Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote

Attribution
The design of this page and process is extensively based on the Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote page. It's history can be found here. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mainspace vs total edits
The instructions state: In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process 1 November 2007.

If you have multiple accounts, you may only vote with one. Voting with multiple accounts will result in all your votes being declared void and a possible block on all accounts.

To check when your account was created, go to the user creation log, and enter your username in the "User" field. To check your number of edits, see number of edits in your user preferences.

The number of edits in the user preferences is not the same as the number of mainspace edits unless a users edits only in mainspace and the check on number of edits using the instuctions above will not tell a user if they have the correct number of main space edits.Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've updates it to a link to Special:Contributions including all filters except username. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks better - but it doesn't report a number. So a user either needs to count them or to see if the (Older 150) text is a link to determine if they've reached the 150 post point. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't have to count, just look for (older) suppose we could make it 149 edits in the filter to be exact. There are not any other on-wiki methods to determine this, and linking everyone to external edit counter tools doesn't seem to be the answer either, any suggestions for improvement? —  xaosflux  Talk 04:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope - no good suggestions. The tool here looks fast  but cumbersome to explain.  Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, the first wording was completely my mistake, since I copied from last year's instructions which did not have the mainspace requirement. Second, I believe we can use external edit counters to aid us in this, preferably Interiot's tool. This might give us a general idea of the user. Yes, the tool is not as precise as we'd like, since there's always a difference between it and our preferences count. But it's a quick tool to determine user edit counts. Any close calls can be verified by manually counting the edits from the my contributions link suggested by Xaosflux above. It's not perfect, but I believe it is the best alternative. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

talk pages
Votes placed before the start of the election will be stricken. But each candidate's vote page will have a corresponding talk page. Is it OK to place things there in advance of the start of the vote?? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. Let's wait until the elections to start the full discussion on the candidates. Right now, we're making sure everything is in place for the elections, and discussion should not deviate from this. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't really see the harm in it, but I ended up just writing what I wanted to say as a user subpage and linking to that instead. Seemed to work OK so no worries. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote results
How are the "winning" candidates selected for presentation to Jimbo, is it by total net support votes vs oppose votes or the percentage of support to oppose, no matter the number of votes? Cla68 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its usually people with the highest percentage of support votes. Last election he literally picked the top 7 candidates by % - Can't sleep, clown will eat me got the most supports but too low a % to be appointed for example. The previous elections he appointed 11 candidates in more or less that way but favoured some of the previous arbitrators who were running again, appointing 1st-9th, 12th (Fred Bauder) & 15th (Jayjg) placed people. So generally its the top people by vote percentage but Jimbo may exercise some discretion around that. WjBscribe 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cla68 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely recall there were in previous years, and thought there is for this year, but I can't seems to find it anywhere. Is there a minimum support level required, or is that just 50%? (Note: I could simply be confusing this with the many other election / !election that we run.) KTC 12:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot-generated table
I distinctly remember having a handy little table for monitoring the support level of various candidacies last year, similar to the TangoBot RfA table. Will that be here this year? It would make things a little more organized for me, and it was fun to have... Grand master  ka  02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This might be the one you are looking for. Risker 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha! Though, I think the one before was sorted by percentage support, rather than alphabetically. This will certainly do the trick though. Thanks. Grand  master  ka  02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just realized it's customizable... Even better! Grand  master  ka  02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility
I, for one, am shocked at the amount of rudeness that people feel is appropriate to add to their 'oppose' votes.

Will Beback? No, Youwont. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Er, no. BLACKKITE 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose with a Red Flag and a side of  Drama due to weird conspiracy theories, drama, etc.. Miranda 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) No, just no. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Hell no. Nick 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Good God, no. Qst 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Etc, etc.. it is as if people can't be satisfied with just opposing somebody, it is now required to pour salt on the wounds as well? Shameful. 86.137.31.5 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I addressed it in my voting talk page. The tough part is that if you defend yourself, you sound like you are bitter or you are grandstanding, but if you don't then those people will never know how bad they sound. A Catch-22 for sure. Monsieurdl 14:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Opposing is (of course) fine, being unnecessarily rude is most definitely not. JavaTenor 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

sub-page not accessible
I can't get to the Giano voting sbpage (last ?30 mins); the other seem ok. But I notice others seem able to (I have it on my watchlist). Johnbod 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Click on the Support or Oppose this candidate link below Giano's statement. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) I can reach it fine here. Perhaps the problem has cleared up? -- 健次 (derumi)talk 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's just my machine - I still can't reach it (don't worry, I've already voted) but obviously others can. I must have some duff cache link cookie thing Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

suffrage
Last year wasn't there a bot that checked voter eligibility? Does this voter, for example, have suffrage? -- M P er el 19:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He/she does not. The votes have been reverted by Tim. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical Signpost Coverage Arbcom Elections
I thought people might be interested in past Arbcom elections -the process, how members were selected, etc. The Signpost has covered 2 past elections (Jan 2006 and Dec 2006). Was thinking maybe this should be linked on the main page, a little historical perspective never hurts. R. Baley 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OTRS
I should explain in brief why I regard OTRS membership with caution : I place this here because it applies to several candidates, and I will link to it even when I have reason to support them anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both OTRS and ArbCom are heavy and responsible jobs. Can they be reasonably handled at the same time?
 * OTRS exposes one to a steady stream of petitions of the form: I don't want this detrimental information about me in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is verifiable and reliably sourced; these will be as heartrending as the complaintant, or her public relations people, can make them. This demonstrably tends to foster a disregard for our core principles and to entrench the view that WP:BLP is the Most Important Thing, to be defended at any cost to the encyclopedia or to civility.
 * Even if the candidate has not fallen into this trap, others have; and ArbCom is our only line of defense against overbearing OTRS members. An arbitrator with a fellow-feeling for these people, who are some of our least desirable admins, should be avoided.
 * When I wrote this, I had not seen Phil Sandifer's automatic supports for any OTRS candidates. Those would be in themselves reasons to oppose. Heedless votes of trust for officers above the rules are irresponsible, especially in a native of the twentieth century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This comment belongs in all candidate vote talk pages you voted in, not here. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, it should either be on each candidate's page, or on your own page for linking purposes. R. Baley 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree, moving it would be more trouble than it is worth. --Iamunknown 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The irony of this is the fact that OTRS agents are not obliged to disclose their participation, so there's every chance that Pmanderson has supported someone who is actually an active OTRS respondent.  Daniel  23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, I am seriously considering supporting an avowed OTRS; but this is a general argument, which I bear into consideration there as elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am forced to point out that, as OTRS is maintained by the Foundation, in the end, OTRS > Arbcom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the Foundation > OTRS. The Foundation is also > ArbCom, if it wishes to be; a prudent Foundation will not. But if OTRS is incommeasurable with ArbCom, this only increases the importance of keeping our existing partial check independent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean when you say that the two are incommensurate? In what way? --bainer (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Incomparable might have been clearer: If A > B, and A > C, but B is neither > or < C, then B and C are incommeasurable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You still misunderstand - OTRS is a Foundation group. Its functions are all conducted on wikimedia domains. The English arbcom is a product of one particular Foundation project - the English Wikipedia. Though OTRS takes a limited role and cedes authority to the local rules of the project (as OTRS does work on all WM projects), it still trumps the arbcom in that it is the first line of Foundation action to maintain what it will and will not host on its servers. In practice, were OTRS and arbcom to actually be opposed on an issue the issue would be elevated beyond OTRS and onto second and third lines of Foundation action, but the point remains - OTRS is the first line of the thing that oversees the arbcom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well stated argument. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Suffrage 2
How was the requirement of 150 mainspace edits arrived at, since that isn't what it was last year? I apparently had 116 mainspace edits by Nov 1st, but thats if you exclude talk page edits and all other edits. I don't see why they must be 'mainspace' in order to count towards suffrage. Can this be explained, and the page where the requirement was discussed be linked? Avruch Talk 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As Avruch seems to have already discovered, the original discussion and some additional discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough already!
(If this is not the appropriate venue, please move it to the appropriate one.)

I think it's fair to say EndlessDan is not going to be elected to the ArbCom. He's not even close. But before you vote for or against him, consider this: at the moment I write this, 219 people have voted on his candidacy, which is more than all but 7 of the 24 current candidates. How do you think those other 16 candidates, many of whom are quiet serious & capable about doing the job, feel coming in behind a joke candidate?

It's been fun, no animals or cold stones have been harmed in the election, but the joke is over. Let's move on. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's just say, that editors may take longer to evaluate the serious candidates. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Mailer diablo. I am still evaluating several candidates. My having voted against Endless Dan and not in other votes, doesn't mean anything yet. I was unable to vote for some candidates because they withdrew - so again, not voting for someone only means something if they stayed the course. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's also just say that some voters were looking for a candidate who wasn't taking this as a life or death election to rule the free world. but rather as an evaluation of folks who are willing to waste considerable time listening to the worst sorts of trolls that the internet has enabled to irritate the world at large.  One who can do that with a sense of humor and the idea that he's not curing cancer would be a benefit to the committee, rather than a 'joke candidate'.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors who are sanctioned after they have voted
I have noted that votes of some editors are being struck on the grounds that the voter is under an indefinite block. I am not entirely certain that votes made prior to the block should be discounted in this way; at that time, the editor was free of any sanction. Is there a precedent for this? I note that this affects votes both supporting and opposing various candidates, and thus this is a general question. Risker (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, the only clear case is that any user blocked or banned for sockpuppet violations should have their vote indented, and the notation should indicate that they were banned as a sock. Since sockpuppetry could directly impact the result of the election, it is and should be prohibited utterly. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet issues does indeed make sense. I am more curious about User:Dbuckner whose current block appears to be related to other issues. He has voted on the pages of many candidates. Risker (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The original block message placed by user:Radiant! was "(Smear campaign intended to sway the ongoing arbcom elections)". That appears closely related to this election. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dbuckner's votes are being struck? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. Can someone explain why this is being done? Just because someone who voted on Monday gets blocked on Tuesday shouldn't in and of itself negate their vote.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the reasoning here is that the activity for which the user was blocked (initially a smear campaign involving personal attacks against the candidate, later legal threats) are closely related to the election. The vote could be percieved as an aspect of such a campaign, particularly if it had linked to a talk page or comment where the attacks or threats were made. To be fair, I had inquired whether such votes should be removed, and was asked to wait on a ruling from the foundation (since it had just been referred for legal threats). That was a few days ago, though - apparently the block stands. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the disputed allegations involved only one candidate. The vote I linked to above was for an entirely different candidate, and was removed at the request of that candidate.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The first user was blocked indef, and I agree with Will on the second one Dbuckner was blocked indef for trying to disrupt the elections, even if it's one candidate, therefore crossing out his votes are reasonable. Secret account 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't reasonable and in fact is pretty scary. When he voted, he was an editor in good standing. He was later blocked for an incident entirely unrelated to the votes that you struck out. There is therefore no justification for striking them. This is a bit like you going to vote in a real-life election, getting arrested for shoplifting on the way home, and election officials racing to grab your voting slip out of the ballot box as something unworthy. :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's actually like you going to the polling place, voting, then assaulting a campaign worker on the way out, then having your vote discounted. It still shouldn't discount your vote, but your analogy could've been a little more accurate ;) 129.170.46.117 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The analogy that held with other suffrage issues (not enough mainspace edits, etc.) was provisional balloting in the US. You can show up and say that you live in that voting district, cast a provisional ballot, and have a nice day. They check your information and - if it's OK - count your vote. If not, your vote gets tossed. It'd be similar, except that they find that you're a felon who cannot vote anyway. (but if you vote and then go shoot somebody, they don't strike your vote... maybe that's a bad analogy, too...)


 * The concern I would have is that, in striking votes for one candidate and not for others, you actually hurt the other candidates. If the editor was blocked for offenses related to the election, and striking votes for (or against) one candidate is justified, then surely - in the interests of fairness - the other votes would be struck, as well? It can't be halfway - either striking votes is justified for all the editor's votes, or it's justified for none of them. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Along the lines of analogies and provisional ballots... A provisional ballot is invalidated if the voter is found to have been ineligible on the date of the election or other legally established date of eligibility. Unless I missed it, there is no criteria to be eligible to vote throughout the election. If the voting had been completed on the day he voted, would you support changing the results later on based on his eventual block? What if he had been blocked six months from now? Even now, there is nothing preventing an admin from unblocking him to allow him to cast/change further votes, and then blocking him again. Avruch Talk 05:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * True - and the analogy holds for suffrage. Either they were eligible by having enough edits on a certain date, or they were not. My understanding is that votes can be indented or struck for lack of suffrage or blocks related to sockpuppetry up to 24 hours AFTER the end of voting. Part of the reason for a delay from the end of the election to Jimbo's announcement of the results is to permit that final check. After results come in, the votes are locked, largely because the point is moot - the decision has been made. In this case, it looks like the votes have been restored by Slimvirgin, per discussion at ANI. I'll add this to the (rapidly growing) list of items to clarify for next year's election. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another way of doing things, rather than striking, would be to add a note below their votes mentioning they were blocked for attempting to disrupt the elections. Then let that be taken into account at the end, just a suggestion-- Cailil  talk 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Indented Vote Analysis
I've reviewed the voting pages for all candidates, and compared vote totals with the votes indented for lack of suffrage, duplication of votes, or sockpuppetry. On average, 4.35 votes were indented per candidate, with the most being Giano (10 for and 5 against, 15 total) and the fewest being Misza13 and Jeepday (0 total). By percentage (versus total votes counted), the most votes were indented for Endlessdan (4.12%), followed by Will Beback (3.24%) and Giano (2.77%). The average percent of votes indented was 1.46%. A complete analysis may be found here. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also of note: Of 6099 total votes were cast, 3663 were in Support of candidates, and 2436 were in opposition of candidates. On average, 265 votes were cast per candidate, not including Neutral or Moo votes. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "not including Neutral or Moo votes" ... heh – Gurch 13:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that about two thirds of the votes cast were cast in the first 48 hours of this election. So with the exception of late developing situations, we pretty much knew where we were at that point, with only a few candidates significantly drifting up or down the rankings. NoSeptember 22:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think ST47 was doing a daily breakdown of trends in voting, and I'd be curious to see if he continued it after the first few days. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added in the 11 candidates who withdrew during the election. The totals are now 7,276 votes cast for all candidates, with 4006 Support votes and 3270 Oppose votes. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)