Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Coordination

Coordinator resources

Responsibilities of coordinators

• Quickly and accurately responding to questions and problems raised at the election talkpage.
• Setting up and monitoring the required candidate pages.
• Identifying and stopping disruption (mostly in the form of inappropriate commentary and questions from voters, edit warring and so on).

Useful links

• ACE2009 to get an idea of what is in store.
• Feedback 2009 the feedback from last year's election.
• 2010 RfC on Voting This year's consensus on voting.

Suit up, test drivers needed

I've been tinkering with the process candidates need to go through to get their nomination statements and question pages set up, and could use some feedback on the process. I'd be obliged if you could go to WP:ACE2010, roleplay like you're a candidate looking to stand or a voter trying to find out how to ask a question and let me know how it goes. Cheers, Skomorokh 18:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do captain. I'll take two hours since I have to balance doing a good job with this and not getting caught by my boss, but I'll do a run. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it Sven. Skomorokh 19:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(false bug report removed) Right, so everything worked fine for me. I placed a 'you're at the wrong place' style warning message in the pages where people would land if they forgot to insert their username during the assisted submissions sections, so what happened to me the first time shouldn't happen again. My test candidacy is up, I posed a question on example's page, so I'm pretty sure that I've done a full run. I'd like someone to check it over though, and not just because I want someone to read my exceedingly bad submission statement. More because knowing myself, I'm quite sure I managed to miss something. Hope everything goes well, Sven Manguard _Talk 07:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we still need that test, or should we get rid of the candidacies for Sven Manguard and Example now? Sven Manguard _Talk 23:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Shame on you people. We got caught with our pants down here, and my reputation is in tatters now... I'm ruined forever... RUINED!!! </sarcasm>

Seriously though, this shouldn't have happened. I feel silly about the whole affair. Please make sure that this page is watchlisted and that we continue to communicate with each other. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 19:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's absolutely trivial Sven, don't sweat it. And thanks again for testing out the interface. Skomorokh 19:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If I really cared about it, I wouldn't have used my <sarcasm> tag on the above comment. Thanks for the moral support, but I think I'll live. I do regret not being able to save the "gangsta rap" though. I think it would have been fun to work on in my spare time. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunday's RfC Closing

We should probably prep the RfC for closing. If I remember correctly, when MuZemike set it up, he stated that he only wanted it to run for a week so that there would be time for any changes to be made before the submissions begin. That week would end tomorrow (Sunday.) Based on the current climate in the RFA, I'm thinking the following:

1. Statement by Will Beback (for doing SecurePoll again this year) is adopted as formal policy for the 2010 election, consensus of 75% (opposed to Statement by Angus McLellan.) It's 74 to 23 now, assuming all the votes are legitimate and nothing changes (which, of course, it will before Sunday, if only because I am saying this).
2. Statement by Risker (felf nom and support > oppose requirements) is adopted as formal policy for the 2010 election. No direct comparison to weigh against for consensus, and wide support for it.
3. Statement by Neutron (no withdrawing once voting has started) is adopted as formal policy for the 2010 election. No direct comparison to weigh against for consensus, and wide support for it.
4. Statement by Hipocrite (none of the above) is confirmed as a community consensus, and we should do our best to get in for the 2010 election. Failing that, we harass the developers mercilessly for a year so it winds up in the 2011 election.

   Risker and Hipocrite's statements are not in direct conflict with one another, although the question of what were to happen if none of the above won a plurality has yet to be firmly addressed and resolved.

5. Statement by Od Mishehu (voting one at a time, rather than all at once) is confirmed as a community consensus, although a weaker one that Hipocrite's or Risker's. We should do our best to get in for the 2010 election. Failing that, we harass the developers mercilessly for a year so it winds up in the 2011 election. If only enough time for one of the changes to be made exists, priority goes to Hipocrite's.
6. Statement by Seraphimblade (ability to see and confirm your own votes) is confirmed as a community consensus, although a weaker one that Hipocrite's or Risker's. We should do our best to get in for the 2010 election. Failing that, we harass the developers mercilessly for a year so it winds up in the 2011 election. If only enough time for one of the changes to be made exists, priority goes to Hipocrite's, then to Od Mishehu's, then this (unless this overtakes Od's in support in the next day, of course).

I don't see any other things with enough support to act upon. I'd appreciate it if another one of you did the write up, preferabally UltraExactZZ or 7, as they are the only two coordinators that didn't comment in the RfA. Skomorokh only commented once, if the others are unwilling or unable. Tony, Fetchcomms, and I have participated heavily, which may present the illusion of impropriety, especially in something as touchy as voting. As long as I don't have to write it though, I'd rather it be well written and documented more than anything else. (I am excluding myself from writing because I personally feel to involved, am not confident in having the confidence of the community in my judgement in such an important matter, and have a term paper to finish editing this weekend, rendering my time online limited.)

Happy Halloween, and good luck with the RfA closing. See you on Monday. Sven Manguard _Talk 08:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best if a quite independent admin closed the RfC. Perhaps Skomorokh has plans to ask at the appropriate noticeboard, with a note that it's an involved set of issues.

Please see my comments on the technical realities, and how embarrassing it would be to have to ask Roan Kattouw to program and test for a new nihilist "none of the above" button. I have also left a note against Od Mishehu's statement warning users that they may ask for the change to be made by the tech, but not to expect it at this late stage. Whoever closes should be aware of the technical limitations if things are left so late.Tony (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I happen to agree with you. Hipocrite's idea is terrible, IMO. There is absolutely no technical difference between voting neutral for everyone and voting none of the above. I mean, I already cut and pasted somewhere the text that said that neutral was entered as a technical change, since people are now required to vote for all candidates. Also, the concept of voting none of the above with the stated idea of leaving a seat empty is shortsighted, shows a lack of understanding in the political process, and is counter intuitive in achieving any other goals that the voters had in mind. Sanctimoniously improving quality and reducing quantity is not at all effective. In short, I would love to ignore it, but I am duty bound to report consensus no matter how stupid or destructive pointless it is. As you said, the techs won't do it anyways, at least not in 2010. Considering Risker's statement, if there is a group of people that don't want ArbCom filled, they should just vote oppose for every candidate. That, and they have to overthrow Jimbo Wales, and likely depose of the board of trustees, the stewards, burecrats, and most of the Admins. Short of that, ArbCom isn't going away.

TLDR I am duty bound to report consensus, but we all know the techs won't do it, at least not in 2010. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion that there is "consensus" for Hipocrite's proposal. If you look at the talk page, there was some disagreement there. I think that RfC is a very limited and flawed means for obtaining or determining consensus on proposals like this. Because "opposes" are not permitted, it becomes the affirmative obligation of someone who is opposed to propose a competing statement, which in this case did not happen until a few hours ago when I did it, probably too late for many people to see it before the RfC is closed. So, assuming that this cannot be implemented for the 2010 election anyway, I think this proposal should be regarded as "undecided" for now and should be the subject of another RfC when the election is over, rather than being pushed for implementation in 2011.

And by the way, the no-withdrawal proposal (number 3 above) was made by me, not Risker. Neutron (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that an RfC is intended to judge consensus and is not a vote (otherwise there would be an 'oppose' as well as an 'endorse' section), it is essential that the comments expressed on the talk page be taken into consideration. Looking at WT:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure#Comment on the opinion from Hipocrite, I can't see the consensus for NOTA, based on the strength of the arguments. In fact, the proposal itself is ambiguous, since it is unclear whether the intention was to add a fourth option to S/N/O (and what that meant), or to add another candidate called NOTA (when the purpose of Support/Oppose NOTA is undefined). I hope the closer takes into account the talk page commentary, to save the embarrassment of having to call another RfC to clarify what the proposal meant. --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Then by all means, scrap that one entirely. I think it's less than worthless, but that's just me. Also, the whole 'technical infeasibility' thing plays a role. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it mind-boggling that not only are the rules for this election being made up this close to the election, but that even this close to the election, there is no procedure for determining the rules. I have gotten somewhat involved in commenting on the procedure for this election (as I did last year to a lesser extent) because I know something about the subject in the "real world." I have been involved in elections from several different angles, including as a candidate, but I have never seen elections where the rules are made up as we go along, as they are at Wikipedia. And now that I think about it, last year, the rule-making process was still going on after the election was actually over. This needs to be corrected, but the difficulty in getting consensus on anything (or even defining "consensus", or deciding whether consensus is necessary on any given issue) is so difficult that that correction is unlikely. I'm thinking of volunteering to help with the process after this election is over, but at the same time I have to wonder whether it would be quicker to just check myself into a psychiatric ward now and get it over with. Neutron (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To some extent, I share Neutron's concerns. Some of the main "rules" for last year's elections were made up on the fly as we worked through a new system, but there was an RFC after the fact that identified strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, nobody from the community picked up on the fact that it might take a bit of time to actually make sure these recommendations were implemented. I do feel that sitting arbitrators are probably too conflicted to do this ourselves - after all, we have six sitting members deciding whether or not to run again, and effective next year it will be half the committee - so we aren't the right group to really be implementing these changes. Heck, I felt awkward making a statement on the current RFC, one that I figured would be relatively non-controversial, and I don't have to worry about an election this year. What we need are 3-4 people who are willing, starting this year, to work with the current election coordinators, and then continue the work in a timely manner through 2011. This is in no way a criticism of this year's election coordinators, who I suspect assumed that most of these issues had been resolved by last year's work. Turns out that wasn't entirely the feeling of the community. In any case...finding people who will agree to carry forward their work, to establish a timeline including resolution of issues at least a month in advance, and dealing with technical concerns, would be the preferred course of action. I hope that experienced and committed editors will be willing to step up to the plate, just as Tony1 and Skomorokh have done the last two years. Risker (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

←Agree with Risker. I'm not being self-satisfied in saying that I did try and try earlier this year to get things rolling; just to point out that once the election is over, like an annual exam it's the last thing people want to think about. I suggest that in the days after the 6 December close of voting, when there's a hiatus, we get the community to decide on at least the timing and scope of an RfC next year early enough that technical changes might be made without a rush. Techs are very unwilling to commit to rushed changes because their task can be unpredictable. Tony (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, this is terrible practice. On the other hand, if we look closely, the rules for this election will likely end up being the same as the rules in the 2009 election. If we look at the consensus, the desire for the secret ballot has increased, and technical side will prevent in-system withdraws and effectively kill none of the above. As to the 50% requirement and the self nom stuff, Jimbo Wales has already stated that these were already unofficial requirements. I think most of this is that people want their input heard, and the only time that the community as a whole is able to focus on Arbcom elction rules for a prolonged period of time is right before the elections. Participation would be lower if this were done in, say mid-June. I think that we might get good enough participation if we did the RfC right after the election, but it's iffy. I wish I could say there was a better option. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC is closed. We have our mandate. I personally think that Neutron and Risker's statements should have become policy but that's not the closer's interpretation, and I'm not in a position to challenge it, even if I wanted to (which I really don't.) Let's move on to finishing the test runs. I think that's mostly done too, but as far as I can tell, only Skomorokh and I have run through it. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC) This year's elections are going to be a rousing success. I can feel it.

Brief the developer(s) and scrutineers on their roles

Is there anything that the coordinators can do to help at this point? The only unchecked task is "Brief the developer(s) and scrutineers on their roles", and I'd like to help, but I am not sure who to brief and what to tell them.  7  23:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Monitoring the voter log is definately something that needs doing. For that matter, monitoring the election as a whole is something that you can do. I don't know what is going to happen in this election, but there are going to be questions asked, lost users trying to find specific pages, some vandalism, accusations of wrongdoing, etc. and we are going to need as many people watching as much of the election as possible. We're going to need everyone for this. Hopefully, it will be a smooth ride, but after reading a comment Skomorokh made about needing more admins and checkusers participating, I invited all of the still active admin coordinators from 2009 to join up this year (minus Skomorokh of course) and one two already have joined up. Good luck sir, and may the force be with you. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there'll be some communication in the next 12 hours about elections organisation and roles. Thanks for asking. Tony (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A day in the life of an election coordinator

Ciao all. Some of you may have signed up and are now wondering what it is you are supposed to be doing. Until now, Tony and I have been taking care of the backroom business, but as the live period of the election approaches, we will need everyone to step up and get their hands dirty. Specifically, here is what needs to be done:

• As editors nominate themselves, check their eligibility for standing. Candidates must have had 1,000 mainspace edits before the opening of the nomination period and not be blocked. An easy way to roughly check the former requirements is to pull up their contributions, switch to display 500 revisions per page, stipulate mainspace edits only be shown, and see if the contributions go back two pages.
• In the case of apparently ineligible candidates, inform them that they appear not to be eligible. If they contest it in good faith, raise the matter on the main election talkpage.
• In the case of eligible candidates, leave them a welcome notice by substituting {{ACE2010 candidate}} on their user talk page and responding to any follow up comments or queries they might have.
• Update and maintain the candidate guide as the nominations come in.
• Make sure each candidate has a properly formatted nomination statement (of max 400 words, with declarations of other accounts used), questions page, candidate profile (statement + questions) and profile talkpage (n.b. level three section headers only).
• Make sure that each nomination statement is transcluded at /Candidates, and that each candidate profile talkpage is transcluded at /Discussion.
• Watchlist the election talkpage and the coordinators' talkpage and respond promptly to requests for clarification or help. If you are not confident about a reply, leave it for another coordinator.
• Monitor as many question + discussion pages as you are comfortable with, and intervene against any inappropriate posting, especially violations of WP:NPA, WP:OUTING, WP:HARASS, WP:POINT, WP:BAN. If you think something needs the attention of the other coordinators, leave a message at the coordinators' talkpage or contact a volunteer privately.
• Make sure that no voter asks more than one question per candidate, and that the questions do not exceed 75 words.

Questions, comments and so on welcome. You should also have been briefed on what to expect by email. Mahalo, Skomorokh [updated 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)]

Most of this grunt work is falling on Sven and I at the moment, and it's quite a bit even with only three candidates; any help would be most appreciated chaps. Skomorokh 14:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm freer from Wednesday. Some bolding and underlining of a few things they're getting wrong might be in order, like the level-three headings? Tony (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks. Skomorokh 15:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, by bolding/underlining, I meant on the template that prints the instructions for the individual questions on each candidate's questions pages. Tony (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sorry. I'm not sure how much good that would do; most of the candidates have ignored the instructions on the election page, the candidate page, the editnotice and the talkpage welcome, will bolding these really help? Skomorokh 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Like this (instructions to voters, rather than candidates). Tony (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've had that change implemented for future questions pages; you might want to make sure the existing ones are consistent. Skomorokh 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IRC channel

I've revived the election IRC channel in case there are urgent issues that need speedy and private resolution. The channel can also function for discussion amongst coordinators and general chitchat, and will likely be dead most of the time. If you are an active IRC user please, put the channel on autojoin and add your IRC username at the top of this page. Cheers, Skomorokh 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's beyond me: I can get into The Signpost's IRC webchat, but this thing rejects me. I need to download something, do I? Tony (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm having no trouble with it. I have firefox and got the free IRC browser ChatZilla. What's the signpost IRC? I will join up and wait for you there if you want. Sven Manguard _Talk 15:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Massive question overload

If mass questions are posted to the talk page instead of the questions page, like this, it appears to be an end run around the election rules. While individual candidates may not mind, this puts pressure on all the other candidates to allow it too. I think we should either allow unlimited questions, or else enforce THE RULES throughout the election pages, no matter where questions are posted. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We've encouraged voters to post whatever questions they like to candidates' user talk pages . It's the candidate question pages, which are advertised to voters, we are trying to keep in order. Candidates are expected to respond to legit questions there; the ones on their talkpages they can do what they like with. Work for you? Skomorokh 17:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever has been decided is fine with me. I'd encourage the candidates to ignore question-spam. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I'm glad you raised this, J., and I agree with both of you. What say a prominent message be posted at the top of the talk page of any candidate who is encouraging/allowing mass spam-questions to be posted. Is something like this OK?

Please note that while candidates are expected to respond to all of the general questions and are encouraged to engage with voters elsewhere on their candidature, they should by no means feel obliged to open their candidate talk page to an extension, as it were, of the individual questioning process. This matter is entirely at the discretion of each candidate. Tony (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC) (for the election coordinators)"

Way ahead of you Tony :). Feel free to substitute your wording; I'm trying to find a way to stick the notice into a template but the coding is a little tricky. Skomorokh 16:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to subsitute it, but can't see how to. Your textis not at Template:ACE2010 discussion, or the /doc page associated with it. It's not typed into the candidate pages. Lost. Tony (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It is in the template, but you have to dig around in its bowels a bit to find it. Skomorokh 03:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Important question

• I wish to know whether, on any individual editor's talk page, a group of three to four possibly voting editors on Wikipedia are allowed right now (as in, currently) to discuss the nominations, comment on who all they think are good/bad nominees and who they're ready to support? I enquire because I'm literally confused on whether such an action by the editors would be considered inappropriate under any of our guideline? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking only as far as the election coordinators are concerned, we only monitor the election pages. We encourage good faith discussion of the merits of candidates on the relevant election talkpages. Voter conduct elsewhere is subject to the usual community standards and any relevant ArbCom directives. If this answer is vague, please feel free to ask a more specific question... Skomorokh 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for the reply. Would you be able to please guide me to any community standard/policy/guideline (or ArbCom directive) that either allows or prohibits the discussion of candidatures on user talk pages? That would allow me to directly take up (or ignore) the issue. Thanks and sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To echo Skomorokh, you are free—within existing guidelines such as WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY, and any specifically related ArbCom or community-based directive—to discuss on user talk pages the election, ArbCom, candidates, and related issues. Tony (talk)

Thanks Tony. Somehow, what Skomorokh wrote was different from what you've written. As much as I perceived from Skomorokh's statement, the election talk pages can be used to discuss the merits of the candidates; while the user talk pages have to adhere to existing community standards. And I'm quite not clear whether there is a directive/policy/guideline that specifically allows/disallows such discussion without it being called canvassing/votestacking/et al. Further light (that is, if you can guide me to any policy/guideline that describes this issue) would be helpful. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to be more clear: this is an election, voters are encouraged to publicly assess and debate the candidacies (as long as they don't violate the obvious policies or guidelines doing so). I don't know why anyone would think responsible discussion to be inappropriate, and there is certainly no rule prohibiting it. Best, Skomorokh 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, I think I know which discussion you are referring to, and it's perfectly legit as long as guidelines/policies such as WP:CANVAS and WP:CIVIL are followed appropriately. Discussion of candidates is expected and should be encouraged so that the right people are chosen. AD 23:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, wouldn't it be easier for you to just ask or tell me directly what it is you're concerned about? I'll be traveling today, but will be glad to catch up later, but most certainly voters can discuss candidates on talk, and that is FAR preferable to the backchannel rumormongering that goes on with other people. At least you know where I stand, in public. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• @Skomorokh: Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it and in fact agree with your viewpoints; and at the same time realise that there apparently is no policy or guideline that exists which either prohibits or approves of such discussion, especially for RfA/Admin votes, two of our important forums. Regards.
• @Aiken: Nice to hear from you after a long time :) I agree with you and Skomorokh. Actually as I mentioned above, my query was skewed towards whether a policy/guideline/directive existed... It's quite apparent that as no specific policy/guideline/directive exists, we assume good faith in general. Thanks again for the note Aiken. Best.
• @SandyGeorgia: Ma'am, my apologies in advance if my questions sounded affronting. That wasn't the intent. And as I mentioned on your talk page, I would have necessarily informed you through email about the administrative action that I intend taking on your talk page, but only with your explicit knowledge, not otherwise. Now that you have joined the discussion here, allow me to mention some of the lines that I was particularly concerned about in your discussions:

• '...unless some better candidates surface, the only alternative now is for everyone to oppose every candidate..'.
• the admin corp is out of control and the arbs need to clean their own house.
• the arbs are doing a darn good job of shooting themselves in the foot
• I learned how rotten the admin corp and RFA process was
• If I pulled the kind of crap admins and arbs get away with, I'd be gone

I'm sorry for mentioning this, but it does seem as if you are exhorting the people engaged in the discussion and perchance the watchers/viewers to vote against the candidates who had forwarded their nominations at that moment of time, against Arbs in general and against administrators. I'm perfectly all right with assuming good faith simply based on my request to you to kindly not make such statements against groups of candidates and to kindly remove the said statements as soon as possible from your talk page. I should request you to also kindly re-read our project content guideline Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC which will provide you further details on why statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons will be generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive. At this juncture, I should mention that in case you do believe that these statements do not qualify on the above mentioned guideline, I should be removing them myself. I look forward to seeing you discuss the issue more proactively ma'am. My apologies again for bringing up the issue. Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, I'm concerned about the way you are apparently intending to misuse your shiny new tools, and hope that you won't find yourself in the unfortunate position, as a new and not-yet-fully-informed admin, of disrupting user talk pages and stifling discussion of arb candidates. I see that several editors opined on your RFA that you weren't yet fully up to speed, and that this kind of misunderstanding was a real possibility. The best I can offer you for now is two suggestions: 1) given your lack of understanding of arb elections and discussions permitted on user talk pages, I strongly suggest that you remove your name from this page, and wait perhaps a year until you are more fully versed in arb elections, and 2) point that Polemic business about "further details on why statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons will be generally considered divisive" at arb Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), as she might benefit from that information, considering her malignment of the "entire group of FAC reviewers" on this page. Good luck with that ! Should you choose to disrupt my user talk page and stifle correct and polite discussion of the arb elections, I don't think that will end very well for you. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Ma'am, thanks for your reply. I did expect an impulsive reaction from you, as evidenced from your statements above. In fact, I believe any established user would have reacted with this mannerism once clear guideline mistakes were pointed out to her. I should request you to note that out of respect for your positive contributions in other areas, I had desisted from deleting polemic material from your user talk pages; and that too, despite having warned you many days back. I should request you to additionally note that the reason I had offered the option of communicating by email to you (which you had agreed to) on your talk page was to avoid subsequent embarrassment to you. Since you wished to have the details on this talk page (which, please note again, is not in the heat of general public view), I have pointed out visible guideline mistakes. There are others that you continue to make, for example:

• Integrity at the arb level is apparently as lacking as at the admin level

While I do understand you might have issues with certain arbitrators and administrators, may I advise you to please bring out those issues on the relevant noticeboards with diffs - and not generalise your individual experiences as a general polemic characteristic. Kindly comment on content, than polemically on general character of an editor group. I have assumed, in good faith, that you might not have been in the know of our project content guidelines Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC. That might well have been so. Now that I hope you may have read the guideline, do kindly consider this as my renewed request to you to read the behavioral guideline appropriately and to desist from making general polemic statements against arbitrators and administrators. Please do understand - and I am very sorry for making this statement to you - repetitively making polemic statements from this moment onwards would be considered disruptive, an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and line you up for a block. My sincere regards ma'am. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to see another one slipped through.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Before I was on board :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, I understand you may feel concerned about comments that Sandy is making on her talk page. The best solution? Don't read her talk page. Assuming she does not violate NPA (and, to my knowledge, she has not), she has a fair amount of freedom to share her views about ArbCom, the general body of admins, and a variety of other topics - historically, editors have been granted a fair amount of leeway to express their opinions. As it seems you and she do not agree on what is and is not appropriate, I suggest you simply drop the subject and don't let it bother you. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria. I respect your comments; yet, the option you provide is one that is quite impracticable. Unfortunately, if one were to use this rule of thumb for all discretions one comes across user pages, it would be doing injustice to the administrative role. So I disagree with your viewpoint in toto. The user's talk page is apparently one of the top followed/watched ones and the statements she has made goes against Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC, a behavioral guideline specifically made for user pages, and specifically for advising editors who make comments akin to those that the user has. If one were to ignore her comments, especially at a time when arbcom elections are in process, it would be giving credence to her behavior and that would not be appropriate at all at an administrative level that you or I represent. Irrespective of all this, given SandyGeorgia's contributions (and despite her continued polemic comments), I'm given to considering all her statements in good faith, and ignoring all the past comments, provided she does realize that proactive contributions include a rigorous adherence to Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC in the future, as such statements - and I'm constrained to repeat this - will be considered disruptive. I would be currently logging off for the day and would be able to reply in a few hours. Thanks again for your reply and warm regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, I respect your efforts to uphold the administrative role. However, given that you do not seem to have consensus to support your position (at least not here), "I should mention that in case you do believe that these statements do not qualify on the above mentioned guideline, I should be removing them myself" is not an appropriate response. Per WP:UP: "The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable...If the user does not agree, or does not effectively remedy the concerns, or the matter is unsure or controversial, then other steps in this section can be taken including uninvolved user opinions or proposing the page for deletion." You have sought opinions from uninvolved users here; thus far, the results do not support your position. I should also point out that comments of the type Sandy made are widespread through both userspace and Wikipedia space, and that arbs and experienced admins are aware of them (and in many cases, have participated in such discussions) without moving to delete such commentary. YMMV. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wifione, but your understanding of arb elections, policy and guideline is so lacking that the only response I can think of is just to make sure that you're aware that you should not disrupt user talk pages or arb elections. Hopefully others will be able to impress upon you where you are going wrong here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for the reply. I'm actually pleased that you've changed your position from your previous statement, where you had advised me to ignore SandyGeorgia's negative and polemic statements. The moment you've referred to a guideline, I understand you better; and that's how it should be in future hopefully. In reality, I'm in agreement with part of your statement - which alludes to lack of consensus here. I assume you are the uninvolved editor and I would take your view in good faith of not deleting SandyGeorgia's negative statements. I am not in complete agreement with the next part of your statement, where you mention that "arbs and experienced admins are aware of 'these statements' (and in many cases, have participated in such discussions) without moving to delete such commentary." I should inform you here; there're editors other than I who're informing SandyGeorgia in good faith about the negativity prevalent in her statements. She knows about them too and I hope with all my sincerity that she takes that in good faith. Advancing that, no arbitrator or experienced administrator has supported her generalized contentions like "Integrity at the arb level is apparently as lacking as at the admin level". I suspect strongly that SandyGeorgia's statements are overlooked by some in the community because of her excellent work as the FAC Delegate. And frankly, I have no issues with such a position - as this was the primary reason I had not proceeded with deleting her negative comments. However, such negative statements do not portray the essence of civility, politeness, and good-natured discussion that is expected of such an established, experienced and respected editor as SandyGeorgia. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia. The more she makes such statements, the more she's making a long-term mistake of negating the excellent work she's doing on other forums. I hope you too tell this to her whenever you interact with her. Thanks again for your reply Nikkimaria. Warm regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• @SandyGeorgia: Ma'am, let me confess to you that I respect your contributions too much. The day I left a message on your talk page intending to warn you about your negative statements, I had thought about the same a thousand times. You did note that I had earlier supported the view that you should apply for an administrative profile (which you subsequently declined). At this point, I'm sure you've read my statement to Nikkimaria and realize the issue. You are one of the excellent contributors to Wikipedia, and your FAC delegate status is respected by too many. But you should necessarily at least think about this for a moment - lack of civility, politeness and good-natured banter in some of your statements does away much of the brilliant work you do everywhere. Civility was, is and will remain an astoundingly strong pillar of Wikipedia. From FAC to RfA improvement to desysopping procedures, editors all around will simply use ad hominem arguments to dismiss the work you're trying to do, simply because of some negative statements you're making. You yourself know the editors who are now telling you the same point. There must be some reason that editors are mentioning this point. If you really wish to put down another editor in an argument, belittle them with your civility than with your hostility. At the end, I have no reason not to say that I apologize to you for the inconvenience caused due to my warning messages and subsequent posts here. With sincere regards again ma'am. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wifione, you are continuing to embarrass yourself. As to one editor's (Tony1) expressed concerns about "negativity", I have a slight advantage over you: you don't know why he's raising that issue, and I do. I suggest the old advice of "when you're in a hole, stop digging" would be helpful to you now. Your posts here are showing that your acquisition of sysop tools may have been premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No issues with your opinion ma'am. You know my view now. That suffices. I had no idea Tony had also commented on your negativity. He may have his own reasons; I shouldn't like to comment on that. Guess that closes this thread ma'am. Best regards Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• At the risk of seeming as if I live up Sandy's butt (hopefully neutralized by the fact that I rarely comment many places), Wifone, your continued commentary on Sandy's Arb voting guide needs to stop. First, you're insulting the intelligence of editors who think for themselves by presuming to decide what they should read. Let them do so by gaining the perspectives of the ten or so editors who offer voting guides. Your commentary smacks of censorship. Secondly, you put way too much emphasis on Sandy's influence. Any editor who sticks around long enough earns the respect of some and the scorn of others. Even editors Sandy is friendly with disagree with her from time to time. She does not have a cult following. The comment Tony1 left on her page is one example in many of editors who disagree with her perspectives from one page to another. It happens. It does not mean Sandy's judgment is poisoned. It just means it is her own judgment, developed within her experience on the site. The fact that editors can disagree with her, keep their opinions, and continue to work for the same goal is a rare mark of maturity among a small group of people. It's not the ridiculousness one often sees at ANI. Mature people disagree, work to overcome their issues, and move forward. They compromise and respect each other. It happens very rarely on Wikipedia and your movement to quash it infantalizes all the editors involved, and actually exposes more about your own decision-making skills than theirs. In this vein, if you believe Sandy's guide should not exist, fine. Believe it. But several editors here have told you to back off, so please do so. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, hi. Which voting guide?! I guess you got the basis of the discussion wrong. It's alright; no issues. Warm regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Material errors of fact in guides

What is to be done about a guide that has material mis-statements of the facts? Per my concerns stated at User talk:Elonka/ACE2010, this guide presents links to accounts claiming that they were formerly held by certain users, when in fact these account were never held by those users. The users accounts appear to have been renamed. The abandoned names were then registered as new accounts by vandals and misused. Sorry if this is confusing; ask me for further explanation if I am not being clear enough. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The default answer:

1. Keep the main guide as accurate and complete as possible.

2. Notify guide writers of discrepancies between the theirs and that, in the hopes that they will correct it.

3. Trust voters will do the minimum of research and discover the truth for themselves.

The above might be too polyannaesque an approach so here are two three options for firmer handling:

1. Tag disputed statements as you would in an article, i.e. with {{dubious}} or similar.

2. Temporarily suspend guides with serious errors of fact from the central listing.

3. Directly editing the guide to correct the fact (this should only be used where it is very unlikely to be objected to).

Thoughts? This conversation is perhaps more appropriate for the main election talkpage. Skomorokh 03:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we finish it here because I'd rather not raise a big fuss. I have just taken care of Default Answer 1. As for Default Answer 2, I posted my concerns some time ago, but there has been no response from the author. We should not rely on every user to figure out what happened for themselves when the record can easily be corrected. (Consider that the writers of the main candidates guide did not perceive the matter correctly either.) Therefore, I request Firmer Handling option 2 be applied as the least intrusive option. I will not delist the guide, because of my past dispute history with the author. Instead would a neutral party to consider acting on my request? As soon as the errors are fixed, the guide can be re-listed, so this course of action should not be too inconvenient. Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. My other issue is that several of the guides are little more than stubs, and it's rather annoying for voters to go there and learn this for themselves. I wonder why we don't delist those that are not even close to being useful, even for the ?five candidates we already have, and ask that they be filled out more before relisting. Of course they'll be a work in progress, but the bottom line, I think, is that they should deal with at least most of the candidates already nominated in enough detail to be useful. Sandy's and Polargeo's, at first look, are in this category. Tony (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with delisting any stub guides. Why annoy voters by linking to the logical equivalent of an "Under Construction" web page. Advise the authors to add some content to the guide, and then list it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be fair, the list of candidates is little more than a stub. No harm in giving a prod to the authors of the empty guides though. Skomorokh 04:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Baloney-- it's not even close to election time, and we haven't got any candidates yet. Leave 'em linked now so that voters taking an early look know what to come back to when guide writers actually have someone to write about (or do you want to prejudice early lookers by showing them only the guides that are up early, including one that just had to be removed?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the issue of Elonka's guide...could one or some of you delist it and prod her to remove the false links? She's mistakenly linked to accounts that were never controlled by the two candidates. Those were imposter accounts set up by vandals. See how I fixed the Candidates Guide already. Jehochman ^Talk 12:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On it, thanks. Skomorokh 12:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Elonka-watching could take more time than election watching! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about questions

So the guide is unclear about the mechanism of asking questions. I have a question that I wish to ask of all of the candidates. However, the individual questions section says this can't be done. The general questions section would seem appropriate, but it isn't clear if the questions are fixed or open for additions. Please advise, as the question has relevance to my work at the foundation, and it would be a shame if it couldn't be asked of the candidates. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The general questions were open to community discussion for some time before the election, and are now fixed. Given the huge number and length of individual questions last year, and the fact that the distinction between them and general questions dissolves when exactly the same IQ is pasted into every IQ section of every candidate, voters are encouraged to ask IQs that are specific to each candidate. The alternative, which we encourage, is to start up a discussion on the talk page of the candidate's question page, which is automatically transcluded to a central discussion page. I think you'd find voters would pick up on any good question you ask there of the most appropriate candidate you ask it of. I've just posted one myself to NYB's discussion section, specific to his RL legal expertise. Give it a try there? Hope this helps. Tony (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The downside to that being, voters are MUCH less likely to view every single candidates user talk pages (including histories and archives) in order to see all questions. The community discussion being prior to the election was not an option for me because the grounds for my question did not form until after it was complete. So what options are available? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The two options are to use the talkpage of the candidates' question pages (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Casliber/Questions), or their user talk pages. Best, Skomorokh 13:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Header changes

Just a quick heads-up: I'll handle changing the header when enrollments close and when voting starts (Midnight UTC is 8 AM my time). This is not set in stone and if anyone else wants to do this, you are more than welcome to; just post here to let me know not to change it. Thanks! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for volunteering Barts1a. Do you know what needs to be done? Cheers, Skomorokh 12:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done a couple of preview edits and I have a fairly good idea. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. For reference this was last year's change; the major difference this year is the bigger font for the active period. Skomorokh 12:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done a draft for when nominations close here. Feel free to suggest changes/improvements. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tinkered with a thing or two, but it looks good. Thanks again, and feel free to help out elsewhere if you're so inclined. Best, Skomorokh 12:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have de-volunteered because I do not wish to further offend the vocal minority. Someone else will have to take responsibility for it. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup on Aisle 5...

Well, maybe not quite, but if someone could tidy this up, I'm sure all involved would be grateful. Best that it be someone who's formally "neutral" in all aspects. Risker (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tony (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Qualifications of volunteer coordinators

My suggestions here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything is fine as is. This is a volunteer body. I'm sure several people are unhappy about various aspects of the election and/or the election "staff", but until we have someone breaking rules or causing trouble, we have to go on good faith that nothing bad will happen. If there is a problem, raise it directly and it will be dealt with by the community. Thank you, Sven Manguard _Talk 03:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything is not fine. Get a hold of your fellow volunteer up above before he errs further.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest next year that we make criteria for being a coordinator, just to avoid these issues and arguments. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Knowing a bit about Wiki would be a helpful criterion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawals between close of nominations and codification of ballot papers

Please see the withdrawal here. I would suggest that whoever is dealing with entering the candidate names into SecurePoll make sure to check for withdrawals like this that take place between the close of nominations and the start of voting. I would presume that the bit about candidates not being able to withdraw only applies once voting has started. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct, although unfortunately we are dependent on developer availability to add or remove candidate slots. Skomorokh 02:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; we will be sure to double-check the list before the voting starts. Withdrawals at this stage will in general result in 'dead' names on the ballot paper ("withdrawn candidate 1", etc); this is only an aesthetic problem since we understand all votes cast for such a user to be meaningless; it is only when some votes are thoughtful and some are not that there is an issue. Happy‑melon 02:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks in an election guide

Elonka seems to be violating no personal attacks and displaying battlefield behavior in her guide. I've asked her to remove my name from your guide. I am not a candidate this year. There is no basis whatsoever for her to call me a disruptive editor, as she did here. I have a clear block log, no ArbCom sanctions, and am an editor in good standing.

I request that Elonka's guide be de-linked until she agrees not to repeat this behavior, and that she be warned of a possible block if there are any further attempts by her to disrupt the election. This situation is odious in the extreme. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of line, but not surprising-- the same sort of thing that led to concern about her guide being included. Will a coordinator please take it down? Where is Wifione when we need him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

^ I see what you did there. ;-) Killiondude (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Casliber seems to have taken action.[1] We'll see if that edit holds or gets reverted. While this action was helpful, I'd like my name completely out of her guide, because it is unpleasant to be the subject of innuendo. I'm not running in this election. Is supporting Jehochman or ChrisO something sinister to be held against PhilKnight? Where are the diffs of these alleged misdeeds? In the normal course, editors ought to be supporting each other. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The names of the editors in question have been removed from the guide by a coordinator. Repeated misuse of guides will be met with delisting if necessary. Skomorokh 14:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) Double standards much? If we are going to be removing names, how about removing the name from the section header here? Per WP:TALK, "Never use headings to attack other users". --Elonka 18:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) for making the change. --Elonka 01:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Guides and non-admins

My I ask why are these "guides" even linked on the official election page? I have never seen any free and fair elections where voters are being guided who to vote. And this is how one of these "guides" looked a couple of days ago: [2], scroll down and find Loosmark. The user put a pic of a swab in toilet bowl next to my name with the following text: Flush this one and clean thoroughly. I requested the user to remove that pic which he did but he also planted a big CENSORED over it and explained that he "tried humorously interpret Loosmark as a mark in a toilet".

But a far bigger problem is IMO that most of these "guides" oppose non Admins simply because they are not an Admins. For example in my case one even put it brutally: "not an admin. oppose". Ouch. Another even went as far as opposing me by claiming that "you really need an extraordinary reason not to go through RfA first" which is IMO very misleading, you don't need to be an Admin at all to become an Arb, far from it. In fact it would be desired that some non-Admins become Arbs, unless we want to restrict the ArbCom to the 1% of wikipedians who happen to be Admins. You might claim that the "non admin = bad, bad" matra have no effect on voters, but then it's hard to explain how the hell non Admins never ever make it. Apparently wikipedia editors are children who need a tutor to guide them for whom to vote.  Dr. Loosmark  13:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Should I strike that and point my readers to this instead? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think that thread is somehow important on how would I perform as an Arb then why not.  Dr. Loosmark  15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The topic of voter guides and their listing was discussed extensively prior to the election on the election talkpage. I suggest you familiarise yourself with that discussion. As for using userrights as the basis for a stance on a candidate, that's entirely the subjective opinion of the writer, and having a difference of opinion on arbitrator criteria with a guide writer is not sufficient reason for taking action against that guide. Skomorokh 14:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Look using userrights as the basis for a stance on a candidate is just plain dumb. In the real world, if somebody would claim that candidates who were are not law enforcement officers are not good candidates, he would already disqualified himself as a serious commentator. In the Wiki World such a position is called difference of opinion. I realize that since the elections are already in progress nothing can be done but I hope that for the next elections this will change and the opinion writers will be encouraged not to judges the candidates on their user rights. Wikipedia administrators represent, what, less than 1% of the all wikipedia contributors. Do we really want to restrict the ArbCom to such a narrow group of people?  Dr. Loosmark  15:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally agree that opposing a candidate for not being an administrator is a poor rationale. But I don't agree that guides which contain rationales I think are poor or you think are "plain dumb" should be interfered with. Free and fair elections mean freedom and fairness for those we disagree with, too. Skomorokh 15:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange leading question

I just got asked a question by User:John Vandenberg (see Q&A page, IQ #5). I asked him on-wiki to clarify as it seemed odd and leading. What he asked is what you see. He has asked about data which he has not specified, on a page I haven't had access to for 2 years and presumably would have written a year before. I have no idea what he's asking about or any data to check what has gone on. I asked him in IRC to clarify. He was rude and left, stating to "ask him in public" - which I had done on my Q&A page already. He's been silent since.

The question seems unfair, as I cannot respond without more information, and I see no sign he plans to clarify or provide the information needed to do so.

I have no problem answering once the data is provided. But would it be fair to ask for removal of the question in its pointed but unanswerable state, until he provides the information needed to respond. Right now it's suggesting negative things that I can't comment on, which is unfair.

As soon as he provides me by email the private information he is alleging a concern over so that I can comment, I would have no problem with reinstatement.

Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You can so answer the question. Yes, it is a leading question, which you should be thankful for because I could have asked it in less obvious ways. I'd rather get to the point. And please stop trying to talk to me about this via IRC and email. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Enough you two. Let us at least pretend to be civil for the remainder of the term of this election. I hope you both realize how poorly this has to reflect on your candidacies and come to an agreement to cease this incessant prattling at once! I have taken the liberty of placing this same message beneath your exchange on FT2's talk page. Now shake hands and go pout in your respective corners, this is not appropriate and both of you should know that. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the summary of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FT2 was that FT2 had resigned until as he can receive (in his words) "a fair hearing with appropriate gravitas." Well, a fair hearing isn't him providing a puffy statement to the voters. If he isn't going to finally answer questions that were raised prior to his resignation, then he should recognise that the community doesn't have the full facts and he shouldn't stand as a candidate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your comment on my talk that this involves information that the public can't see, an answer from FT2 will resolve that. Also note that I have allowed it to be verified by about 30 trusted people. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I care far less about what specifics you are arguing about than I do the manner in which it has gone about. First of all, if this was a concern of yours, it should have been taken up the moment you saw he was a candidate, rather than now, in the middle of the voting. Second of all, as I have said numerous times before, the location of this was poor, to say the least. While it does not have any impact on the result of the inquiry, it it will so take place, it does fuel drama from several fronts, and has the potential to unnecessarily poison the voting pool.

Suppose he is found innocent, you have just publicly called him out on something that he cannot adequately defend himself on. People might see it and say, "I was going to vote to support him, but now I won't" for no good reason. Suppose he is guilty. First off, what can be done, really, about this. Will anyone care? He could say he was working abroad for six months and for all anyone knows, he has changed locations. So what? Even if he is elected, the issue is so minor that I doubt anyone will mind.

The point here has nothing to do with whether or not FT2 lied about his location. The point here is that this was handled very poorly, and clearly (at least IMO) there is underlying tension between the two of you. Battling this out in public is just going to cause chaos and confusion. It needs to stop. The last thing that the elections need is more drama. Please just take this up on the functionaries mailing list and spare the rest of us involvement. The people on that list will be the only ones to actually have knowledge about any of this anyways. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mystery solved. John made a number of misassumptions. I've emailed him an explanation and CCed it to an arb for the record. Briefly, he had tried to compare data given in one context (location/local time in a social context with a friend) with data given in a completely different one (time zones kept for purposes of Arbcom co-ordination and assumption whether I was awake or asleep). Unsurprisingly given my routine varies by job and location, and these were also at very different times, they completely differed.

I responded to a hostile question by asking for data and suggesting email. I also passed it to the co-ordinators rather than acting myself. Hard to see a better way to handle it. However it's solved now and hopefully all okay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As you know from our correspondence, I am aware of this "I live here, but I am available as if I was here" explanation which you gave me on Jan 7, 2009, but you also gave me another explanation on Jan 7, 2009. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, although I appreciate that this not a desirable question, it is not dissimilar to what FT2 handed out to Jehochman in last years election. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure in what respect this question is supposed to be inappropriate; it neither asks for nor requires an answer that discloses material that is personal or restricted by ArbCom privacy norms. As far as I can see, the question could be rephrased as "Did you misstate in this respect", which does not need specific details in order to be answered emphatically. I suggest that if FT2 feels constrained in reply, he ask for an independent review from other editors who were arbitrators at the time, who can give their general opinion as to whether there is a legitimate ethical concern here. Skomorokh 11:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I was not a coordinator, nor was I even active, during the previous elections. I am glad that this has been resolved amicability. Now let's all move on, thank you. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight questions page

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/PhilKnight/Questions was a mess. I started refactoring, but more work is needed and I'm out of time. Is there a wiki-elf who could look over that page and touch it up? Jehochman ^Talk 09:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Serioues deletion of content from PhilKnight questions page

This is the last comment I left on PhilKnight questions page -he actually responded it, but now when I got to PhilKnight questions page I see that signficant part of my correspondence with him was deleted-and instead someone worte in small letters that it was removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/PhilKnight/Questions to the project TP, however, the PhilKinght questions TP don't have it. Now Jehochman wrote that he start re-factoring the project page and didn't finish it-I don't know whether he or someone else deleted it, but I consider it serious issue and I ask this content to be restored immediately. --Gilisa (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's all ok now, my misunderstanding.--Gilisa (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding the confidentiality of these elections

Hi,

Just wanted to ask whether one candidate is allowed to tell in one of Wikipedia's venues that he voted for other candidate (who he identified by his unique initials)? --Gilisa (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to publish anything you want about how you voted, but nothing can be confirmed or denied by looking at the results, so there is no way to verify that you're telling the truth. So there's not a huge amount of point in doing so. Happy‑melon 11:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You missed my question, I asked if a nominee for ArbCom can publish who he voted for before while election still not ended?--Gilisa (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule that prohibits that, no. It might be seen as bad form, and there's no way to confirm that they did actually vote for that candidate, but it is not against the rules. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was using the indefinite "you", not referring to you specifically. The same principles apply to candidates as to other voters. Happy‑melon 13:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK Happy-melon, sorry for misunderstanding. UltraExactZZ, the problem is not if the candidate did or didn't vote for the one he said he voted, but that it may look like a form of canvasing (though if someone want to canvas and to set voting agreement with other candidates there are better and more stealth ways to do so).--Gilisa (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing itself is usually narrowly defined, and hinges on two elements: advocacy and audience. If the candidate is saying "I voted for X, and think he'd make a good arbitrator", that's not canvassing. If he left messages only for a specific set of editors who have had problems with X in the past, telling them "We've got to get together and defeat this candidate", then THAT would be canvassing. If the message is for no one in particular, or if it is for everyone, then it's generally not canvassing. Again, it might be bad form, but not a breach of policy as far as I can tell. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's narrowly defined as you described. My point was that also the first form which you didn't count as canvassing is not very far from because candidate A can see that candidate B wrote that he voted for him, and one may reasonably assume that B expect that candidate A will vote for him as well. I hope that in future Wikipedia will list it as a form of canvassing. --Gilisa (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Ultra, however if you want an absolute and completely unambiguous answer, you're going to provide us with a diff so we can see what it is you're referring to. Sven Manguard _Talk 15:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I believe it is traditional that editors be allowed a little more leeway than normal in their user space for advocating for and against various candidates, but as my colleagues have pointed out above, it's not particularly good form. Ultra puts it very well. Please see the arrow chart in WP:CANVASS, too. Tony (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Quoting one of the candidates on his project questions page: "... If you're suggesting that you consider another candidate, who has the initials GWH to be an impartial admin, then I agree, but then again, I voted for him earlier today. For that matter, I also voted for another candidate with the initial S...". I can provide the diffs of the full correspondence, but I guess it will make no difference and that in any case it's not form of canvassing -so just posted it here for you to see what I was talking about. --Gilisa (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal notice

Please note my withdrawal from the election. My apologies. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noted your withdrawal in your nomination statement; thanks for notifying us. Skomorokh 00:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Feedback spam

Once the results are announced and the reaction dies down, could one of you with access to automated tools/processes send notifications around to all participants in the elections (voters, candidates, volunteers) asking them to contribute to the feedback page? Skomorokh 16:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)