There appears to be a distinct pattern of block voting emerging on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jayvdb. Editors involved in the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute are voting en bloc to oppose Jayvdb's candidacy. The pattern of voting - all within a short time of each other, some not meeting the 150 edits qualification threshold and most participating solely in Jayvdb's nomination, in some cases after periods of inactivity ranging from a few days to a year (!) - suggests to me that someone has been soliciting opposition to Jayvdb's candidacy, probably off-wiki. Is there anywhere, other than here of course, where these concerns can be raised? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is canvassing not permitted for straight votes? I know it's not permitted to article space matters but is there a injunction not to do so in a straight election matter? Even if they have voted on ethnic grounds? so what? people do that in elections all the time, that's the nature of elections. if they are enfranchised, they are enfrancised, no? --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think WP:CANVASS would apply in this as in all other community discussions. I'll pose a question for Cameron - if someone sent around an e-mail to like-minded editors saying "please vote to oppose Jayvdb because he's biased against Azeris", would you consider that acceptable? I would say that such behaviour undermines the integrity of ArbCom votes - they're not supposed to be proxies for fighting ethnic or cultural conflicts. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubts this is happening, and how it is being organised, but no proof. I am not sure what can or should be done; after all this is an election and they are all eligible. See Special:Contributions/Samir for an example that defies any other rational explanation. Note that Samir is an admin. John Vandenberg(chat)00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to comment. I am quite sorry if Jayvdb's candidacy is being affected by en bloc voting on ethnic or other lines because of his involvement in a heated ethnic dispute on wiki. I don't think that would be fair to him, and I don't like the implications it would have to our Arb selection process. I would like to state that (1) I have no tie whatsoever to the Armenian-Azerbaijan situation on wiki and have no national identification to any of the parties of this dispute (I'm a Canadian of Indian extraction); (2) I've never edited on any articles involving Armenia or Azerbaijan (I edit mainly medical articles); (3) I have not been involved in any canvassing along ethnic lines and haven't received or sent e-mails regarding Jayvdb's candidacy; and (4) I voted against Jayvdb, as did others, because I thought votes against fellow top arbcom candidates constituted poor behaviour for an aspiring Arb.
Arbcom elections tend to bring out long term contributors such as myself who are interested in the leadership of the project, but who haven't had much time to contribute lately. I intend to comment on all candidates over the next 10 days.
That being said, I'd like to remind Jayvdb of WP:AGF, which becomes of paramount importance when you are under the intense scrutiny of Arbcom candidacy. You've jumped to a conclusion based on your perception of the "ethnicity" of my username, and have indicated that there is no other rational explanation for my vote, when there indeed was. I really don't think that's fair at all. -- Samir18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I opposed Jayvdb's candicacy for my own reasons, I find this very disturbing. Every candidate deserves a fair hearing, and this type of canvassing doesn't seem to offer him such a fair hearing. What can be done about this? S.D.D.J.Jameson00:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supposing it is happening- and the evidence is rather clear- there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it? Unless we wanted to restrict voting to editors who have edited within the last week... and even that seems easy to circumvent. l'aquatique || talk00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen related patterns in at least seven voters who recently supported me (and others just below Jayvdb in the current election table), just after opposing Jayvdb, presumably as part of tactical voting to help boost those currently near or below Jayvdb. The clearest example is here. Unfortunately, with this sort of open voting system it is very hard to avoid this sort of thing happening. It has already happened with many people tactically voting on an individual basis (which is fine), and there may be block voting already happening by other "interest groups" that is less obvious, but this is the first time I've seen what looks like a co-ordinated effort actually seriously affect a candidate's position in the election. As a candidate in the election myself, and someone who is clearly benefitting from this, I don't want to say any more than this. I would have kept out of this discussion, as I have been doing for other election discussions, but I can't in all conscience, now that I've noticed the pattern, stand by and let this happen without comment. Even though there may not be much that they can do, I suggest that the election clerks (whoever they are) be informed, and this discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008, rather than having a long thread on this noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I think a certain amount of off-wiki canvassing is normal in these situations. However, what's going on against Jayvdb seems to be getting out of hand, and the data in Image:ACE2008.jpg pretty clearly shows that there's something bizarre going on. Now, this kind of sudden drop in numbers can be legitimate, especially if a significant issue comes to light. But it can also be a sign of politics and canvassing. In this case I believe it to be the latter, especially since I myself have been getting multiple very aggressive off-wiki contacts by people (plural) who are trying to push me to change my "support" vote to "oppose" on Jayvdb. Some of the people who are doing this aggressive canvassing are people who should know better: Admins, and one is even a Checkuser. They're not talking to me about any other candidate, just Jayvdb, and it's always related to this Armenian issue. Another point of concern is the kind of editors that are showing up to oppose him. I'm seeing multiple inactive users emerging out of mothballs, just to oppose him, but they're not making any other edits. Though I'm not personally familiar with the Armenian/Azeri topic area, it is my understanding that sockpuppetry was a problem during the article disputes. Therefore, it is probably worth checking to see how much sock activity is going on with the elections. Also, can we get one of the bot-wizards to write a utility which will scan through all the votes, to look for any which were made by editors who had no other edits in the last two months? Even if we don't end up invalidating those votes, it would still be helpful to see how extensive the problem is. --Elonka00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a remarkable graph - thanks for posting it. Like Carcharoth, I've never seen a coordinated effort seriously affecting an election like this before. There's no doubt that it is having a serious impact. Judging from the graph data, the canvassing appears to have begun in the early hours of December 2. Frankly, given the clear violations of WP:CANVASS going on here, I think it would be helpful to know who these canvassers are - can we have some names, please, Elonka? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank god "evidence" like that graph could never be used in a real court and only gets introduced into Kangaroo courts. How about the other noms who shot up like rockets and some others that also fell off cliffs. If you want to see something, then you probaly will. There might be nonsense going on, but that graph shows crap, imho. --Tom01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That graph is damning evidence, no matter what you think. No one else "fell off cliffs" remotely like Jay. In the initial phases, a few "shot up like rockets", which basic math explains quite well. No other major anomalies are present at all. S.D.D.J.Jameson01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luke's drop came in day 1, and is the type of thing that could happen for any number of reasons, not just because of WR. (I'm still considering voting for him, but I don't think he's answered my question yet.) Jay's is more dramatic based upon the fact that it started after day 1, and is so clearly traceable to blatant canvassing. S.D.D.J.Jameson01:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least half of the opposes directly state WR or Ryan's (extremely misleading) comments as their reasoning. Were it not for the anti-WR politics, he'd likely still be at about 85%. --NE201:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC). The spirit of NPOV is that people who detest one another's views have to be able to work together; ArbCom of all institutions MUST embody this ideal. I happen to agree with Elonka that a certain amount of coanvassing is to be expected ... the fact is, I am actually all for canvassing (yeah, yeah, skewer me later). The solution should be to draw even more people, with diverse views, into the discussion. Rather than limit people's involvement in the vote, draw in more people. (of course these kinds of situations are going to reveal to us periodically just what a serious problem it is that the community of Wikipedians is not adequately diverse and has pockets of special-interest editors who distort the whole process. Ultimately, we need some policy, or the Foundation needs a kind of affirmative action policy, to make our community more diverse). My concern here is that a candidat for ArbCom is being dismissed either because of his/her ethnic identity - this is shameful and must be stopped, period - or because of his position in editing articles. ArbCom elections should be based not on what edits a candidate has made, but how s/he negotiates policy and collaborative editing. You know, when we poll people on deleting articles, we do not just count votes - we expect people to provide acceptable reasons. It may be logiscially impossible or unweildy to try to use the same approach here. But it is fair for people to ask those who have voted against to justify their vote in terms of process rather than content. Also, ArbCom members regularly recuse themselves when they are asked to arbitrate a topic in which they have a vested interest. In short, there is no reason to vote against a candidate because s/he has promoted certain content. I am glad Elonka or others will look into sockpuppetry possibilities but what if there is no sockpuppetry? We need to educate people voting that this decision must be based on principle and process, not content. Carcharoth's suggestion seems constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also troubled by this (disclosure: I voted for him). I'd let it be, but make sure to present to Jimbo all evidence after the election. He can simply appoint J if he thinks there were shennanigans (in fact, it would be a good use of his fiat power). IronDuke01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I see three issues here: the immediate issue is the integrity of the ArbCom vote; i think the key issue is not convassing, but how people justify their votes and how widely different members of the community participate int he vote. There are two other issues of ongoing concern at Wikipedia and we cannot resolve this issue and let the others slide. one is the problem of persistent racist or nationalist POV pushing at Wikipedia; I believe Elonka is on a task force meant to address this problem. The second is the lack of an inadequately diverse community of editors. Wikipedia is growing exponentially, but we should not just congratualate ourselves on raw numbers, as this case illustrates, those numbers have to represent a diverse range of interests and expertise for the project really to benefit and be healthy. Slrubenstein | Talk01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One issue that I'm concerned about is the potential chilling effect on arbitration enforcement. Armenia-Azerbaijan articles are the subject of arbitration sanctions. Jayvdb's intervention in this area has apparently been related to enforcing these restrictions (it's not an area in which I have any involvement). The potential message from this affair appears to be that otherwise well-qualified candidates are at risk of being sunk for reasons of nationalist politics if a group of activist editors decides to stage a covert intervention in elections. In short: if you want to get elected to ArbCom, don't cross the nationalists. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you have to admit about nationalists (of every persuasion, it seems); They are dumb! - if the subject of their opposes were elected onto the Committee, then they would have to recuse in matters relating to nationalist editing... By not being elected then they are free to continue bringing cases to the ArbCom and making statements in support of promoting NPOV and removing bias. Just a thought! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note ... I will not accept the position from Jimbo against the will of the voters. We dont need further meddling in the outcome, and I would prefer that Jimbo only uses his power where there is a need to do so for the good of the project - in this election there are plenty of other good candidates so this is not a time where his involvement is needed. The community needs to work this out, and improve our election process for next year. John Vandenberg(chat)02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on Slrubenstein mentioning ethnicity, I am predominately Dutch and have no relations with anyone in this region of the world - not family, not friends, not professional. None.
This is solely about my edits on Wikipedia, a meta Checkuser that I initiated 12 months ago, and ending with Ehud Lesar Arbcom case, and the fact that I have offwiki communication with User:Grandmaster, which is being used as part of a smear campaign to indicate that I am impartial. The admins involved in this are just as involved in offwiki communications and have used their tools many more times that I have, and usually always pro Armenian. See User:Jayvdb/AA_involvement for more information; my apologies that it is not better formatted, and is incomplete. I am still building a complete edit history - more coming soon - and I think it will be quite plain to see that I have used my tools and edits to support Armenian and Iranian needs as well, however those edits have been forgotten. John Vandenberg(chat)03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugly as it is, the underlying problem is that too few ordinary Wikipedians are voting. If more people were voting, the Armenian bloc would have little effect. Now, mostly those who follow wiki-drama are voting. If we go after off-wiki canvassing for ethnic issues, how about Wikipedia Review or IRC canvassing against their enemies? If the Armenians had been voting since day 1 we would never have noticed. How about we replace the fundraiser banner with an election banner for a few days? Sure it would bring rather uninformed votes, but uninformed is better than clique. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This voting bloc has been voting since day one; it has just taken everyone a while to notice that they are doing so in the numbers that affect outcomes. A lot of ordinary Wikipedians might be waiting to vote at the end of the fortnight, as they may be waiting for others to do the leg work identifying the good candidates and the skeletons. John Vandenberg(chat)10:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick review of the votes opposing Jayvdb's candidacy and compiled the following list of "suspicious votes". I looked for editors that had been inactive for at least a couple of days but appeared suddenly around the same time to oppose Jayvdb. Most have participated only in Jayvdb's vote, ignoring all the other candidates. A few have also voted on other candidates but (a) were inactive for a period and (b) on returning cast their first vote to oppose Jayvdb within the timeframe under discussion. Note that I'm not claiming that these editors were definitely canvassed, merely that they meet the criteria I've set out above. I've added a couple more that look fishy; editors who all exhibited the same pattern of participating in the elections with a series of votes that started with votes against Jayvdb at the same time as each other. The order of voting is substantially similar - far more so than mere probability would suggest. Many of the editors in question appear to be heavily involved in Iranian/Persian or Armenian-related articles. There seems to have been a flood of opposing votes commencing from the morning of December 2, which is pretty much what the graph posted by Elonka shows in visual form.
Special:Contributions/Khoikhoi - admin account, series of votes starting with Jayvdb. Compare with Nepaheshgar, Raayen and Larno Man (read from the bottom up).
Special:Contributions/Larno_Man - inactive 3 days, series of votes starting with Jayvdb. Compare with Nepaheshgar, Raayen and Khoikhoi (read from the bottom up).
Special:Contributions/Nepaheshgar - inactive 3 days, series of votes starting with Jayvdb. Compare with Khoikhoi, Larno Man and Raayen (read from the bottom up).
There may well be more but I've been fairly conservative in adding to the list above. Note that this constitutes more than a quarter of all the votes against Jayvdb's candidacy, so it's a substantial proportion. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this enough evidence for a CU to determine whether any are sockpuppets of a puppeteer? Also, this seems to be at least a straightforward example of meatpuppetry. S.D.D.J.Jameson01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry seems less likely given the 150 mainspace edit threshold for voting in ArbCom elections; I'd agree with you that it looks more like meatpuppetry via off-wiki canvassing, as Elonka has already described. -- ChrisO (talk)
It's damn bold that you've put my name in there. I'm not Armenian/Azerbaijani/Persian and have never set foot on any of those articles. I've never e-mailed or received e-mails from any of these people, nor have I corresponded with them on wiki to my knowledge. Take my name off this list now please, and pay more attention with your "sleuthing". -- Samir19:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that the final decision is up to Jimbo, and he isn't hard and fast bound by the raw numbers. I've given Carcharoth a barnstar for his principled decision to step forward about questionable supports he recently received that might tip the balance of the seventh place finish. Suggest careful analysis of the voting patterns and a calm reasoned approach, with a detailed report of suspicious dealings. We assume good faith, yet aren't bound by it in face of evidence to the contrary. DurovaCharge!01:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think SandyGeorgia has a point here (that you may be reading too much into this). Note that the graph also shows a much more dramatic drop in support for Cool Hand Luke. A quick review of the voting page shows that this coincides with the anti-WR (what the heck is that?) block voting against him. Such are the vagaries of elections and, I'm sure, McCain would have been quite happy to see the votes of various members of various ethnic groups that had never voted before cancelled. But, that's not how it's done in the USA (or UK, or Australia, India, France, etc.) and that's not how it should be done on wikipedia. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference is that the votes motivated by anti-WR sentiment appear to followed on from Ryan Postlethwaite's public opposition to CHL's candidacy on the vote page on a matter directly relevant to the integrity of the ArbCom (see oppose vote #12 at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Cool Hand Luke)). In Jayvdb's case, a substantial number of the opposing votes appear to have been solicited from covert campaigning off-wiki among editors who share a particular, primarily Iranian nationalist, POV. One is above-board and relevant to the concerns of the election; the other constitutes grossly improper canvassing motivated by an ethnic nationalist agenda which has no place on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If any candidate I have already supported (or indicated I would support but haven't yet done so) asks me to change my support of them to an oppose of them in order to counteract this sort of skewing that they consider unfair to other candidates, and to keep the relative standings properly balanced, I will do so (marking my oppose as an offsetting one done at request of the candidate I'm opposing). And... respect them a great deal to boot. It would send a strong message to those block voting that elections should be carried on the strength of the candidates, not on ethnic rivalries or BADSITES dramas. Anyone else willing to do so, or is this a crazy idea? ++Lar: t/c03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. Considering Lar is a member of Wikipedia Review and I'm one of the people who's been most heavily targeted there, the spirit seemed distinctly apolitical. Best regards, DurovaCharge!03:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured by doing it only if the CANDIDATE asks me to, (thus sacrificing a support they had in the bag) that it would send a message that the CANDIDATE was against bloc voting and was willing to sacrifice my support in order to make that point. I didn't see it as being political at all, but rather anti-political. But, as you wish... Except of course that other candidates are nevertheless free to so request, and I am free to so act. Look, I'm fine with people contacting others to influence them. In fact I have done so, and will continue to do so... and my User:Lar/ACE2008 is exactly that, my statement of my opinion. But my statements have always been more along the lines "this is why I think this candidate is worthy/concerning to me" not "we need to stop/advance this guy by marshalling as many bodies as we can"... ++Lar: t/c03:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that this would twist the election to balance a second twist, and it adds a whole 'nother layer of complexity to the election.
Barring clear evidence of outright canvassing or coordinated planning, eligible votes are eligible votes. I have myself cast tactical and anti-WR votes (which I may change at any time). If Armenian votes will come under scrutiny, we must also examine the influence of those dastardly Azeris. And where are the Jews coming down? Maybe they just have a better planned campaign, along with the crypto-Fascists. Not to mention the blatant and well-orchestrated pro-mainspace campaign. Elonka's graph may illustrate an anti-JohnV campaign, or it may illustrate an early pro-JohnV bias. Evidence please. Non-circumstantial evidence. Of course, Jayvdb should feel free to refute any suggestions of anti-Armenian bias and do so prominently, since there seems an obvious trendline. Franamax (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully my sarcastic bits will be evident in that. I'm not suggesting an additional Jewish conspiracy or any such-like. Just casting a wild eye. And I'm dead serious about John being free to make prominent refutations and to be supported in those efforts. Franamax (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax, both the tone and the content of that input is distinctly unhelpful. What happened here is that John Vandenberg posted an evidence presentation in user space regarding a divisive arbitration case.[1] Then, within hours, a number of dormant accounts from one side of that dispute showed up to oppose him. It's a sitution that deserves concern and attention. I hope a good faith explanation fully explains it, but sarcasm is uncalled for. If it's an attempt at humor it's misplaced. DurovaCharge!04:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True enough that my commentary can often be elliptical, hence my hastily-added smallprint disclaimer, which would apply to roughly four of my sentences. Sarcasm is not often welcome but is sometimes helpful. In this case, it was intended to contrast the putatively "known" nature of vote manipulation against the equally possible "unknown" manipulations. Given the nature of the AA conflict, that is in fact a real possibility which has not been explored (and would largely depend on whether Jayvdb is in fact an Azeri supporter, for which there is no evidence whatsoever - but we're thin on evidence at all right now). As to the precise evidence you cite for causality, I don't read the timelines the same way. I see (and have seen for quite some time) a fall in JV's support level, but I see no correlation with his userpage that you cite as a causative factor. I don't deny that there is some causative factor, in fact I suspect there is one. My point is that barring some "smoking gun" evidence, either all votes must stand, or we must now examine all votes for bias (evidence of which is amply to be found). We can't just act on the most convenient case. I agree that it's a serious concern. Franamax (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ST47's ACE2008 graphJust for the record, it's not "my" graph. It's created by ST47 (talk·contribs), who also deserves the credit for some of the other automated utilities that are generating election data. I was the first to bring it up in the thread, but he deserves the credit for creating it. :) --Elonka04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this is probably not the best place for me to raise the question of how non-zero-baseline graphs might systematically distort data presentation... :) Franamax (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been clear on what qualifies as canvassing and what doesn't. Would it include, for example, a request by a candidate for her supporters to email their friends who are opposing the candidate and try to sway them? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's canvassing, yes, but it's not "bad" canvassing. "bad" is "do as I say because we're a bloc" which is what the circumstantial evidence (truncated scale or not... the really strong stuff is the pattern of voter after voter doing the same thing) seems to suggest is going on here. Full disclosure, I've done just the sort of thing SBHB is referring to... mail people I already have a relationship with and ask them if I can try to persuade them, or if they'd rather I left them be. I don't see anything wrong with it. ++Lar: t/c04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. To me the indignation over canvassing is too often like that scene in Casablanca where Inspector Reynaud shuts down Rick's Cafe because there's gambling going on, and then the croupier hands the Inspector his night's winnings... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure that constitutes canvassing in any reasonable sense. Using off-wiki functions to have frank discussions with colleagues seem more than reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I have voted for Jayvdb, but I nevertheless have to ask: Exactly what rule is being violated by what these voters have allegedly done? WP:CANVASS applies to discussions. This isn't a discussion, it is an election. Campaigning is permitted, and in fact, campaigning for and against numerous candidates has been going on in a variety of ways. I wish this were not happening to Jayvdb, but I don't see why it is being singled out for special attention. In looking at the votes for and against various candidates, I have seen a number of votes being cast for what I believe are the wrong reasons, including candidates being voted against because they are not part of the "right" administrative clique, or because in the past they have defended other editors who the voter doesn't like, or in some cases because they are not administrators at all, or for a variety of other reasons. But this is an election. People are allowed to vote for their own reasons. There are, I assume, thousands of editors eligible to vote in this election, a small minority of whom will actually vote. If a dozen, or a few dozen, can sway the election, that's because the non-voting majority is basically allowing them to do so. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick statistics note! - since people are hinting at it without quite spelling it out, some clarification: it should be pointed out while the graph is a pretty obvious evidence of steep dropoff in support, there's no clear way to demonstrate from the graph itself that the drop is due to the voting bloc (which I believe is a real issue, but as pointed about above who's to say more shadowy cabals aren't in effect as well.) It could be as Sandy described a reaction to the candidate's own votes, or it could be a natural trend due to early supporters flocking to support the candidate; the last two are, in conjunction with evidence provided above, seemingly less likely than our conspiracy point presented, but never accept graphic representations at face value; they can be easily manipulated, unwittingly or by design. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)04:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add onto the graph dots showing when each of the possible canvassed votes occurred? If they correspond to a substantial fraction of the drop off then that's strong evidence. Also keep in mind that humans are social animals. Someone on the fence might be more willing to oppose if they see many incoming oppose votes. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that this campaigning is somehow especially problematic is not obviously born out. I've seen multiple off-site public endorsements of candidates for one reason or another. I suspect that one issue here might be that we see this as more negative because it aimed against someone rather than for someone and is also very clearly connected to a specific POV and ethnic identity. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would add a handful to the list, all of whom show 1) voting against Jaybdb, and 2) block voting for all or almost all of the other top candidates, and 3) no sign of individual evaluation of other candidates. Several also show on their userpage 4) an indication of connection to, language skill for, or regular editing in the region of concern.
I had thought the same re the Babake... account btw when I saw it yesterday. The language skill of some of the editors actually does make me wonder what they are doing here in a wider sense, too - not that I discourage cross wiki editing but I wonder if they are here to further cases from other environments in this space after looking at their contribs. Orderinchaos07:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict is just the starting-point here. This isn't just about Nagorno-Karabakh. There simply aren't enough Armenian editors to make a substantial difference by themselves. But consider that most of the world's Azeris live in Iran, where they form a large minority (25% plus?), and that there has been ethnic conflict between Iranian Azeris and "Persians" in recent years (see this for example) and you have your explanation why the large "Persian ethnic block" on Wikipedia has been mobilised against John, who is apparently believed to be some kind of Azeri agent. Make it into a wider "anti-Turkic" campaign and you can throw in a few Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldaeans (Ottoman genocide against the Assyrians), Greeks and Central Asians (Tajiks etc.). --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the presence of the "Persian block" is highly obvious. I know from previous experience with these people that quite a few of them are highly activist, see Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting their nationalist POVs, work as a semi-organised team (votestacking on AfD etc) and are rabidly hostile towards anyone who stands in their way. They will no doubt end up in an omnibus arbitration case some day. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a rough count and there are at least 15 "Persian" Iranian opposes (including two disqualified votes) and maybe more, compared to eight Armenians. Whether or not John has been "biased" on this issue I have no idea - I haven't voted and I'd have to investigate first. I've been accused of being both "pro-Armenian" (Armenian genocide, ASALA stuff) and "pro-Turkic" (17th and 18th century Iranian history). From my experience editing the latter, I know that the internal Iranian Azeri-Persian conflict is one of the biggest, yet least noticed, disputes on Wikipedia. Actually, it's part of an even wider Iranic-Turkic conflict which involves much of Western and Central Asia (and bits of Europe) and brings in some of the looniest ethnic chauvinists imaginable (check out the Pan-Turanists for starters).--Folantin (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A conservative count of opposers involved in this 35 so far. There are another 10 who I wouldnt like to say are involved in it, and three or four who are definitely not, but are concerned due to the concerns of the other opposers. I have done a lot of work in this topical area - for and against all sides (yes, some Mac/Greek and Turk too; as you can imagine, I'm looking forward to their votes), but they only remember the bad. Those that have opposed for nationalistic reasons will not change their votes, so at most I can convince 13 voters that the claims against me are false. John Vandenberg(chat)10:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.My.Name.Now. What the hell is this? ChrisO deserves an RfC for launching a smearing campaign against editors like me because according to him I committed the crime of being inactive for 4(!!!) days. And doesn't anybody see that ChrisO is implicitly canvassing sympathy votes for Jayvdb? (Just see the supports after this incident). I have my own reasons for voting oppose and I do not allow anyone, especially ChrisO with whom there is a lot of history, questioning my judgment. I do not feel I have to explain myself to the slightest, however my main reason for opposing is that this guy voted against other candidates which is shameful and not of AC standard. --Avg (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at your vote, you did give reasons (other than Armenia-Azerbaijan, that is) to oppose Jayvdb's candidacy. I'm happy to chalk this one up as a false positive and strike your entry from the list. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely uncalled for. I've never had any dealings with Armenians or Azerbaijanis. The previous experience I referred to relates to a number of Iranian editors who have previously been discussed on AN/I. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not uncalled for at all, seeing how you're labeling and singling out people based on their presumed race and ethnicity. It's also common knowledge that you have been constantly clashing with every Jewish editor there is on Wikipedia. Given your history, it's safe to assume that racism might be a factor here. You are not helping your case by using such tone and words, and witch-hunting for ethnics, and racially profiling editors. Needless to say, your behavior is highly inappropriate, and infringes on people's privacy and freedom. Another editor's ethnicity, national origin or race is none of your business. --CreazySuit (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading throught he copious information provided in these threads, and I have to say that I agree that there is a pattern emerging. I saw something almost identical to this back during the talk-page hijinks that occurred while 300 was being written. In fact, almost all of the same editors listed here posted there. There was uncovered some evidence of canvassing and meat-puppetry then - even a link was supplied before the poster realized they had been discovered and it was yanked at the external source.
AS well, I edit a number of articles on Mid-East regional articles, specifically Iranian articles, and I am seeing a lot of the same names here that I have there - folk who edit almost exclusively in these sorts of articles; that isn't evidence of wrong-doing, but of an externally assembled front. So, I am left wondering - what did Jay and John do to piss these folk off?
I think some new rules are going to have to be implemented, though its too late now. First, people shouldn't be able to vote for ArbCom members without having been editors themselves for six months. I mean, ArbCom folk are among the people who steer the craft that is Wikipedia, and some new dude who is in a snit because their bas relief of Xerxes II can't be used in a film article has little understanding of Wiki workings and therefore no business telling us who to pilot Wikipedia. Sorry for the Harsh, but its just simple truth. - Arcayne(cast a spell)15:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a bad idea but I thought it should be at least put up for consideration: As I understand it, it is now possible to verify which Wikipedia email user functions were recently used with whom. Could the people with that capability (checkuser or maybe just developers?) look at that and see if there is any evidence of using it directly to canvass to these users? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch!! How intrusive is that? Where was that capability announced? You're basically saying that I can never again put substantive content into an email sent from the Wikipedia mail function. All I can do now is send "email me", and even then at risk of some external determination that I've done wrong. No thanks, I guess I'll just have to publish my email address on my userpage. That's a horrible, horrible suggestion (no offense :). Franamax (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was added a few months ago and was announced. See the disclaimer when you use an email. "A (non-public) log of this action will be kept for abuse prevention purposes via the Checkuser function. The log entry for an email does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the email. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators ("developers") can verify the recipient account, which CheckUsers can only see in hashed form." If I'm reading that correctly devs can check who emailed whom. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just tested it by sending you an email :) In any case, for the purposes you discuss, the capability seems to be only in the hands of the devs, who would hopefully define "abuse" by a higher standard than simply verifying which recipients were the target of an email. To me, that doesn't constitute "abuse" - whereas a single editor being the target of multiple incoming mails, reported as abusive by the recipient, certainly would. Mere traffic indicates nothing, if it does, I just roped you into my conspiracy :) Franamax (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CU's have this capability. I'm not yet seeing anything like a compelling reason to check emails sent for these users. It's intended to allow us to trace users who are harassing via email, not merely communicating. (even if you think this is ethnic block voting, setting it up is "merely communicating") I think running this check would have a chilling effect and would strongly advocate (absent more information making a compelling case) not doing so. ++Lar: t/c13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the checkuser tables contain the information "Sent email to user:fdc7c2c81383ebda241" where "fdc7c2c81383ebda241" is a hashed value for the recipient's name. So we could, for example, determine how many emails were sent by User:Smith but not to whom they were sent or their contents. Thatcher13:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you probably could get more information, by sending an email to various users yourself and comparing the now-discovered hash-key against your list of suspect recipients. That would be quite chilling and would hopefully trigger the Tar-and-feather-the-CU extension. Franamax (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, who wants to file the relevant bug-report to prevent that sort of issue? The obvious solution is to make the hash a function of both the sender and the receiver's username rather than just the receiver (I can't find where this is documented in detail. Does anyone if know if it already does that or not?). In any event, I think we have a consensus here that looking at the emails in this case is not a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this shows that ArbCom elections should be by secret ballot like what is used for WMF positions. It won't necessarily restrict canvassing, but it will make it harder for voting blocks to game the system. Also, it will help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments at CHL's page. If secret voting is used, it's important, of course, to post the final numbers once voting has closed so that everyone can see the results before Jimbo ratifies it. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um come again? This makes canvassing easier because people will be less likely to notice the patterns. We would have no idea any of this was going on were it not public. This is like saying "we have a problem. Let's solve it by next time sticking our heads in the sand." JoshuaZ (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? There's no way for us to prove and take action against off-wiki canvassing unless everyone involved suddenly has an attack of conscious and comes forward and says, "Hey! I was canvassed by email!". There is no way to prevent off-wiki canvassing, even if we notice the clues that it is going on. Instead, we can make it more difficult to effect the overall results. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make it more difficult to effect the overall results. Quite the opposite. This way, when we notice signs of it we can compile evidence and present it to Jimbo. If it we just had access to vote tallies that wouldn't be possible. How do you think that secret voting would make canvassing more difficult? JoshuaZ (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, your reasoning mirrors some suggestions that have been put forward at WT:RFA several times in the past. It's always been shot down there, too. The thing is, even if the votes themselves were secret, there would still be a talk page for discussion of the candidate. So maybe someone posts something negative to the discussion. You'll still get "pile-on" opposes, it just won't be visible to anyone except Jimbo. I agree with JoshuaZ, that making things less transparent only makes it harder to fight misbehavior. Yes, some of it will go on regardless, but we should be making it easier to see the problems, not harder.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already busted my quota for posting on admin pages, but I'll make one more suggestion. Can we declare a moratorium on the discussions of adopting secret ballots until Feb. 1, 2009? This has come up on the Talk:Vote page too. I really think the debate should wait until present circumstances can have the benefit of some distance in time. Proper lessons should be drawn, rather than immediate reaction to events. I'll try hard to stop posting now. :) Franamax (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that's a good point by Joshua and the rest that making the voting visible may serve as a deterrent for pile-on voting or vote canvassing. The problem is, however, that it still seems to go on way too much. I still think secret voting is preferable, for another reason that it helps make people comfortable to vote for or against whoever they want to without it being secretly held against them, but I'll hold off advocating it further until it is discussed again in the appropriate forum. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest solution to both problems is to have a election where people only have as many support votes as there are seats available. Then there is no problem with the election being held in secret, as everyone must choose who they want to sit on arbcom, rather than play games with oppose votes. John Vandenberg(chat)08:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What it looks like Cla68's suggestion would address is the side of a bloc voting campaign that seeks to bolster competing candidates regardless of merit, in order to sink one individual. If we suppose for purposes of discussion that a group of Hawaiian nationalists want to keep a particular candidate off ArbCom, then Cla68's proposal would make it harder for the Hawaiians to cast tactical support for other candidates that could take the final open position. I don't know whether that's the best solution overall, but Cla68's reasoning does hold together. DurovaCharge!18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should wait until after this election to make plans for the next election. But regarding the matter of blocs voting to oppose a candidate, that could be fixed simply by allowing only votes in support of a candidate rather than the current approval system. The approval system gives disproportional weight to opposes. Assuming that the minimum threshold is 50% approval, one "oppose" is worth two "supports". In the 80% approval range, one "oppose" is worth four "supports". While voters who oppose a candidate could still affect the outcome by supporting other candidates instead, that would have much less impact than under the current system. ·:· Will Beback·:·20:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't make tactical support substantially harder. They'd just vote to support every candidate but the one they wanted instead of a select few near the candidate. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Cla68's proposal not your proposal. You are correct about your proposal and correct about the combined form. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A potential alternate explanation was raised above (I think by Sandy), that I believe has some merit. I had been considering voting for Jay in the initial phases of the election, and hadn't been even considering opposing his candidacy. But then, for some reason, he began opposing a large majority of his fellow candidates. I didn't like what this seemed to reveal, and chose to vote as a weak oppose. If others who felt as I did voted the same way, that could explain to some extent what happened. I'd be curious as to how many people cited that in their oppose, versus the AA thing. S.D.D.J.Jameson12:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly seems to be an element of that as well, although a large number of Armenian and Persian editors showing up at the same time to protest against Jayvdb's powervoting seems an awfully big coincidence to me. Ethnic vote-stacking probably can't explain all of the decline, but it can probably explain enough of it to alter the outcome of the election. Lankiveil(speak to me)12:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
"I'd be curious as to how many people cited that in their oppose". My count gives about 10 voters who expressed concerns about this. That's about 12% of the oppose vote. If John's "conservative estimate of opposers involved [as part of the "ethnic block vote]" of 35 is correct, then that's 43% of the oppose vote. Just to give you a rough idea (I can't vouch for my maths and if anyone wants to improve on this, go ahead). --Folantin (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A large proportion of the users of concern give no reasons for their opposition to Jay, nor for their support for others. Evaluating the reason given is only useful for those who gave a reason. GRBerry15:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very interesting from an academic perspective but what are we supposed to so? Voting blocs exist and always will. So? Aside from some wild speculations about checking who sent what emails to whom there is nothing that can be done at this point except to continue squandering elections. I voted for John but I really don't see anything remotely actionable. JodyBtalk13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"What are we supposed to do?" Probably not a lot. Maybe we could add the ACE equivalent of those anti-canvassing templates you sometimes see on RfAs. "Ethnic blocs" usually counterbalance each other in elections, so you'd expect a load of Azeri/Turkic editors to turn up and give John the thumbs-up just to spite the Armenians and the Persians. So far, they haven't. Maybe there's been a power failure in Baku and Tabriz or maybe John isn't quite the secret pro-Azeri agent he's alleged to be. --Folantin (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good idea is a rationale for every oppose (or support) vote which technically makes canvassing more evident. There should be a way to determine whether a candidate is prone to attacks of some ethnic block, which may lead to future votestacking. --Brandспойт18:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is both unwarranted as well as dangerous. If we start looking for vote stacking by searching editing histories, examining email, popping vote-stacking templates, sock-puppet accusations and that sort of thing, we will end up creating an environment of vote fear. Genuine azerbaijani editors (or is it armenians) who want to vote against Jayvdb will hesitate to vote, fearing that their votes will be discussed, highlighted, or made obvious in some way or the other. Worse, other editors who have had negative experiences with a particular candidate (perhaps a tiff over Intelligent design or Sarah Palin) will wonder whether it is worth risking aggravation if other voters pile on as well. This tendency to search for ulterior motives on the 'oppose' side of a vote is best avoided. If groups of 'eligible' voters want to vote a particular way, let them because, while the worst case scenario from ignoring this thing is that one deserving editor may fail to qualify as an arbitrator (or admin or bureaucrat or ....), the worst case scenario on the side of following the trail like a bulldog is that many honestly opposing editors will stay away from the process, damaging it irrevocably. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to comment on the underlying issue here, per Note To Self #2, but I will say this. Samir (talk·contribs) is a longtime contributor to Wikipedia. He's contributed an immense amount of quality content over several years here, in addition to his administrative work. He's gone out of his way to add numerous high-quality, free images to medical articles by asking his patients' consent to use their scans - that's what I'd call going above and beyond the call of duty. To the extent that Wikipedia has any quality health-related content, he deserves as much credit as anyone, with the possible exception of Jfdwolff. Samir was a mentor and role model for me when I started out here, and co-nominated me for adminship. He dealt with one of Wikipedia's more troublesome problem users and suffered harassment in connection with this. While I'm saddened by his absence from Wikipedia over the past year, I don't see how that's grounds for lumping him in with a bunch of newish nationalist agenda accounts. If Samir doesn't deserve a say in Wikipedia's governance, then none of us do. I know institutional memory is non-existent here (at least when it comes to positive contributions; no one ever forgets a cranky diff from 3 years ago), but can you guys be a bit more careful and discerning in compiling your list of "suspects"? MastCellTalk20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the list a "list of suspects" per se. The main question Samir's participation raises (after a year's absence) is, "How did he even know Jay was running?" If he was simply responding to an off-wiki canvass, does this not raise at least a bit of a red flag for you? And though I pointed it out above, I feel I should reiterate my position on Jay's candidacy: I opposed it. I'm just all for full, fair, and open elections, and the clear off-wiki canvassing disturbs me a bit. S.D.D.J.Jameson20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samir's account isn't compromised. I consider Samir a personal friend of mine and I emailed him (not through his WP account) yesterday when I first noticed this discussion and he replied to me. His account definitely is not compromised. Even though he hasn't edited for a year, he has still been 'around' the project so I don't find it that strange that he would decide he wanted to participate in the ArbCom elections. I personally hold Samir in very high regard and if he says he wasn't canvassed then I believe him. Sarah03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know the explanation for why an editor should be absent for 13 months and then return at the same time as numerous other absent editors, all voting against Jayvdb (and mostly only Jayvdb) during the same short period of time. When we see highly unusual voting patterns it's not unreasonable to seek explanations. I would say it's more dangerous to ignore possible attempts to corrupt ArbCom elections, given the need to have a process with some integrity. By the way, Samir has commented on this thread but has not answered the question of whether or not he was canvassed. I've asked him to clarify this point. I emphasize that this isn't a witch-hunt, merely an attempt to get to the bottom of this matter. We've had a first-hand report from Elonka of off-wiki canvassing, so we know there is something very improper going on here. We would be derelict in our duty to ignore that. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, ChrisO, I think you should have been more careful about the inclusion about at least some of those names in the list of users who "had been inactive for at least a couple of days but appeared suddenly around the same time to oppose Jayvdb." While you went on to say that you were not claiming that these editors were definitely canvassed, that they merely "[met] the criteria I've set out above", your basis for inclusion was needlessly wide, implicating by association those who had voted for other candidates, and had only been inactive for more than a couple of days. That period of inactivity means precisely nothing. For example, User:Avg, whom I do not know but who I see voted for and against several candidates immediately after his/her vote against User:Jayvdb. I understand you want to get to the bottom of what may or may not be going on here, but no matter how well-intentioned you were, by presenting what some editors may well see as a slur against their good name you may be pissing good contributors off who do not deserve it. SteveT • C22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO, to clarify for the last time: I have no nationalist agenda in this matter. I don't know any of the particulars, and have no nationalist reason to oppose Jayvdb. Indeed, I don't even know what his role in the on-wiki controversy was. I've never edited any articles in that sphere and carry no POV. No one e-mailed me asking me to vote for nationalist reasons or other reasons, and I'm not on any e-mail list that is pro-Armenia POV or pro-Azerbaijan POV. I don't even know if those exist. I didn't e-mail Elonka. I didn't recruit anyone to vote. I had no idea that people were being recruited to vote against Jayvdb. I am interested in deciding who is on ArbCom, as it is an important part of the project that I have worked on for a long time. I intend to vote on all the candidates. Jayvdb was one of the few names I recognized so I voted on him first. I am sorry if you did not like my vote, but you and Jayvdb clearly have not assumed good faith and have caused unnecessary drama. To accuse me of impropriety in the absence of real evidence is wrong. I ask you again to remove my name from your list of meatpuppets above -- Samir23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the start, the list is merely of apparently anomalous votes, not of meatpuppets. The specific issue with Samir's vote was raised first by Jayvdb himself, not by me. Because the voting pattern in that instance was so unusual - over 13 months' absence followed by a single edit to oppose Jayvdb - it was certainly worth reviewing. I'm glad to see that Samir has offered an explanation of his particular vote, and I'm happy to remove him from the list as a result. -- ChrisO (talk)
It's your definition of anomalous voting pattern that I think needs refining; at present it includes users who had merely been inactive for "more than a couple of days" (meaningless), and who voted for and against editors other than Jayvdb, but who just happened to log their vote against him first. To my mind, that's too broad, and may well be presenting a distorted view of the scale of this (whatever "this" may be). If nothing else, it may piss off those editors who voted in good faith and potentially turn them away from future participation. SteveT • C23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, if you're referring to my case, ChrisO took a long shot trying to smear me since we've fallen out previously and he just can't let it go. That's ChrisO allright for those who know him. Notice that although I've explicitly requested my name to be removed, he failed and still fails to do so.--Avg (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I overlooked your post a few hours ago and replied to it as soon as I spotted it, including removing your name as requested. [2] You're also completely wrong about "smearing" - this has nothing to do with any previous disputes we've had. I have no brief for or against Jayvdb (I don't recall ever interacting with him before, actually), but I do care about defending Wikipedia's integrity. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I find this discussion rather misguided. Unless we're going to start striking votes of people we think were canvassed, what do you hope to achieve? It seems if people meet the criteria for voting then they can vote however they want, including in voting blocs and tactically as they see fit. Other than pointing out to Jimmy at the conclusion of the election that there is a suspicion that canvassing took place and reconsidering how we conduct elections for next year (although it seems that all methods of elections are vulnerable to canvassing and bloc voting and trying to stop it seems rather futile, especially for critical positions like the arbitration committee) I don't really see what else anyone can expect to achieve here at this point. This discussion is contaminating and corrupting the results further as people support and oppose as a result of this discussion. Unless anyone has any sort of immediate remedy in mind I think this discussion should be concluded until after the elections. Sarah03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arb Committee response to canvassing checkuser and admins?
Elonka reported that even admins and a checkuser (!!) were aggressively canvassing her to change her vote. I asked her here [3] if this was reported to the AC. Can the AC please comment on what actions will taking against these wildly disruptive admins and this mysterious Checkuser? rootology (C)(T) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, dear. The usual arbcom election drama. I will say this, though.
Re John's candidacy for arbcom - it's annoying. I've done a lot of AA work in my arbcom enforcement activities and have never considered John being biased (and I'm usually very quick to call on people, admins included, if I think they are biased). I suspect these opposes are mostly coming in from people pissed off at getting their arses banninated at various stages: I have absolutely no doubt that last year I suffered from exactly the same thing when running for arbcom: both the canvassing and the general "He's mean, he blocked me!" opposes. I (almost certainly) wouldn't have been elected anyway, but it's a nuisance.
The general trend is that non-entities get elected to the arbcom: admins who have never done anything much controversial or public before. As a result, despite impressive candidacies on the surface we have no idea if they can the display the crucial quality of grace under pressure - although, having said that, Rlevse and Risker look to be bucking the trend this year. However, I am convinced that this general trend has produced some of ArbCom's wilder eccentricities this year (OrangeMarlinGate rises to mind), which displayed a singular lack of grace under pressure. The other problem with electing these types is that, having spent much of their wikilives hanging out with reasonable people, they think everybody is like that, and are rather useless are noticing nutters who do not think like us when they come before them - not to mention actually biting the bullet and banning the fuckers.
I am not saying this is anything we can do much about, but it is something to be wary of and bear in mind. Consider this consolations, John, if it doesn't work out. I hope it does. But you and I are not going to be popular, as we do a nasty and mucky job. But Christ - someone has to do it. If not us, who? Moreschi (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. Talking to colleagues about who one is going to vote for or trying to persuade people not to is not some form of problematic canvassing. It is simply part of the normal process of decision making. If a given individual is not interested in such discussion they can say so. But by itself trying to persuade people isn't a problem Heck I've spent most of my wiki related time the last week arguing with different people about different candidates. For some of those I solicited their opinions. Others volunteered their opinions to me based on comments I had made. None of this is canvassing by any reasonable interpretation. And it is certainly not canvassing to try and persuade someone who has already voted to change their vote. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Elonka had specifically referred to it as canvassing, and I think uninvited solicitation from people to sway your vote in ACE or RFA is canvassing, but that could be just me. rootology (C)(T) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A certain amount of off-wiki discussion is fine, especially when I'm getting messages from people that I chat with regularly anyway, and they may say, "Hey, how's it going, who are you voting for this year? Yeah, I agree with you on most of those, but what about Sam Smith, I'm opposing him but you're supporting, how come?" etc. That kind of stuff is fine. But when it starts getting out of hand, is when multiple messages start flying around off-wiki that are based just on one candidate. It was getting a bit ridiculous on my buddy list, as people who hadn't contacted me for quite some time suddenly started pinging me. Windows were opening up all over my monitor, and with each new one that opened, even before they said anything, my immediate guess was, "Oh gee, someone else who's going to try and get me to flip my vote on Jayvdb," and then sure enough, that's exactly what they started in with. No, "Hi, how you doing, how're your holidays, what's up with you these days," just straight into lobbying efforts, always on the same candidate, and all of them with the same concerns about the Armenian issue. As soon as I started posting in this AN thread though, all of the IMs stopped. Looks pretty organized to me. --Elonka22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Names, please, Elonka. Even if it's not actionable now I want to know. It can be useful for analysing behaviour patterns in the future. Moreschi (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the election is over, I think this affair will need to be referred to the (new) ArbCom. There are a number of outstanding questions which really need to be resolved at a high level. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm generally someone who a) enjoys arguing and b) prefers that people tell me when they think I'm wrong if they can back it up with a logical argument (Although I hope Kurt doesn't read this comment). Moreover, it isn't clear to me if it is canvassing in the sense of why we don't want canvassing; we are trying to get a reasonable sample of the community to arrive at a consensus. Having people who would not vote in an election end up voting obviously distorts that sample. Having people argue with each other does not. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He recently co-wrote an article about Azerification of Persian poet Nezami (Anti-Azeri). He was also the author of "Supposed falsification of Armenian history"(Anti-Armenian). So I wouldn't put any pro-x tag on him. VartanM (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not - I'm only noting the link with the topic area that seems to be at the root of this controversy. Elonka has already described how it was the main focus of the canvassing she received. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the board elections, one of the criteria to vote was 150 edits on any single Wikimedia project since Jan 01 2008. Maybe we need to consider looking at a "X edits since April/May/June 2009" criteria for next years election to hopefully prevent this problem. Daniel (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it might be a good idea to put an "activity" requirement on it, either by a certain amount of recent edits, or a generalized average over the last year. Where the cutoff should be, I'm not sure, but there's an element of "I'll know it when I see it". For example, if someone hasn't made a single edit on EN for a year, I don't think they should be voting in the EN ArbCom elections. --Elonka04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think requiring an average of around 4 edits every 5 days is too high. I'd recommend 150 edits ever (like current rules) AND 50 edits in the 6 month period. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu07:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, there should be a requirement for the latest edit by an eligible voter to be at least 1 month prior to the elections date. Grandmaster (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That I agree. I strongly disagree with the X edits since 2009 part though. I wouldn't be eligible to vote, as I had less than 30 edits from March to early November. Secretaccount14:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
among editors who share a particular, primarily Iranian nationalist, POV.
constitutes grossly improper canvassing motivated by an ethnic nationalist agenda which has no place on Wikipedia.
Yes, the presence of the "Persian block" is highly obvious.
I know from previous experience with these people that quite a few of them are highly activist, see Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting their nationalist POVs, work as a semi-organised team (votestacking on AfD etc) and are rabidly hostile towards anyone who stands in their way. They will no doubt end up in an omnibus arbitration case some day.
I'd be interested to know the explanation for why an editor should be absent for 13 months
I'm happy to remove him from the list as a result
This looks very much like another ethnic agenda vote
End quote
What ChrisO started here would've been called voter intimidation in real life. He's racially profiling users based on their ethnic origin, taking names, creating lists, counting the days of their inactivity. Is this not an open election? are Jamaicans allowed to vote? how about the women? Are our 150 edits not worth someone elses 150 edits? This is similar to what the Nazis did in WWII and how African-Americans were treated in US. How low is this election going to go? It's time everyone remembered the WP:AGF. --VartanM (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm here to confess, *sob*, I'm of Scottish/Irish/English/German/French ancestry.....Where do we subject ourselves to DNA testing?? I also have my genealogy if anyone wishes to double check it. Unfortunately, I'm descended from border reivers and sheep-thieves *sob*[6]..... --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't exaggerate. We know for a fact that improper canvassing motivated by the Armenia-Azerbaijan issue has occurred here - see Elonka's first-hand descriptions above. We also know for a fact that there are significant anomalies in the pattern of voting - see ST47's graph. It's clear that this election has been seriously distorted by an off-wiki campaign driven by one or more ethnic conflict. The question before us is how severe this distortion has been and what we can and should do about it, in this election and the next. It's entirely reasonable to examine and question apparently anomalous votes. This isn't a secret ballot - we vote openly for a reason, to encourage and enable transparency. I find it interesting that so far nobody has sought to defend the canvassing that has been going on. Do you consider it justifiable to vote against an ArbCom candidate for reasons of ethnic nationalism? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you again. "how severe this distortion has been and what we can and should do about it," What happened is Armenian and Iranian users who had first hand experience with John's impartiality raised their voice and you appointed yourself as the defender of truth and justice. Again what you're doing is called racism, I have every right to oppose him, because I know for the fact that he took sides, as a matter of fact he admits that he took sides. If you are so righteous about canvassing, lets dig in the past elections, lets examine how many other arbcom members won or lost their elections because a certain group of people voted for or against them. -- VartanM (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying, that for the sake of political correctness we should pretend that nothing is happening and that 40+ Armenian and Iranian oppose votes never happened? We should believe that people who have not contributed for many months and those who never edited en:wiki before, but turned up for the sole purpose of voting against a certain candidate was a mere coincidence? Please explain me this. I know Divot (talk·contribs) from the Russian wiki. He is known for his extreme pro-Armenian bias. I can demonstrate this by the articles he edits, 99% of his edits there are on AA topic. Why did he come to vote in en:wiki, where he has never ever edited before, and his only vote was against John? How did he become aware of this voting and how come that his only vote was to oppose the same person that other similar accounts opposed? What about Hayk (talk·contribs), another editor from the Russian wiki? He has not edited en:wiki for 4 months, and again he tried to cast a vote against John. Then we have a Syrian Armenian Hovalp (talk·contribs), who also has not edited for 5 months, and also came to vote to oppose. And I can continue citing examples. Even Fadix (talk·contribs), permanently banned by the arbcom, returned to wiki to join the campaign against John, this is Fadix's new sock: Inductionheating (talk·contribs). I don't think anyone has any doubts about what's going on. Obviously someone told all those people to come and vote against this particular person apparently to “support the Armenian cause”. What is of interest here is who is behind that and what kind of communication is used to mobilize all those people here. I saw this many times happening during AfDs, but now it is open for the entire community to see. I believe the mobilization takes place on some off wiki forums, such as this one: [7] There's some sort of a nationalistic discussion there, and there's some guy complaining that wikipedia is taken over by the "Azerbaijani flock", and then we have VartanM there, posting a link to the ongoing discussion in en:wiki with some message in Armenian (can’t tell what it is, since I don’t speak Armenian, but I think one can get an idea from the general discussion there). It is quite possible that this is how people are being recruited to join edit wars and votestacking. It is also possible that this is done via off wiki mailing lists. But the fact that the off wiki canvassing is taking place cannot be doubted by anyone. And yes, someone must have the courage to say it out loud, without being afraid of hurting someone’s national feelings. There's little doubt that this smear campaign against John stems out of the outcome of Ehud Lesar's arbitration case. John was one of the 2 admins who had the courage to stand up for the unfairly banned user. Now he has to pay the price for standing in the way of the group of editors, who wanted to have one of their opponents unfairly blocked. Grandmaster (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster you are in no position to talk about this. I can easily provide dozens and dozens of diffs documenting how inactive Azeri users show up to vote in Afd's or to support your position in the talkpages. Or how they followed you to Russian wiki to do exactly what they do here. And the discussion in the livejournal entry is about how wrong those maps are, and my comment there says that I know about it, and I'm discussing it right now. By the way, I'm still waiting for the original of that map. --19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been editing Wikipedia for more than 3 years. I took part in many elections here. I've never ever seen so many inactive users and users from other language wikis trying to prevent one person from being elected. The story with Divot (talk·contribs) is a culmination of this. Why would a person with no edits in en:wiki whatsoever try to cast a vote against a certain candidate? Do you have a reasonable explanation for that? As for the map, the original has been provided. Grandmaster (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I think comparisons to my vote page are overextended. What we're looking at here is off-site canvassing by users who refuse to even explain their rationale. This makes it impossible for Jayvdb or anyone else to respond to them. I find this much more subversive to the process. I've been able to respond to my voter's concerns, while Jayvdb has not. Cool HandLuke19:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the allegations have been made at User_talk:Nishkid64#AA. I am disappointed that Nishkid64 has not answered my simple question at the bottom, as his silence is limiting my ability to refute this character assassination, and people are basing their vote on his good name.
In an attempt to assist the community come to their own assessment of my involvement, I have created three userpages:
I did look at it, thanks. Clearly, you are a threat to Wikipedia, and must be stopped. ;) (note: to any dolt who would think the previous comment was anything other than satirical, please seek out a Sense of Humor - they are on sale at Targét this week).
On a side note, how does one see all the subpages created for a user, John (or, if he's too busy to respond, someone else)? How would I see subpages created noting "Arcayne/x", for example? - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down to the bottom of any user's 'contributions' page. There's a handy set of links to that user's subpages, edit count, etc. I think this is relatively new, or it was for me when I came across it not long ago. Priyanathtalk16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reading WP:CANVASS, I find that it applies to 'community discussions' and is worded in a way as to discourage attempts to influence consensus. It doesn't seem to apply to an election (and it should not) which is a straight vote (as opposed to a !vote) and is not meant to seek consensus. It should not apply to an election simply because the fairest elections are the ones where information about the election is freely circulated, people are allowed to freely vote, and as many people as possible turn out for the vote. Just a thought. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought, even though my vote has not been solicited on or off-wiki — not even a hint of that in my case. But this is an election, folks. That's what people do in elections, solicit voters. I believe that two things are exacerbating the problematic gaming of this arbcom election: 1. The allowing of 'oppose' votes, which makes for tactical voting (for those who understand how to game the system). 2. The live running vote results, which entices people to start gaming the election with canvassing and oppose votes. These both ('oppose' voting and live running vote results) need to be reconsidered for next year's election, IMO. ~ priyanathtalk20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except canvass applies here anyway because the voter turnout is so low. The turnout on these things is in the range of a few hundred voters which is a small fraction of all active or semi active wikipedians. To further show why canvassing is so bad in Wikipedia discussions, assume the overall percentage of people that would support a candidate is 75%, but a group of people (and their sockpuppets) become highly motivated to vote against a candidate due to POV, ethnic class or whatever. Because the turnout is only in the range of a few hundred (much less on an average RfA) 50 opposes or so from this motivated group are enough to drastically change the apparent outcome from what would have been 75% of say 300 votes supporting which is 225 supporters and 75 in opposition. Now a substantial number (if not all) of these now motivated editors wouldn't have voted otherwise so the outcome with canvassing becomes something in the range of 185 supporters to 115 in opposition or 62%, a drastic disruption. Of course if you add a few more than 50 or lower overall turnout it becomes worse. Because turnout on these types of community discussions stay around the same level, further general canvassing of all Wikipedians to make informed decisions about the candidate will only sample from the 75% support population and not significantly counteract the disruption. - TaxmanTalk22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember though that we're not looking at canvassing to promote an unsuitable candidate, it's a distinction among our "best and brightest". Voting based on a mistaken impression of a particular candidate is very unfair to the candidate, but does it harm the wiki? And mistaken impressions are part and parcel of our whole process anyway, as long as Wikipedia is edited solely by humans. Saying it harms the wiki by holding back the "very best" candidate is a POV statement.
As to voter turnout: indeed. Even among the top candidates, the total vote count varies widely, so even the engaged editors are selective in their voting. Net-supports might produce a different outcome than percent-supports.
The turnout issue is not particularly helped by the fact that the watchlist sitenotice is an essay all by itself. Can we suspend the fundraiser and MOSDATE bits for the duration of the election, so that there is a clear invitation to participate? Low voter turnout is a far bigger threat to the process than any specific voting patterns. Wide democracy is the answer. Franamax (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was just a thought. IMO, no good can come of this. Already, what we have in this case is many oppose votes (mostly apparently stricken because of ineligibility) and many support votes made with the intention of counteracting or balancing the oppose votes. It hardly seems likely that we're going to get a true picture of the support for that candidate anyway (not to mention the ripple effects of tactical voting) and all we'll be left with is an additional factor that discourages opposers (and there are already many institutional ones). --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 13:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax - I agree about the low turnout being the real problem. I think there should be a message put on every eligible voter's talk page that there is an election going on, with links to the candidates and their views. Many people don't even know an election is happening, including editors who tend to focus on writing articles, rather than on drama and dispute. Canvassing isn't ever going to stop, but having more editors involved in the voting process will dilute the effect that partisan canvassing can have on the election. Priyanathtalk14:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Having more editors with various backgrounds and interests to join the elections may significantly mitigate the effects of off wiki canvassing and facilitate the fair representation of the general opinion about the candidates. Something needs to be done for better advertising of the election process. Grandmaster (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to go through this very interesting and enlightening discussion, and, although I admit I did not read everything in detail, I would like to share my thoughts:
The accusations of canvassing are very serious ones, and I personally applaud the stance of Jayvdb's co-candidates who declared that they would not accept a result based on a alleged block-voting strategy against the aforementioned user. At the same time, we should be very careful, when we create lists of "partisan canvassers" or "suspicious votes", because in this way we may stigmatize innocents, and intimidate others. And I want to believe that this is not the intention of the user who initiated this indeed very interesting discussion. After all, apologies like the ones towards Avg are not always enough to erase the stigma, when the damage is done.
I want to make the following remarks: 1) Graphics are nice for statistics, but not the best tool, in order to make conclusions for so serious accusations like the ones about canvassing, 2) A person influenced to vote against Jayvdb because on his AA stance, and the related comments of Khoikhoi and Nishkid does not mean that is canvassing: voting against Jayvdb because of AA does not entail canvassing! To most of you this seems like something obvious, but when suspicions and rumors reign, then nothing is self-evident! 3) Violating WP mailing secrecy would be IMO a terrible mistake (and mistakes are never undone with worse mistakes!). Personally, I would regard it as a restriction of my liberties in a free project like WP; a restriction comparable to the violations of human rights some governments commit after deadly terrorist attacks (and yes I know many of you will vehemently disagree with this comparison of mine). 4) I am not sure if secret balloting would enhance or prevent canvassing. Bringing some analogies from what happened in the Greek Parliament (deputies could more easily vote for the opening of legal procedures against other deputies, when the balloting became secret), then yes probably it would prevent it a bit from happening. But at the same time I prefer voters who take responsibility of their decisions, and do not hide themselves behind a closed ballot.
Finally, let me just stress once again that, if the X user votes against Jayvdb because of a personal empathy (or even a simple disagreement with his stance and attitude) for his stance during the AA issue, this does not allow us to look at him/her suspiciously for canvassing (the sudden re-appearance of inactive for a long time users is another issue, of course). See, for instance, how my vote against Jayvdb coincided with this mess: After a long inactivity (Aha! More than the suspicious time! About 2 months?! Where is the list to add your name!), I come back the day this discussion opens (You stupid canvasser!). My main motive was not voting but editing Law's talk page about an issue annoying me for some time (Yes, we believed you now! Come on, lier!). After a kind request to Sandy I saw her guide to the ArbCom elections, I read it, I was very interested in her comments on Jayvdb, I searched a bit more the whole issue, and then I decided to cast my vote. I supported Wizardman (We got you!) but not because he was close to Jayvdb, but because I always had positive interactions with him—we became adms during the same period and I was always watching amazed his progress—as well as with the other two users I supported, and are not close to Jayvdb (And you think you'll misguide us!).
At the end of the day, it will be the Wikipedia Community itself, which will finally judge the fairness of this vote (as well as the stance of anybody here:supposed or real "canvassers", accusers, ArbCom candidates, and finally Jimbo who will make the selection), and it is a great achievement that we base our future as a project on such open procedures.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Divot is not eligible to vote and his/her vote will be (most likely has been) struck and doesn't need explanation. The point is that every eligible voter should be treated equally otherwise we're going to be riven with witch hunts and the like. I'm sure there is plenty of canvassing going on at various off-wiki sites, by email, and in smoky cafes in various corners of the world (!), and it is counterproductive (as the voting for Jayvdb shows) to go off hunting for canvassers. Specially when this is meant to be a straight vote anyway. Perhaps a better thing to do would be to focus on the comments of User:Franamax and User:Priyanath and figure out how to publicize the vote better, explain what the arbcom is and why the vote is important to the community at large, and somehow incentivize editors to cast their votes. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see the concerns of folk who envision the limiting of votes as a version of Jim Crow and profiling, but I think the elephant in the room is the presence of what is similar to a 527 group operating to stifle editing practices that limit ethnic point of views from dominating certain articles. The absolute, sheer nonsense and paranoia exampled by the editing history of some of the opposing editors makes it apparent that some of them are here for a single reason, and objective neutrality - one of our Five Pillars - is not one of them. Sorry to get all tangential and whatnot, but John is getting shafted, and I don't recommend the BOHICA* approach. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC) (* yes, a bit of shameless self-promotion there.)[reply]
I don't disagree that this is a concern. It's just that any action at all only makes the matter worse as is obvious in this vote (the opposes on AA, the supports to counter the opposes, etc.). The point is that when you go after one bunch of opposes you make every opposer think twice about voting oppose, already a very hard thing to do given the unequal nature of power on wikipedia. The best thing to do is to ignore the votes, delete ineligible voters (everyone can see the deleted votes), and not badger eligible voters even if you don't trust their votes. I think it is ok to publicize the presence of bloc voting (on the candidate talk pages perhaps) so that voters are aware of as many issues as possible, it is just not right to attempt to do something institutionally about it. Discussions and proposals for action on admin notice boards are detrimental to the election process and evaluating the process itself is best done once voting has ended. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I did say it shouldn't be something instituted until after this election. One would hope it gets addressed, unlike the angel fish-like memory of suggested reforms after the 2001 and 2004 U.S. general elections. ;) - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
