Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010

Request details
United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010

Where is the dispute?
There is a content disagreement about whether or not the Green party candidate should be listed in the info-box on the right of the article.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved.
 * User:Linuxrocks123
 * User:Jerzeykydd
 * User:Namiba
 * User:Rrius
 * User:ejmarten

What is the dispute?
Many editors, most recently Jerzeykydd and Namiba, believe that the Green party candidate should be listed in the info-box. Many other editors, most recently me, believe that the Green party candidate is de-facto not a serious contender in the election and that is misleading to include the candidate's image in the info-box. The argument of Jerzeykydd and Rrius is that the qualification of the Green party as an "established" party under Illinois election rules -- meaning the Green party does not need to get as many signatures to run a candidate as other minor parties, but only the same number as the Democrats and Republicans -- means that the Green party is a "major" party and that the Green candidate is therefore a "major" candidate and should be listed in the info-box.

I argue that this statute is not relevant: the Green candidate is not a serious contender in the election, and only serious contenders should be listed in the info-box. Listing minor candidates in the info-box is misleading as readers of the page will believe that there really is a "three-way race" going on, like in Florida with Crist, and it is undisputed that this is not the case.

What would you like to change about this?
I would like you to clarify what circumstances dictate which candidates should be listed in the info-box in an election such as this.

How do you think we can help?
Hopefully, your opinion in this matter can help all parties understand when and when not a candidate should be listed prominently in the info-box.

Mediator notes
I'd like to take on this case. bobrayner (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

However, before diving into the dispute itself - where is the prior discussion? Of the four involved people mentioned above, two of them don't appear on. The person who raised the case, Linuxrocks123, doesn't appear to have commented on the talkpage at all. Have people discussed this somewhere else? There doesn't seem to be any mention of the mediation request either. Are people generally aware of this and happy with mediation as a way forward?

Unfortunately, I am not yet empowered to cast down lightning bolts of Truth from the heavens; a mediator can only help involved parties to work towards a solution through their own discussion and consent. Those cannot exist if people don't even know mediation is happening. On 14 August I left a pointer to this medcab case on the article talkpage; lacking any responses I notified individual users on 18 August. If people are not interested in trying to deal with the disagreement through mediation - or if everybody has already agreed anyway - then I may close this case.

Update: Jerzeykydd emailed me a few minutes ago suggesting that this case be closed. I think that is reasonable, since we don't seem to be moving much further forward. Any objections? bobrayner (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * First, I'm not sure this discussion is warranted. From the talk page and history, it appears there is a consensus in favour of inclusion with a few detractors. In any event, likelihood of victory is not the only measure of importance. But let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Green Party's being an official party in Illinois shouldn't matter. The Greens will be fighting as much for 5% to retain their official party status as anything else. With two flawed candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties likely to remain in a close race, the fact that a third party candidate could well end up with more votes than the margin of victory is an important part of the story. In the most recent poll, he was at 9%, which is nothing to sneeze at. For now, Jones an important enough part of the story of the race that he should be in the infobox. That level of importance is not immutable. If, after the votes are counted, Jones neither helped the Greens retain ballot access nor proved the difference between the other candidates, he should be removed. For now, though, he should stay. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what Rruis said. It has nothing to do with whether or not the Green Party in Illinois is a "major party." Based on consensus in several other U.S. Senate, presidential, and gubernatorial elections the requirement for a candidate to get in the infobox is get at least 5% in pre-election polling (before the election) and at least 5% of the actual vote. By this, Jones meets the requirements to get into the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, and that. -Rrius (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is this 5% rule a wikipedia rule (which determines inclusion in the infobox), or is it a real-world electoral rule that determines whether or not a person becomes a candidate on the ballot or shortlist? bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a wikipedia rule to make sure only the major candidates are in the infobox. But all the candidates (including the minor ones) are still mentioned on the page.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rrius. Jones is a major candidate for the election and has been profiled a number of times in statewide media and is polling extremely well for a third party candidate. I also agree that the need for mediation is well overblown, given the near total lack of discussion on the talk page.--TM 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me if I am putting this comment in the wrong place. I recently added the Libertarian candidate to the Arizona, 2010 Senate election page (where polls currently show that 10% of voters will vote for "Some Other Candidate" and he is the main alternative) and it was immediately removed.  My view is that giving the impression that there are only two candidates in a race is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a circular argument.  The reason that no one else is polling above 5% percent in a race is a direct result of the media (Wikipedia included) constantly telling voters that they only have two choices.  The threshold should not be 5%.  The infobox should show the top four (or some other number that makes the infobox look good) candidates regardless of percentage.  There is certainly no reason for removing candidates unless it ruins the formatting of the page.  And for the record, I have held state-wide office within the Republican party and normally vote Republican, but my sense of fairness outweighs my sense of party loyalty.--User"DanSSwing 3 September 2010
 * Agreed.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Would you like to discuss on the talkpage? My only concern would be that if the talkpage has been underused so far, then it might be difficult to get all editors to engage on the talkpage, so it may be difficult to work towards a solution. Still, this mediation page is here if you want it; it's not costing you any money and it won't hold up the rest of wikipedia :-) so I may keep this case open for a little while, just in case anybody (perhaps Linuxrocks123) prefers to comment here rather than the talkpage. If nobody wants to discuss at all, then we have a different problem.bobrayner (talk)
 * Jerzeykydd, you keep saying that this is a Wikipedia rule, however, you have never provided a citation for this. Where does this rule come from?---Linuxrocks123 (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise with the 100px photo rule. If you can't provide a source, I'm going to assume you made it up.---Linuxrocks123 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Other users are claiming there is a bright-line test of 5% that determines who should be included in the infobox. This sounds made up and doesn't appear on a Wikipedia policy page anywhere so far as I can tell, but I will agree that the photo be kept now and removed if Jones falls below 5% in later polls.---Linuxrocks123 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The 5% rule is precedent from other election articles (presidential, senate, gubernatorial, etc.). Use common sense of why we have this. Think about it. If we simply allowed anyone on the ballot to be in the infobox, we could have up to 6 candidates (even if there are more than 6). The fact is the point of the infobox is to show the major candidates.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The premise for the 5% rule is flawed. If a candidate meets the state requirement to be on the ballot, they should be able to have that accurately portrayed on Wikipedia. I understand your wanting to change history to suit your desires, but that doesn't mean that you're right.  Your argument about not being able to fit all of the candidates in the infobox is also flawed.  Only four candidates made it to the ballot.    It seems like they'll all fit in the info box after all.  I'll buy your 5% rule argument when you can show me the poll that included all of the candidates that are on the ballot that was funded by a truly non-partisan polling organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejmarten (talk • contribs) 2010-08-27 22:58:59


 * Here we go again. The issue is now whether the Libertarian candidate should be listed in the article. (Note that he doesn't even have an article as of right now.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the candidate has established a page for himself is irrelevant to whether he should be listed as a candidate on the page. The edits that added him included the citations to the authoritative source for Illinois election information.  Saying that he needs to have recieved more than 5% in a non-inclusive (and non authoritative) poll violates the five pillars of wikipedia and is not a neutral requirement when there is an authoritative source.  The authoritative sources have been cited in the article.  Ejmarten (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're are fighting so hard to get Labno on the infobox because you want him to win. I mean what would happen if there were more than 6 candidates on the ballot? We can't fit all of them in their.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the content of the page wouldn't be encyclopedic and neutral would it? In the case of the Wikipedia page, I would create two infoboxes side by side, or get rid of the infobox all together and create a section for candidate photos. In this case that is unnecessary since there are only four official candidates in the election. I will admit that I do want Labno to win.  That is my bias.  I am not asking for my bias to be reflected on the page.  I am asking for the content to be encyclopedic and neutral. Ejmarten (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is this 5% rule documented? I haven't seen a formal wikipedia rule on the subject. If this is an agreement that was reached on a different election article, how much weight should it carry on this article? My understanding is that the infobox is for candidates. Can somebody clarify why some candidates should be excluded? Or are some candidates not really candidates? (As an aside, the infobox is now huge. Do the photos have to be so big? There would be room for a dozen candidates if smaller photos were used. ;-) ) bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When I search for Wikipedia rules, the only ones that I find say things like "articles should be neutral to point of view," "articles should cite sources," and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please refrain from using Wikipedia for other purposes." Wikipedia policies  Excluding two candidates who have been chosen by a state legislature to be official candidates in an election and then claiming that the exclusion makes the content encyclopedic is absurd.  The candidates who are "really" candidates and will be printed on the official Illinois ballot can be found listed [here] as active. The ones who have been marked as removed did not meet the criteria to be on the ballot. Ejmarten (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir, the infobox does not reflect all the candidates on the ballot, it reflects the major candidates. All the candidates, including the ones who have no shot at winning this election, are listed on the wikipedia article. Not to mention that simply putting him in the infobox is not gonna help him win the election, whether you like it or not.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which rule / document / consensus says "major candidates"? That phrase has been used a few times; where did it come from? On another point, hopefully we could all agree that wikipedia articles should not try to correct perceived problems in the real world (although it's often tempting to update articles in light of our own political beliefs). However, articles should accurately document what's happening in the real world, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Can we, at least, agree on that as a starting point? bobrayner (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is none; this is simply something Jerzeykydd made up. He has a history of doing this; he has also made up a "consensus" that the first candidate's image in the infobox should always be exactly 100px and then reverts any image size edits where this is not the case.  This rule is not followed except in articles where he personally changed the images to match this.  Jerzeykydd follows the strategy of repeatedly shouting that his own opinion is the consensus.  If no one challenges him, people believe him and his opinion actually does become the consensus.  His antisocial behavior here should be recognized and understood.  Jerzeykydd likes the Greens but doesn't like the Libertarians, so he decided that "consensus" is that a minor candidate should be listed if he has more than 5% of the vote as this includes his pet minor candidate but excludes Ejmarten's.  They should obviously both be listed or both not be listed, as neither has a chance of winning but both could be influential in the outcome of the election.  Jerzeykydd, what's the "consensus" on if a candidate is polling 5% after the margin of error of a poll is taken into account?  This is the case with Labno; he polled 3% and the margin of error of the poll is >2%.  I guess since that means a candidate you don't like gets in the infobox, the margin of error should just be ignored, huh?  I can already predict what consensus you're going to pull out of your nether regions for this ambiguity in your made-up rule.98.253.56.154 (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a made up rule. Refer to: By the way, this is the first edit of 98.253.56.154. Please do me a favor and reveal yourself. What are you trying to hide?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Hawaii's 1st congressional district special election, 2010
 * Talk:United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010
 * Talk:United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010
 * Talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 8
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
 * That seems to be a list of four other articles which had lively debate rather than consensus. They are not policy pages. The latter has much of the same discord, and at the bottom somebody said "This rule has been questioned because it's not mentioned on policy pages, so I'm mentioning it here", perhaps in the hope of forming a firm rule, but the only response was disagreement.
 * Again: Where is this 5% rule? Just saying it over and over again won't make it so. I had understood that candidates in an election are listed as candidates in the election infobox - are the disputed people candidates, or not? There is no mention of a 5% rule on Template talk:Infobox election and an example on that infobox manages to squeeze in six candidates.
 * The infobox does seem to have an option for "minor candidates", though. Perhaps that could be a compromise? bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Green candidate has fallen below 5% now, but people are still putting the Green candidate up. I only agreed to stop until he fell below 5%.  What gives?---Linuxrocks123 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no rule. Plain and simple really. There have been several discussions on various talk pages, but until the relevant wikiproject comes to a reasonable conclusion, it is really just opinion. LeAlan Jones has received widespread coverage and has polled as high as 14%. If you doubt his relevancy to the election, you are obviously mistaken.--TM 04:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this mediation still live? If so, where is it taking place? Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I too would like to know is this mediation is still live. I don't really care one way or the other, but I would like to see consistency. If a candidate is likely to affect the outcome, whether by winning or being a 'spoiler', imo they may belong in the infobox even if polling less than 5%. I would prefer to keep out the usual sort of write-ins (Lisa Murkowski an obvious exception this year) and those only supported by their mothers (who may or may not vote for them anyway). ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that Jerzeykydd could provide some explanation for this 5% "wikipedia rule". So far Jerzeykydd has provided links to other articles which had lively debate on such a proposed rule, rather than setting some firm precedent. So far I have not discovered any actual wikipedia policy on the subject. Unless somebody can provide a firm basis for this 5% rule, or at least a consensus for applying a 5% threshold on this article (which appears unlikely since some contributors to the article disagree with Jerzeykydd's "rule"), perhaps we should feel free to put any candidates in the candidates section of the infobox. The infobox's designers do not appear to have intended any such restriction.
 * I'll leave a reminder on Jerzeykydd's talkpage, just in case they forgot about this medcab case or have been too busy to contribute. bobrayner (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jerzeykydd was banned for edit-warring until November.--TM 02:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes, I came back to update my comment after discovering that; thanks :-)
 * Since Jerzeykydd seems to be the only person who knows about this "wikipedia rule to make sure only the major candidates are in the infobox", which is at the heart of the mediation case, I doubt we will be able to make much progress whilst they are banned from editing. bobrayner (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He is not the only one. It is widely observed at US election pages, and was extensively discussed during, among others, the 2008 presidential election. In fact, the 2010 Illinois Senate race seems to be the principal place for doubters of the convention's existence. In any event, the discussion moved back to the article talk page. I got bored of the discussion, but it probably saw consensus in favour of including the virtually unknown Labno. Someone qualified to close should check up at the article and close if the discussion is over. -Rrius (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying!
 * Is this "rule" actually a matter of consensus on individual election articles? If so, perhaps lessons can be learned from discussions on other articles, but adhoc agreements on those articles may not be binding on this one; that would be a WP:OTHERSTUFF problem.
 * I haven't yet found any policy which overrules those who disagree with the 5% threshold.
 * If there is no rule dictating what to do, I would be happy to help y'all work towards consensus/compromise on this article, but that would be would be nontrivial since there seem to be several editors here who disagree with the 5% threshold. It is probably not possible to work towards consensus/compromise whilst there is claimed to be a rule that overrides dissenters but its proponents haven't yet pointed to the actual policy page.
 * Apart from this article, I expect the problem will reappear on other election articles on future; would you like me to raise it as a point for centralised discussion somewhere? Maybe on the election infobox's talkpage or even down at the village pump.
 * bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)