User talk:Protest vote

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015
Hello,

I just wanted to inform you that I have removed your nomination from the Arbitration Committee Elections page. As this account was registered after November 1, 2015 and has less than 500 mainspace edits, it is ineligible to stand as a candidate. If you wish to proceed as a candidate, you are welcome to do so from your main account. Best, Mike V • Talk 16:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. By my reading the eligibility criteria refers to the editor, not to the account they're using to run. As my main account was registered after November 1 and has over 500 edits, my candidacy with this account should count as legitimate surely? Also pinging the other commissioners for second opinions, User:Guy Macon, User:Mdann52.Protest vote (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of "has a registered account and has made at least 500 mainspace edits before 1 November 2015" was that the 500 mainspace edits applied to the account being used for nomination. I also would like to point out that in a 2007 arbitration ruling, the committee decided that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." Additionally, it doesn't fall within our practices for alternate accounts. From a pragmatic standpoint, I think it's fair to say that when members of the community decide to vote in favor, against, or remain neutral towards you, they should be be fully informed that their vote would go towards you as an individual. With that said, I want to reiterate that you are welcome to continue your platform from your main account.
 * On a final note, if you do wish to continue to use this account I would encourage you to provide a confirmation from your main account. That way we can be sure it's you and not someone pretending to be you. :) Mike V • Talk 20:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But the thing is they wouldn't be voting for me as an individual, they'd be voting for an empty space as can be seen in my candidate statement. The reason I'm using a special account name, is because I don't want people to vote for me I want them to vote for a concept which has nothing to do with me. But I guess if 2/3 of the commissioners are against it there's nothing I can do. Oh well... Guess the main account will have to do. Would there be any objections to me changing my username for the election period? Brustopher (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While I understand your position, our current setup only permits a candidate to stand, not an empty seat. (Though that's something you could propose in the RfC for next year.) In regards to a name change, that comes down to the cooperation of the global renamers. As for our end, as long as the name complies with the en.wiki username policy (not profane, not a role account, etc.) I can't see a reason to object to what you choose as the name for your main account. It just needs to be finalized before the poll goes live. Mike V • Talk 02:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note I concur with Mike V's comments above. Mdann52 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a clear attempt to twist the rules in an innovative and clever way without first getting the community to approve. Go back, post an RfC, and see if there is consensus for what you are trying to do. Until you do that and get a specific exemption to the existing rules, the existing rules about not participating in admin or arb elections as a sock apply, and Mike V was correct in not allowing this username to be nominated. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)