Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates

Withdrawn candidates
Do I recall correctly that we don't list people who put their name up, and then withdraw almost immediately? No sense embarrassing the guy. I thought "Withdrawn Candidates" was for people who withdrew late in the process or during the election itself. I can't imagine the benefit of listing newbies who didn't quite grok how this works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To save people time, it's transcluded from here: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Withdrawn candidates. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * there was no discussion of a "minimum time", however the RfC (Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019) did conclude that withdrawn candidates will be listed in their own section on the candidates page. I'd be supportive of a candidate that had self-nominated, then withdrew without engaging with anyone not being listed (and even U1 speedy deleting their candidate pages) I suppose, however the currently withdrawn candidate already responded to questions which was one of the reasons discussed in the RfC to list them. I did take the liberty of changing the withdrawn list from full statement transclusions to just a list. —  xaosflux  Talk 23:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I've now taken a look at the last year or two, and I'm apparently misremembering. Second, thanks for that link: it doesn't really matter what I think might be "mean", that RFC is so unambiguously written that it would be impossible to argue for my preferred approach this year anyway.  On the off chance I can remember it, something I can bring up at next year's RFC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * if you have some specific suggestions feel free to drop them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020 and we will have them for next year - these get planned way in advance :D — xaosflux  Talk 02:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added it; I opposed that statement in the RfC partly for this reason. I don't think anyone benefits from knowing a newer editor didn't understand the process (though I do like the change xaosflux made). Wug·a·po·des​ 03:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Candidate order
In what order do the candidates' names appear on the project page? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Randomized. And every time you reload the page, the order should change. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That was the result of group decision making, wasn't it. – Levivich 23:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's brilliant myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You were part of the group, weren't you. – Levivich  23:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am told it's been set up this way for a few years. As far as I can recall I had no part in it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The election rules were updated in 2016 to randomize the order on that page. — xaosflux  Talk 12:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Thanks. ✅ --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

How does this compare in terms of number of candidates with previous elections?
I realise there may still be more, but I'm impressed by the fact that there are at the moment twice as many candidates as there are seats. The voter guide people are going to have to work hard this year. :-) I guess it could also have an impact on how many one year seats there will be. Doug Weller  talk 18:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * here is a completely uncertified summary of prior years — xaosflux  Talk 18:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could also add how many open seats they were running for? Because the number this year is probably so high because there are so many seats to fill. Regards So  Why  19:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * may be able to get to that later in the week. — xaosflux  Talk 19:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2008...halcyon days indeed. Was that the first year Jimbo stopped appointing the committee? ——  SN  54129  19:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading Elections (which is the best history of the elections I can find) there isn't a clear point. The very first Committee was entirely appointed, then there were advisory elections and Jimbo appointed people to posistions based on that - the first was in July 2004 when two seats were up for grabs and Jimbo appointed the two candidates with the most votes (there were 10 candidates). The first regular elections were in December 2004 when the top 7 candidates from a field of 34 were appointed to 1, 2 and 3 year terms by Jimbo but not in ranked order of percentage support (what was used is not clear). After that the appointing became more and more symbolic (although in no case did Jimbo ever appointed other than the top N candidates, where N is the number of available seats) until it was literally just a ceremonial endorsement and announcement of the election results, but even that hasn't happened since the 2014 elections. While Jimbo technically still appoints the Committee for literally all practical purposes it has been fully elected for many years. Jimbo can theoretically dismiss either individual arbitrators or the entire committee and appoint any number of people he chooses, this right now almost certainly exists only in the same way that Queen Elizabeth II has certain powers but should she try to actually use them she would cease to have them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In the early years, the number of seats wasn't entirely fixed - it more or less depended on Jimbo's state of mind at the time. The 2008 candidates (who were appointed to start at the beginning of 2009) were pretty much the last group that was formally appointed by Jimmy, at which point he decided to expand the committee from 15 to 18 seats without any discussion or notice to the community that I was aware of. Jimmy continued to "ceremonially" appoint Arbcom in 2009-2011, although by the time he got around to posting things, generally speaking everyone else had moved on and already were taking care of things like additional permissions, getting people onboarded, etc. By 2012, the new arbcom policy had been passed, and Jimbo no longer had a role in the appointment or selection of the committee.  Risker (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. Doug Weller  talk 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Help. I am trying (admittedly at the last minute) to construct my candidate page but I'm running into a technical error.
The textI wish to insert is : I've been at Wikipedia for the last twelve years as editor and administrator. Over this time I've worked with new articles and drafts, trying to keep improvable ones from being deleted--and removing the others, while trying to give realistic advice to new editors and dealing with questions about reliable sources. I was a member of Arb Com for 2015-2018. My goal then was to bring the committee to a more active approach in dealing with the actual problems on Wikipedia, rather than making the narrowest possible decisions—to judge by the merits rather than the technicalities. The committee has come some way towards this, partly by responding gradually to my continuing private and sometimes public dissents during discussions. This is now sometimes the case. I advocated increased openness in discussions and public votes on motions, and these too are a little more frequent. I have learned that takes many years of repeated effort to change Wikipedia, and we need to continue; improvements here do not often come when they are first suggested. For example, when I suggested this at the beginning of my first term, that the committee should accept some responsibility for dealing with violations of the terms of use about undeclared paid editors, no one else supported it; by now, procedures are in place. I respect all the continuing arbitrators—it will not be a situation with sharply divided positions. Arbcom is not the Supreme Court, it's not the Congress, but a group of people who try very hard to work together, and usually succeeed. There are many other good candidates with similar views, candidates with backgrounds working on the actual content of Wikipedia, candidates who will help those interested in the quality of the encyclopedia. I urge you to vote for them, and for me also. The many positions open this year give an unusual opportunity. My real name and my background are on my user page; I am identified to the Foundation, I've signed the necessary agreements. and alternate accounts used in editing instruction have been previously disclosed.  DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are lots of magical preload/switches/etc that happen when you create the page using the button. Those don't happen when you just try to create the page like a normal human would.  I'd delete the page, and follow the directions explicitly, instead of trying to, you know, type English into a blank page or something crazy like that.  You've still got 50 minutes, so no need to panic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/925888941 : is that the necessary fix? –xenotalk 23:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think between you and User:Huon, you fixed it. Looks fine on main page now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * your page exists and is transcluded, so you are good even if there are more cleanups to do. I'll look it over, but I think the others have already resolved the problem.  Will ensure you are in the master guide as well. —  xaosflux  Talk 23:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to express my appreciation to all of you --, , , , for dealing with this. I'm apologizing that I waited until so near the end, that I wasn't able to do it more carefully in the first place.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Voter guides
Is this the first year that candidates have offered their own voter guides? This seems very weird to me. 28bytes (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's the first, but it's certainly the first with so many. Whether it should be allowed is noted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020 as a point for next year's RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very odd. Scope for tactical recommendations to benefit their own candidacy etc. Also a bit of a vanity project. I'm ignoring them myself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I've always ignored them, whoever wrote them. I've never understood why people need to be told how to vote - the basis of my opinion to voting is not like any of those who have written guides. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking back, it seems William M. Connelly had a guide and stood in the 2009 election, but I don't see any other occurrences. I vaguely remember a hoo-ha over this in the past though - but the individual I thought did it doesn't seem to have. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's interesting, and that it probably offers more insights into their thinking and where they see the committee going than the carefully rehearsed "what people want to see" answers to the formal questions. That being said I didn't post my guide til I withdrew. Fish +Karate  09:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree its a bit odd. I asked questions of a few of the candidates, but now that I've decided to run myself I feel weird about even doing that. I don't believe we should have a rule against it, but we should probably advise against it. How's that gonna look, when you say not to vote for someone then you both get elected? Awkward. 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs)
 * That's why I'm not making my voting intentions public! Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 17:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no particular issue with a candidate expressing their opinion of other candidates; "here's why you shouldn't vote for the other guy" is at least as valid a campaigning tactic as "here's why you should vote for me". This is how every real-world election operates, after all. &#8209; Iridescent 12:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's certainly how many single-winner elections work, but this is not a single-winner election - there are multiple winners who will all need to work together as a single Committee after the election. It would be mighty awkward to say the least if User:A said "User:B is the worst candidate in this election" and User:B said "Absolutely do not vote for User:A" and both of them were elected. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's the sole and maxima source of awkwardness on the Arbcom—this or any other year—then ya'll all come up smelling of roses. ——  SN  54129  13:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We have previously had members who visibly disliked one another from the off, and it always creates a time-sink. It is also terribly boring for the rest.  The manifestations are obvious off the wiki but subtle on it.  I would dislike any trend towards candidates or sitting arbitrators becoming more vocal in elections.  We have a community of thousands of users.  Elections run well enough even if a couple of dozen are tactfully keeping their mouths shut.  AGK  &#9632;  13:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Candidate occupations and hobbies
To me it would be very nice to for candidates to tell what they do outside of Wikimedia. Most probably have jobs or professions and most have hobbies and other interests that affect the types of issues about which they become passionate here. A few candidates do mention professions and outside interests. We all do many things outside of Wikimedia. Bill Pollard (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * you are welcome to ask questions to any of the candidates. — xaosflux  Talk 22:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it’d be fine to ask, but would emphasize it’d be very optional for privacy reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see where people would want to protect their privacy. I was just thinking telling the other editors in a very general way what a candidate does. Then again, I am involved in the political realm where one has little privacy. Bill Pollard (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If I were a candidate, I would politely decline to answer such a question. I think that most users who want to disclose their RL activities already do so on their userpage. I also think it's of marginal relevance to one's abilities to serve as an arbitrator. If it were relevant, then it would imply that those of us who prefer to remain anonymous are somehow unqualified as a result.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how many answers you will get. Questions are still being accepted, but many users have already voted and the incidence of candidate non-response skyrockets around that time.   AGK  &#9632;  13:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'm happy to respond to any questions up until the close of voting, but I'm checking the page less frequently now so it may take me longer to spot your question. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven’t voted and neither have many others. Knowing what sports a person plays can tell you a great deal about a person. A preference for team games or solitary computer games can be very revealing. I play scrabble with people on the other side of the world, I’ve never met, which probably says quite a lot. So it is a valid question. Giano    (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No thanks
Ain't nobody getting my vote, because ain't no scrutineers gonna be looking over my personal info. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand and respect your abstention and concern for privacy. My understanding is that the scrutineers have access to checkuser results but not tied to a specific username (so I suppose have an anonymous identifiers as distinguishers) - is that correct? –xenotalk 13:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * unless I'm woefully mistaken the scrutineers have access to standard checkuser and checkuser-like data from secure poll, this includes username to IP address correlation. What they do not have is access to who you actually voted for. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see- thank you. I've redirected WP:SCRUTINEER from a 2009 page to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination/Instructions for scrutineers (there may be a better target). –xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I assumed they only looked at the CU data if there was some reason to be suspicious of a particular account, as would be the case anywhere else on-wiki. Is that not so? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * General securepoll private data would be compared to other private data - there is no way to "be suspicious" - the scrutineers don't know the voters, and there is no "behavioral" data to look at on votewiki - so if 4 votes come in with the same IP/useragent/etc - that is what makes it suspicious, in which case the suspect accounts may be referred to local checkusers to investigate. — xaosflux  Talk 02:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope by the discussion I initiated with the previous section I did not open up a hornet's nest. I would not want to discourage anyone from voting. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * don't worry - this is a completely different concern. — xaosflux  Talk 01:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this an inappropriate use of the question page?

 * — xaosflux  Talk 18:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Are any of the candidates black?
I notice most wiki admins are not black if any are for that matter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself, I don't know the ethnicity of the vast majority of the candidates, and personally I'd rather it stayed that way, as I'd rather not be influenced (in either direction) by anything other than the merits of the person as a potential candidate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How can it be noticed? ——  SN  54129  10:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of them are purple, others are green with white poka-dots. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)