an important information sharing tool and should be encouraged not banned, though it could potentially be moved off the main vote pages.

Issues when notable people 'Oppose' - Again, this is not specific to oppose voting and the idea that well known, respected figures shouldn't influence the election in this way (by endorsements and pointed non-endorsements) is a value judgement not universally sharted.

Inconsistency of vote count - This is an issue with most (really all) voting systems. However, in this case the correlation is actually pretty good, with only one (or maybe two) seat in serious dispute depending on how votes are evaluated.

In sum, I don't think that oppose voting is distortionary and strongly oppose going to a straight support system. However, in looking forward to nest year several people have suggested a secret ballot which would be condusive to a different system. I prefer Schultz myself, but we'll discuss it once the election is over. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not see any problem with tactical opposing. While it is not necessarily the intended purpose of the system, I would rather see it as a way to show your preference between two candidates than a way to game the system.

The use of oppose votes with comments is not sufficient reason to not allow any public voting. If we decide that it is a problem, then we need to simply disallow comments altogether.

Notable opposers should perhaps carry some weight. This is the only argument that I see which suggests that we use a closed voting system. However, if Jimbo Wales were to go and oppose someone, I'd like to think that he has a good reason for it, and would like to be able to weigh that in making my vote.

I definitely oppose a secret ballot system of any nature. If another Jayvdb-like canvassing situation comes up, it's far easier to know if we have users able to see the votes. An open vote also might help to inflate participation, if users can see from rankings that the votes are close, they might be tempted to vote to push their candidate over the top, whereas in a closed system users would be unable to see where the important races were. This also allows users to see that their vote is being counted correctly, and any user could 'audit' the vote to make sure that the results are correct if they wanted to. I'm not an expert of voting systems, but I'm sure that any system you like can be put into a wiki system which would allow the sort of participation we've seen this year in the vote, with all the volunteers helping out in checking users' eligibility, striking duplicate votes, and remaining involved in the process through the live IRC feed. I'm pretty sure that I, for one, wouldn't be nearly as interested in these elections if it was a closed voting system. It's one of the core ideas of a wiki that things should be done openly rather than secretly. ST47 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What major democratic country in the world today allows oppose votes to be counted and displayed in popular elections? What democratic country allows opposition statements on ballots cast and reported to the public before closing the polls? Why do you suppose they avoid these possibilities?

Merely reporting support results before the polls close is widely believed to have an effect on voters who have not yet voted. It's called the "bandwagon effect" in my college introductory political science textbook, because it encourages some voter's desires to be on the winning side if they can figure out who it may be before they vote. That's why major TV networks in the US are reluctant to call the winners in many states before the polls close, and especially before the polls in California close. Must have some impact or why would they worry about it?

Statements with oppose votes are even worse, because they may encourage acrimony and incivility even after the election is over. Wikipedia doesn't need that. It's not a positive influence on any community. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom "elections" are not democratic, and are not intended to be. They provide a guide for Mr Wales to use in his choice of people for the committee. He traditionally chooses from candidates with more than 50% approval - so oppose !votes are necessary to see the level of approval (a candidate with a high level of support, but also a high level of opposes could be seen as likely to cause further division in the community). DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Slander is worth as much as support? Seems a bit perverse, doesn't it? And is what is learned worth the price that is paid in bad feelings and lack of civility after the election is over? What really IS a good way to encourage cooperation? What really is best for Wikipedia? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the issue of allowing "oppose" !votes is separate from that of allowing comments alongside !votes - as mentioned, oppose voting can be a measure of the likely divisive or disruptive effect of appointing a particular candidate. As to the comments, I do see how they sometimes can be problematic, but personally I think that (particularly for candidates standing for re-election) they can be a useful trigger for a candidate to reflect on their record an the community's perception of them (and I certainly think it needs to be said that some of the candidates in the current election appear to have no idea of how they are perceived, or the effect they have on community coherence). Unfortunately, as arbcom is currently constituted, it is impossible for the community to enforce any change in its behaviour or composition, and this lack of accountability makes comments a necessary, if sometime distasteful, part of the process. As to what would really be best for Wikipedia - maybe an arbcom which actually was capable of improving its operation, and did not simply ignore widespread legitimate concerns. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As a note, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004#Results ... in the Dec 2004 election, approval voting was used, (apparently using the BoardVote extension) rather than oppose votes. Of the top 7 vote getters, only one was over 50% of the total, (TheresaKnott) ... the rest were under, with the lowest of the top 7 at 31%. I believe there was no constraint on how many approvals one could cast (but I could be wrong) Not sure what that signifies exactly (other than to say that but I did find it interesting. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Some more stats

I've gone through and republished a lot of my stats and other information. First I have two new features, regrettably the data is only ready for the first week. They can be found at User:ST47/ACE Data. They have information on the voting trends of users based on edit count and adminship status. I hope to have the rest of the data counted by the end of tomorrow, when I will update those posts. I'd also like to bring User:ST47/ACEE to your attention. This contains information on duplicate votes, possibly ineligible users, and bad formatting. I believe that all the current entries are OK, however the page will be updated hourly over the last day, and one more time at the end of the elections. Of course, my chart has been updated at Image:ACE2008.jpg. I have several more charts: Image:ACE2008 6-9.jpg, which shows ranks 6-10 (It's called 6-9 because yesterday is did show 6-9, but the positions have changed) and Image:ACE2008 activity by candidate.jpg, which shows the number of votes for each candidate as a ratio to the average (still yesterday's data, I'll update it after 23:30 UTC, that way today's data is complete). The #wikipedia-en-ace channel is still open, and I'll be putting all these scripts in by public subversion once I've had a chance to clean them up. ST47 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for all this, ST47. I'm rather partial to stats and this is a feast for weary eyes! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the bot-generated results at User:ST47/ACEE is wrong. I've made a note on the page and a suggestion on the talk page as to what the bot needs to look for or ask humans to look for. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reporting errors for fixing

I'm going to be following the related changes feed here on and off during the evening. I'm not going to fix any errors I see (as a candidate I don't think that would be appropriate), but I will leave notes here in case anything gets missed. If there is a faster way to report such errors, please let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed [2] - struck out vote not indented
•  Fixed [3] - struck out vote not indented

Electoral system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbcom is voted on because it is actually outside-the-wiki. (it's a long story about right tool for right job). In the case of holding actual elections, I agree with Rspeer above about use of approval voting or range voting. If you try to apply other voting methods on top of approval voting, you're just disenfranchising yourself. (in the same way as when you try to straight-vote on other wikipedia topics where consensus is permitted and encouraged(!), you are also disenfranchising yourself).

Long story short: Ensure you are using the most applicable system; Understand the system you are using; apply and/or participate in the system intelligently. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on Schultze - I don't understand it, and I seriously doubt if many other people do either. Our article on it is hard to read, and less than enlightening to anyone without an already detailed knowledge of the minutiæ of electoral systems, and this obscurity is likely to discourage participation. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about Schultze in terms of understandability, but I believe one key test for an electoral system is "How complicated is it for the voter?" If the instructions can be as simple as "Put the candidates in order of preference 1 for your first choice 2 for your second and go on for as many as you wish" then I think we can make it work better than the current system. As for the difference between Proportional Representation and majority systems then I think this depends on what stage we are at in our evolution as an organisation. If we are still a cohesive organisation where there is a consensus as to what sort of person we want on ArbComm then we should stick to majority voting, however if and when we grow to the point where different editors have very different views as to what sort of person we want on ArbComm then we should use a proportional system such as STV so that as many voters as possible feel that at least one of the winners is a good candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

so who won?

I pointed out a while ago that it was a truly odd system which engaged many hundreds of people, and consumed much time and leg work, whilst also making it clear that the outcome wasn't based on any vote, but would be based on discussion with the existing committee, and with other souls considered wise. I think some remain unaware that this election acts as an advisory process - 'stage one' of a multi stage process, whose other stages are a bit unknown / vague and do not involve the community.

Isn't that a bit silly! That we can't answer the simple 'who won' question at this point of such an open and transparent process speaks volumes as to the true openness and transparency of wiki's governance, in my view. Privatemusings (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Very silly indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Barring the unlikely invocation of Jimbo Reserve Powers, the winners are: Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse, Jayvdb and Vassyana. Similarly, barring the unlikely veto: Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, and Rlevse should get the full 3 year appointment to Tranche Beta, while Jayvdb and Vassyana should the 1 year appointments to Tranche Gamma.

Someone double check my math on that make sure I know what I'm talking about. And of course, just supposition given the Jimbo Reserve Powers. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Added Cool Hand Luke.

Your math looks good, but you forgot to mention Cool Hand Luke. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse will have the (gulp) three years terms. Jayvdb and Vassyana will get the one year terms. That's fairest. But, who knows, maybe this vote will be totally ignored because obviously the current arbcom and Jimbo know what's best for us - consensus is, of course, thrown out of the window for possibly the most important elections on Wikipedia. Majorly ^talk 00:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not completely insane here, despite the persistent rumors to that effect. ;-)

(More seriously: I have no reason to believe that there will be any deviations from the order listed above when Jimmy makes his appointments.) Kirill ^(prof) 00:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Jimbo's never exercised the super-jimbo-democracy-smashy-veto before, and I can't fathom him doing it now, when the arbs who were up for re-election polled so poorly. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, he's used it when two people were really close and vying for the same spot, but not for a major deviation from the voting. So here for this year, I'd expect him not to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He kinda has used these powers... when he added 3 new seats in January 2006, he appointed James F., Fred Bauder, and Jayjg, incumbent arbitrators who technically lost the election, getting 9th, 12th, and 15th place respectively. Jpgordon, Dbiv, Improv, and Ilyanep were skipped over for these positions. But it's true that he certainly wouldn't do that now, with the incumbents ranking near the bottom. rspεεr (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That part I didn't know. Now doing that this year, OY! the wiki drama. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• If he factors raw support and net support at all, Carcharoth will be appointed. Carch leads Vass by a large amount in both of these categories, and trails by only 0.9% in the %support category. SDJ 02:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Of course, if we were told in advance how the !election worked, we wouldn't be having this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Factor in raw support only, yes. But why factor in raw support and not raw oppose? Ultimately, the argument comes down to "greater turnout implies greater support". But, of course, it actually implies great support AND greater opposition. If you're going to have support and oppose votes, ya have to decide the winner based on both-- you can't just imagine the election were held differently and there were only support votes cast. (and I say this not in defense of Vassyana per se-- I had opposed him until the waning minutes of the election when it was clear he would be, at a minimum, an Arb-elect. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to factor in both, then you go by net support, not %support. And your switch (with a difference of less than 1%) might have MADE Vass an "arb-elect", interestingly enough, if Jimbo does choose to ignore net support and raw support. SDJ 04:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate the top five candidates (for your strong community support), the next five candidates (for making the elections exciting and running down to the wire), and the lower-ranking candidates (for not having to do this job!).

I would also like to thank Jdforrester and Charles Matthews for their years of service. To be sure, during their tenure they made some mistakes (and they will each certainly remember times I disagreed with them, both before and during my tenure on the committee). I respect the community's determination that it is time for them to move on. Still, it was sad to see this sort of a pile-on.

As of January 1, about half of the arbitrators will be new to the committee, and only two arbitrators will have more than one year of service. To the extent the community wanted turnover in personnel, between the election results and the attrition rate, that has certainly been achieved.

I have asked Jimbo Wales to move ahead with the appointment process as quickly as he can given his other commitments, and I hope and expect that the final appointments will be satisfactory to everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was drawn in on WP in part by the December 2006 elections (see results). I can't help but be struck by the differences - true, there were about 250 votes for chosen arbitrator, vs 370 today, but what has happened to finding arbitrators with overwhelming community support? It took 84% support to make it just two years ago, that's about 5:1. Today it barely took 2:1. Why such a huge difference? Has ArbCom changed? Are the candidates that different? Have the voters changed? Whatever the case may be, the lower percentages cannot inspire greater confidence. Jd2718 (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Confidence in ArbCom is at an all-time low, and I get the feeling the candidates were not as inspiring overall as they have been in years past. Grandmasterka 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also maybe things are more complicated now, in some respects more factional, and there is more history (and more grudges) to accrue. More and more questions are thrown up and people judged upon them. I am sure there were some that would have picked up opposes no matter how they were answered. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I myself was always a little uneasy about the way past elections went, where the winners would end up being individuals who were basically unopposed, where anyone with the least amount of opposition was almost certain to lose. My worry-- which I don't know has been born out in the actual practice of the arbs in question, but my worry was that we'd elect people who tended to "keep their heads down, focus exclusively on content with less experience in dispute resolution, and wind up being the fairly anonymous people left standing after all the known quantities were vetoed by various people with axes to grind based on past dispute resolutions.

Now, no sooner do I type these words than I feel it necessary to point out that the some of those very same "mega-support" candidates have, in fact, gone on to be our some of our best arbs-- so maybe that concern was entirely hypothetical. All the same, I somewhat like that we've evolved to the point where candidates can have some healthy opposition but ultimately still win the election.

I think ultimately it boils down to the fact that this is the first "change year" Wikipedia has ever had. In previous years, we mostly wanted people to keep doing what was being done-- we might agree or disagree on a specific candidate, but we were mostly unified about what we needed in a candidate. But this year, the people who got elected were people who, to varying degrees, wanted to CHANGE what was being done. In contrast, the arbs up for re-election got roundly rejected. So that's probably another factor-- the overall "theme" of the elected candidates was different, and a little less universal, than before. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But the trend started last year. Last year it only took 70% to get on arbcom. I think it is because wiki is bigger and with larger groups it's harder to satisfy everyone, ie, more factional as Casliber says. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, overwhelming support may well be an aberration... the 2004 election saw folk with 30ish percent of the total vote get appointed. ++Lar: t/c 04:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

2004 was approval voting -- there were no "No" votes -- not directly comparable. Jd2718 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not directly comparable, true, but roughly, because IIRC there was no limit to how many candidates you COULD approve of, so withholding an approval is somewhere between an abstain (I voted on other candidates but not this one) and a direct NO vote... not exactly like it, but somewhat... ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(o/d) To me, the single biggest problem is the abysmally low turnout for this vote. Over and above the debates about tactics, canvassing, oppose-voting and all the rest, we just don't have enough voters participating.

I'd like to suggest that everyone with comments on the process re-convene on February 1st, 2009 to begin a discussion on how to realign our many different processes to achieve a more satisfactory result next time around. Right now is probably not the best time, a bit over one month from now will probably keep enough people's interest. Franamax (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A good point and a good suggestion. Low participation just might have to do with procedural ambiguity. I originally considered not voting because I find the current process unsatisfactory for a lot of reasons (and also because Bishzilla withdrew). I ended up voting after all, because there were a few candidates I really wanted to support (I didn't cast any opposes), but I'm sure there are others who didn't vote at all for the same reasons which nearly led me to abstain. Currently, there are too many factors ambiguating and distorting the result away from what could be seen as a reflection of "the community"'s preferences. I hope I won't have lost interest in WP's annual Christmas Special by February, but it's a good and fair suggestion to reconvene then. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you assume the preferences of the people that did vote are a representative sample of the community's preferences as a whole (an assumption that is certainly open for debate), then increasing voter turnout would make relatively little difference. If your measure for victory is support percentage, then the only ambiguity that might benefit from increased participation is deciding between the seventh and eighth positions. With Vassyana ahead by only 0.9% over Carcharoth, sampling statistics are such that there is roughly 1 chance in 3 that Carcharoth would have pulled ahead given significantly larger voter participation. The other six seats are unlikely to be influenced by additional voters, if sampling fluctuations are assumed to be the only source of variability. Or put another way, having 300-400 people participate is already a substantial number in terms of beating down the statistical noise. Dragons flight (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion, but not with the premise. I think there is a systemic bias both in abstention and voting behavior (whether to oppose at all, whether to oppose for tactical reasons, etc.) Can't prove it, gut feeling, but I can think of several ways to reduce ambiguity. Even if there is no bias, there's no good reason to turn potential voters away because of procedural shortcomings, unless we don't want arbcom to have a larger community support. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that many (most?) of the people who voted this year have allegiances to various factions. Most factions have had at least one ArbCom ruling go against them, so they dislike the current committee. They all want change, but deciding what exactly to change will be fodder for many epic battles. Those who expect the new ArbCom to finally hand the victory to their clique and crush their enemies are in for a disappointment. What we all seem to agree on is that we want to committee to work faster, but make no mistakes. We want more communication, but nothing that can be seen as taking sides (the wrong sides that is). For next year, we need to work on getting more ordinary editors to vote. Both by better advertisement, and better information about the candidates. Just choosing from a list of names is difficult if you don't socialize in the right circles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty silly that we can't be sure of the outcome of the election because the criteria for it (percentage or net support?) is woolly, and I think that's a problem that really needs to be addressed, preferably before the next election.

In regards to the low voter turnout, I admit I voted on only four candidates and all my votes were opposes. I just find it practically impossible to make an assessment on users I have not personally interacted with, because the information overload is just too great - pages and pages of questions for each candidate to try and wade through, for example. It's a very intimidating process and I can't help thinking it would be nice if someone could find a way to streamline it a bit.

But now that I think of it, I think at least one improvement would be to have just one page for all the general questions, with each candidate supplying their answers one after the other. At least that way you'd be able to compare their statements and their ideas a little more easily. Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think that "procedural ambiguity" (or, "you can vote but we won't tell you how the votes are counted until after the election, and even then there's no guarantee that the top-performing candidates will be appointed, and in the past sometimes more people got appointed than there were places to fill") is bound to have affected turn-out. Gatoclass's suggestion of a single page for general questions, to better enable comparison, is a good one. DuncanHill (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why there seems to be so much confusion over how the "winners" are determined. It was based on percentage of supports vs. opposes for at least the past two years (and probably longer), and there was never any statement that this would be changed for this year, so it was reasonable to assume that this will be the method this year. Admittedly this might be made clearer, but it would be unfair to change it now when the election has already taken place, or even after the candidates start signing up. If the method is going to be changed to anything involving "numbers" (whether it be total supports, net supports or anything else), the candidates and voters need to know that in advance. Personally I think that the "percentage" method, although it is unusual in the context of "normal" elections, is a reasonable adaptation to the circumstances of these elections. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Length of Roger Davies' term: one year or three?

I'm sorry to be pedantic about this, but I just want to make sure we keep everything straight. For the first week of the election, User:Roger Davies said in his candidate statement that he would prefer a one-year term. Then on December 7, he erased that line and said in the edit summary "2010 sabbatical probably not happening." [4]

My question is: should we hold Roger Davies to his initial statement?

Here are the issues I perceive:

• Roger Davies didn't commit to staying on for only one year; he just said it was a preference. If he changes the preference it's no big deal.
• I voted for him, and my vote was not influenced by his preference for a one-year term. Given that he earned about 80% support, significantly more than he needed, it's unlikely that the result would have been different.
• Roger can accept a three-year appointment, and if he chooses, he may resign after one year or at any other time.

So I don't see any problem with letting Roger Davies accept a three-year appointment, but I think it's wise to raise the issue and see what other people think. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see no reason to be inflexible about this. If Roger's concerned he can discuss it with Jimbo; personally, I think anyone who wants a three-year term should have his head examined. Mackensen (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure what your comment was supposed to mean, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who wish to take the whole three year terms. I'd much rather we had someone who was open and honest about their intentions, unlike some who gain arbitratorship, do very little, get checkuser and oversight, resign from arbcom, and still retain full access to private mailing lists, and in effect remain arbitrators forever more, just without the work. Majorly ^talk 17:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• RD at this point is a legitimate member of Tranche Beta, with a three-year term. How Roger chooses to approach his term length is between himself and Jimbo, but on the appearances, he's earned the long-term appointment, regardless. Holding people to their early promises is a course fraught with peril. Don't we rather evaluate editors based on their overall judgement? Franamax (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi all!

I wasn't seeking a one-year appointment, simply an initial one-year slot. The reason is I was thinking of a six-month sabbatical (along with a wiki-break) in 2010 to finish a book I've been working on, on and off, for years. Because of the deteriorating economic climate – particulary, the collapse of the pound against the euro – it is now extremely unlikely this will happen. I was planning to pick up arbitration again, when I returned to active editing, once the book was finished. Does this make sense? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Roger should be granted the three-year term, and if he changes his mind after a year, he can resign. Majorly ^talk 12:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Roger, that makes sense. Now I understand. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He can resign if he wants to or his time is not allowed for the job, but the rationale sounds weak to me.--Caspian blue 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound "weak." It sounds perfectly logical. He won the seat, now he will do with it as he pleases. SDJ 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To you, not me. I clearly limited on that.---Caspian blue 19:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette

Now what is the latest on etiquette in arbcom elections regarding opposes with no explanation? I have had a couple and was curious about the reasons, but didn't want to appear to be badgering anybody (for obvious reasons). Do we just accept the opposes as not-supports-for-top-seven-choices given how the process works? signed curious. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have amended my oppose - apologies if it appeared as rude or curt. Caulde 15:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Caulde, much appreciated and I can see why you voted the way you did. No worries. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If an administrator opposed your candidacy without leaving a rationale, I think it's acceptable to leave a note on his/her talk page asking what the reasons are. If non-administrators have been opposing you, I wouldn't bother inquiring further, since their votes don't count anyway.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

All votes from editors who have suffrage have equal weighting. I would discourage claiming otherwise to further a belief in an administrator "club", regardless of the merits of such a view; introducing confusion would be the only effect of such an action. AGK 14:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It does strike me as odd that these elections are held in the form of a poll. I thought "voting was evil"? On RFAs at least, we expect some sort of explanation, but for the most important elections on Wikipedia, it's a simple straight vote? Odd. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A straight vote would suggest every vote is considered equal and those with the top votes are guaranteed to be appointed. But that's not the case, as the Fat Man has pointed out, far more eloquently than I could hope to GTD 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted Mr. Wales' comments. In any case, when was the last time someone was appointed after an election who didn't win? 2006? – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't support Jimbo's role in ArbCom elections, I don't believe there is any reason to suspect he gives votes from admins more weight than votes from non-admins. --Tango (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A public vote, unlike a secret vote, has an inherent element of persuasion in it. For example SandyGeorgia put together a voting guide, a lengthy voting rationale, and has voted and linked accordingly. Between her reputation and her logic she seems to have manged to convince another of other voters to vote the same way she did. In that sense some "votes" count more than others. These votes are more than just a show of hands, they are forums for persuasion that ends in an advisory to a decision maker: who has always followed that advice. Merely stating your oppose makes your voice heard, and puts your reputation behind it - making your voice heard and attempting to persuade can do that much more.

Admins are disproportionately represented in positions of persuasion perhaps, and in the "top tier" of candidacies - but there is nothing particularly sinister about that, just the systemic bias of how Administration is viewed by the average wikipedian, and the tenancy for the more "active" wikipedians (active in dispute resolution, high profile functions, anything that shows up on the main page, and the AN related alphabet soup) to get themselves an admin bit as soon as they've achieved trust from the community - especially the portion that shows up to vote at RfA. --Tznkai (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For example SandyGeorgia put together a voting guide, a lengthy voting rationale, and has voted and linked accordingly. Between her reputation and her logic she seems to have manged to convince another of other voters to vote the same way she did. Not sure what you're saying here, Tznkai. There are about a dozen and a half voter guides besides mine, someone even made a meta guide summarizing all of them, and someone made a template of all of them at {{ACE 2008 guides}}. I made mine by shamelessly copying another editor after I discovered all of the others, and I left it off of my talk page even until I saw the template everywhere else. My track record in terms of predicting success seems to be about on par with everyone else's. So what is meant by I "managed to convince" others to vote accordingly and why am I singled out? I certainly prefer open and public rationale to anything private going around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to single you out like that, but you are interestingly !admin and have been cited in a number of votes. I may do a full tabulation of the various "per" votes later for my own edification in fact. At any rate, I certainly did not mean to offend, nor imply what you did was any way improper - just an example of how things are working, and how it is that some votes may at least appear to be worth more than others. If you prefer, I can strike, modify, or remove the parts of my comments that singled you out.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No need, I was just curious if I was missing something, because I merely copied others. Thanks for clarifying. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no need. It is good to wield power for oneself. Promoting one's interests is always useful. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to answer Casliber's original question: I think we do. Evidence has suggested that Jimbo simply takes the top percentage without carefully and meticulously weighing the exactly relative strength of each comment (Jimbo may object to that characterization)- which I think is fair in a sense. We, the community bare the responsibility of nullifying votes we find objectionable, either by persuasion or voting against them outright.--Tznkai (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the collection and display of oppose votes in elections encourage all the very worst sorts of uncivil behavior that are commonplace in Wikipedia? Replaying and sharpening the axes of old grudges? The smarmy groupiness of obvious factions and block voting? Wouldn't the spirit and guidance of WP:Civility be better served and perhaps even advanced if only support votes were collected and displayed? And wouldn't the outcome be more fair to all concerned? I mean, why encourage and facilitate negative behavior in the manner of the current election? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That might work if sitting arbitrators were prohibited from running - as it is, it is vital for the community to have the opportunity of making it crystal clear when they feel that sitting members have failed. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm going to dodge your question - not because I believe you're wrong or that you're right, but because I'm still doing some unofficial election clerking and I prefer to keep my personal opinions on the validity of our voting structure to myself while I'm still doing that. I am going to say however, that whatever flaws there are in the current system, changing it midstream would be disastrous. Unfortunately, suggestions for improvement only come during the issue at hand, by the time next year rolls around, they will have faded a way. It will take someone with significant energy to, from the moment elections are over until the next elections, suggest and gather support for improvements. If that is you - good luck.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't every support vote in effect a vote in opposition to candidates who do not receive that support, without all the verbiage and bad vibes? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's one way of looking at it I guess....dunno if the voting patterns reflect that (or maybe they do). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If everyone voted for everyone, there would be no noticeable difference in opposing or not opposing. That is however, not the case. A lack of support is merely an abstention for a vote.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Realistically, what is the probability everyone would ever vote for everyone? Not very great in this Wiki, I think. But we could avoid all the ill-will generated by oppose vote statements. I could live without all that rancor. Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would there be any ill-will generated? Arbitrators are supposed to be able to surmount the fact that some editors might oppose them. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be arbitrators. Franamax (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Friends and supporters may take issue with oppose votes, and we are all human. I suspect that people will be shy about opposing a candidate who seems likely to win a seat. Who needs to take the risk of antagonizing somebody who might wield power over them. Jehochman ^Talk 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I ran for arbcom once, and people had promised that there would be no oppose votes. Of course there were oppose votes. I posted a VERY large message saying I Really Didn't Like That, and (probably consequently) didn't join arbcom. For which I am thankful to this day.

Note that people who actually do any work at all will probably garner some amount of opposition... "in the beginning God created heaven and earth, this has widely been seen as a bad idea, and has made a number of people very angry"

-) See? If it even happens to this God fellow, what about us mere mortals?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter if one is an arbitrator or a mere mortal? Franamax, look around you. It is unquestionably accurate to say ill-will has been generated by some of the statements made with oppose votes. You can see it in other statements and revised statements in many of the same lists of votes. The point is, the generation of this ill-will is harmful to the electoral process, harmful to relationships between editors, harmful to the candidates, and harmful to Wikipedia in general. Negativity does not help people cooperate to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for at least reading this. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What might make sense would be to have three way voting: oppose, abstain and support. The voting would be done via a form requiring the voter to choose one of the options for each candidate. The votes could then be recorded privately or publicly. Any comments would be placed on the talk page or could be reformulated as questions. I believe this would lead to a more civil election, without hindering Jimbo's ability to gather the necessary information to appoint qualified arbitrators. Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I deliberately gave no reasons for supporting or opposing candidates. The point is that my giving reasons could affect the opinion of other voters. I think voters should cast their votes based on their own thorough analysis of the situation (e.g. after reading the questions page and checking the candidates' contributions), not on the one-sentence reasoning of other people. Given that the one-sentence reasoning is directly on the vote page, it is far more accessible and seems to be more influential than the slow and lengthy discussion on the question and talk pages. If anybody wants to know my reasons for voting, they are free to ask me, but I will not campaign or or against candidates on the vote page itself. Kusma (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Voting is voting; electioneering is something else again, and is best done elsewhere. Having spent many hours over three or four days wading through countless questions and answers and poring over talk-page discussions till I was bleary-eyed, the last thing I was about to do was wade through voters' justifications for their votes. I admit I was tempted (What if candidate z turned out to be way more insightful and astute than I'd realized? What if I had missed Something Troubling And Dramatic about candidate x?) . . . but I successfully resisted the urge. Personally, I'd favor either a secret ballot à la the board elections or a (probably futile) stab at real consensus, but in the absence of either of those, votes should just be votes, with no soundbites attached. No disparagement of thoughtful soundbites intended, but can the merits or deficiencies of these candidates really be summed up in one line? I'm doubtful. Rivertorch (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On the wikipedia system, it is wise to provide reasoning, as it will sway other people's opinions. Not using that feature is simply disenfranchising yourself. Note that there is no limit to the number of lines you may use to justify your position, here or anywhere. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)