Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates
Protest candidate SPAs
While the idea of a protest vote candidacy is interesting, and I certainly think should be allowed, I would I think object to the creation of the SPA User:Protest vote for this purpose, as it's obscuring who you are actually voting for, and prevents any other protest candidates of another stripe from emerging. Though this is not the intention, this reminds me of the Independence Party of New York, which registers voters in my state for their political party, mostly by convincing them that they are registering for no political party.--Pharos (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of a protest, if it was successful, it would simply make ArbCom one member smaller, which is going to happen sooner or later, going by history.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The PD in the GMO case was scheduled to be posted two weeks ago, and it has yet to appear. So my theory is that it (ie, bringing the Committee to a halt) has already happened, and we just don't know about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to vote "none of the above", by far the best way to do it is to vote "oppose" to every candidate. Since candidates with more opposes than supports are automatically rejected (don't make me go looking for where that rule's written down, but I assure you it is), that actually has an impact. All that voting for an "if elected, I will not serve" candidate achieves is making the committee one member smaller, which—given the soul-destroying unpleasantness of what being an arb actually involves—invariably happens fairly quickly anyway when people realise exactly what "500 emails a day, all of which have to be read and a sizeable fraction of which will be personal abuse" means in practice. ‑ iridescent17:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the current figure, but as of five years ago it was between 300-800 per day (see screenshot), plus the expectation that one had at least a passing familiarity with every significant topic on the drama boards, every significant noticeboard, and the talkpage of every high-profile user. Worm That Turned, who was on the committee much more recently than me, estimates 40 hours a week to do it thoroughly or around one hour per day to deal with just the essentials, which tallies with my experience. Remember, what you see on-wiki is just part of it; you also have all the privacy-sensitive stuff which has to take place off-wiki, all the assorted appeals and queries, as well as a non-stop stream of people asking you questions as an individual, all of which needs to be read and replied to. To get an approximation of the feeling, read WP:ANI top-to-bottom, under the condition that you need to read every topic closely enough to be able to answer questions off-the-cuff about it and that if you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about any of it, or dismiss any part of it as unimportant or irrelevant, you'll have a screaming mob ranting at you. Then, imagine doing that every day (even if you read something yesterday, you need to re-read it today to ensure nothing's changed, as if you're not up to speed someone will turn up screaming at you for "not taking the matter seriously" and "lack of accountability"). And on top of that, assume that every damn weirdo on the internet will assume that you're now fair game, and bombard you with a mix of spam and vague threats should you be insufficiently vocal in support of their particular hobby-horse. There's not a word here that I'd disagree with; if anything, WTT doesn't convey the unpleasantness of it enough. ‑ iridescent17:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
500 a day is overstating it, but for example yesterday's email threads had 76 emails in them across 12 separate topics. There's also the challenge of getting a majority of the Committee to be able to read and respond to any individual email topic within a short period of time. We're not all in the same time zone, and we don't all have the same amount of time to read and sort emails each day. So issues often take a long time to resolve where a majority vote is required. BASC appeals are the biggest generator of emails, and can be very slow in moving out of the active email queue - getting a preliminary opinion can be fast; finding a majority of the Committee to approve that opinion before replying can be very slow.
As some unsolicited advice to incoming Committee members - nominate for BASC as its a great learning experience. But rule change 1 should be for BASC appeals to be resolved by a subcommittee only and not voted on by everyone. That way the current 6 week backlog could be reduced to a week or so, and there'd be a massive reduction in the frustration experienced by appellants and BASC members alike. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I ever said 500 a day, but I had over 18k emails directly related to arbcom in the 2 years I was on the committee, plus another 4.5k related to BASC. 22.5k emails over 2 years is 32 a day. As a list moderator, I received an addition 38k, but they didn't require the in depth analysis and the vast majority could be discarded. You also get to join the checkuser list (another 5k emails), oversight list (another 1k) and general functionaries list (another 3k). Oh, and you will get extra emails from people all over the community, who want to talk to just you to get your opinion on cases, potential cases, issues and the like. Certainly 100 emails a day is a reasonable estimate. But that's not the problem. The problem is the content. The fact you've got to keep any eye on everything everywhere. The fact that there's so much bickering, between community members, between arbs, between everyone. The fact you see the worst Wikipedia has to offer, from harassment to attacks. The fact that nothing can change there, because the committee is made up of individuals who struggle to get agreement on anything, with community members who oppose all changes and others who insist on it, but from different directions. It's exhausting. WormTT(talk) 08:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By coincidence, I had just read what WTT wrote shortly before you posted that. All I can do is to shake my head in bewilderment and sadness. It's an unworkable system, and as I have long suspected, it cannot be fixed without a drastic reassignment of where emails go. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those wishing to understand the reasoning behind my candidacy, please read Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2015#Against_all. Simply voting oppose against every candidate, doesn't serve as a public protest as it does not show up in the election results. I've done it under an SPA, per Everyking's comments on the RfC. The actual user behind the account is irrelevant, as they wont actually be doing anything. My regular account is listed at the bottom of my statement for transparency purposes as required. Protest vote (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but your percentage is going to be diminished by people (like me, actually), who wouldn't mind registering a protest but don't see the point of having ArbCom starting the year one member down, and would feel very silly if their vote was the margin for ProtestVote to edge out someone they thought might do a good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to run a protest candidacy under your own name and reputation. Surely not everyone who wishes to protest ArbCom has the same issues and concerns; there are a diversity of concerns, including those by people on quite opposite sides of several controversies. Also, not every anti-establishment voter will agree that you should be the particular abstaining representative they would prefer chosen. By taking on a name like User:Protest vote, you are effectively shutting out other candidates. And there are different possible varieties of protesting candidacies—I think an interesting platform would include not just recusal or abstention, but a commitment to developing an independent professional staff capacity to take on at least some of ArbCom's historical roles.--Pharos (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the number is that high now, but I think there's some misunderstanding about the use of email anyway. Arbitrators of course have their own mailing list, but they are also on the Clerks list (which can be very busy), Functionaries, CheckUsers, Oversight and appeals. Plus AUSC but that was never very busy. 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
Thanks Doug. I would hope that there are procedures in place for quickly dealing with messages that should be sent elsewhere than to ArbCom, such as canned responses (the email equivalent of a form letter) for emails that ArbCom cannot deal with. I also think that the kind of deluge that was described, of messages about everything at ANI, should be met with a response that unless there is a request at RFAR, ArbCom will not get involved with what the community is dealing with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of emails are about BASC, in the order of 20-50 emails a day. The challenge is not resolving the appeal so much as getting a majority of arbs to agree with the proposed resolution. Unless it is an obvious decline you often get two or three different sets of conditions proposed for an unblock, which then need to be voted on and communicated back to the person who lodged the appeal, who is quite likely to reject them and send the whole thing back to the start.
Incoming arbs, whoever you are, take my advice and abandon the current plan of having the whole committee vote or be involved in every BASC appeal. Pick the subcommittee and have no one else subscribed to their mailing list, so no one feels the urge to throw in random votes or views. And then just plough through the appeals to bring that waiting time down. Your arb colleagues, the community and your BASC appellants will all thank you for it. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an outside observer, it does appear to me that a significant part of the workload arises from the difficulty of making decisions via email. And it does seem very strange to me to have a BASC if the BASC cannot make a decision without clearing it with Arbs who are not on the BASC. That does not make sense. I also think that when a member is on the BASC, that member should probably focus on that, as opposed to for example trying to draft PDs at the same time. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much it's changed, but when I was on the Committee the bulk of the BASC stuff was dealt with by just a few members as the bulk of it is not difficult. Many people write in to appeal when their block is less than a month - that's a template response which doesn't require the rest of the Committee to even see, let alone discuss. In general, the full Committee's opinion is only sought on difficult or sensitive cases - most of it is just obvious admin work. Being on the Committee is not quite as difficult as can appear from statistics - most Committee members are organised enough to have filters on emails, and have them directed to appropriate folders so are only dealing with emails that are pertinent to them, but can access other emails if they need to. The reality is that some members work harder than others - Worm and AGK I remember as being fairly tireless and efficient pretty much all the time; some others, such as Roger, would work extremely hard in some areas, but be wise enough not to spread themselves too thinly, and to take strategic rests. NYB, with the wisdom of experience, chose his moments of engagement carefully in order to remain cool and stress free. Being on the Committee is hard work at times, and stressful at times, but it is rewarding and can be managed, as evidenced by the number of members who volunteer for second or third terms. What I found most difficult was not the work load so much as the atmosphere within our particular Committee. Contentious, stubborn, outspoken, and/or strongly opinionated individuals may not be the best team players. I decided not to volunteer for another term because of the frictions within our particular Committee. I understand that our Committee was particularly and unusually fractious, but it is something to bear in mind when voting: the Committee will work better with team players who accept differences of opinion rather than attempting to stifle alternative thoughts or to force through their views. Wikipedia works best when people discuss openly, putting forward their views, and when a consensus has been reached, everyone gets behind it, even if they didn't vote for it. The Committee works best in the same manner. Everyone is equal. Everyone puts forward their point of view, accepts consensus, and moves on. Experienced, collaborative, reflective Wikipedians without a personal agenda are more likely to work to build an efficient and effective Committee. SilkTork✔Tea time01:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption about the way it works - please correct me if I am wrong - is that being an arbitrator involves building alliances with the other arbitrators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement issues
A couple things:
It appears some of the candiddates are going way over the limit of 400 words.
One of them has done something I've never seen before, which is to use section breaks within their statement. This would seem to give them undue weight compared to the others who used no such formatting as they have like five subsections all to themselves.
Rich and Mark are both at about 450 words (excluding the required statements and signatures), which over the limit in theory, but hardly unreasonable. Mark's headers can be replaced by lines preceded by a semi-colon with no change to visual display, so I recommend that this might be done. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉01:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I clocked Mark's statement at closer to 500 words, with Rich around 470. I removed the bottom matter and the top header before doing the count. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note to both of the users on their talk pages. We'll give them a reasonable time to fix the statement length. (Say a day or two.) I'm sure they'll take care of it, but otherwise we can just truncate it to exactly 400 words and link the rest to a subpage. Mike V • Talk02:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:MarkBernstein has trimmed their statement, but in the process removed the [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] portion which is necessary for the TOC on the main WP:ACE2015/C page to work properly. I added that name back in, to avoid a candidate-page with statements from some candidates appearing to come from others. In haste, I didn't add back in the bottom-of-statement-boilerplate, though that also probably belongs. I would have left a note on usertalk, but User_talk:MarkBernstein is currently under pageprot. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, 75.108! As you may know, I have a small Gamergate problem. This has led to some unfortunate encounters with IP accounts in the past; semi-protection saves lots of bother.
Sorry about the damage to the header; I've not explored the intricacies of the template code. Feel free to restore what I accidentally broke, again. Thanks to Salvidrim! for previous help.
I’ve trimmed the statement -- at the cost of losing much of the sense and most of the humor, which was the entire point of the exercise. My word count says 386 words, or something like that, but if yours differs, I'll bastardize it further. How do serious candidates manage to say anything of significance? Or is that the point -- to prevent any candidate from actually having a substantive platform beyond their personal charms?
And can't I have paragraph breaks in the Q&A? It’s really hard to be funny under these constraints, you know, and the alternative to hilarity is too tearful for words.
Finally, is there any formal policy about speech in the context of elections? Presumably, WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY are partially waived, so people can say “MarkBernstein is a lowlife” without fear of consequences, as opposed to what might happen if they said that on an article talk page, where they could also say it without fear of actual consequences but only because of reasons, and I certainly couldn't say such a thing. Not that I know what a lowlife is, precisely, but you get the point. Is there a pertinent precedent for such stuff, or do we make it up as we go? And, crucially, pumpkin or pecan? MarkBernstein (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can always leave a full statement of your platform-planks at User:MarkBernstein/ACE2015_full_statement, and just link to that from a summarized/bastardized version here on the candidates-page. Think of it as a test, on whether you can write a good candidate-statement-lede which summarizes the candidate-statement-bodyprose. :-) On the other matter, I don't think the header-damage is your fault... it's a mistake to have a wiki-technology where *every* candidate has to get the format of their candidate-statement exactly correct, or else the *entire* main candidate-listing will get out of joint. User:Guy_Macon has similar complaints about arbcom casepages, where somebody will enter an enumerated listing of things (1,2,3,...) after which another person will refer to item#3 in the list at the time, and then much later somebody will insert a new item (which becomes "item#1") at the top... and the comment in the middle, about former "item#3" thus becomes nonsensical. So in short, the root problem is wiki-technology here, not yourself. But be aware that changes to the candidate-pages will have to be double-checked elsewhere, to see if anything accidentally went FUBAR. As for the questions about hilarity/civility/etc, I will move that response to my own usertalk. Well, most of it: don't believe Salvadrim, pumpkin is the only answer, they are trying to *trick* you into taking the wrong wiki-stance, it's a trap! 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where's all the candidates?
Afterall the commotion last month & over 2015, about gender treatment on Wikipedia. I would've thought there'd be about 25-30 candidates by now. I suppose, there's still 6 days left before the deadline for nominations. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there are 25-30 editors who are interested; that's about as many candidates as were registered even back in the pre-2008 days. A more realistic question to ask, when referring to gender treatment on Wikipedia, is "where are the women candidates?" I don't think there are any yet. Risker (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because none of the women wants to run? At the risk of being labeled reverse sexist, perhaps that's a sign of superior intelligence or better judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, last year or possibly the year before there were not enough to fill the seats until the last day. I believe "last minute" in this case is understandable, but not a good sign. Part of the reason for my note below. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 06:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The sheer work load as reported here and in other places, and the fact that former arbs are telling, nay, begging some of our most obviously potential candidates not run, is explanation enough for the dearth of candidates. Whether I would make a good arb or not, its certainly putting me off and if I do decide to run I'll definitely leave it to the last minute (again). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have ran for Arbitrator (or even Administrator), but my past would disqualify me. Besides, I'd likely get alot of opposition & thus either candidacy would be doomed. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the current field and the number of vacant spots, I think you would have no trouble getting elected, "past" or not. I appreciate most people nominate at the last possible moment, but it is concerning that with nine seats vacant we cannot so far muster more candidates. Anyone out there with an interest in helping resolve disputes, a credible criticism of the way the place is run and/or simply a fair bit of spare time and a willingness to help out, please consider the surprisingly painless task of nominating and seeing how you go in the poll. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think my 1-year siteban & (if elected) reluctance to give out personal info, are non-starters for me. Anyways, perhaps someday, I'll try for administrator :) GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand it is an intrinsic part of the process, I think the pages of questions is daunting and would dissuade a candidate who wasn't absolutely serious about the election. And maybe that is a good thing, to weed out the non-serious candidates. LizRead!Talk!22:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, if you want to run, run - I think you'd do a decent job and I think you'd be able to cope. Everyone knows arbs have to be a little crazy to join - I just want to make sure that people think before they do. That said, we've lost too many good editors to Arbcom, if I'm concerned about someone's resilience, I'm going to say something. WormTT(talk) 08:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the interesting things that might well arise here is how to deal with non-admin candidates if elected and the ramifications that will follow from that. I'm unclear on the current WMF position is on non-admin access to CheckUser and Oversight but they used to require the successful passing of a "RFA-identical" process. We could end up with a situation where arbitrators don't have access to the tools themselves yet are merrily appointing others to hold them. We might also end up in a situation where some arbitrators don't have access to the same evidence as others as they can't see the raw CU and OS data. This could radically affect the way ArbCom operates, and result in sweeping changes. Which is of course no bad thing. The committee in its current form is well past its sell-by date as it has ended up dealing with more and more things that were never contemplated at its inception. Roger Daviestalk07:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: That's my interpretation too though it has never been confirmed by the WMF lawyers (who call the shots on this). The issue is precisely whether 50%+1 (the threshold for arbitration election) is a long way from 70%-80% support as an indicator of consensus. I did actually ask Philippe about this when it last came up (March 2013) and got no direct response. Roger Daviestalk07:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the non-admin candidates, I'm inclined to agree with you Roger Davies - if one of us was elected it would be interesting to see what changes would need to be made. As you said, this would be no bad thing samtar{t}07:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Samtar: Good luck, by the way, to you and the other non-admin candidates. Fresh blood and new perspectives (especially when they come with many years of experience) are urgently needed. Roger Daviestalk07:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have we had arbitrators sit on the committee with lower supporting thresholds than the 70+ percent needed to pass Rfa?--MONGO08:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this community review is both to try to help limit the exposure of such content and to try to help ensure that the people who get access to this content are trustworthy. Callanecc, I will reach out to legal to verify, but it is my opinion until they tell me how wrong I am that legal would consider that if the community would entrust somebody with the role or arbitrator - which gives them potential access to quite sensitive information as part of their case work - that the community regards them as trustworthy. ArbCom candidates undergo intense community review. I think if the community would not regard them as at least as trustworthy as an admin, we've got a bigger problem than access to deleted content. :) In other words, I don't think it's a problem if the community decides that non-admins should have adminship bestowed on them through the ArbCom selection process for the term of their ArbCom service. I'll get back with y'all as soon as I can either to confirm or to apologize for how wrong I am. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're correct Mdennis (WMF), that would bring about quite an interesting dynamic - people's !votes would then be influenced by the prospect of myself, should I be elected, becoming a temporary administrator. Interesting... samtar{t}13:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to me to float a problem with the arbitration process if that happened, samtar. :) It's up to the community to decide who they want to serve on their arbitration committee and what they expect by way of behavior from those arbs. If I am right and legal does not disapprove because of the potential discrepancy in pass ratio between arb and admin, there's nothing wrong with the community making clear that non-admin arbs are expected to use admin tools that may be given to them as a necessary condition of their service as an arb only in their role as an arb. For instance, I have CheckUser abilities because of my job, but I am not permitted to use them (and do not) in volunteer capacity. There's a strictly defined expectation around the use of that tool for me to which I am expected to conform. Again, this is my opinion, but if the community doesn't think somebody has the integrity to use the tools appropriately, I really don't think they should be serving as an Arbitrator. There are, however, plenty of ways to deal with this, some of which I've seen discussed before, right down to the possibility of having an Arb elect stand for RFA as a condition of active service. If legal does not see this is as a blocker, that empowers the community to decide how best to handle edge cases if they occur; it doesn't impose an "anything goes". --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree Mdennis (WMF), the use of tools is a 'part and parcel' of the arbitrator role, so any user voting should take this into account. It seems the running of myself and the other non-admins has caused a bit of a stir this year, which can only be a good thing. Thanks for your reply samtar{t}13:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Roger. :) When Philippe said he was "open for clarification" he didn't mean that clarification would be forthcoming, but rather that he would be happy to answer questions. If there are specific questions, I'm also happy to assist. Please ping me if you respond here; I wouldn't want to miss it! I am, I should note, off work tomorrow and over the weekend, but will be available today and again on Monday. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that anonymous polls on Wikipedia will always give lower approval ratings than open polls - people naturally want to be seen to support their friends and not make enemies. When they're not being watched, they make their more honest opinions known. That was always my understanding of the difference between the 50% and the 70% WormTT(talk) 08:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure...was not trying to discredit any current or past arbcom members that had less than 70% supports. Was just wondering about how this plays into a non admin that might gain a seat on arbcom with less than 70% support and sort of be grandfathered in as an administrator.--MONGO09:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything stopping someone holding CU and OS without being an admin? Being on the committee automatically grants these additional permissions if requested. I don't know that it automatically grants admin tools as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there is: the rule requiring an RFA-identical process is to be able to view deleted text, so not actually being an 'admin' just seeing deleted text. That right is in the admin, CU & OS permissions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the editors who've been the most vocal about their criticism of Arbcom, should (themselves) run for Arbcom. They've talked the talk & now it's time to walk the walk. Complaining doesn't solve anything. Grab the bull by the horns & just do it. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if the structure, operational procedures, and accountability of Arbcom were different, then more people would consider running? — Ched : ? 16:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't, GoodDay - by December 15, they will have completed the change in process that requires only the electronic signature of a specific document, and no personal information is shared with the WMF at all. Details are here. Risker (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's still too much for me. I'd only run, if the requirements matched those for Administrator. Get enough support votes & you're in. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I observe with some pleasure that the usual historical pattern, in which candidates appear late in the nomination process, is happening on schedule again this year. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Observation. Just a small observation, due to sorting of the list alphabetically, my name has popped up on the top and now I have questions from 16 editors (highest amongst all contestants). Not that I mind answering them, but it does not create a level playing field as compared to someone who is at the bottom and has only three questions. This works both ways, people being over analytical of me (works against me) and me getting more opportunities for interacting as compared to someone else (works for me). All I am saying is everyone should have an equal exposure and equal chance. Have a good day. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest to make it a sortable list, using the time-stamp of entry also. An additional sort key could be time of first response, showing (related to entry) readiness to answer questions. Example pictured. Alpha first is a good idea for people who search for a name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The election guides display in a different order each time the page is loaded (unless it's cached) - I don't think you can do much better than that ;) WormTT(talk) 10:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally speaking, I kind of preferred having the listing in the order that the candidacy statement was transcluded; this was more useful than either alphabetization or randomization. It was easier to keep track of which candidates were new (thus going directly to the "new" statements); for those who added 'standard' questions, they know which candidates' question pages to go to. It is also of significant interest to many voters to see who put their candidacy forward first, or last. Perhaps after the self-nomination period is closed, that would be the best time for initiating randomization? Risker (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While constant shuffling is pretty much the least convenient method we can do as far as convenience for the reader goes, it is also pretty much the fairest method for our candidates A.A. Aardvark and Z.Z. Zzyzx. I think the latter is higher priority. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could have them in order of nomination time until the end of the nomination period and then randomise the order during the election period. —Kusma (t·c) 19:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Politely, if people's greatest concern is their order of precedence in the candidate statement page, I suggest they spend more time working on the content of their election pitch. Come on guys, you aren't going to win or lose this poll based on the first letter of your username. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to Calidum (alphabetically first, didn't win) and Yunshui (alphabetically last, got elected). In a multi-winner poll with voluntary voting by a small and well informed electorate, I don't think the donkey vote has any impact. Donkey voting is also often a form a protest, but in this case you can protest by voting no to everyone, voting for the occasional joke candidate, or not voting at all. I don't mind that we've now de-alphabetised the candidate list, but really this should be trivia. -- Euryalus (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the donkey vote has any impact, but can you prove it? Anything we can do to make the election even a tiny bit fairer is something we should do automatically unless someone demonstrates a significant downside. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger issue, to the extent alphabetical order bothers people, may be not so much the order of names on this page, but the order of names on the SecurePoll ballot. I believe SecurePoll already randomizes the order of the candidates' names for each voter, but perhaps someone could confirm that? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From memory each electronic ballot paper has the names in a different order. All we are discussing here is the order of names in candidate statements. I can't prove there's no advantage in having your candidate statement appear earlier in the list; I simply doubt the election will be that influenced by it. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it would have been better to leave the names (on this page) in the order they were added, perhaps until the close of nominations (or a few hours thereafter) and then randomize. While people are still adding their names, I think it serves voters (at least those who are following the progress of the nominations, as I am) to see who has added their names since the last time they looked. At the beginning, before the Alphabetization Era began, I was just looking at the end of the list to see who was new. Now I have to look at the entire list and try to remember which names were there before. Not a huge inconvenience to be sure, but not necessarily a trivial one, especially for those of us of a certain age who increasingly have difficulty finding our car keys. I have always thought it was a good idea to randomize the ballot, though it does make it annoying if you vote and then decide to change your vote, because now all the names are in a different order from when you voted in the first place. But it's worth it to avoid the "top of the ballot" effect, which based on many years watching (and participating in) elections, is definitely a real thing. But I don't think it applies to the list of candidates during the nominating stage. Neutron (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the date and time of throwing one's hat into the ring is important, perhaps a little work by whoever controls this thing could be done in two places: (1) the page itself, based on page history, and (2) the template that we transcluyde to include the right number of ~ symbols to date it but not sign it. I don;t value the date and time of entry, though. But, if it matters to folk, let's display it FiddleFaddle13:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc, I tried that but there are a number of recent edits (by candidates who had already added themselves or by editors who are not candidates) that I'd have to go through the history diff by diff which doesn't make it plain at one glance and isn't as easy as looking at a neatly arranged list or sortable table. ---Sluzzelintalk15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A stable list in order of nomination date is my preference as I find that more helpful. The list is the same when I return to it after looking at details; I can see quickly who is new; and the order of nominations in itself is useful information. SilkTork✔Tea time01:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community is misleading, since there are questions whose only correct answer is "wrong question". A formulation like Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to. Explaining why is recommended, because simply leaving empty the answer frame may be perceived negatively by the community seems better. Pldx1 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good answers, but the statement is bad. The reformulated version is better. I completely missed a question when I ran - I thought I'd been keeping track but somehow didn't notice it in time. Doug Weller (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As everybody knows, most of the animals of the farm are prone to Donkey vote. That is the reason why each
and every thing related to candidates must be merciless randomized. Obviously, this put a burden on all
the animals that pretend to read and compare all these pages. But trout the donkeys and trout anybody else. Something
must be done. Randomizing is something. Therefore, we must randomize.
Nevertheless, there exists animals that have used their years at computer science temples not only to learn how to say fuck every
sentence, but also to learn that sorting (once) before searching (repeatedly) leads to complexity improvements.
What can we do, we the donkey/Mario/whatever, to waste less time in clicking and perhaps spend more time in
reading and pondering all these Answers to Questions ? A first idea is to transclude all the candidate pages into a single user page. But this
has two bugs. First, you can only transclude 10 "Candidate's pages" per user page. This limit comes from the macro that builds
a "Candidate's page" from its elements. Second, the resulting user page will be listed into
[[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 candidates]]. This comes also from the macro that
builds a "Candidate page" (and should declare the category only if transcluded inside the Main Space). But you could be considered at fault since
an user page is not supposed to belong to a main space category. You could also be considered as non compliant to the Donkey Enforcement Policy.
Moreover, if you fail to use the thiothimoline property to transclude any new candidate just two seconds before she is transcluded in the main page,
you could be suspected to purposely introduce some kind of bias.
A more subtle approach is to create a subpage in your own userspace, that contains:
<big>I am an educated donkey. I promise that my choices will not be influenced by the way the names are sorted.</big>
[[TOC limit|2]]
heyduderepeatbegin:
==XXXXXX==
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/XXXXXX/Statement]]
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/XXXXXX/Questions]]
heyduderepeatend:
And you know what? it works (any donkey has understood that heyduderepeat: is an iterator while XXXXXX is a loop variable). Pldx1 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, you have to comment out everything in the saved page, and view using the "preview" button. A modif of the "official macro" would be great. Pldx1 (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC) It works as described... and may be don't work when the heyduderepeat: construct is poorly executed (this sarcastic remark is adressed to Pldx1). Pldx1 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Complement. Since Candidates are increasingly answering to the questions, the lenghts of the pages are also increasing. At some point of the process described above, the parsing program overflows and turns into a donkey_parsing_program that cuts the tail. And you have to use two user pages, one for the first half, another for the other half. Obviously, a cross-reference tool would be useful, that will use the questions as first sorting key and the candidate name as second sorting key. May be this is related to the computer-gap: having more efficient keyboardusers and less fucksayers... who knows ?
Salvidrim!s withdrawal statement
@Salvidrim!: It seems unfair / unbalanced / whatever that one person gets to post his favourite candidates / voting guide on the main nomination page, as part of their withdrawal statement. Just state that you believe that there are enough worthwhile candidates now, without enumerating them here. Make your own voter guide if you want, but don't misuse your position on the nominations page for it please. Fram (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...After untranscluding my statement from the candidates list, these comments are far less visible/accessible than a voter guide would be, because my statement becomes theorically orphaned. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉12:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, although I believe that for the ACE2015 election it is correct to use a link to the "voter-guide" portion of the statement (thanks to Salvidrim for being willing to make that change), my preference is that in 2016 and beyond, such early nominations and late-but-not-too-late withdrawals ought to be not merely permitted, but welcomed. In real-world elections, that I'm familiar with anyways, when there are a bunch of candidates who announce they are running, as time goes by some of them drop out... and get a farewell-speech, wherein they make the (usually obvious by then) statement that they are suspending their campaign... and endorse somebody else. Thus, it is a normal thing, that people who are candidates for a position, will sometimes drop out, and when they do so, will sometimes endorse. Salvidrim's endorsement was, in the context of *this* 2015 race, a bit "unfair" in the sense that the withdrawal-section appears above the voter-guide section, and furthermore, that the voter-guide section is collapsed. But who said life was fair? What is blatantly unfair, is that Salvidrim had to stick his neck out, actually *run* for arbcom, and suffer the slings and arrows wise and profound questions of the arbcom question-pages, just to name his dozen favorites! :-) So for 2016, my suggestion is that the withdrawn-candidates section be collapsed. Thataway, folks like Salvidrim who want to run, as a contingency, will be able to run, and as a reward of sorts, will get a slightly-more-visible ... but still collapsed ... "voter-guide" as part of their suspending-my-campaign-and-endorsing-X-and-Y-and-Z finalized statement. My reasoning here is that we want to encourage more people like Salvidrim -- it is *very* hard work to get people to run for arbcom, and it will get easier, if we allow those willing to stick their necks out, to endorse when and if they withdraw. More people running will not hurt the 'pedia, as long as we collapse the withdrawn-section to keep the exit-endorsements from being TOO prominent. Fewer people running, though, is already a pretty serious problem. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I made this "exit statement", there was no "withdrawal" section in which withdrawn candidacies are transcluded on the main candidates page. I simply removed the transclusion of my candidacy page altogether. Had I known that it would remain listed on the election's front page, I might've weighed options differently. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Bernstein kicking a dead horse, possibly also harassing user Neelix
Based on edits Jørgen88 made to an article talk page on 25 October, his motivation here is clear, and is not going to be rewarded. Closing with prejudice (i.e. I will block you, Jørgen88, if you reopen). If anyone else thinks I'm wrong, go ahead and reopen, but think twice about it please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He states:
"Wikipedians and Waterfowl
We must clean our house, lest those who could advise and assist us dismiss Wikipedia as a nest of boobies."
This is a clear attack on user Neelix and an attempt to put Neelix on a pillory. I think he should remove this from his statement and possibly also remove his blog links as they can be seen as ads for his blog, and this election page is not the place for such advertisement. Jørgen88 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a diff the provides more context? The limited quote you have posted does not even mention Neelix, in fact it does not mention anyone. It seems to be based on concern about Wikipedia's reputation. HighInBC18:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm basing this comment off no diff and just the limited quote you provided, but I pretty strongly agree with the quote you provided. Having redirects like tumorous titties that go unnoticed for several years risks harming our ability to collaborate with cultural institutions, and some of these collaborations (I'm looking at you, NARA,) have been incredibly beneficial. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the case of Neelix or the redirects in itself we're discussing here, but instead Bernsteins illogical need to link to the case of Neelix in his election note. Jørgen88 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The inside joke strikes me as not especially necessary or helpful, but it won't be picked up by most people, and making an issue of it would be counterproductive. I suggest dropping this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why you think this particular statement is a personal attack and not the many, many things said about Neelix in multiple noticeboard discussions. I think Neelix is not the dead horse being kicked here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is linking to the already finished and solved Arbitration case of user:neelix in his example, something that is completely unnecessary and a dirty move, which undermines Bernsteins ability to join the arbcom. Jørgen88 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It’s really interesting that nobody bothered to ping me. It’s also interesting, as @DD2K: observes, that Jørgen’s user name (which is not the user name he uses for the Norwegian encyclopedia, where he does most of his work) ends as it does. It should be obvious that I linked to an arbitration case that was not at the time finished and solved, and in any case, as my statement makes clear, my candidacy calls on Wikipedia to reject ArbCom’s many blunders.
But of course the message is clear: “continue to defy us, and there will be consequences.” Wikipedia has got to do something to stop this extortionate behavior.
Thanks to @Floquenbeam: for closing this; on the whole, it should not have been permitted even for the 50 minutes it remained open. If anyone had a question about the nest of boobies, they’ve had ample time to ask a question about it. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ACE mass notification
I received this notification despite voting a few days ago. I understand that it's easier to just do a mass send, but in the future would you all mind filtering out users who have already voted please? Thanks, NW(Talk)18:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would induce a lot of problems. But the mass mailing should have contained some remark like This is a mass mailing. If you have already voted, simply ignore this message. Pldx1 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Capankajsmilyo, I am from India and I had nominated myself (withdrew it later). Will perhaps consider it next year. In the meanwhile, to address India related issues, I think there is a lot that can be done without being a part of the ArbCom. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The purpose of Arbcom is not to keep an eye on topic areas - that's what the editing community does. Arbcom is there to resolve disputes that the community (including admins) cannot. Having said that, I'm also sorry we don't have more geographic and cultural diversity among the candidates. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that all the candidates essentially stand for the same thing. My main concern is deletionism vs inclusionism in Wikipedia. I feel that none of the candidates stand for one or the other. Or they have sat on the fence to get more votes. If you are a candidate reading this, please could you clarify where you stand on this issue. Many thanks. Ayoopdog (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that I (MarkBernstein} stand for the same thing as the incumbents, may I respectfully suggest that you haven't been paying attention :) ? But you're absolutely right: many of the questions posed to candidates have either been shallow and inside-baseball, or they have been pointy smears (some of which apparently originated in off-wiki campaigns seeking to control Wikipedia). The absurd length limits on statements here and in The Signpost (75 words!) make policy discussion superficial.
However, it's also not clear that deletionism/inclusionism is really in the ambit of ArbCom, since ArbCom has no role in settling content disputes.
A related issue -- and one which does (at least potentially) lie within the purview of ArbCom, is the place of esoteric popular culture in Wikipedia. Should the encyclopedia cover porn stars and childrens’ cartoons in greater depth than scientists and scholars? Do articles like Thigh gap represent Wikipedia at its best? At what point do pages of essentially fannish interest become attractive nuisances, and how may their impact best be ameliorated? I was surprised that no one seems to have asked a single question about this. Some remedies lie within ArbCom’s grasp, and (as in controlling harassment and extortion) ArbCom’s leadership could be invaluable in bringing the community to a policy consensus. Unfortunately, the current ArbCom seems unable to reach agreement even on a toothless principle of Equality and Respect, much less a serious effort to address harassment and extortion. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed by email about elections only on November 24. But registration of candidates was until November 19. It seems like elections in Russia..
Best solution is to have candidates from all European countries. Doing so, war edits between different countries will mitigate.
@Eurocentral: Is your point that you would have liked to be told by message that nominations were open? An argument against that is that it was there as a gosh darned great notice at the top of Wikipedia pages a long time before the close of nominations. FiddleFaddle10:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
