Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Archive 2

Closing date
I did something really dumb: I mixed up the midnight start-of and midnight end-of the closing date for voting. I sincerely apologise for this (the same issue was discovered within a day of the close of voting last year, and fixed within hours by Tim Starling to save the day).

The 10-day voting period (just like the 10-day nomination period), has been in print since the creation of the election pages more than a month ago. I hope no one minds that I've corrected this glitch by adjusting the date from Monday 6 December to Sunday 5 December; that is, expressed properly as the end of the day, not the start. Please let me know if this is a problem, and again, my apologies. Tony  (talk)  11:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't catch it. I doubt most anyone would have unless you did it while the voting was in process. Thanks for fixing it, and thanks for telling us. I know it sucks to have to stand up and tell a crowd that you made a mistake, but, as has so often been said by this merry band of coordinators, (and Cirt), no worries. Sven Manguard  Talk  17:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - a minor issue, as such things go, and it was caught before the election. No worries. I seem to recall we've screwed that up in previous elections, as well. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember this issue from last year. Perhaps something like specifying either 0001 or 2359 as the starting and closing time would avoid the ambiguities inherent in "midnight"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That was the workaround previously - and seems like it would be fine here as well. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Two new additions to the Candidate Discussion page
I would like to add these two paragraphs to the instructions at the top of Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Discussion. The first paragraph probably needs fine tuning. The is already up there, as it seems utterly uncontroverial, but we can take it out if people don't like it.

If discussions on the candidates branch off from this page or start on another page, please post a link to those discussions on this page. It is critical to the fairness and transparency of the elections for all participants to have access to the same information, including discussions on the candidates. While discussing the candidates off site, on the IRC, or via email are not explicitly forbidden, you are encourage to air all of your comments to the voting public.

Please endeavor to remain calm and respectful at all times, even when dealing with people you disagree with or candidates you do not support.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Talk  20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me on first reading. Tony   (talk)  08:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding the "play nice" wording is a good idea, I agree. I've temporarily retracted the wording about linking to discussions elsewhere; by the nature of the Discussion page, all discussions start elsewhere (e.g. at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Example) – the page itself is just a clearing house of transclusions, like WP:FAC. There has also been disquiet expressed here about the potential downsides of the expansive wording; this needs to be thought over and discussed further given potential for disruption and gaming.  Skomorokh   14:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Voter log
Last year we maintained an on-wiki voter log, which listed voters with annotations for those whose eligibility was questioned. Was this beneficial? Should we have one this year, and if so, who will maintain it? Skomorokh  14:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. We need to get a version of User:RSElectionBot up again. Code is published, so we just need a new account name and the space to run it. Maybe off of the Florida servers or the Toolservers. The coordinators will watch the list, along with anyone else that wants to, and we can follow the same format of challenges. This seems like a very good idea. Sven Manguard  Talk  22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, crucial. It helps editors to monitor the election for questionable voters.  Roger  talk 09:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, bot request filed.  Skomorokh   14:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

DeltaQuad is currently working on getting a bot up and running. Skomorokh  12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: the bot has been approved and the log will be at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Log. Skomorokh  21:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: elections start in less than two days
Just a heads up to anyone who might have been wanting to raise any issues about the proposed structure/process for the elections that the review period will be closing with the opening of nominations on 00:01 UTC, Sunday 14 November (approx. 33 hours time). Specifically, let me draw your attention to:
 * The draft list of general questions, which are the only questions that will be asked of every candidate in this election. These are still subject to community review and consensus, and will be moved and protected on the opening of nominations to ensure that all candidates will be answering the same set of questions.
 * The guide and instructions for voters, in particular the specification that each voter may ask one question limited to 75 words in length of each candidate.
 * The guide and instructions for candidates, particularly the eligibility criteria and directions for setting up their candidate pages.

If you have a few minutes to spare, it would be appreciated if you role-played as if you were a voter or a candidate and seeing if you run into any difficulty (editors of all levels of experience and technical proficiency welcome to help with this). Any ambiguities, contradictions or confusing language in the instructions, as well as broken links and malfunctioning coding need to be identified sooner rather than later so we can fix them for when the real show begins.

Finally, there is a need for more election volunteers, specifically admins who aren't afraid of their buttons, checkusers willing to monitor the voters, and other editors who are willing to do the donkey work in making sure everything is where it is supposed to be. Thank you for your time,  Skomorokh   14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I see the discussion that established that editors would only be allowed to ask one question? NW ( Talk ) 15:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was established after perennial dissatisfaction from candidates and voters about the inadequacy of the guidelines and enforcement relating to individual questions; last year's discussion can be found at Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Feedback. The provisional arrangements for the election were announced on Oct 21st. Best,  Skomorokh   15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If people do happen to think of more than one question they want to ask (this is quite likely to happen), would it be acceptable to ask one and then leave the other questions on a "community" page where others could chose to ask one of the unasked questions if they thought the question needed asking and they hadn't thought of one themselves? Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The concern is that a community page will vie with the general questions which have already been established by consensus as the ones that are asked of all candidates. I suppose a community question page would, like individual questions, be optional for candidates to answer. Whether or not they would answer depends on a few factors, I guess. I thought the discussion pages we have established would do the trick ... dicussion can of course include direct questions to a candidate. Tony   (talk)  03:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that SirFozzie has set up a second talkpage for his candidacy, adjacent to his questions page, for spillover questions. He has also answered an individual question longer than 75 words. Is this something that is acceptable? I wonder if perhaps we should leave it up to candidates themselves to decide, and amend the guidelines accordingly.  Skomorokh   08:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why all this attempt to regulate questions? This election is not here for the candidates; it's for the community. There's no reason the community shouldn't get to ask as many questions as it wants. The candidates are asking to be given a vote on binding dispute resolution; that the community wants to vet them thoroughly is completely right. If a candidate doesn't want to answer lots of questions, they shouldn't run for the committee (they're certainly going to get plenty of questions as committee members). Of course, they can choose which they will answer, but failing to do so risks alienating those who might support them. I applaud SirFozzie's decision here; it's exactly the right attitude to have to allow questions, and for my part, I would require that any candidate be willing to answer more than one question (whether in a separate page or just their own user talk page) or automatically get an oppose vote from me. I'm against any candidate who shuts down how many questions they're willing to answer (within reason, of course; I'm not saying they have to answer some guy-who-won't-stop-beating-a-dead-horse). I'm also astounded we'd ask if this is acceptable. Of course it's acceptable. Any other answer is pure process wonkery. It's supporting openness and accountability among potential future arbs. That can only be good. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See Tony's response below; the obvious flaw in that rationale is that it conflates the interests of the voters with the interests of individual voters who want their questions answered, while ignoring the interests of the much larger proportion of voters who want to see from candidates readable answers in concentrated quality. Contrary to what you're saying, I don't think it at all obvious how to reconcile these competing concerns. Regards,  Skomorokh   13:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then two separate pages are indeed exactly what we ought to have. Those who want the easy-to-digest version (and by the way, I dispute the value of the current approach's apparent decision to kowtow to those people and not those who want to do extensive homework) can read the one; those who want more info can use a Fozzie-style subpage. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point that it need not be an either/or situation is a good one. I'm not set against Fozzie's setup, I'd like to hear more about whether it's a good idea, and whether it should be an option or if the instructions and templates should guide candidates towards setting them up like they do the other pages (another thing to keep in mind is the added complexity to candidates trying to get set up). Discussions and suggestions welcome.  Skomorokh   15:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's here for the voters, primarily. And voters have complained every year about the thousand-question syndrome, the indigestible mass of questions, and how, in many cases, they just ignore it because it's out of hand. Tony   (talk)  13:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Voters don't have to read them all if they don't choose to. I note again that you incorporated none of my questions into your general list. I think you're discovering that your restrictive policy isn't going to be universally applauded. I will be asking my questions again this year, but I will do it in a way that circumvents your restrictions (it is silly that I will have to do that, but there you are). Candidates are welcome to answer them or not, as they like, and I will factor that into my evaluation... I suspect some other voters might as well. Whether anyone else cares or not is their business. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto Lar. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User rights
I'd just like a clarification. On Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Guide it list SirFozzie as a Checkuser and Oversighter. But according to last year's he wasn't, which means he got them because he was appointed to arbcom. So should we still list him as a checkuser and oversighter even though he only has those for arbcom purposes (as opposed to being a checkuser before an arbcom member). DC  T • C   04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's redundant. Leaving CU and OS markers for those appointed before they became arbitrators is probably more informative for voters.  Skomorokh   05:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I understood, CU/OS are inherent right for all arbitrators (though not a technical MediaWiki feature, which is why we may and can have arbitrators who don't have those userrights; some arbitrators have not used those tools during their time on the Committee). Hence, I would guess that the CU/OS markers refer to the ArbCom appointment of them (i.e. I would have "A" and "C" since I am an admin and was appointed for CU). –MuZemike 08:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not (inherent). In fact, many arbitrators spend a fair part of their term without either but end up requesting them because a case or incident requires them to look at evidence that is only available this way but have no intention of using either for their primary function. Strictly speaking, being an arbitrator only gives you the authority to have those right on simple request, it doesn't give you the rights themselves.  I'm not sure how relevant that distinction is given that routine work on the committee will expose you to information coming from both tools (hence the requirement to identify to the Foundation for access to private data), but the distinction does exist.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I would disagree with Coren's assessment in this situation. In fact, *all* current arbitrators whose terms started in 2009 and 2010 hold checkuser and oversight permissions; one of the reasons for this is that we do, on a regular basis, receive information generated from checkuser and oversight actions as part of our responsibilities as a committee. It seems only reasonable that all members of the Committee formally accept the responsibilities that come with such access, and that community members be aware that all arbitrators do indeed receive this information as part of their role.  It should be noted that we have several arbitrators who specifically identify that they are only using this access for arbitration purposes and will not be accepting requests to act upon checkuser or oversight requests that are unrelated to an Arbcom issue. Fayssal, an arbitrator elected in 2008, was "grandfathered in" so to speak, but even he has completed the formal process for checkuser access. I would fully expect all arbitrators in future to identify to the WMF and to receive CU and OS permissions as part of their induction into the Committee; otherwise, the ability of the committee as a whole to discuss (for example) a complex socking case based on checkuser data and/or suppressed edits, is compromised.  Risker (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure of former and alternate accounts
In the instructions for candidates, there is a provision that the nomination statements must "include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee"

This was adapted from the provisional arbitration policy, the forming of which was influenced by an unfortunate situation with inadequate disclosure from a former arbitrator.

Of the three candidates announced to date, two have addressed former accounts, but neither in a categorical way – some former accounts were mentioned, but without indication that there were no others.

I have two suggestions to the community to safeguard compliance in this area:
 * Require disclosures to declare categorically that they are complete ("I edited under x and y because z. I have never edited Wikipedia under another account.")
 * Put a parameter in the nomination template specifically for disclosures, so that they appear on a separate line at the end of the nomination, and are exempt from the 400 word requirement.

Thoughts? Skomorokh  08:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Devil's advocate, though, but what if one or more candidates have previous accounts that should not be disclosed, for whatever reason? Would disclosure to the Arbcom (and subsequent acknowledgement that such disclosure was made) be sufficient? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the existing provision and the rationale for it, sorry if that wasn't clear in the original post. Thoughts on the suggestions?  Skomorokh   13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The disclosure change isn't much of a change at all - just asking them to be more specific. The template change is a bit trickier, but should be fine as well - so long as it's clear that an editor with no other accounts isn't just dodging the question, but is affirmatively stating that they have no other accounts. But yes, I think both changes would be fine. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement that disclosure should be specific and comprehensive. --Elonka 14:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with putting a parameter in the nomination template. This makes it impossible to accidentally miss the requirement.  Either they name all prior accounts, state that they have done so to ArbCom because extenuating circumstances prevent public disclosure, or state that they have not substantially used any other accounts.  We ought not jump on nominees who accidentally fail to disclose an account.  For instance, I have a few unused doppleganger accounts (User:JonathanHochman for one)) and am not sure I could even remember all of them. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the real aim of the exercise is not to learn of all the candidates' other accounts but to learn if they used to edit under another account in a way that would colour their candidacy, so the odd forgotten unused doppelgänger or suchlike shouldn't be of too much concern.  Skomorokh   14:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, based on the above feedback I'll have a go at implementing these measures later on today. Further discussion still most welcome. Skomorokh  14:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CLEANSTART allows people to stop editing with an old account and start a new one. I don't think that we should do something here that contradicts that. I'd be happy with an assurance that the candidate has read and complies with wp:SOCK but don't agree that we go further.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Account jumping is a significant factor and voters should at least be aware that there are past accounts, even if there is a valid reason for not disclosing the specifics. CLEANSTART is far from a perfect policy. It and RTV (especially the latter) are routinely gamed. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose that there is a need for this. I do, however, feel that disclosing accounts to ArbCom should be enough if, say, the previous account hasn't been used in three, maybe four, years minimum. A lot can change in a person over time, especially if the first account was from Middle school or High school, and the candidate is now, several years later, older, wiser, and probably embarrassed about their middle/high school behavior. Either way, ArbCom needs to know, and I think that if the candidate asks ArbCom, or if that's too slow, comes to the Coordinator IRC to explain their reasons for non-public disclosure, we can take it on a case by case basis. Sven Manguard  Talk  15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody needs to explain anything to the coordinators, least of all sensitive material about their past; we are merely dogsbodies. Let's leave the rest to the elected functionaries.  Skomorokh   15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, agreed. I wasn't thinking anyone would give sensitive details, just be asking if their reason fell in line with policy. That being said, I would hope ArbCom candidates already knew the policy. Sven Manguard  Talk</b>  15:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that Cleanstart is a perfect policy, I'm just saying that it is currently policy and we shouldn't contradict it here. If people want to change cleanstart then by all means start an RFC on it. I'm not a candidate for Arbcom, and I haven't invoked Cleanstart, I'm more concerned at keeping our various policies and procedures from contradicting each other than whether we update or reaffirm Cleanstart.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't the arbitrator alluded to in the original post follow Cleanstart? Are you happy with how that turned out? Do you think the community will be happy if it were to happen again? Because that is the road what you're proposing leads to.  Skomorokh   16:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for disclosures is to prevent a sudden "revelation" that massively disrupts the operation of Wikipedia and calls into question the results of numerous arbitrations. Also, if a user has done something that would cause us to worry about them having CU or OS permissions, we definitely need to know that.  Real life has real consequences.  If somebody screws up, that becomes part of their reputation should they decide to seek advanced permissions. Jehochman Talk 16:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the former Arb in question did follow CleanStart. For starters my understanding is that there was an editing overlap between their old and new accounts. But please let me repeat "I'm more concerned at keeping our various policies and procedures from contradicting each other than whether we update or reaffirm Cleanstart." If you want to change Cleanstart go make a proposal to do so, maybe the community will be happy to change that policy, maybe it won't. If you think they would, I suggest you start an RFC or make a suggestion at talk Cleanstart and mention it at the pump. But if you want to quote a past case I'd suggest you quote one where someone genuinely invoked cleanstart and subsequently was a problem.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * CLEANSTART itself recommends that someone invoking its provisions do so while notifying the arbitration committee. The reality, though, is that there are editors who will not vote for a candidate if their response isn't "I edited as XXXXX from 2006-2008, then XXXXX 2 in early 2009 before switching to this username" but "I have disclosed any previous accounts to the Arbcom". And this is where the candidate weighs privacy vs. strategy. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Last years Arbcom election is a long time go and my memory of it is vague. But at RFA I'm sure we've have had a recent candidate say words to the effect of "I have an Arbcom declared real name account with a clean blocklog" without anyone blinking. Maybe it would be sensible to tighten Cleanstart to say that candidates for Arb and admin have to declare all accounts to either the community or the Arbcom, maybe we should run CU on all candidates. But it isn't sensible to have a policy that says one thing and a practice here that contradicts it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can edit the policy. Practice takes precedence. Jehochman Talk 19:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that policy can change, and I've posted a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Clean_start  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the clean start policy to reflect practice here. The need to implement the two proposals is still pressing, as since this thread began, two more candidates nominated without making any mention of other accounts. Skomorokh  15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I take it on trust that ArbCom will contact one of us if there's an issue in a disclosure that is made to it. Hardly worth mentioning, I guess. Tony   (talk)  15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that is probably a bigger issue than the cleanstart business. When someone identifies to the office what checks if any does the office do on that individual, and what sort of real life things would we want to exclude people from Arbcom for? For example if it emerged that a candidate had a real life criminal history of fraud would the office check for that and if they discovered that would they do anything? Would it be sensible to include something along the lines of "If in real life you have been involved in things that would bring Wikimedia into disrepute if it was known you were a member of Arbcom, then the foundation reserves the right to ask you to either stand down or reveal the nature of those matters to the community before election." This is not an entirely unlikely situation, in real life I've twice been in organisations where someone got into a senior position before it was revealed that they had serious skeletons in their closets.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Someone got into a senior position before it was revealed that they had serious skeletons in their closets"—thank god that could never happen at the WMF! – iridescent  13:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Candidate requesting a look-see
Template syntax is definitely not my Wikipedia strong suit. Could one of the election officials or someone look over my transclusions and make sure I didn't mess anything up too badly? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been excitedly waiting for you to transclude since I saw your name here. I'll look it over for you. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  06:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything looks to be in the right place.  Skomorokh   14:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Call for additional volunteers
I'll keep this brief, lest I be bot-detected as spamming this talkpage. There's quite a bit of janitorial work to cover, and at the moment it's falling on a few editors, and for some tasks (bolded at the link below), not getting done quickly or at all. For these, see here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Coordination

If you have some time to spare and don't mind helping with this menial work, please sign up at the coordination page and assist where you can. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.

A note on the more serious election matters; although three checkusers have signed up to keep an eye on suspicious voting, there may be a need for no-nonsense admins to step up if battlegrounding, personal attacks and the likes raise their heads on the discussion and question pages. If that happens, we'll likely post another request for volunteers, but pre-emption is better than cure.

Thanks for your attention,  Skomorokh   15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not going to tolerate battlegrounding on the pages I am watching. Jehochman Talk 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, what exactly would constitute "battlegrounding" or "personal attacks" in the context of an election? There is going to be discussion about the candidates, both on the "Discuss this candidate" pages and on "guide" pages in user space (and their talk pages), and perhaps in other places that I am not aware of.  Presumably people are going to disagree about the qualifications of the candidates -- and I mean qualifications in the broadest sense, including experience, answers to questions, past "record" (including disputes a candidate may have been involved in), the candidate's perceived attitude and temperament, and whatever else an editor may wish to discuss.  Hopefully, this disagreement will be reflected in the discussion; otherwise, what is the purpose of the discussion?  You may end up with long threaded discussions in which people strongly disagree.  Is that "battlegrounding"?  And are the coordinators going to confer with each other about what to do about particular cases, or is it just going to be up to each individual coordinator to enforce their own standard?  And is there going to be a central log kept of any material that is removed, so voters can see what is being done, rather than just having material "disappear"?  Neutron (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I only mentioned these possibilities as a precuation; there have been no indications of trouble so far. It's worth taking a look at last year's election talkpage to get an idea of the type of thing that could be considered inappropriate, these threads in particular: 1, 2, 3. Rather tame overall, but considering the vitriol and unpleasantness that erupts from time to time on Arbitration discussion pages, the threat is worth keeping in mind.


 * As to whether coordinators (which again, I ask for more of) should exercise their own discretion, discuss amongst themselves or follow community-derived guidelines: the latter don't seem to exist, so I would suggest adopting the first course of action, with discussion here (or on the coordination talkpage?) if there is substantial disagreement over a coordinator action. Thoughts?  Skomorokh   16:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If editors try to maintain the highest standards of civility, rather than the lowest they can get away with, there will be no issues. Jehochman Talk 16:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which will last until exactly the first incident of incivility. (contents removed per BEANS) Thankfully, however, thus far I have not seen any problems. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is silliness :) AGF. Polargeo (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Silliness? Maybe, but it's important that we're prepared, and that means that everyone involved needs to be ready to clamp down on chaos before it begins. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  17:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Candidates
We have a call for more volunteers above, how about one for more candidates. Nominations have been open for 4 days, and we only have five so far-for eleven seats. Perhaps we could update the watchlist notice to say how much longer nominations are open for, so people don't miss it (there's less than a week left). DC  T • C   04:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, that does indeed appear to be a significant problem, at least at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Running for ArbCom is a serious commitment. We ought not recruit people to run on spur of the moment.  If we don't get enough candidates who earn sufficient support to be appointed, Jimbo will have to figure out what to do.  The committee can be shrunk; existing terms can be extended; new elections can be scheduled in 6 months. Jehochman Talk 04:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrm, raises some wise points. We should proceed with caution. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather keep the seats vacant and call another election in a few months than extend terms for people who don't run.  DC   T • C   04:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, this is also a good point - but how long to wait for another round of elections? 3 months? 6 months? -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 would make more sense. I'm assuming there'd also be some sort of RFC first to find out why people didn't run in the first place.  DC   T • C   04:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds rational, I would also support 3 months. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's slight tension here between what the community would like and what probably works best for the committee. At a RFC last year, the community expressed a desire to have a committee of eighteen to allow for the inevitable attrition and to build in some slack for wiki-breaks etc. However, some arbitrators have expressed the view, which I endorse, that the committee functions most efficiently at around a dozen members. Bigger than that and it starts getting difficult forging consensus (polling eighteen people for example takes ages).  Roger  talk 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even so, best to have a larger pool of potential candidates. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a thankless job. People expect serious content contributions and also significant policy and problem resolution experience. Candidates who state they have a life are told they may not have enough time to devote. Candidates who state they have enough time are questioned about whether they have a life. We have some folk that say that ArbCom should leave as much as possible to the community, and one candidate (at least) that is running on a platform of not leaving everything to the community. Every faction thinks they have been unfairly trod upon when their ox was gored, and every sockmaster wants to ruleslawyer with the committee. We have serial outers lurking around the edges of the committee looking for chinks in the armor of any arb who wants to remain anonymous. We have people looking to hang arbs for typos they made 5 years ago. Plus there's all those longwinded pesky questions to answer DURING the candidacy. :) No wonder we have a paucity of candidates. ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The job has become unpleasant and thankless enough that a desire to apply for it is de facto evidence of questionable judgment. RIP Joseph Heller. MastCell Talk 05:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a serious need to make it less unpleasant, by enlarging the scope of specialist clerks. However, I don't get the kind of traction on this when I mention it to arbs. The question/response ordeal has been reduced significantly. Candidates are under no obligation to answer any questions aside from the eight general questions (although answering no other questions at all wouldn't be a good look). Your huge bank of cut-and-paste questions are not really helping in this respect, Lar.  Tony   (talk)  05:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony1: My questions are well regarded by many as probing and insightful, (not to mention inciteful) and you singling them out as a serious issue shows a vast lack of perspective. (perhaps you missed the smiley at the end of my statement?) The length of the questions asked during the election process is the very least of the issues here. Although I'm starting to wonder if officious busybodies who know better than the community as a whole aren't a serious factor. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a reliable source told me that this same thing happened in 2009, where initially only a few people stepped up, while others sat back and watched and assessed their chances against those that already came forward. I would expect a few last minute submissions. The thing that is important to stress, however, is that you cannot get elected if you don't run. We can worry Friday night if we still have low numbers.
 * Also of note: It takes at least an hour or two to fill out the forms and transclude them, based on my dry run. It's not difficult, its a matter of choosing the best prose and such. We can tell if people are creating and filling out the forms and not transcluding them, and I doubt we'll make a fuss if someone has the pages created before the deadline and puts them in half an hour after cut off, but seriously, people waiting in the woodworks, don't wait until the last minute. Don't take the chance that there's a problem. If you're planning on running, start the paperwork now. Wait to transculude if you want, but start the process early. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  06:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After five days there were eleven candidates last year, FWIW. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW 2 of those weren't really serious candidates. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, all the questions are optional, including the original eight. There was a candidate one year who refused to answer any questions at all, and there was nothing wrong with that. He didn't do too well in the election, though, which is a simple reflection of the fact that people don't trust those who won't answer the questions they think are important. That's always going to be the way things are. If you don't want a lot of questions, the job of being an Arb is probably not for you, anyway. You're going to deal with a lot of questions about why you proposed X remedy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Lar hit the nail right on the head. The committee is like axle grease: it's dirty, smelly, and grimy but the rest of the machine works because it's there in the background.  It's difficult to find volunteers for a job when the general impression is that the job only has downsides; and I'll not hide the fact that the impression isn't that far off the mark.  Being an arbitrator is tough enough to begin with, and the community is amazingly unforgiving of those that step up to the plate.  Is it really a wonder that few people are enthusiastic about putting themselves through this?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasons why I wouldn't run this time:
 * . Too much community tolerance of personal attacks and vengeance seeking.
 * . Inefficient operation of the committee. In particular, I am not interested in being on a mailing list that generates dozens of messages per day.  (Has that changed since last time I asked about it?)  I already get too much email. Jehochman Talk 13:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A greater protective shield is required. A stressed committee finds it harder to perform well all the time, and the public perception of workload and stress – although exaggerated, I believe – does little to attract more candidates. Specialist, WMF-identified clerks could do more, and forgive me, tighter word-length and duration rules would help. Maybe a few trade-offs are necessary.
 * But frankly, I think there's a very positive story to tell the community. Like ... how the whole house of cards would come down without a strong ArbCom, given the cost of doing business in such a free and open model of knowledge production. It's especially true of en.WP. This positive aspect needs to be got out there. Tony   (talk)  14:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I see little "room" for clerks in the process; ultimately, it comes down to arbitrators doing the work (or alternately not doing the work), and that won't change whether or not there were dedicated clerks. As to Jehochman's point, I know I get a truly challenging number of emails daily, but that includes several public-subscription lists (helps to keep one informed of issues important to the community), checkuser-L, functionaries-en-L, oversight-L (and now OTRS notifications since we moved most of the oversight request mechanics there), and all of the mailing list administrative notices. To a greater or lesser extent, most arbitrators have personal control over these issues: only those on AUSC need the checkuser and oversight lists, for example, and only some arbitrators need to be list administrators. If I have a chance to do some counting tonight or tomorrow, I'll make a post...somewhere....providing basic information on volume of emails for various lists, and what the expected action would be for each. The role of arbitrator isn't a particularly easy one, and it can be downright unpleasant sometimes, but when things go well it can be very satisfying to know that one has had a positive effect (whether just for a few individuals or for the project as a whole). I do hope to see more candidates coming forward, and I'd hope that candidates don't put things off too long, because that could adversely affect the community's perception of them as well. There are actually lots of well-qualified individuals out there; it's just a question of persuading them that this is a worthwhile investment of their time. Risker (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We are losing adminstrators in a rapid pase, so of course they would be less candidates, and many of the adminstrators today are totally unsuited for the job. Getting desysopped is the main reason why I'm not running this year, even if I'm still an adminstrator I wouldn't run because my health deteriated in the past year or so (I withdrew last year after a health related breakdown which evenually led to my desysopping) though I recovered somewhat, and I wouldn't know if I could handle all this. Secret account 16:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm hesitating here. A few folks have suggested I put my name forward, and it was something I'd thought of doing next year. Would it be absolutely stupid to do it this year, given I've only just made admin and have only been really active for a bit over 18 months(not asking if anyone here would vote for me, just please tell me if I need to take two aspirins and have a lie down instead)Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not stupid. You probably would start off with a slightly steeper hill to climb because you have somewhat less of a track record, but I would expect most voters look for sanity and a good grasp more than they subtract dates from each other.  If you feel you can contribute, and you have the availability to do so, then you shouldn't let relative "youth" stop you.  The worse that can happen is that you don't get elected, after all.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Elen, I had been an admin only a few months, had only really been active for about 18 months, and had fewer than 10K edits when I threw my name in the hat. Now, every candidate and every election is different, but should you decide to run, you would not be setting any new precedents for a viable candidacy. Should you decide to do so, I wish you luck, as I do to all of the other candidates, and I make myself available to questions from all candidates and potential candidates.  Risker (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks both. I'm still thinking about it: Risker, I may take you up on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Methinks I'd support your run ;) Jack Merridew 06:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I would support you as well. Running for Arbcom is stupid, of course, but we need more otherwise sane people who do it anyway. Hans Adler 08:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the lack of candidates; I tried to improve the situation by nominating myself to run; however I was quickly shot down by another editor before I even had a chance to complete the Mount Everest of paperwork needed, I have since withdrawn my nomination. Something tells me that the process needs to be changed to have drastically less paperwork and friendlier administrators/overlords before the minimum needed number of candidates is reached. Barts1a (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Make no mistake as to what happened in the above alluded situation. Barts1a was told by an election coordinator that he failed to meet the basic requirements for running (set out long before the nomination period.) Barts1a don't have 1000 mainspace edits. This post is nothing more than an attempt to martyr himself here. There are thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of editors that meet the basic requirements for running. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  01:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By that logic you would have at least 10 candidates by now... Yet I only see 5... Maybe the large amount of paperwork they have to fill out is scaring them away? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 02:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest, anyone scared away by the paperwork required of candidates would be utterly overwhelmed by the paperwork required of arbitrators. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to panic. First of all, there are five (well, just over four) more days for nominations. Second of all, the number of candidates running is really not something the coordinators or anyone else can do anything about. Those who are elected will be the top x persons (I forget if x is 10, 11 or something else) by percentage of support over oppose, as long as their percentages are over 50 percent. (Of course Jimbo could decide otherwise, but there has been no indication that he will. I do realize there are people who think the threshold should be 60 percent or some other number, but that was not the result of the RfC.) If the actual number of winning candidates is less than x, then there will be vacancies, and then the Community + Jimbo can discuss how to deal with the situation. The answer is probably going to depend on how many vacancies there are. I would also expect that if fewer candidates are elected than seats available, especially if more than 1 or 2 seats are left vacant, it will set off a very large and contentious discussion(s) of the ArbCom itself and the election/selection process. But we're not there yet. Neutron (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it ends up as a situation where Jimbo has to make anything other than no-brainer decisions on how to fill the open positions, then that will be a very disappointing step on the road to what many in the community may feel is a desirable goal: the day when Jimbo can step back and say to himself "OK, my baby is an adult now, they're ready to walk without me". Franamax (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be amused if some famous pov pushers or religious fundamentalists signed up and got in by default :)  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 06:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not likely to happen. If they don't get enough candidates they will most likely reduce the number of places available or even postpone the elections until more editors are active. And undoubtedly they will come under intense scrutiny before they take office; designed to uncover things such as this which may result in them not getting their position. ArbCom is a serious position and everyone currently on the committee takes it as such. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 08:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like other kind of POV pushers would be better? Maybe nominate the author of this approved DYK? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you intentionally trying to get yourself blocked? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Still only eleven??
How is this going to go if there are eleven open seats and only eleven candidates? Is there any prospect of more jumping in during the next couple of days? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Jehochman Talk 20:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add here that I've put the '11 seats available' bit into the main page now for clarity :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what it actually says now is "11 arbitrators to be elected." Since nobody can be elected without at least a majority of support votes over oppose votes, maybe it should say up to 11 arbitrators to be elected.  Or going with your wording above, maybe it should literally say "11 seats available," the operative word being "available."  With the majority-support requirement, there is never any guarantee that a particular number of candidates are going to be elected.  Even if there were 40 candidates, there would be no guarantee that 11 (or even one) would be elected.  What is likely to happen, if the number of candidates remains in the low teens, is that some candidates will be elected who have in the low 50's in support percentages, which is likely to upset some people.  It is my understanding that the lowest support percentage for a "winning" candidate in past elections was 59.something, and there are some who believe that 50 percent (+ something) is not enough.  In the past, those with more than 50 percent but less than (almost) 60 percent were not elected because they were not in the top x candidates, with x = number of seats to be filled.  Maybe it also needs to be made clearer to the voters that they are not required to support 11 or any particular number of candidates, and that if fewer than 11 candidates are elected, there will then be discussion about how to (or whether to) fill the remainder of the seats.  Neutron (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't panic unless Skomorokh panics. Last I checked, he wasn't panicking yet. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The 60% rule has been true in the modern era, but a bunch of successful candidates had less than 50% in the election six years ago (but with approval voting).--Chaser (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At this stage it almost looks like we might need some "Wildcard" nominations... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 02:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Still not panicking. We have seventeen candidates, and only one or two long shots amongst them. While only half a dozen of the current candidates will be getting my support, with another handful stepping forward before midnight I don't think we will have too much trouble getting into double digits with candidates over 50% support. Skomorokh  12:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, nominations closed with 23 candidates, which I think compares reasonably with previous years. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Last year there were 22 candidates for nine seats. In 2008 there were over 30 candidates for ten seats. 2007 saw 36 candidates for seven seats. So as a ratio, we have just over two candidates for each seat this year, while four years ago we had over five candidates for each seat. So the numbers are dwindling. Perhaps the quality of the candidates is going up - many candidates in the older elections dropped out midway through the voting.   Will Beback    talk    01:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for not asking the same question of more than one candidate?
Can someone point me to the discussion where this consensus emerged? Tijfo098 (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Feedback DC   T • C   04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone discuss that particular issue past the bullet list. Consensus, eh? I'll remember that technique for framing RfC questions and inferring what I want from WP:TLDR. Much to learn on this wiki. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I thought that a bit odd as well. It would be better to allow such questions, but create a screen of sorts, eg anyone can propose a question, but questions need approving by X (eg 3 or 5) editors to make it onto the List of Questions. Rd232 talk 14:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say that if anyone wants to post a question to me that they have asked someone else as well, please just put it on the question talkpage as Lar is doing. I can't guarantee I'll get to every question, but I don't object to being asked (I saw TJ post one and then remove it - I presume this was the reason) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would be the better form. It's somewhat implicit in the idea of having eight general questions that the individual ones should be specific to the candidate.--Chaser (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FAQs for candidates and potential candidates
I've been getting a fair number of questions from several candidates or potential candidates in the last few weeks, so I've taken a bit of time to draft up a FAQ in case anyone finds it useful. Candidates and others can find it at User:Risker/FAQ for Arbcom Candidates. If the co-ordinators think it is useful, they're free to provide links to it directly to candidates or in other places, but since it is my own personal take on things I think it should probably stay in my userspace. As always, I am available to answer questions from any candidate or prospective candidate, either onwiki or privately. Risker (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker, this looks very useful. Thank you for writing this. I'm sure the coordinators will want every candidate to know of this. Tony   (talk)  05:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ballot design
Last year's ballot design:
 * Username &bull; Candidate statement &bull; Comment

Proposal for this year:
 * Username &bull; Profile &bull; Discuss

The "Profile" contains the candidate statement and questions page. Comments/suggestions welcome. Skomorokh  23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Profile" seems vague, especially since you could argue that user pages are "profile pages" to some degree. harej  03:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What about:
 * Username &bull; Candidate Profile &bull; Discuss

Sven Manguard <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  03:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We could do that, with "profile" lowercased of course. Alternatively, we could link the username to the profile, thus leaving Username &bull; Userpage &bull; Discuss.   Skomorokh   12:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ballot instructions
Current wording: Needs changing to: Skomorokh  13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion and comments. You may leave brief comments on the candidates here and engage in extended discussion here.
 * Discussion You may read and engage in discussion of the candidates here.
 * Interface should be updated now.  MBisanz  talk 05:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Has it been overwritten? All I am seeing at Special:SecurePoll/translate/130/en in the way of instructions is "Please indicate below which candidates you support or oppose."  Skomorokh   17:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I last looked there was a longish paragraph of advice. If this single sentence were the only instruction, perhaps it should mention the neutral option too. "Please indicate below which candidates you support or oppose; a neutral choice registers no vote at all for a candidate." But the previous text warned about the need to record one's vote in case a voter wants to change it. I can't recall whether it mentioned taking a screen-shot, or whether we should include that advice somewhere else prominently. Thanks, MBisanz. Tony   (talk)  17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was wiped when Roan reinitialised the ballot with the right number of candidates. I have restored roughly what was there before; can you please verify whether it's correct?  Also the entries for each candidate.   Happy ‑ melon  22:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There seem to be two blank entries between PhilKnight and Shell Kinney (Off2riorob and Sandstein appear to be missing). Otherwise, the instructions are acceptable (although Tony might want to make tweaks). Thanks to both of you for your responsiveness here.  Skomorokh   22:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Happy ‑ melon  23:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that User:N419BH has withdrawn and so needs to be struck from the ballot. Based on the recent RfC, candidates who "withdraw" after voting has begun should not have their ballot entry changed.  Skomorokh   23:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Candidates who withdraw before 23:59:59 on Thursday will have their names replaced by (Withdrawn candidate) .  No withdrawals will be enacted ater the start of voting.
 * I will be fascinated to see how many people don't vote 'neutral' for the dead ballot entry... :D Happy ‑ melon  23:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Related changes
As there are rather a lot of pages to follow for changes, is it possible to have a list page set up (some of the templates are almost suitable already) with a "related changes" link provided for people to click on to follow the changes to either all the pages, or various sets of pages? e.g. Changes to the questions page, changes to the question talk pages, changes to the other election pages, changes to the guides, etc? Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I think my guide (and NW's too since it shares templates) has all the relevant links... User:Lar/ACE2010 gives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Lar/ACE2010 hmmm... that may be too many ??? Perhaps a specific list is needed indeed. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Minimum percentage
The elections page doesn't say anything about a minimum percentage required for appointment. Based on poking through talk pages, it seems that the first 11 candidates with 50%+ support will almost certainly be appointed (Jimbo volente).[1] Is this an accurate assessment? I realize it's unclear what will happen if a lot of the candidates don't reach that threshold, but I think the elections page ought to give some clue as to how the appointment decision is made, even if only in historical terms. —Emufarmers(T/C) 03:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's little firm information on the hypotheticals because we remain wedded to a primitive "Jimbo ultimately decides" system. The recent RfC on the matter established Risker's statement (all appointed candidates must have ran and gotten at least 50% in the most recent election) as a non-binding suggestion. This was Jimbo's reaction, which for this year at least is as close to a ruling as we are likely to see. FWIW, I think the hypothetical you mention is looking increasingly unlikely.  Skomorokh   12:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The closing admin made it clear that the result for the proposal on this was tentative at best. I believe the matter needs to be debated after the tally is posted, if necessary; let's hope it won't be necessary. Next year, we need a sane voting system; this support / (support + oppose) thing sucks for a number of reasons, but let's do our best with it this time. Tony   (talk)  12:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may speak as Just Another Wikipedian, & as a WikiLawyer (the most despised form of life on Wikipedia), there is an implicit contract in this election: if the community selects enough people with 50%+ support to the Arbcom, Jimmy Wales will approve all of them as a "rubber-stamp" function. But if either or both of these conditions are not met, then Wales will be free to act as he sees fit. The implications are these: if you trust his judgment or he provides a reasonable rationale for his choices, then this possibility isn't an issue; if you don't trust his judgment or he fails to provide any explanation for his choices, then there is a problem. (For the record, I don't trust his judgment -- for reasons I won't go into here -- but if he has to act, & he provides a convincing rationale for the choices he makes, I won't have an issue with whom he appoints. I don't plan on doing anything to make me become a party before the ArbCom. I will hope, for all of our best interests, that anyone he appoints due to this don't turn out to be a disaster or quits before her/his term is completed -- but that is the hope I have with anyone who is appointed to the ArbCom, regardless of how she/he became a member.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Llywrch, I thought your summary concerned how weak the support for the "don't fill all the seats in that case" argument was. Thirty-eight supports, with opposes on the talk page, fleshed out. It's a thorny issue, and arises from the collision of four phenomena: (1) strategic voting, made much more convenient by the private electronic system now used; (2) the misunderstanding of what an "oppose" can mean (one of two things, basically); (3) the persistence of our usage of the S / (S + O) formula; and (4) Jimbo's now unstable and ill-defined role in the annual election. Tony   (talk)  17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion above is independent of what I determined the consensus in the RfC was. One can agree with the consensus but disagree with what I wrote. (But if you are directly disagreeing with what I wrote above, I'll be happy to respond, again speaking as Just another Wikipedian.) -- llywrch (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

More guides
IMHO: We need more guides, with a bigger and more diverse set of viewpoints. I was cheered to see NW has started one (at User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2010) but more is better. NW spotted something in his evaluations I'd missed. More of that is helpful. So please consider trying your hand at it, gentle reader. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, the pics that Polargeo assigned to some users made me LOL. I've seen pics of NYB, Brad Pitt he ain't! ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nolo contendre. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) Those pics are hilarious! Lar, we need more discussion on the big page. Tony   (talk)  12:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's worth considering ... User:Ealdgyth/2010 Arb Election votes Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Lar's opinion on this. I enjoy reading the guides as it offers another way of looking at other editors (and myself). I'm afraid of what picture Polargeo's going to assign me (protip: if he's smart, he'll choose a fox.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or a fuchsia – iridescent  17:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Years of Microsoft Word trying to change my name to a color has made that joke... just not funny. Free blocks for whoever brings it up again! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did know Fuchs was German for fox but I haven't got the feel for what Foxy picture would best represent you yet. Probably get around to it tomorrow when the noms are closed. Polargeo (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of disclosure of alternate accounts
This is to verify that current Arbitration Committee candidates and  have disclosed alternate accounts to the Arbitration Committee in the past which were reviewed and considered acceptable uses of alternate accounts under the applicable policy. Risker (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the Committee for reviewing this.  Skomorokh   17:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURO
I don't think we should have the drama before/during the elections... But I think an RfC concerning the details of the election should probably be in order following the election.

I seem to remember discussions in the past with concerns of whether XfD was becoming to bureaucratic, but the elections are beyond the pale. Whatever happened to "this is a wiki"?

Rules on questions? So if I have a question that I might want to know each candidate's opinion on, I'm not allowed to ask it? Even if I think it might be relevant to each particular candidate?

I understand that there are a lot of Wikipedians, and we might want to save the candidates from writer's cramp...

But I just looked at the cookie cutter ones, and am thinking that if I was running, I would simply ignore which ever questions I wanted to (just as I could at WP:RFA), and let the "voters" decide as they will.

AFAIK, the only requirement to being a member of arbcom is due to automatic giving of some extra tools, which means they have to prove they are over 18 (or whatever the local version of such age is).

The rest of this looks VERY MUCH overly beaurocratic. - jc37 09:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the rationale with stemming the tide of questions isn't so much to save the candidates from answering them (it's a lot of work but, frankly, if you can't handle it it's dubious you'll handle being an arbitrator). It's more a matter of preventing the voters from being drowned in too much information:  remember that that makes candidatesxquestions answers to read.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some questions are better than others. And some of the best don't fit into 75 words. A long question to every candidate doesn't have to be read N times, since it's the same each time. Only the answers need to be read N times. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Year after year after year we have heard complaints from voters and candidates about the mass floods of questions that were serving no-one but the questioners. It was a broken system. Whether the measures taken are the best we can do remains an open question, but I would rather risk failure by innovation than guarantee it by stagnation.  Skomorokh   15:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, the questions quickly become an impenetrable forest, a big turn-off for voters. By sequestering long, mass-pasted questions into the discussion section—the third tier, as it were, after the GQs and the IQs—the rationale is to give voters one page where they can get the gist of what each voter stands for without a PhD-style research effort. Those who want to go further are welcome to read and/or participate in the discussion section; but to put it all together in one massive page is disliked by voters, going by complaints from previous years. IMO, most of your questions are not strictly relevant to voters' task of choosing candidates on the basis of their skill-base; but more importantly, they are nearly 1800 words, three times the size of the general questions. This is way out of proportion, and most candidates clearly regard them as unsuitable. Tony   (talk)  16:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That last assertion in particular is false, I think, and the generally positive feedback from the candidates and from others puts paid to your whole thesis. Perhaps if the general questions were better I would have cut some away this year, but they were not, despite my suggestions at the time which you disregarded. Your view is a minority, and I suspect, a rather small one at that, although I could be wrong. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone supported the addition of your questions to the GQs; although I might be wrong. Tony   (talk)  17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Among the very small subset of folk who commented then and there, perhaps. But the key point is, are they good questions? I think I am far from alone in thinking they are deep, probing and insightful. (presumably you're not going to require me to produce diffs?). Perhaps you prefer softball questions, I can't say. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People will complain no matter what we do. The test this year will be the comparative volume of complaints between this year and last year. Personally, I think that the system this year works. The questions are getting answered, I haven't heard any screams of pain from overwhelmed candidates, and most of the questions seem to be relatively good. At the very least, it is organized, always a good thing, IMO. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  17:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling the strain a bit with Lar's questions, I must say, so I've tried to put the brakes on a bit here. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should have the drama before/during the elections... → I also don't think we should have drama at WP:ANI, but that's like trying to stop a freight train with a pea-shooter. –MuZemike 17:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would depend on the size of the pea (rofl). (Insert your own puchline here : )
 * I just meant that starting an RfC now might not be the best of ideas, drama wise.
 * And as I don't think it would be disruptive (so WP:POINT would probably not apply) - I wonder what would happen if I (or someone else) were to post the same questions to each arb's page to answer. (I know - that was a hearty helping of WP:BEANS...)
 * Would someone suggest that the election's prescriptive guidelines outweighed common practice? (which it was in year's past - and is now everywhere else on wikipedia).
 * And further, would the mere act of adding them be considered a blockable offence?
 * And can a small group of editors be considered enough to over-ride a wider consensus? (CON.)
 * I think there are enough "experienced editors" here that I shouldn't need to quote policy (and common practice) to them.
 * Yes, I believe it was done in good faith.
 * But it all just seems clearly rather un-wiki. - jc37 18:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree about not starting such an RfC now, (It was probably a better idea to have discussed this a month or so before nominations started, but the community in general does tend to exhibit long-term memory problems collectively and puts stuff off until the last minute.) but I wonder how much would participate if we did something after the conclusions of the election as, like with final exams, people want to "forget everything".
 * Moreover, I keep hearing this "un-wiki" way of doing things. Then, what is the "wiki" way (perhaps this is starting to get too meta by asking that)? –MuZemike 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One example: Founding_principles - #3 with #2 and #4 directly related.
 * I believe it refers to (among other things) the consensus model for determining a course of action. And that such model be free to use and open in inclusion.
 * Which would be near the core of my complaint about the restricting of questions.
 * I don't dispute the need for minimum editing requirements (I personally think 150 is too low.) I think it's little different than the need under certain circumstances to semi or fully protect a page from editing.
 * But other than that, the ability to question a candidate should be free and open to be within the spirit of the wiki-way.
 * That said, I won't argue that the questions (type, variety, wording, etc.) can cause issue.
 * But that could have been resolved other ways.
 * For example: Have the questions looked over first. Nothing binding (and I would oppose any sort of question approval process), but maybe just require that the questions receive some feedback before appearing on the page. (Maybe a week?) If nothing else, that could help with duplication. It also could help better frame what the cookie cutter ones should be, and how they should be formatted, etc. - jc37 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was exactly what was being discussed in this past RfC we just had (though it could have been longer, but nobody bothered to start one until almost 2 weeks before nominations began, which is not enough time); needless to say, more people happened to disagree with going back to RfA-style !voting; besides, isn't RFA broken? ;) –MuZemike 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I missed out on the RfC you note.
 * If you think of it, please feel free to let me know in the future if such is happening : )
 * And RfA will likely continue to seem "borken" as long as it remains a place which uses a hybrid consensus/voting process to determine trust for giving extra tools/responsibilities to an individual indefinitely. It's all the pieces that cause the issue, not just one part : ) - jc37 23:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So we're supposed to be running that one way or another, as the two methods must be disjoint? Moreover, how do we know that this "consensus-building model by discussion" is the be-all and end-all for every conceivable situation that comes forth? That's why the community adjusts and adapts, according to the situation. –MuZemike 16:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unofficial" Questions
As one of the (in my perception) relatively small pool of active users intending to vote who are less involved in the "backchatter" of wikipedia day to day I thought I would note that the way questions to the candidates have been handled seems less than ideal. The restriction that each user may only ask each candidate one short question on the "official" page has not cut down on the number of questions asked to candidates (because they are simply asked on the question talk pages along with implications of oppose votes if the candidates don't respond) But it has added a layer of fiddlyness to accessing useful information about the candidates. In future elections might i suggest that any user wishing to pose more than one question to a candidate can do so in a collapsable box on the question page? - that way the questions that it seems are going to be asked regardless (and speaking personally I have actually found quite helpful to compare/contrast candidates responses to the same questions) are atleast in the right place, but can be skipped over by voters who don't find them helpfull. Ajbpearce (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one solution to reconciling the needs of the different groups of voters, certainly. I think it would be ill-advisable to change the set-up for this year now, but the question is definitely something that should be addressed in discussions for future elections. We will be calling for open feedback from all parties to the election once voting closed, similar to last year's discussion. Cheers,  Skomorokh   22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a candidate, I'm frankly a bit perplexed at being asked to answer huge lists of questions on the questions talk page rather than on, well, the page for questions. I don't mind answering the questions as such, they're quite interesting, but it really strikes me as inconsiderate on the part of some editors to expect that all candidates should spend hours upon hours filling out their immense questionnaire that may be of significance to themselves only. Isn't that why we had a process to draft general questions that should cover most everybody's topics of interest? Or am I simply being rude by keeping to the process outlined on the question page and declining to fill out mass-mailed questionnaires? I'd appreciate some input about what voters other than those who compose these questionnaires expect from candidates in that regard: I don't wish to disappoint people by not answering questions the answers to which do interest more than a few persons.  Sandstein   23:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a voter, I'm frankly a bit perplexed by a candidate who chafes at answering questions that other candidates a) manage to answer and b) praise as, deep, probing and insightful. If my questions were all worthless, that'd be one thing. But what I hear is a lot of "these are really great questions". Perhaps my hearing is selective and asking about BLPs, factionalism, criticism, stalking, outing and the like in more depth is actually a bad thing. If the generic questions were worth anything maybe people wouldn't feel the need to add more. Candidates who don't like voters to know where they really stand worry me. Maybe not you though, I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasons for the many extra questions may be due to the lack of questions concerning the broader topics of WP:BLP, privacy, treatment of "experienced editors", and what (and in what ways) does the candidate feel that arbcom is "over" (behaviour vs. content/policy). Those four topics may well be worth looking at when forming the cookie cutter questions next year. - jc37 23:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well what happened was that last year there were just so many questions to sort through that people chafed at it, it was too much to read. Therefore a small core group of questions were asked to each user this year, with the spave for a number of small individual questions. To accommodate people like Lar, who have good questions that are asked to every candidate, the talk page solution was devised. People don't have to read pages and pages of additional questions if they don't want to, they just have to read the core questions and the individual concerns. It seemed like a sensible solution, giving people an option as to how much to read, however as I said above, people will always complain. The complaints are legitimate, but at this point too late, and next year we can compare 2009 to 2010 and decide how to question the candidates in 2011. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  02:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that my questions are good ones, a point that seems to be completely lost on Tony. I've went along with the scheme devised for this year, and if next year we go with a collapsible subsection scheme, or whatever, that's fine too, I will go along with it as well. I just am not impressed by arguments that the questions are in general too long or that it's too much work for candidates to answer them or for voters to read them. The easy problems with this wiki have all been solved and what remain are the complex ones. Candidates who can't handle complex questions, or aren't willing to devote the time to explain their positions on complex issues clearly, are not well suited to the task. Voters who want to vote on their gut feeling or who they like or whatever don't have to read the answers if they don't want to. They do the project a disservice but that's their affair. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Any candidate who can't handle reading tedious questions and formulating thoughtful responses may be applying for the wrong job.   Will Beback    talk    03:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both parts. Candidates that don't have the time to answer all the questions will be in for a shock. Ill informed voters cause tons of issues too. That being said, we changed the system to make the people who complained last year happy. Next year, another change. No matter where everything is, candidates should answer all questions, and voters should read it all. However, we cannot force either party to do that. As you said, that's their affair. I just hope that most people do right by the process and do more than just read the guides. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  03:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod. And that's of course a great segue for me to remind folks that more guides are better, and there's still time to get in on the fun if you want. Several folk have used mine as a starting point to do their own now, which is great! ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the voters, not the candidates, who matter in this. They are the ones who complained. Tony   (talk)  04:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you want underinformed voters, is that it? Just trying to understand where you're coming from here, as I have from the start. A scheme that lets voters read or not, as they like, ought to allow whoever wants to be underinformed to go ahead and vote based on whim, phase of the moon, or who their friends voted or whatever... we have that this year, so maybe you should stop carping. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If we allow candidates the discretion to have two sets of questions and answers that might help. The main page and a sub page. They could post a quantity of Q&A, say up to 3,000 words, on the main page and they can leave the rest on a subpage. So they could give many short answers or a few longer ones on that page and the rest of the responses would go on the subpage. Their skill in picking the best questions (and perhaps in not burying all the touchy ones) will be further proof of their judgment. I don't think it'd be much work, though I suppose it might change as new questions come it.    Will Beback    talk    07:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Voters who want to vote on their gut feeling or who they like or whatever don't have to read the answers if they don't want to. They do the project a disservice... Sorry but this statement, in my view, is completely misplaced. Yes there are core editors who cling on wikipedia every night but there are thousands and thousands who come here occasionaly for half an hour and contribute to an article. Maybe those occasional ones won't vote at all cos they never heard of ArbCom or have a very vague idea. But there are some who have familiarised themselves with aspects of this and want to cast their vote, but don't want to be reading walls of answers for nights on end. Given Lar's approach, it is easy to expect to have about 10 pages per candidate times, say, 30 candidates=300 pages (we have fewer candidates this time but 30 would be desirable). Lar's are good questions, but if everyone is on the same boat, they will be burried in the midst of many others if no restrictions are imposed on the main question page... I do agree that this isn't too much to ask of a candidate (especially if they are given sufficient time. Like all humans, they have a life; even during election time). But for the voters the approach (next time) needs to be a structured one, in my view. One more thing. Maybe we need an official candidates guide where all stats currently present on personal guides is posted? Sorry for the rant. And spare a thought for those members of the community whose first language isn't English. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Questions and answers to questions are largely useless bollocks. Actions speak louder than words every day. I tried to base my guide on looking at actions first and answers second with a small bit of help from fellow guide writers in case I had missed something. Polargeo (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I make a plea for next time on the formatting of the questions. It is a lot easier to answer the things if questions are formatted into heading structure, and I expect it would be easier to read as well.  Can the organisers take some steps to control the formatting? Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See discussion here. We really don't want to be babysitting the candidates' every move, but if you want someone else to format your question page in a particular way, feel free to ask a volunteer to do so.  Skomorokh   01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not really what I meant, but never mind. I got 'em answered in the end, and the formatting is nearly readable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)