Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Archive 2

Transclusion
Just a heads up. I made a completeness check by reviewing Special:Prefix index page of Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements. My check produced one user who had made a candidate statement but forgot to post it at the main candidates page, which I then properly included it (I left a message at his talk page, just to make sure he didn't just change his mind before posting it.) Anyone is welcome to make these types of checks, especially in the final week of nominations. We want to give the community ample opportunity to study the candidate and ask questions before the voting phase begins. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to add other peoples candidate statements to the page. It's someones choice when and if they want to run, so it's upto them whether or not to transclude. By all means leave them a note, but please don't enter them in without input.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems fair. I've removed his subpage until he responds. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's for the best if I'm being honest, I'm just not sure that AGK's decided to run or not. I agree it's a good idea to do a prefix search and give people a prod that haven't transcluded yet. Thanks for sorting it.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on disclosure of identity, and permissions
Related to that above discussion on age, you need to apparently be "legal age" to have Checkuser or get an exemption, but I'm curious if the arbiters have to disclose their identities (to Wikipedia's community, to Jimmy Wales, or to the ArbCom overall)? Or, are they anonymous as well? I assume if they are anonymous it just means that they wouldn't have access to the extra tools like Checkuser or Oversight, but could still serve as arbiters. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen  19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, there is no restriction on the age of Arbitrators, although obviously those who choose to take on the Oversight and/or CheckUser permissions must be 18+. They also choose how little or much of their identities they disclose post-appointment, and the variation in this between that which they disclose to the ArbCom privately, and to the Community. At the bare minimum, they don't have to be 18 and they don't have to disclose any personal information. Anthøny  20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See Arbitration policy. --bainer (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Edidcount to vote
Last year, one had to have 150 total edits to vote; this year, that has been changed to 150 mainspace edits. Why was this changed?--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 12:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruling on age limit
It is the considered consensus of the Arbitration Committee that our working practices are incompatible with having a minor as a member of the Committee, and that any changes to facilitate this would be impractical and severely damage the effectiveness of the Arbitrators.

Specifically, a minor could not take part in discussion of or even be shown privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools, without violating the confines of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices. This is a significant part of the work of the Committee, and would result in, at best, a two-tier Arbitration Committee with some members unable to participate in, or even be aware of, most of the activity.

We understand that this will be a disappointment to several widely-respected members of the English Wikipedia community who would otherwise run, and accept that we have spent too long confirming 'officially' that this is the case.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments
It will be a disappointment. I believe the next appropriate step is to notify those users of this decision and withdraw their nominations with appreciation for their effort after obtaining their feedback. I'm changing the wording of the election instructions to include this decision, so all users are aware. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just informed the two users I am aware are under 18 (Cbrown1023 and Messedrocker), plus some others I knew were considering a run at this; I'm afraid I don't know if there are any other users who are affected by this rule, and would greatly appreciate it if they could be informed if anyone is aware of someone I've missed.
 * James F. (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the decision before the elections, and for (in my opinion, as I suggested above) making the right one.
 * A question: say someone who will be turning 18 (the age of legal majority) in January or February. Would their nomination be allowed to slip through (no, not me - enough badgering!) given being "off the mailing list" for a couple of months right at the start of their tenure isn't as disruptive as someone who could spend two or even all three years in the situation of not being able to digest private information?  Daniel  23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I imagine a slight staggering to the entry for an Arbitrator could be acceptable. New Arbitrators will have to get vetted which may take some time over the Christmas period (for obvious reasons), and a few weeks' delay before one or two were added to the list would not be impossible.
 * James F. (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait. This encyclopedia receives international participation and there may be conflicting views on the definition of a minor. What exactly is the official threshold? Is it 18 or 21 years of age? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's 18 or the legal age of majority at the place of ones' residence, whichever is higher.  Daniel  23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The exact language in the policy is "at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside." Paul August &#9742; 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I was just copying that here. From my reading, both our comments mean (in practice) the exact same thing :)  Daniel  23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe they will honor the same age as outlined at Access to non-public data policy.  Cbrown1023   talk   23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the greater of 18 and the age of majority local to the individual concerned, as set out in the CheckUser policy. Sorry I didn't make this clear.
 * James F. (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. I'll include this in the instructions. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is good that we have a clarification on this issue, but my personal view is that this change is not necessary or desirable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on the necessity or desirability, but the need for prior clarity outweighs any reservation I might have on that, speaking personally. If the community is unhappy with this determination, it can be revisited for next year, hopefully in a more timely way with respect to the "electoral cycle".  Alai (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Arbitration Committee members were appointed by Jimbo (based, at his discretion, on the "election" results.) Shouldn't it be he who decides what the qualifications are? Of course, the committee can make a recommendation to Jimbo, but that does not appear to be what is happening here. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is, from what I understand, active on the Committee's private mailing list. I would be surprised if he had no input into this decision.  Daniel  02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to make sense, given the growing number of arbitration cases that have involved private checkuser results, oversight information, etc. Another question: Will ArbCom members have to identify themselves to Bastique/the Foundation prior to or after the election, to confirm their age? Ral315 » 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Section break
I still do not see that this policy serves any necessary purpose as applied to membership on an arbitration committee, and other than pointing to the words of the resolution (which so far as I can tell was not adopted with this issue in mind one way or the other), no one has publicly identified one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi James F. I am a little concerned by the way this came about. This decision seems to hinge on a reading of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms, a task many of us are capable of doing. What was the need to make this decision in secret? Also, please provide a link to the "Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices" the specifically prohibit a minor's participatin in discussions of or viewing of privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools. Tahnks. -- Jreferee    t / c  16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From the WMF Access to nonpublic data policy: "2. Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside."(emphasis mine). An Arbitrator that does not meet these requirements cannot have access to such data (including, in particular, any internal discussion where such data is shared). Kirill 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill. I see that minors access to non-public data foundation policy has been in place since April 2007. It was not a kind thing to wait until the eve of election to spring this on Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 when this could have been settled months ago. I still see no reason for announcing this as a secret decision made through the private Arbitration Committee's mailing list. I hope those involved in making this secret decision at least had the decency to apologize officially to Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 for luring them into revealing personal information about themselves in an effort to gain a position for which they had no hope of obtaining. -- Jreferee    t / c  16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes we all owe Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 an apology. I personally offer my apologies. As a community of volunteers we are not the most organized of organizations. Paul August &#9742; 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, there is the question of whether the Wikipedia community would accept "a two-tier Arbitration Committee with some members unable to participate in, or even be aware of, most of the activity." Personally, I would be fine with Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 having limited access to non-public information as I think their decisions would be just as valid. If the Arbitration Committee's practices are dictated by the Arbitration Committee and those up the food chain, I would be happy to accept this. However, as far as I am aware, Wikipedia always has operated off open consensus and the decision to permit minors on the Arbitration Committee seems to be one for which an open consensus would have been more appropriate approach. -- Jreferee    t / c  16:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not agree to be an arbiter unless I had access to all the relevant information necessary to make responsible decisions. I would not approve of other arbiters who made decisions without the benefit of all relevant information. Thus aside from the considerable logistical problems such a two-tier system would present, I would oppose such a system on the grounds that such a system could not perform its duties responsibly. Paul August &#9742; 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Paul August's thinking. From my interpretation of the Foundation's Access to non-public information policy, minors can not have access to this information. Many of our cases involve discussion of information covered by the privacy policy. I don't see any way that a Committee member could make a good independent assessment of the case with out looking at all the evidence. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From what little I know (and I will certain defer to current or former arbitrators on this), establishing a formal "two-tiered" process would indeed be problematic. What I have been questioning is whether it would have been necessary, or why. In this regard, I accept that there are certain issues on which arbitrators who are minors would not have been expected to take the lead, just as I have told administrators who are minors that while age is irrelevant to 99% of administrator actions, there are occasional legal-threat and harassment situations that they would be well-advised to leave for others to handle. I have no doubts that a younger editor enjoying sufficient maturity, experience, and standing in the community to have been elected to the Arbitration Committee would have been fully capable of recognizing such matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is some background on the Foundation's implementation of the Access to nonpublic data policy. The Wikimedia Foundation non_discrimination_policy prohibits discrimination against age in its context of age being a legally protected characteristic. Those under 18 are treated differently under the law, including areas of access to nonpublic data. Foundation Meetings/June 1-3, 2007 leading to Access to nonpublic data policy Resolution. June 6, 2007 Resolution:Access to nonpublic data policy update. As for the necessity of a formal "two-tiered" process, the only ones who can answer that are the arbitrators. They apparently agree that it would be necessary. -- Jreferee    t / c  17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this issue was raised in the second 2006 elections for Stewards, and apply to users with checkuser or oversight access in May 2007. Here is the foundation discussion thread and here is a May 2007 Wikizine announcement. -- Jreferee    t / c  17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In reply to Newyorkbrad's request above to locate the purposes the Foundation policy is intended to serve, I have not been able to locate the Foundation's reasoning for the change. It looks like they discussed it at Foundation Meetings/June 1-3, 2007, but I was not able to find out what they said. -- Jreferee    t / c  20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How does this relate to my question about disclosure of identity? Without that, how would you verify age? Or would those arbiters that can't/don't simply not have access to run their own Checkusers and Oversight, but serve otherwise? Or does this mean that all arbiters have to disclose identities after all? Sorry I am confused. • Lawrence Cohen  17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know any other way to do it, either. So we can assume that newly elected arbitrators will be required to disclose their identities before they get assess to our confidential discussions. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is what I assumed, too. I was just curious for the elections. Does that mean that all the current ones have also disclosed to have access to that data? Is it recorded anywhere publically that they have? Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen  19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge they have not disclosed their identity to the Foundation yet. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought every Arbitrator had confirmed their identity, as everyone has oversight? I recall Cary removing Theresa Knott's oversight access because she did not identify within the period given by the resolution on access to non-public data. I figured this meant that every current oversighter has identified, and the Arbitration Committee is a subset of the set of all oversighters. --Deskana (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that the question related to current candidates not current Committee members. To my knowledge all current committee members have. Cary Bass is the person to ask as he handles this task for the Foundation.--FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. As far as I'm aware, the only people who are running who are currently identified are me and Raul654, as we are both oversight/checkuser. Possibly Danny too, but given he used to work in the office, I wouldn't have thought any sort of verification would be necessary. --Deskana (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure several others noms have also based on the other work they've done for the Foundation. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not just that, but some of the other candidates are known to foundation staff via wikimeetups, as well. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Per this foundation thread, arbitrators need to send their info to Cary Bass, who I asked to respond in this thread. I would assume that existing Arbitration Committee members who are not of age are no longer Arbitration Committee members and the remaining ones need to prove their age. -- Jreferee    t / c  19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Er...not as far as I've been told. This is a different process, not related to the privacy policy on Wikipedia or anything outlined by that.  I'm unaware that Arbcom falls under that policy. Cary Bass demandez 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is not clear whether the existing policy applies to arbitrators was precisely one of the points I was making above. In any event, requiring proof of identification is a separate and distinct issue from imposing a minimum age on committee members. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy does not say that arbiters must identify, or be of age. However it does say that arbs who have not identified or are underage can not have access to non-public data. The Foundation could make an exception for arbs, but until they do I would feel constrained to not pass along such data to such arbs &mdash; in my opinion that would be an untenable situation. Paul August &#9742; 21:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it goes to enforcement. Arbitration_policy does not require age disclosure, but you can't be under 18 and be on Arbcom. The effect seems to be that only the honest candidates under 18 will drop out or not enter the election. -- Jreferee    t / c  20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not quite the point I was making. What I meant to say was that it is possible to require identification validation without imposing an age requirement. (As a practical matter, that might require that would-be arbitrators who were minors speak with their parents/guardians about the role they were taking on, but I doubt that this would be a problem.) At present, I believe that most, though not quite all, of the arbitrators are publicly identified by real name and/or at least known to Foundation officials in any event, although not all of this year's candidates are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After reviewing your posts and Cary Bass's post, I think I see the distinction you made. The right to decide and the ability to mine data for non-public information (checkuser) vs. receiving that mined data after another has decided to compile it (arbcom). Looking at the language of the foundation policy, the foundation policy addresses "granted access rights to restricted data." The arbcom minor might receive restricted data but they in fact are not granted access rights to that restricted data. The arbcom minor's receipt of restricted data is conditioned on another's right to access that data. The foundation policy addresses who can push buttons to get restricted data from Wikipedia's database. It does not address the decision by those with access to that data to pass on that data. In fact, they pass on portions of that non-public data all the time at Requests_for_checkuser and post it in a location where minors can see it. I do not agree that "a minor could not take part in discussion of or even be shown privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools, without violating the confines of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices." I think the reading of the Foundation's privacy policy is incorrect and Cbrown1023 and Messedrocker should be allowed to run for arbcom. -- Jreferee    t / c  21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, I do not think ArbCom can have it both ways. If the information received by ArbCom falls under the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution, then all ArbCom member are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution to provide identification to the Foundation just as checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS do. If the information received by ArbCom does not fall under the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution, then there is no Wikimedia Foundation basis for the above ArbCom decision. -- Jreferee    t / c  22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cary, in this thread the Committee announced that we do not think that Committee members can carry out our job without access to non-public information. This is a new decision that we made after discussion among ourselves. The election prompted our discussion and decision. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Wouldn't a valid local I.D. be the only way demonstrate age, beside a birth certificate, though? • Lawrence Cohen  20:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitration policy doesn't seem to address Arbcom's control over the Arbcom election. It lists it as an unresolved issue. A Election policy would have helped. -- Jreferee    t / c  20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Jreferee has established valid points based on his interpretations. I still believe that the ArbCom made the correct determination, however, we won't find a resolution unless either the Foundation, through one of its members or representatives, Cary, or Jimbo address this. Otherwise, we risk having serious confusion and disagreements in the election process, or worse: disenfranchisement. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On reflection, ArbCom's outcome probably is correct. ArbCom can determine that "our working practices are incompatible with having a minor as a member of the Committee" in the context of the privileged information since only ArbCom (and others with access) know what in fact constitutes the privileged information. All Wikipedian's can determine whether minors can be shown privileged information in a general sense, but when it comes to making a determination regarding the actual privileged information that would be revealed to the minors, only those who can review such actual privileged information can make such a determination. -- Jreferee    t / c  21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidacy
I would like for my candidacy (That is, User:Phil Sandifer's) to be restored. Phil&#39;s Sockpuppet (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are returning to Wikipedia, which I surely hope you are, then the best procedure would be to get a password reset through your old account's e-mail (or through a developer if needed) and resume using your old account. My apologies if you are one step ahead of me and already doing this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not committing to returning to Wikipedia at this point. I am committing to being a candidate for the arbcom, and winning election would necessitate returning. But absent that or some other sign that gives me hope that the areas I like most to contribute to and feel like I am good at contributing to (policy and meta-discussions) are areas that I am able to be useful in, I do not intend to return at present. Though if it would make you feel better if I restore access to my main account and conduct business relating to the election from it, I will. Phil&#39;s Sockpuppet (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a fellow candidate I'm not really in a position to say that what makes me comfortable is relevant, but for what it is worth, I venture to say that some editors might feel an awkwardness in voting for someone without access to his primary account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On what procedural grounds was Phil's candidacy removed? Hiding T 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The grounds that I left Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see where in the rules it states you are delisted if you leave in a hissy fit. ;) Hiding T 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

slight formatting problem
Right now, on the candidate statements page, there is a note referring to Phil Sandifer that says: "This user has left wikipedia." The problem is that it is right above Phil's section, and it kind of makes it look like Newyorkbrad is the person who has left. Could someone please make it a little more clear? Or maybe delete it altogether, since Phil seems to be back, sort of? Thanks. MookieZ (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sandstein removed it. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For better or for worse, I'm not going anywhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost coverage
The Wikipedia Signpost recently compiled a candidates profile page, with certain standard questions asked to each candidate. I believe this should be linked at the top candidate statements page and voting pages ( within the instructions, sort of like a see also link.) In last year's elections, the Signpost used a template for major stories about the elections. I have already contacted Ral, who wouldn't mind as long as it discussed here first. Thoughts? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the signpost's coverage is useful for those who haven't been following the candidates and their questions. A useful thumbnail sketch, if you will. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My nominations
Withdraw Please After recieving some questions and also reading through other users replies to their own questions I have come to the conclusion that I am not yet ready for ArbCom. I have read the policies and paid attention to some of the cases but I think I'm not immersed enough within the dispute resolution process as a whole. Over the coming months I will spend more time watching the process and commenting where possible. I think I would be a good member of the committee and I know I would respond to the challenges. Ultimately though, after further deliberation and some questions (of which I thank those who asked them) I am not ready. Could somebody please therefore remove my nomination to the withdrawn candidates section. I will be back to vote when the elections start as there are some great candidates here and thank you all for the chance to nominate myself. Good Luck to everyone. Best regards, LordHarris (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done - thank you for putting yourself forwards in the first place. Maybe at some point in the future you will feel ready to run again. WjBscribe 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Real-time voting analysis script
I've recently done the script for Russian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections, which had great interest and success in the community. Maybe English Wikipedia community will be interested in my implementation of the similar parser for these elections? — Kalan ? 12:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We are always interested in improving the elections. How does the script work, and what does it do? I'm sorry, I don't understand Russian. :( - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In Russian Wikipedia, I was the informal "technical election coordinator", so I've introduced some hints on how to edit pages correctly. Our rules state that comments are forbidden in voting section (we have a discussion stage for that), so I could easily analyze every vote and build an interesting table based on it. — Kalan ? 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The script contains two parts — "public" one and "backstage" one. Users see the "public" part (for example, here), and they see different statistics (by clicking the link before you'll get the table showing election results at the moment). The "backstage" part is run by cron every 60 seconds, and it updates the votes list (and all statistics based on that) without making any edits in Wikipedia.

Final day of nominations - three new candidate so far
Final day of nominations - three new candidate so far. Wonder if there will be any more? About 18 minutes to go... Carcharoth 23:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt many candidates will come out of the blue in the next 15 minutes, maybe one or two at the most, but even that I doubt. This is a Secret account 23:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Note in a few mins I will close and protect it for no new people to run. This is a Secret account 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Closed nominations. I accidentally closed them a few minutes before deadline. Sorry about that. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I edit conflected you on that, I also protected the statements. This is a Secret account 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright. All we have to do now is prepare for the Voting phase. I created a To Do list, see template at top of this page. Feel free to add or modify the instructions. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did the first one, but I have no time (at least tonight) to do the rest. This is a Secret account 00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm tight on time too. But we have 48 hours, which should be enough. I start tomorrow morning and tomorrow night. I'd say we should be ready by Sunday, November 2 at around 18:00 UTC. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, are there any official, or even unofficial, election officers for this election? I looked for information on this on the main page, but couldn't find anything. Carcharoth 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Official, no. But certain users, including myself, have maintained these pages before and during the nominations. I'm willing to continue serving as one, as I already considered not voting during these elections to be able to monitor discussions, pages, and editcounts, making sure it goes well. But it's too much for only one user. I think 3 to 4 users could be enough (but there's always room for more). We could renew the Organizer's Statement. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll willing to be an election officer as well, and I'm thinking of you, Geni and WJBscribe as the other election officers. I'm going to vote in the elections though. This is a Secret account 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the watchlist message inviting people to nominate themselves for the committee. Perhaps someone should add a message saying voting commences 3 Dec? --Deskana (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On december the third yes. no need for one over the weekend.Geni 00:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt I'd be qualified as an election officer, in light of the lofty company you propose - but is there any other way I can pitch in and help? ZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note you could become one, I'm thinking of four editors in good standing. This is a Secret account 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyways I had to protect Giano's for 36 hours (until right before election starts) because people are already voting on that one. Thanks This is a Secret account 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but please, please make sure that all the voting pages are unprotected before the election starts, especially if any of them have to be reprotected again (I see the protection time expires before the election starts). Carcharoth 11:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, who is handling the voting suffrage issues? Also, Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote has a stray ^demon redlink at the very bottom. Could someone confirm that ^demon has withdrawn? I see someone else removed him, but can't find where ^demon confirms this. Carcharoth 11:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. See the deletion summary for his candidate statements sub-page, or demon's deletion log. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone might want to put together a quicklist similar to last year's; people seemed to find that useful. --bainer (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's on the to do list. I'll get to it tonight, unless someone does it first. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Election officers
Users willing to serve as election officers should sign below as a commitment to the election process. Note that this isn't a position of privilege or power, just a commitment and notice to other users in an effort improve the transparency of the elections. Also note that this list is unofficial, and is not a formal organization or group. It may be discontinued at any time by the the arbitration committee, Jimbo, or if consensus is reached either by the community or the standing candidates.

Any established user, in good standing, may serve as an officer, except for standing candidates. Users may list or de-list themselves at any time during the elections. If sufficient good-faith objections arise, a user should be de-listed. Any user who is not an elections officer may also perform the tasks listed below, as long as they are good faith efforts to improve the elections.

Tasks and responsibilities:
 * Officers must be civil and impartial, at all times.
 * Move extended vote comments to respective talk pages, kindly notifying users at user talk pages of the move.
 * Watch pages for vandalism, and revert as needed.
 * Monitor edit counts of users, making sure they meet the 150 mainspace edits requirements to vote.
 * Watch for possible sockpuppets, report as needed, and block only if necessary.
 * Unqualified users should have their vote indented with a note by an officer.
 * Votes of unqualified users (e.g. not enough edits, suspected sockpuppet, etc.) should not be removed outright, unless they are pure vandalism, a blatant attack, or if the votes are made before the elections begin or after they end. Instead, they should be indented with a note from an officer.
 * Voting pages must not be protected while the elections are ongoing, unless they routinely receive extreme vandalism. Even then, they should only be temporarily semi-protected, but again only in extreme cases. Any full protections (i.e. limited only to admin edits) will be immediately unprotected regardless of who protected it, even the candidate.
 * Officers must remain uninvolved from discussions, other than those regarding the voting process. Otherwise, the officer should recuse him/herself from continuing to monitor that specific vote page.

Volunteer officers:
 * Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a Secret account 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At your service. Mailer Diablo 03:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I'm being bold here and made an "unofficial" list of election officers for this election. I also listed the expected tasks of the officers. This is completely open for discussion, but I hope we can come to consensus before the elections begin. Suggestions are always welcome. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Arbitration committee candidates themselves should be election officers, and it might be appropriate to make that explicit. Sam Blacketer 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a given. I'll include it now. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What does Officers must remain uninvolved from discussions, other than those regarding the voting process. Otherwise, the officer should recuse him/herself from continuing to monitor that specific vote page. mean. Can you please clafify. Thanks This is a Secret account 20:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, I'd say that officers shouldn't campaign or engage in debate on the merits of any particular candidate. Officers should probably refrain from monitoring votes on pages of candidates that they support or oppose. I'm not sure if discussions indicate discussions about the election as a whole, candidates, the voting process, or just the inevitable discussions on each voting page. this was totally me earlier. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, as long as I'm allowed to vote I'm ok with it. This is a Secret account 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd probably be hesitant to indent votes for candidates I voted for (or against), unless it's a clear-cut case. Beyond that, I think we're OK to vote. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was away during the day, so forgive the late response. You guys basically understood me. Officers should remain impartial, and their work should be transparent. An officer routinely monitoring a vote page must not engage in lengthy discussions on the voting talk page about the candidate. I personally believe that we should not routinely monitor pages which we supported or opposed, but that's open for discussion. Remember, an uncontroversial edit which unquestionably improves the election process should be done. So revert vandalism and blatant attack comments and indent unqualified editors at will. If you have doubts, look for assistance of other officers or indeed other uninvolved editors, and maybe let them do the edit. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I intend to vote on most candidates, and leave brief explanatory comments on the vote page, linked back to a fuller discussion of my choices. I could outdent votes that are short on edit count. But moving comments might be touchy. Is there a way I could help out, without raising eyebrows? Jd2718 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving another person's comments might be touchy, but unfortunately necessary. You may leave that to one of the other officers. However, I think that the most routine thing would be to check for unqualified editors, checking the edit counts constantly. You're free to do that. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Quickvote
I'm working on adding this year's candidates to a quickvote page similar to last year's. Once it's complete, I'll create the subpage, add the template, and then redirect the WP:ACQV shortcut to the new quickvote. Once done, could I have someone protect it? I'm looking at probably late afternoon (US) before it's done, and I'll post a notice here. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

✅ I've completed the 2007 Quickvote page. I can't find any bad or red links, but please have a look and doublecheck me. I also redirected WP:ACQV to the 2007 page, though the 2006 page still has the shortcut link (since it's fully protected). If everything looks good, I need an admin to finalize the page by protecting it from editing. Thanks! ZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Great work, but I'm not sure it would need to be fully protected preemptively, as there's not yet any evidence of abuse and there's a good chance it would need to be updated during the voting e.g. if candidates withdraw. Tra (Talk) 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true - forgot about that. Guess that means it's done and final. Thanks! ZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also redirected the Quickvote talk page to this discussion; on the off chance that there is some question or concern about the page, it's more likely to be seen here. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote Verifying
So, when someone votes, we check their contributions as of December 1. If they have fewer than the required total edits, we indent their vote and explain why. We also leave a message on their talk page noting that we did so. Should we that the vote has been reviewed, so that others don't spend time checking? We might also make a list of the verified (and ineligible!) voters, so that - before checking - we can see if the name is already on the list as checked. it has the added benefit of putting the names of every voter deemed ineligible into one place, for added transparency. Thoughts? ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We certainly need a system to improve efficiency. We could make a Note section after the opposes, with a note from the officer noting how many votes of that page were verified.


 * Example: Supports 1 through 25 verified, with 2 ineligibles. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Example update: Supports 1 through 35 verified, with 5 ineligibles. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer a system like that, since its more low key. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction: The instructions say accounts created with 150 edits before November 1. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that it's mainspace edits, not total edits. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So far...
Well, it's been an interesting two hours since the elections started, with a heck of a lot of votes cast. I'm calling it a night, I really can't do much right now. So here's an update:


 * User:Daniel started moving comments, and I continued throughout all pages. I admit that I had to be subjective, since this is without precedent. I received some heat for it, but discussion turned out to be civil and forthcoming. Some still do not agree completely, but at least they understand the instructions to keep comments short.
 * I reviewed all pages, moving extended comments to the talk page. Users who wish to continue this task may follow the same process, but please be sure to leave a note at the user's talk page. Please! This is a highly respectful gesture, necessary to maintain civility for the elections.
 * The only Vote page I didn't oversee was the Giano vote page. As expected, it received the most long comments. I hope someone else can take it tonight, otherwise I'll handle it in the morning.
 * I haven't checked users for edit counts, but that isn't critical right now, we can wait until we're a few days into the elections.
 * Mathbot isn't working yet, a message was left at Oleg's page to try and find the problem. Gurch's tool is currently operating fine.

So that's it. I hope the rest of the elections run relatively smoothly, like it's been for the last couple of hours. I hope this page is still here in the morning, and not MFD'd. :) - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Requirement?
I don't know if this is something that is "too late" to suggest at this stage of the election, but I'll still propose it so that it might be considered for "next time" (and please let me know if this has been proposed already):

With the new "ease" this year of usurping accounts, and of course just general renaming of usernames, in the interest of transparancy, and because traditionally (I believe), we elect people to ArbCom, not usernames/accounts, I'd like to request that anyone running for ArbCom should list/have listed every username that they have (socks, regardless if "legal" or not), and "former" names as well.

ArbCom elections are not RfA or RfB, and involve other concerns (including privacy issues), So for this (and many other presumably obvious reasons), I'm suggesting this. - jc37 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea. White Cat voluntarily did this, and Mercury probably should have done it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

EXIT POLL LINK HERE
Where can I see a running sum of the votes? futurebird 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Electoral rules
Obviously, with Jimbo ultimately deciding which (if any) of the candidates is appointed, the election is something of an illusion, but is the theory explained anywhere? Arbitration Committee is singularly unenlightening, but perhaps it is explained elsewhere and I've missed it. Net support = Support votes - Oppose votes? Net Support = Percentage supporting out of total votes (as shown in the little report above)? What purpose do the comments play if it is a straight vote? Yomangani talk 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments with votes serve several purposes. In some cases, it might be a direct message to the candidate - "Improve this and I would support" or "Moral Support". In others, there may be a caveat - I'm seeing several votes for Rebecca being phrased as "Support if she resigns as ombudsperson", for example. The vote counts the same, but makes the voter's intent clear. Finally, some present diffs to justify the vote, in similar fashion to an RfA. These might be to show the candidate why the voter voted as he/she did, or it might be to attempt to sway others.


 * In theory, the election results are used by Jimbo to evaluate community opinion of the candidates, and to aid him in making a final selection. The project has grown to the point where he cannot possibly be personnally familiar with each candidate, which is why additional input is required. If a candidate gets the most support (by %) of all the candidates, but had many votes against, or many that expressed the same concern about their conduct, he may take that into consideration. Then again, he might not - he could just flip a coin. But, by using community input, he at least has some data to evaluate.


 * Hope this helps, ZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

MfD nome
This user (who left me a nice message on my oppose list) keeps adding this to my page. Can he do that? --Endless Dan 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't think so. I'll have a look. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate was closed as Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Hopefully, that takes care of that. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) MFD was speedy closed, and rightly so. We don't delete discussions or RFAs because of WP:SNOW. If a user feels a nomination should be withdrawn they should bring discussion here or the candidate's vote talk page, preferably by first consulting with the Candidate and Jimbo. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think candidacies should run their course. Many users have already participated in good faith. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the closing admin agreed. I was barely done reporting the incident at WP:ANI when it was closed. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Result graph
I've thrown up a not-too-pretty results graph here, for anyone interested - I'll update it a few times a day for now. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs (st47) 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another fabulous tool, ST47! Anthøny  20:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks too crowded. I realize this may mean more work for you, but could you try breaking it up by candidate blocks? There were originally 34 candidates, so maybe 4 graphs of 8-9 users each? That would look better. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On a side note, this graph gives us the best picture on how the elections are running, and how we can expect them to finish in 14 days, save for an october surprise. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Main graph updated, and Image:ArbCom Elections December 2007 hourly A-M.jpg and Image:ArbCom Elections December 2007 hourly M-Z.jpg created. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs (st47) 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks great! - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Looks like there was an organized opposition against me, wizardman, and shell kinney, about 59.09-51.72 (whenever that is supposed to be). &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A wild "what if"
These approval margins seem lower than I recall from the past. So what if, at the end, there are not enough candidates that have 70%? It could happen! Just trusting to Jimbo is one approach, I guess but... maybe some discussion is merited now. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's only been one day. Let's wait until we're half way, and if this persists we'll open discussion. We still have some contenders, steadily receiving 75% support or more.


 * I think that this should've been expected. There have been many nasty ArbCom cases recently, and most parties involved have outright opposed every candidate unless they show their willingness to drastically change the Committee. This has really hurt many good faith candidates' chances, but it's part of the process. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per my recollection traditionally the stated threshold for selection is 50% not 70%. FloNight 12:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. But I was just emphasizing that many users are receiving much more than a majority support (i.e more than 51%). Many users are comparing these elections to WP:ACE2006, where the members selected received 84%+, and are therefore concerned. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on my past observations, I think that Lar is correct and the percentages are going to drop lower for a number of noms so we may end up with the majority of the noms below well below 70% and only a few above 70%. I think that Jimbo can be trusted to think this through and decide whether the lower percentage reflect a dissatisfaction with the candidates or not. Additionally, our method of voting where the voters leave a comment may help him figure it out. FloNight 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The significance of the percentage is also reduced somewhat by the fact that Jimbo will not necessarily appoint the top five vote-getters anyway. Last year, I believe he appointed the top whatever-number without skipping anyone, but the year before that he did skip a person or two.  His aim seems to be to do as little "skipping" as possible, but it remains theoretically possible (if unlikely) that he could decline to appoint someone who got 80+ percent and instead choose someone who got in the 50's.  As FloNight says, the comments will allow Jimbo to figure out why certain people did not place as highly as they might have otherwise, and to take that into account if he so chooses.   6SJ7 15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's partly correct: following the January 2006 elections, Jimbo appointed the top eight candidates (in terms of percentage support, see the results) to the eight expected vacancies, but appointed three more users (#9, #12 and #15, of a field of 68) to three newly created seats. --bainer (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The process of electing Arbitrators relies primarily on Jimbo's selection process, and also on the top X candidates. It does not run by "top X%"; theoretically, the most successful candidate can all have got 40% - it is simply, those underneath got less support votes. Anthøny  22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it would be a change from the criteria previously stated by Jimbo if someone was appointed who had 40 percent, or anything less than a majority. The idea is that those selected should have the support of the community, at the very least.  Of course, if the best that any candidate could do was 40 percent, in an election in which each candidate is really running against himself/herself, that would not bode very well for Wikipedia.  It would mean the community did not trust anyone to be an arbitrator.  Fortunately, it does not appear that this will be the case.  The community will express confidence in some group of people, even if the "margin of confidence" for most of them is smaller than in past elections.  6SJ7 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we are also seeing a general drift downwards due to the 'late' vote generally being more evenly split than the 'early' vote. This what happens is that the initial trend is set by the early voting (a big surge), and then roughly 50-50 split of the remaining votes on a candidate (the long decreasing tail of voting that slows and peters off towards the end of the two weeks) means that the percentage drifts downwards from the value set by the early voting. The drift in either direction caused by the late voting varies according to how many votes arrived in the initial surge. If a large number of votes are present already (eg. 200+ votes), then the later votes will have a small effect on the percentage. If there is a smaller number of votes (eg. 50 votes) then the late votes will affect the percentage considerably more. This is most obvious in Giano's case, where an initial large surge of votes has been replaced by a steady drift downwards. I also think the "net votes" column at User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections (I looked at this snapshot) is interesting. Both Sam Blacketer, Thebainer, and Wizardman have high percentages, but low net supports (64, 44 and 24) compared to the other front-running candidates. Of the top 5 percentage-wise, all have well over 100 net supports, compared to Sam Blacketer's 64. Does this mean that Sam Blacketer's candidacy is getting less interest or scrutiny than it should? And it still seems that nearly everyone wants to express an opinion on Newyorkbrad and Giano, with 369 and 339 total votes respectively. Hmm. I've just realised that snapshot is very out of date. I'm off to the other bot to see what the latest is. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lost suffrage
Just a note: I was just notified my votes have been struck under this years rules. It was a small surprise, since I had suffrage last year. I'm not here to complain, however, as I see the rules were up in October and I simply hadn't been by to notice the change. I am posting a new section for two reasons. Hopefully, others in my boat will see this first and refrain from launching any sort of protest. Rules change, and these were posted more than a month in advance. I also hope someone might consider making the suffrage requirements more prominent in the next election. Perhaps as a reminder in the header of each voting page. Thank you. I'm going to take my little computed edit summary, go back to my own talk page and cry now. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Last year it was total edits that counted, while this year it was changed to 150 mainspace edits. It's tripped more than a dozen editors up so far, and I'm sorry you weren't able to vote. If it helps, you're not alone. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the 150 mainspace edits requirement is a bad idea and it seems like it was taken without very much discussion and, in fact, against the general consensus on the page where it was briefly discussed. Unless I am missing the locus of the discussion about this, it appears to have been a decision made by a election volunteer (whose work we all appreciate) without the appropriate review. As ZZ has pointed out, a number of editors who voted in good faith and are NOT sockpuppets (the apparent target of this rule) have had their votes indented. I think it would be appropriate, even at this late point in the voting process, to restore last years voting requirements and accordingly restore the votes of those of us who have been denied suffrage. Avruch Talk 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of users who edit infrequently at best, but who follow and could reasonably comment on the candidates and their views. These people should probably be allowed to vote. Mainspace edits were required, I think, so that editors had to be at least peripherally involved in actually editing the encyclopedia. A new account, sock or no, could tinker with a userpage 150 times and qualify otherwise. One alternative would be to require A) a registered account, and EITHER B) 150 mainspace edits, or C) 25 mainspace edits with the earliest edit being on or before 1 November 2005 (or some other date). The user would still have had to edit something, but could be considered to be "grandfathered" in as a result of their "tenure".


 * For good or ill, though, I don't think we can change the voting requirements in midstream. Voters who thought about voting and did not may not find out about the change that would permit them to vote, which means that some candidates would get votes they wouldn't have received, while other candidates will still lose votes they never actually had. As much as I hate to see votes not counted, I think fairness would require the rules, however derived, to remain the same for all candidates, throughout the voting process. The mainspace rule came up in late October, and it stuck - so, whether we keep it for next year or not, it should probably stay for the duration of this election. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its unfortunate that the only way the people who considered this before 'it stuck' could come up with to measure a users contributions to the encyclopedia is mainspace edits, particularly since people who have lots of mainspace edits but few talk page edits get opposed at RfAs. I think fairness requires that unfair rules be retracted once they are found not to have the support of the community, without waiting for the full negative effect to have accumulated.

The current voting experience shows that a number of people voted who thought they were eligible despite the notice. It would be ironic if the difficulty of making people aware of the reversal became the reason for not adjusting an unreasonable requirement. The truth is you could fairly describe the voting restriction as a Wikipedia policy, and as such it should have required a fair review by the community and it should not have gone in to effect without consensus in favor. Avruch Talk 21:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that more community input should go into determining the rules for the election, and I intend to propose such a review for next year's election (July or August, perhaps?). I'd like to get onto some sort of election cycle, and an annual review or comment period would help with that. This rule was added to the voting page on 28 October, more than a month before the election.


 * I also note that, even if a vote is indented for lack of suffrage, it remains on the voting page. This lets the voter's feelings be known, either as a statement of support or opposition, regardless of whether it goes into the count or not. But, it also lets Jimbo see that, in addition to the counted votes, there were other editors who supported (or opposed) that candidate, but who could not actually vote. As Jimbo is ultimately the authority who determines the outcome of the election, having those indented votes remain visible does provide him with information, and thus - even if they aren't counted - the votes do have some value. That's specifically why they are indented instead of removed entirely. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And if he just uses the handy-dandy counter box? Avruch Talk 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You got me - I guess that would be within his discretion, though it'd be a bit disappointing. They might impact a tight race, though, where he would have to go into detail about the voting. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon suggested the 150 mainspace edit requirement in October, to which we all agreed. Granted, this does limit suffrage to new users, but most are not even aware of the ArbCom. And as ZZ said, they are still more than welcome to provide their views, especially on the vote talk page. Jimbo decides the elections, and he is not a vote counting machine. Although I can't speak for him, I trust he carefully analyzes the results, reading through the comments, to determine consensus. Of course, candidates that receive overwhelming support are obvious shoe-ins, but close calls are scrutinized. Comments by new users may still be read to determine consensus.

Please understand that this requirement is an effort to reduce the likelihood of malicious sockpuppets, which could have a serious negative effect on the elections by gaming the system, making some candidates appear they receive community support, or making sure some good-faith candidates don't make it when they obviously have much support. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Threshold to vote section of this page where Picaroon suggested 150 mainspace edits. It was his response to someone else saying that it should be 150 edits but exclude User and User_talk. No one (no one) agreed with his suggestion in that section. One editor agreed in another section, but then made the first post in the threshold section and suggested 150 edits, not 150 mainspace edits. So where do you get 'to which we all agreed'? Avruch Talk 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion continued. No one opposed. Other users continued discussion considering the 150 mainspace requirement. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 150 main space edits isn't a high hurdle. It's not a perfect system - people who discuss edits on talk pages have lower edit counts than edit warriors; it'd be trivial for a sock using twinkle (or many tabs) to get 150 minor main space edits by spell and grammar checking; etc - but it's easy to understand and implement.   Dan Beale-Cocks  00:49, 7 December 2007

(UTC)

Alrighty. I appreciate the reponses to my questions and concerns. Next year I won't have the same problem, and hopefully I'll remember to pay attention to the discussion earlier so that other users don't have it as well. Avruch Talk 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)