Voting in full swing

Election report

Voting in full swing

One-year block for candidate

In breaking news, checkuser Avi issued a one-month block to one candidate, Loosmark, for "abusing multiple accounts". Avi announced at the election talk page:

“

The English wikipedia checkusers were informed this morning of possible irregularities with Loosmark's editing, and after multiple checkusers, who neither currently serve on ArbCom, nor are currently running for ArbCom, have investigated the issue, it is clear that Loosmark has been running multiple sockpuppet accounts for a long time, apparently evading various sanctions as well as outright dissembling to the English Wikipedia electorate.... The socks have been tagged and indef blocked, and the Loosmark account has been blocked as well. Decisions with respect to the continuation of Loosmark's candidacy are left to the election volunteers and the community.

”

Loosmark almost immediately appealed the ban: "I have not abused multiple account. I request who 'informed' the checkusers about alleged 'irregularities' in my editing is disclosed." This was reviewed and declined by Hersfold: "Checkuser evidence very conclusively shows [on both technical and behavioural grounds] that you have used several dozen accounts". Within four minutes, admin and election coordinator Jehochman had banned Loosmark for one year: "Loosmark, I have blocked your account for a full year as a matter of arbitration enforcement under WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. You've been socking to evade a six month topic ban.[1] The matter is further compounded by deception in the candidate statement where you did not declare any of these 40+ socks. So we have WP:SOCK, WP:DIGWUREN and WP:GAME violations of a very serious nature."

Less than 12 hours later, admin Gwen Gale informed the candidate that "there has been a consensus at AN for a community ban." Loosmark replied "Ok. I will respect the decision of the community, and will not edit wikipedia anymore. I apology to everybody and ask that somebody puts that tag "retired" here."

Voting guides

Voting guides are an established tradition at ArbCom elections. This year, there are 21 of them, more than the number of candidates. Voting guides explicitly represent the views of their authors, and are linked to from the official election page. The guides reveal surprisingly different approaches to the election, the candidates, and ArbCom. Among the more colourful pages was that of Polargeo, which took a humorous view of the candidates through a gallery of pictures, many of them visual puns on usernames. Among them were a picture of a hare, a royal cavalryman (no ships in sight), a sheep, a crustacean poking out of a shell, a teddy bear, and (you guessed it) a real live bot to stand for a member of the Bot Approvals Group. The sole objection by a candidate resulted in Polargeo's removal of an image of a toilet bowl.

The Signpost has compiled a quick round-up of the numbers of supports/opposes/neutrals in each guide, where provided, and a few quotable phrases. In a few cases, we've had to use a little guesswork on the numbers; we disregarded the words "strong" and "weak". The numbers were calculated before Loosmark's site ban.

Aiken drum 7/9/5: comments provided on specific candidates.
AGK 10/9/2: "it really doesn't make much of a difference who is elected, so long as they aren't going to release privileged communications or other private information".
CT Cooper 13/5/3: "The political issue which will probably impact on my vote most in this election will be the summary motion regarding [BLP] deletions".
DC 12/9/0: "... arbcom needs a few fresh faces.... This isn't to say all current arbs should be voted out.... Arbcom needs a balance, and there are a few outstanding sitting arbs who deserve re-election".
Ealdgyth 8/10/3: "... I want content contributions, or at least the concept that they support content contributors.... I'm also looking for folks who don't get so wrapped up in enforcing civility or rules that they forget that first goal above, the writing of the encyclopedia".
Elonka 13/8/0: Requires admin access, integrity, experience with article-writing, and hands-on knowledge of the dispute resolution processes
Heimstern 4/5/ (and 12 undecided): "Making [the decision] more difficult is the draconian regime the current election coordinators are running that is stifling attempts to ascertain information".
Lar 6/11/3: Lists three important criteria—willingness to support "the increased structure and repeatability of processes that the committee has instituted"; attitudes to the BLP issue; and a growing problem with generally unhelpful behaviour from long-time contributors.
Ncmvocalist: "My primary criticism of the committee is that it is generally so focused on our conduct policies that it ends up leaving the actual encyclopedia behind." Concerns about POV pushing, particularly WRT "nationalist troublemaking".
NuclearWarfare 10/9/2: Wants "to see evidence that they have thought hard about the scope of the [BLP] problem and perhaps even how to address it." Concerns about "a governance model on Wikipedia" and how the project has traditionally addressed content disputes.
Offliner 5/9/ (plus 9 undecided): time availability, consistency, importance placed on process, trustworthiness with sensitive information, communicativeness, and openness.
Privatemusings: unclear tally; comments provided on specific candidates.
RegentsPark 7/10/4: "too much drama, too much adherence to the letter of the policy – bad; lots of reasoned content additions, productive personality style – good".
Rschen7754 9/7/3 (plus 2 "on hold"): points system.
SandyGeorgia 8/13/0: longevity and wide active involvement; trustworthiness, balance, fairness, respect, and diligence; [harder] position on editors who evidence lack of maturity with respect to the pillars of Wikipedia; support for the "reform of RFA, RFC/U and Wiki processes to deal with admin actions"; knowledge of and support for content contributors; strong enforcement of BLP policies, and knowledge of high-quality sourcing and responsible writing in BLPs and science/biomedical articles.
Secret 13/7 (plus one undecided): experience in dispute resolution, issue of how to handle administrator abuse, content work.
Vyvyan Ade Basterd (incomplete numbers): mature, calm and focused on reducing drama; support for the rigorous enforcement of the BLP policy; experience with complex dispute resolution
WereSpielChequers 12/3/1 (plus 5 undecided): responsibility and trustworthiness; a record of both correctly reading evidence and of making good judgements; clear communication about decisions; compassion;
Wizardman 9/9/3: the likelihood of burnout/inactivity; main areas of expertise. (i.e. content, bots, dispute resolution); trustworthiness with sensitive information; "thinkers" or "doers"?; the letter vs. the spirit of the rules.

← Previous "Election report"

In this issue

29 November 2010 (all comments)

Election report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

== Two notes ==

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stale – No consensus to make a change, much bickering (this is not the right forum for that), little or no relevance to the article. We're done here. --N Y Kevin @259, i.e. 05:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I reviewed the blurb on my guide, and found only one missing space, but two notes: I deleted the entire paragraph on Polargeo's guide, as it hardly seems wise to highlight one editor's guide to the exclusion of others, and I'm wondering if a paragraph should be included about the pending crisis, whereby last year's RFC has conflicting results, asking for a Committee of 18, with some consensus for 60% support percentage, but it is highly unlikely that 12 candidates will get even 50% support this year. That we may elect arbs with lower support tallies than are needed to pass RFA is a concern expressed frequently across Wiki about this year's elections, and I'm wondering if it shouldn't be mentioned here. Only three guides support as many candidates as there are vacancies-- most do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In case it isn't clear from the watchlists, all your changes were reverted by Poleargo. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] With a single revert I removed Sandy's spin [2]. We cannot have guide writers coming into the process and making changes that favour their own guides. SandyGeorgia already pulled this same stunt before the guides were written here she has not learned. Polargeo (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Polargeo, in all fairness, in your first diff Sandygeorgia was keen not to promote any guide, not attempting to promote her own. In the second diff, she appears to be attempting to return a sentence about any voter being able to write a guide, and again not slighting your guide. That said, from a journalistic perspective I would support the mention of your guide for its unusual pictoral quality - journalism requires quirky subjects, pictures et al in order to be interesting to the average reader, and I would not have read any kind of endorsement into it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I concur. I think it is legitimate to question whether an individual guide should be highlighted, but I like the picturesque nature of Polargeo's guide and it is fair play for journalists to make use of that, as long as there is no explicit or implicit endorsement. Geometry guy 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Polargeo, you've been doing this all day-- I'm concerned that you really don't read discussions you're involved in. The change I made in no way promoted any guide, much less my own; the Signpost currently promotes your guide to the exclusion of all others; strange editorializing. Polargeo, please stop making false accusations and personalizing discussions-- you've been at it with me for several days now. What is the "stunt" business you refer to-- you're rather far afield of AGF here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sandy, it doesn't "promote his guide to the exclusion of all others". It lists all the guides. It just picks out Polargeo's guide as quirky because of the pictures. There's no consensus here to delete that paragraph. I respectfully suggest you revert yourself as having made a mistake in not realising that there is more copy here than perhaps you had read initially. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In other words, it promotes one guide. Anyway, I just saw your message, but Tony1 already reverted it. I forgot this isn't the New York Times-- it's the Enquirer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can't we all just be friends. Seriously, let's not have to break out the edit warring templates over this. Please? Sven Manguard _Talk 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not to worry-- what seemed obvious apparently is not-- I must have forgotten where I was ... no edit warring from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I recall that you were extremely rude to Palergio on your talk page recently. The incident must have been removed; I can't locate it. Tony (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not removed, just on a subpage. --El on ka 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] See, Sven, wrong again ... they'll keep digging up stories to take pot shots at me, wonder why ? :) Ah, the conversation where Tony begins discussing me supporting my "mates", then Polargeo began some incomprehensible rant claiming something unture (and unrelated) about Ling.Nut's RFA on my voter guide talk page, so he can call me a "novice troll", then moves on to some completely fabricated claims about me "attempting to stop him from having a guide", "dropping Rlevse", and various and sundry complete fabrications. Now, who was rude again? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Who was? Not me ... and I don't remove messages, so perhaps you're remembering how rude he's been to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Facepalm can we just kill off this thread entirely before all of the simmering tension erupts? Sven Manguard _Talk 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you can find a way to kill it off without more stories being told about me, I'm all for it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No offense, but if you stopped responding, people would move on. Threads die from lack of interest. People already came to your aid. Put a notch in your win column and move on. For example, pretty much no matter what happens from here on out, I won't post to this thread because everything that needs to be said has been said and it is time to move on. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] * See, wrong again ... seems I make a nice target :) I wonder what this is all about ... lots a stories and lots of spin, must be a good reason for that stuff goin' on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Stale

– No consensus to make a change, much bickering (this is not the right forum for that), little or no relevance to the article. We're done here. --N Y Kevin @259, i.e. 05:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the blurb on my guide, and found only one missing space, but two notes: I deleted the entire paragraph on Polargeo's guide, as it hardly seems wise to highlight one editor's guide to the exclusion of others, and I'm wondering if a paragraph should be included about the pending crisis, whereby last year's RFC has conflicting results, asking for a Committee of 18, with some consensus for 60% support percentage, but it is highly unlikely that 12 candidates will get even 50% support this year. That we may elect arbs with lower support tallies than are needed to pass RFA is a concern expressed frequently across Wiki about this year's elections, and I'm wondering if it shouldn't be mentioned here. Only three guides support as many candidates as there are vacancies-- most do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it isn't clear from the watchlists, all your changes were reverted by Poleargo. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a single revert I removed Sandy's spin [2]. We cannot have guide writers coming into the process and making changes that favour their own guides. SandyGeorgia already pulled this same stunt before the guides were written here she has not learned. Polargeo (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, in all fairness, in your first diff Sandygeorgia was keen not to promote any guide, not attempting to promote her own. In the second diff, she appears to be attempting to return a sentence about any voter being able to write a guide, and again not slighting your guide. That said, from a journalistic perspective I would support the mention of your guide for its unusual pictoral quality - journalism requires quirky subjects, pictures et al in order to be interesting to the average reader, and I would not have read any kind of endorsement into it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I think it is legitimate to question whether an individual guide should be highlighted, but I like the picturesque nature of Polargeo's guide and it is fair play for journalists to make use of that, as long as there is no explicit or implicit endorsement. Geometry guy 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, you've been doing this all day-- I'm concerned that you really don't read discussions you're involved in. The change I made in no way promoted any guide, much less my own; the Signpost currently promotes your guide to the exclusion of all others; strange editorializing. Polargeo, please stop making false accusations and personalizing discussions-- you've been at it with me for several days now. What is the "stunt" business you refer to-- you're rather far afield of AGF here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, it doesn't "promote his guide to the exclusion of all others". It lists all the guides. It just picks out Polargeo's guide as quirky because of the pictures. There's no consensus here to delete that paragraph. I respectfully suggest you revert yourself as having made a mistake in not realising that there is more copy here than perhaps you had read initially. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it promotes one guide. Anyway, I just saw your message, but Tony1 already reverted it. I forgot this isn't the New York Times-- it's the Enquirer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we all just be friends. Seriously, let's not have to break out the edit warring templates over this. Please? Sven Manguard _Talk 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry-- what seemed obvious apparently is not-- I must have forgotten where I was ... no edit warring from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that you were extremely rude to Palergio on your talk page recently. The incident must have been removed; I can't locate it. Tony (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not removed, just on a subpage. --El on ka 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, Sven, wrong again ... they'll keep digging up stories to take pot shots at me, wonder why ? :)
Ah, the conversation where Tony begins discussing me supporting my "mates", then Polargeo began some incomprehensible rant claiming something unture (and unrelated) about Ling.Nut's RFA on my voter guide talk page, so he can call me a "novice troll", then moves on to some completely fabricated claims about me "attempting to stop him from having a guide", "dropping Rlevse", and various and sundry complete fabrications. Now, who was rude again? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who was? Not me ... and I don't remove messages, so perhaps you're remembering how rude he's been to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm can we just kill off this thread entirely before all of the simmering tension erupts? Sven Manguard _Talk 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a way to kill it off without more stories being told about me, I'm all for it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but if you stopped responding, people would move on. Threads die from lack of interest. People already came to your aid. Put a notch in your win column and move on. For example, pretty much no matter what happens from here on out, I won't post to this thread because everything that needs to be said has been said and it is time to move on. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* See, wrong again ... seems I make a nice target :) I wonder what this is all about ... lots a stories and lots of spin, must be a good reason for that stuff goin' on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: so, back on topic after the diversion with false stories; I was asking if The Signpost could not mention that last year's RFC put us in the spot of having to fill up 18 seats even if candidates get less than 60% support; in other words, it's easier to be elected to ArbCom than to adminship. Only three guides endorse as many candidates as they are vacancies-- most do not. Perhaps a new RFC might be run now, since it looks like we'll end up with arbs that may have marginal support, we shouldn't be appointing arbs who are oppposed by half the voters, last year's RFC was shortsighted and didn't provide for this circumstance (although it was raised), and the 18-member Committee hardly seems necessary with declining participcation across all areas of Wiki and declining numbers of cases. A good ArbCom is better than a big ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easier to be elected to ArbCom than to adminship, because voters' standards are higher for ArbCom. The two can't be directly compared like that. Powers ^T 15:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor query

"Voting guides are an established tradition at ArbCom elections. This year, there are 21 of them, more than the number of candidates."

Is it really notable that there are more published views than candidates. This is commonplace in elections around the world. If there is a point being made here (too few candidates? more guides than ever?), it should be explicit rather than implicit, should it not? Geometry guy 23:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it needs to be says because most of the guides are minimal and incomplete. More were encouraged to add on this year, so more did, but about half a dozen of the new guides don't really say anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guides still being added

I will leave it to others whether to add my guide there, but at the very least, "This year, there are 21 of them", is no longer correct, as mine brings it up to 22 :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late in the electoral cycle, and in terms of this edition of The Signpost. We let through some hasty updates by authors of voter guides, but a completely new one cobbled together today is rather too much, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it in a wiki spirit to update articles with new information? A traditional newspaper has no choice but to do its readers a disservice by providing inaccurate, obsolete information that it can only correct in the new edition; it cannot magically update the printed sheets. Obviously, this is not a problem for us - so what's keeping us from correcting it? And don't say that inaccurate reporting is traditional :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason Wikinews doesn't allow updating of its articles after a particular point in time: because news articles are a snapshot of the situation at the time they were written. Powers ^T 15:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly adding a note at the end of the article that more guides are being written, and a link to the template, might help. Or even just display the template here. I might write one myself, but probably not until the weekend, or maybe just after the election finishes. More to remind myself why I voted the way I did (haven't actually voted yet), than to influence others (guides should not really be written with that motivation). I may also just turn up on the talk page of various guides and disagree with the authors. :-) What would actually be better than a guide is a link to what people think are the best questions and answers. Indeed, I was hoping that the Signpost would cover some of the questions and answers, rather than taking the easy option of a tour around the guides. BTW, Tony, I've updated the template here. I think I filled it in right. Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"rather than taking the easy option". I spent a whole night doing this page by myself. There were concerns enough about balance in treating the voter guides alone; doing a story on discussion pages would need a lot of work and careful balance. I also had to write the entire F and A page by myself, and copy-edit some of the other pages. Any volunteers? Tony (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Tony, I was overly critical there. I, for one, do appreciate the Signpost reports, and especially the F&A page (which is much improved in its new format). I am just hoping that voters take the time to look through the questions and the discussions, and don't just read the guides. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, I'll ask the election volunteers whether we should include mention of / link to discussion in the notice that goes out soon on the usual pages. Tony (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?

Home

About