Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Template has wrong nomination dates

Someone should fix this. I don't know how. Jd2718 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's what the template says: "The nomination period is running for 10 days: from Saturday 00:01 UTC, 12 November until Monday 23:59, 21 November.

Please go here if you are interested in running for ArbCom for 2012." But the article says November 11 - November 20. Jd2718 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Template says 2011 instead of 2012

When I created my candidate profile just now, the links to my statement, questions, and discussion pages were broken. Apparently, the template still says "2011" in a couple of places, whereas it should say "2012". I fixed this in my own profile, but someone should fix the template. — Richwales 06:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I found the source of the error, and it should be corrected now. Monty845 07:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not. "Vote" link leads to Special:SecurePoll/vote/240 - should be 259  The Steve  12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Duplication in general questions

(Cross-posted from the questions development talkpage.) As a potential candidate I haven't said too much about the question set, but I just noticed that general questions 5(b) and 5(d) overlap significantly. It might be worth combining them—but it should be done quickly, before candidates start answering them. Sorry not to have pointed this out sooner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy needing fixing

The banner at the top of the project page says "The nomination period is running for 10 days: from Sunday 00:01 UTC, 11 November until Wednesday 23:59, 20 November." However, 20 November is Tuesday, not Wednesday. This needs to be fixed ASAP, either by changing "Wednesday" to "Tuesday" (and hoping that no one who read it said to himself or herself "great, I'll post my candidacy on Wednesday"), or by changing "20 November" to "21 November." Sorry not to have noticed this sooner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There were actually several errata in the dates; I've had a clean-up. Happy‑melon 15:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Guides not showing up

I'm not sure if this is a problem for anyone else, but the last two guides added to {{ACE2012/Guides}} (Collect and Reaper Eternal)aren't displaying on the template. Hot Stop (Talk) 15:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

They wrongly wrote "{{{" for the needed "({{". The risk of this error could be dramatically reduced by the use of a structured-programming coding-style. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Userspace template

I updated the template and its log help page to include ACE. - jc37 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ineligible candidate/spam?

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Zoran Georgiev was created by Zoki75 (talk · contribs), an editor with only 20 edits. Plus it reads like a resume. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're just going to leave it for now and probably toss it under the elections since it's not been transcluded. --Rschen7754 04:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It reads like it was roughly copy-pasted from somewhere, with the random words like "Edit" and "Add a position" inbetween the actual content. It might be a copyvio from something, maybe a website such as LinkedIn. - SudoGhost 04:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
That was my impression as well, though the copy past of it from there includes the edit button text, which suggests to me that it may be the original author who copied it to wikipedia, which is the only reason I didn't tag it G12. Unless someone wants to delete it on the copyvio grounds, my position is it should just be left there untranscluded in the interests of transparency. Monty845 18:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Just found 2 more: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/ --Rschen7754 02:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Your link above doesn't show any specific candidates. Which ones did you mean to show? Lord Roem (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That's because I already deleted the page and replaced it with something else... sorry :( --Rschen7754 04:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Candidate guide

Not sure if the editor who started it is waiting for nominations to close, or intends to complete it later in the week, but I thought it might be worth pointing out here Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Guide which was started earlier today. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this ok?

Just for the sake of exploring a hypothetical situation, let us say that a candidate added a nomination at the last minute. And let us further presume that their candidate statement consisted of a a link to project they started attached to the words "vote for me" and nothing else of substance, including the required statements regarding identifying to the foundation and disclosure of accounts. And let us further presume that said candidate was already warned, by a sitting arbitrator no less, about canvassing for their pet project in inappropriate ways, and that this candidate has already stated quite openly that they do not believe they have a realistic chance of being elected. What, if any, action is warranted in reaction to such a scenario? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In such a situation, hypothetically, the election administrators should be dealing with this. However, unfortunately we don't have any yet. --Rschen7754 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That isn't quite right. As of ACE 2011 there were five groups of election volunteers: coordinators; scrutineers; election administrators (as opposed to general Wikipedia admins); miscellaneous Foundation sysadmins/MediaWiki developers (ask Happy-melon to explain the difference sometime, I don't recall) mostly Tim; and random functionaries (mostly MuZemike). Coordinators were self selected from the community; scrutineers were stewards recruited by the aforementioned random functionaries to validate election results; election administrators were also recruited by random functionaries to help coordinate between the community and the scrutineers and had the same technical access as scrutineers; miscellaneous Foundation sysadmins/MediaWiki developers set up the SecurePoll interface; and random functionaries help coordinate the whole thing. As you can see from this list, it is very much not actively organized.
As of now, that same division of responsibilities can still be true, with the exact same oversight, which is to say none. In addition, there is an Election Commission past due to be appointed that has a mandate to solve election related disputes. It is not a body meant to "run" the election so much as a place to solve problems if and when the other people running the elections have a problem they cannot solve by themselves, especially in time sensitive situations. By the wording of my proposal, the Election Commission can choose, if they wish, to take on more responsibility and hoard day to day responsibilities, but in the meantime there is nothing stopping the rest of us from keeping calm and carrying on.
My original plan was to be as silent on election procedures as possible (I also had planned to write a voters guide this year). I believed the Commission would be appointed on time or close to it, and they should have the right and responsibility of figuring out how they want to organize themselves and their relationship with the other election staff. The Commission has still not been appointed. Now, it seems that we have to run the risk of handing them a broken system fait accompli, because many people are impatient and a few people are behind.
Unless there is some serious objection in the next few hours I will do the following:
  • I am going to get the e-mails of everyone who ran and did not withdraw from the Electoral Commission and get them talking so they are prepared to hit the ground running on their appointments. They will be looped in on any e-mails I'm sending
  • I am going to recruit coordinators by general announcement, and by hunting down the people who have done this before and have proven they have good sense. Once we have a few, we will decide amongst ourselves how to fix the not at all hypothetical situation you've presented us.
  • I am going to contact Tim Starling so we can see how long we have before access permissions to SecurePoll need to be set in stone, which will give us a deadline to decide whether or not the EC makes Election Admins superfluous.
  • I should be finished sometime Thursday morning, which, for those of us in the United States, is a day generally reserved for family.
If anyone has any objections to my game plan, feel free to speak up, but I am pretty certain that what I am doing is both in line with past practice and to the Electoral Commission proposal.--Tznkai (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a fine plan. BTW, I think the solution to the non-hypothetical hypothetical situation is to (a) insist on the statements about ID'ing to the foundation and other accounts, with removal from the ballot if this isn't done, and (b) not worrying about the rest of it, as the results of the election will take care of it for us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all for your replies. I had not really been following the coordination aspects while I was pondering running myself so I was not up to speed on those matters. I hope I did not come across as demanding or impatient, in all honesty I have not paid much attention to the opening stages of this process in the past, I generally would just look it all over when it was time to vote and make my decisions then. So, no real hurry, was just curious as to the appropriateness of such a candidacy. Thanks to all who put their time into this running this process, it looks like a lot more work than I had previously realized. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I've left notes to the two candidates who don't have statements, the rest have either statements that comply, or that at least arguably do. Hopefully they both just add the statements, and we don't need to decide anything further. If they don't, someone will need to decide by the poll finalization deadline what happens, but I don't think the candidate's motivation or goal in running should be considered. Monty845 00:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. So long as they comply, there won't be an issue. It may have just been an oversight. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that Jimbo wouldn't appoint anyone who refused to identify, but I hope it wouldn't go that far. --Rschen7754 00:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
David Fuchs is a sitting arb, who's already identified to the foundation, and who made their "ain't got no socks" statement in 2010: [1]... And the concern is not that Jimbo would appoint someone who refused to ID to the foundation, the concern is that such a statement has been required for a while, and has kept others off the ballot before. No sense wasting everyone's time voting for/against someone who won't make such an assurance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
My general opinion is that anyone who meets the basic eligibility criteria (500 edits, no siteban, willing to ID, willing to declare socks) gets to run, regardless of how meritless their statement is or certain their defeat is. Among other things, the community didn't direct higher eligibility thresholds at the RFC, letting people with no shot run has little chance of harm because they will lose, and letting people with no shot run deprives them of the argument that they would have won but for the removal of their candidacy. I do think that in the future the community might consider a restriction along the lines of "If a person obtains less than 33% in a given election, they are precluded from running in the next subsequent election." Someone doing that poorly in an election probably needs more than a year to fix whatever flaws the community found. MBisanz talk 02:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. While the community's determination that as many candidates as possible should have the opportunity to miserably fail never ceases to amaze me, the community very clearly is determined that that should be the case. Happy‑melon 11:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


It's ok, and next year we'll do a lot better! Count Iblis (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Election Staff coordination, recruitment

In an effort to get us ever so slightly more organized, I've set up Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination, listing all of the staff and their roles, and the corresponding talk page so that election staff can be quickly contacted, and the staff can coordinate among themselves. If you want to be an election coordinator, just go ahead and sign up. We should probably also consider centralizing some of the talk pages at /questions /candidates to this talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo in questions

I presume that there is a typo in question 3.d.ii.

It should be (i) and not (a)? : )

Anyone want to be helpful and fix that in everyone's questions? - jc37 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Template:ACE2012 is wrong

It's one full day off the time when voting is scheduled to begin. Can someone fix it please? Risker (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Actually, having a countdown in the template strikes me as too cutesy, but I guess I'll choose my battles and not argue about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

SecurePoll

Hi everyone, we have just under 36 hours before voting starts. Do we have a link to the SecurePoll page yet? I'd like to put it in the watchlist notice nice and early - at the moment the notice will appear on the watchlist on Monday but the link to the voting interface will be broken. Does anyone know what the status of the SecurePoll setup is, and whether it will be ready on time? Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The election coordinators sent an email but haven't heard anything back yet. Conversation is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination#Status of setting up SecurePoll. 64.40.54.65 (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the update. I've commented out the watchlist notice until we can be sure that the system is working. I figure that no notice at all is probably better than a notice with a broken link. If the link becomes available, you can start a new edit request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details, and leave a message on my talk page. Or if you happen to be an admin, just add it. :) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l

The Arbitration Committee has recently been made aware that information posted to its arbcom-l mailing list was inappropriately shared outside of the Committee this month. The disclosures involved posts made to the mailing list by arbitrator Jclemens on November 6 and 7 (UTC), and pertained to some of his positions in the coming Arbitration Committee election. These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election. The unauthorized disclosures were reported to the Committee separately by two non-arbitrator candidates in the current Arbitration Committee elections, and our understanding is that other candidates and other editors have also received correspondence repeating some or all of the information.

Arbitrator Elen of the Roads has confirmed that she shared information, including direct quotes from the mailing list, with two non-arbitrators within 24 hours of Jclemens' original posts. This information was subsequently shared with other parties, including at least some of the current candidates. The Committee was made aware of this on November 13. On polling the arbitrators, Elen of the Roads disclosed that she had released a portion of one email to non-arbitrators, and denied sharing any further emails. She subsequently clarified on 25 November that she had released information from two separate emails, including the full text of one.

In addition, an email written by Jclemens was copied and sent to at least some current candidates on November 19 from a Gmail account. There were certain modifications made to the email that do not match the original or the information shared by Elen of the Roads. All arbitrators have been polled, and all have denied sharing that post with anyone outside of the Committee.

Arbitrators supporting this statement: Casliber, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie
Arbitrators recused from voting on this statement: All current candidates (Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad)
Arbitrators inactive on voting on this statement: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this statement

Wrong real-time voting log

On the voting page, the first link to the real-time voting log is OK, but the second link (in the "You may change your vote by starting over" bullet point) is a link to last year's log. Deor (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Thanks. MBisanz talk 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of mainspace

What does "mainspace edits" actually refer to? Articles? Articles and WP:* but not User* ? Tarc (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

While it can depend on who is asking, typically, main-space = the article namespace. And project-space = the Wikipedia namespace. - jc37 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mainspace--В и к и T 19:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Article space. There are I think a number of reasons to call it main space as opposed to article space, some are covered at Wikipedia:Main namespace. Monty845 19:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I ask because Niabot has only 93 edits to article-space, and is listed in the voter logs. So either there isn't a hard-coded 150-edit prohibition, or this is something that is manually taken care of after the polls close? Tarc (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a hard-coded 150-edit prohibition, but it doesn't distiguish among name spaces (so 1 article edit and 149 userspace edits work). We intend to work with the Scrutineers to review voter eligibility and have the Scrutineers strike those who do not meet the 150 mainspace edit requirement. MBisanz talk 19:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination/Instructions for scrutineers indicates that the voting system does not check name space, or when they met the 150 cutoff, only that there are 150 edits in total when the voter eligibility list was compiled. Someone will need to strike the vote manually. I'm sure there is a proper way to flag that issue for review, but I'm blanking on what it is. Monty845 19:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Once the election closes, make a signed note on the manual log page. A scrutineer will review and strike the vote in SecurePoll. Until then comments on the talk page cna keep track of who needs to be struck. MBisanz talk 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the count of mainspace edits include only article edits, or also article talkpage edits? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It only includes article edits, not article talkpage edits. MBisanz talk 22:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but we have lots of watchers of the voter logs, and it might be an idea to start a page where they can identify votes whose eligibility needs review. I remember we used to have a page like that back in the olden days... Risker (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like its being done by annotating the voter log directly. I'll start up a thread on the talk page to monitor whether each user has been communicated with.--Tznkai (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Are edits made in writing Signpost articles considered mainspace edits? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The canonical definition of the requirement is that this query must return a second page of results. Signpost articles are not written in the article namespace, so the answer to your question is no. Happy‑melon 14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I created a talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Log where people can leave comments about votes that need review. MBisanz talk 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Just filled that out, will direct people there from the coordination page as well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Didn't think this was possible

This page indicates I voted twice. I didn't. Moriori (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what happened. Perhaps you pressed the "vote" button twice? Anyhow, it probably doesn't matter, as the most recent vote is the only one counted. Multiple voting is allowed for that reason. dci | TALK 02:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Just as well I noticed, because as there were actually two votes recorded from me at 00:19, the second one would have superseded my carefully considered yes and no choices, meaning that my vote is currently in the system as a no-vote for every candidate. Poo-bah. I'll re-enter them later. I am not conscious of hitting the button twice. Cheers Moriori (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Lord Bromblemore is shown as having voted twice also so I have alerted him to the situation. Moriori (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that I had voted twice, but I didn't think anything of it at the time. I'm not sure why the duplicate vote would be all "no-votes" or how you came to know the duplicate vote was that way, but thank you for notifying me. (I have voted again, and this time I'm only listed once, so I think the problem's solved, at least for me.) -Lord Bromblemore (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know our second votes would be all no-votes, but correctly surmised it. If someone who has already voted revisits the voting page, it automatically defaults to a no-votes status. No probs now. Moriori (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this and both being gracious enough to re-submit. Given its infrequent use, SecurePoll is pretty much an unmaintained outside of its creator and one or two other people. This means there are very few "extras" built into the code, like being able to review your own vote or getting confirmation of your submitted ballot. But, it seems to work well enough for our limited needs. MBisanz talk 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I "visited" the voting page after voting, but all I did was look at the page — I did not click the "submit" button. The voter log currently shows me having voted only once, at the original time when I did in fact vote. Are you saying my original vote was silently cancelled (with no indication thereof in the voter log), simply because I did a "look-but-don't-touch" of the voting page later on?? — Richwales 22:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think your "look but not submit" should be an issue. The securepoll voter log has one vote recorded from you at 00:29, 27 November 2012. If you had submitted a second time, we would see it. So, you should be fine. Lord Roem (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Good 'ol SecurePoll. It's well worth having even in its current unreconstructed state. But who's for putting an update of this old hack onto the WMF techs' radar for next year? Tony (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
We can try, but it's my understanding that the techs and the WMF in general are strapped for developer resources. I highly doubt they would dedicate time to this project that is rarely used in the WMF-universe in place of the other niceties we've requested that have a larger impact (global abusefilter, global renames, forced SUL, threaded discussions, WMFLabs, etc.) MBisanz talk 15:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
They're hiring like it's going out of fashion. Huge increase in budget. What's in it for us? Tony (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I filed a bug when we first held elections using SecurePoll because I had entered two votes. This was possible because I voted first using the regular server, then again using the 'secure' server (that is, secure.wikimedia.org—not the newfangled https://en.wikipedia.org site). Could this be why some editors who attempted to change their vote have actually voted twice? (Tony1's remark intrigues me: I don't think that bug was ever fixed, despite the considerable expansion of the WMF's development team.) AGK [•] 19:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The secure server has been replaced with https, so that particular bug is no longer possible. MBisanz talk 16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"This election has finished, you can no longer vote." message

When I click on "Cast your vote here" in the boxes at the candidates statements page, it takes me to this page informing me "you can no longer vote" because the "election has finished". (Obviously it's an old link to the 2011 election, but should be corrected less it confuse and discourage some editors from voting.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've updated {{ACEcan2012}} to the right poll. There's a lot of references to different years there, I've updated the edit button too. WormTT(talk) 13:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a limit to number of Support votes allowed?

Is there a limit to number of Support votes allowed? (For some reason I have the impression there is a limit of eight, but I can't find any instructions regarding that.) MathewTownsend (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't, and there would be no way for anyone to verify it if there was. You may vote for or against as many candidates as you wish. Happy‑melon 15:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Turnout

Just for fun, I'm keeping track of turnout as recorded on the voter log after the end of each day and comparing it to the same #s from last year. The numbers don't reflect votes that may be struck afterwards, so they will be inflated a bit; but, as last year's also didn't reflect those changes until the end, the comparison is still apt.

Last year, 729 eligible votes were cast. Almost half (49%) were cast within the first 72 hours. More than two-thirds (71%) were cast within the first week.

The first table shows a cumulative total day by day, comparing this with previous years:

2012 2011 2010 2009
Day 1 284 186 216 264
Day 2 384 279 307 393
Day 3 445 355 377 471
Day 4 495 413 472 524
Day 5 533 455 534 569
Day 6 561 485 611 615
Day 7 593 512 666 644
Day 8 628 540 706 703
Day 9 658 565 763 754
Day 10 685 598 854 784
Day 11 705 631 X 812
Day 12 737 653 X 837
Day 13 770 682 X 915
Day 14 858 733 X 994

The second table shows the number of votes for each individual day, comparing this with previous years:

2012 2011 2010 2009
Day 1 284 186 216 264
Day 2 100 93 91 129
Day 3 61 76 70 78
Day 4 50 58 95 53
Day 5 38 42 62 45
Day 6 28 30 77 46
Day 7 32 27 55 29
Day 8 35 28 40 59
Day 9 30 25 57 51
Day 10 27 33 81 30
Day 11 20 33 X 38
Day 12 32 22 X 25
Day 13 33 29 X 78
Day 14 88 51 X 79

Turnout declined over the past few years; hopefully this year it will go up. --Lord Roem (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Voter Suppression tactics have backfired! Rock the vote! You don't even need your gun-club permit! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
So the total numbers of "voters" last year is roughly around the same amount as the number of active admins? - jc37 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely, though it wouldn't be a bad thing, In 2008, there were 984 votes; in 2009 there were 996 and in 2010 there were 850. In 2011, as noted above, there were 729. In other words, a downward participation trend since 2009, but things are more active this year. Risker (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If the voting trend reflects last year, and 49% vote within the first 72 hours, we would be on track for around 900 votes this year, of course any statistician trying to claim as much from such a limited data set would be fired. Monty845 16:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We've surpassed 2011 turnout by a significant margin! While the numbers will likely shrink a bit, we're very close to 2010 turnout as well. --Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I hadn't quite realised what was meant by "the numbers will likely shrink a bit", but having followed what has been happening at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Log, I see now what you mean. I am not going to comment directly, as that would not be appropriate as a candidate in the just-concluded elections, but are there statistics available on the number of votes struck each year and how that affected the final 'real' turnout figures? I know three duplicate votes were not struck last year, but I can't remember whether the number of votes struck out was published last year (and the two years before that when SecurePoll was used)? Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't believe those numbers are published anywhere, but you can use the tables above and the # of eligible votes cast at the front of each ACE page to find the difference. For example, it appears four votes were struck between the end of voting and the announcement of the results last year (733 votes after voting & 729 eligible votes at the end of the process). Lord Roem (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Turnout is not terribly important because the committee, while necessary and valuable, isn't terribly important to Wikipedia overall, as indicated by research recently published in the Signpost. Voting well should be a large time commitment on the part of the voter, so the fact that not that many Wikipedians do so isn't of concern to me. NE Ent 12:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Further notice

While I'm glad to see the turnout has been strong so far, I am worried that the watchlist notice alone is insufficient. As someone pointed out to me, some users don't use the watchlist and some users won't notice the little line at the top. My thought was to use a newsletter bot to deliver a message inviting people to vote to the Signpost's subscription list. I would modify the list to remove those who have already voted and ask the bot owner to respect the {{nobots}}, but I think this could be a new way to invite additional participation. Thoughts? MBisanz talk 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What has the notice been in the past? I'm concerned that the Signpost's subscription list could be seen as a specific subgroup of wikipedians. I know that at least one election guide writer and some of those asking the candidates questions have indicated that they feel the Signpost has portrayed some issues unfairly and have not subscribed. Is there a way to justify selecting this subgroup to spam about the elections? Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
In the past, we've spammed a few noticeboards and stuck in a watchlist notice. I picked the Signpost's list because it's the only large list of people who are not opposed to newsletters that I'm aware of. Even The Bugle's list is a full 200 people shorter. I would justify using the Signpost's list because a) It was not created with this use in mind, so it is unlikely to have a selection bias that would otherwise impact the outcome of the election and b) There is no other record of a similar large subgroup on the project that is ok with receiving notices. MBisanz talk 20:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a fine idea to me, as many people don't use their Watclist. Having a notice on the main Signpost page including template itself would be a better thing to do. And as always this can be implemented only if the community approves of it. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I think at this point it would be best to save the idea for the next election RFC. The methods of announcement were covered, albeit with a low level of discussion in the last RFC, and adding a major new method at this point doesn't seem prudent without a pretty strong consensus in favor, Monty845 21:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm the editor of the Signpost. :-) We're planning on doing a story on Arbcom this week, so this may be unnecessary. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Okey, I'll defer to you. I realize the RFC might've covered this, but was just trying to think of how else the election could be promoted to people likely to vote. MBisanz talk 03:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is an excellent idea, but I believe Monty is correct in that it would be prudent to wait until next years ACE RfC and get community input before implementing it. One thing that can be done at this time is adding a brief note to {{CENT}}, which is widely viewed. I'll leave it up to the Commissioners to decide if they want to add a notice to CENT. Also, the Signpost did make a brief mention of ArbCom in the last issue, but it forgot mention that voting was open. Perhaps in their story next week they could specifically mention that voting is open. Best regards. 64.40.57.55 (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm hesitant about spamming the Signpost list, but a CENT message is definitely in order. Happy‑melon 09:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A CENT notice seems perfectly reasonable. I'd also suggest simple "Hey, in case you missed it..." notes at the Village Pumps - certainly the miscellaneous one, likely the policy one, maybe the others. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why no follow-up questions?

Why not allow a threaded discussion should the original Q and A prove unsatisfying? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the heading for each question section and the purpose of the questions page is to permit voters to find out how the candidate feels and responds to certain questions. There is a discussion page for people to discuss how THEY feel about the candidate, include the candidate's answers. The discussion page discussions permit third-parties to respond to the questioner's opinion of the candidate's response. Follow-up questions are permitted, but they can't be structured as a threaded discussion because third-parties can't participate in them and if they could, it would clutter up the page and negate the effect of providing a questions page for voters to review the candidate's answers to questions. MBisanz talk 04:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay ... I hear you on formatting, but then wouldn't it be better to reformat versus removing? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I said somewhere else that some of the responses didn't lend themselves to easy re-formatting, so I wanted to leave it to the candidate/questioner to reformat in a manner they thought they made sense, if it could be done. MBisanz talk 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment on this again, but that needs clarification. You did indeed say those things to me, and I explained why, in the circumstances, I wasn't going to do that. The end result is several of my questions sit there without valuable clarifications and answers. I remain unhappy about that, and can think of many better ways this could have been approached. At least one of the candidates seems to agree. This really is the last you'll hear from me on this subject, unless I'm directly asked about it, but I wanted to make sure my feelings about the final result of all this meddling with election pages were clear. I don't think this is anybody's "fault" but I do think it's a damn shame it happened. Begoon talk 06:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with questions

Please list the individual questions for the candidates on the template. It's a headache for me to find them (apart from stalking MBisanz), and it must be impossible for most voters. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite frustrating. Why does MBisanz feel the need to "hide" questions? I've been reemed for refactoring, but really, moving comments so that they cannot be found is compromising the integrity of this election. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
No questions have been hidden or moved. Only threaded comments have been moved and pointers placed to their location to permit others to engage in the discussion. MBisanz talk 23:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I added links to the questions for individual candidates to the discussions page. One had to go to the discussion page and look up (which people rarely do, according to Murph the Surf) to see a questions link. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Okey, thanks for doing that, I couldn't figure out what you were asking for. MBisanz talk 14:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Turnout observation #2

Lord Roem's doing a great job of the daily tabs (see above), but for interest's sake I compared the actual names on this year's voter log with last year's. Interestingly, only 272 voters appear on both lists. I have no idea what that means. Manning (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Color me surprised. I would have guessed that the makeup of votes would include four main groups, plus a small handful of others:
  1. Active admins,
  2. Highly active editors, who happen not to be admisn for various reasons
  3. One off voters who don't regularly vote, but were affected in some way by an Arbcom action
  4. Newish - editors who are relatively new, plan to become active, so participate, but haven't in the past
I would have pegged the first group at 4-5 hundred, the second at 2-3 hundred, and the last two as under a hundred. Nothing in the numbers disproves these WAGs, but while I would expect that the third and fourth groups would have little overlap between years, I would have expected high overlap between years for the first two groups. One of my assumptions is seriously wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You will note that Manning was using incomplete data from this year. A large number of votes came in after he analysed the votes cast so far, so the analysis needs re-doing now that voting has closed. There are several years' worth of data if someone wants to compare the log from each year and see whether people consistently vote or not from year to year. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously I could only use the data that was current at the time. I'll get around to redoing it with the full tally tomorrow. Manning (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
While I knew it was incomplete, I thought it was close to complete, so my error. I look forward to an updated version.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Too Young?

Hello all. I have studied the candidates, issues, and guides. I believe I’m too wiki-young to vote. I see I should have had 150 mainspace edits by Nov. 1st to be eligible. Would someone kindly let me know if this is indeed correct? Maybe check my edits and confirm that I am too new to vote? I’ll check back to this page to see if anyone responds. In advance, thank you! And best of luck to the candidates (well, most of ‘em). Albeit27 (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. It appears you only have 80 mainspace (article) edits to date. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Hot Stop - for clarifying! I appreciate it.Albeit27 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Userbox

If anyone else feels like showing their democratic spirit with a virtual "I Voted" sticker, I made a userbox, {{User:Audacity/Userboxes/Voted}}:

This user voted in the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections!

Feel free to use. Λυδαcιτγ 17:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You betcha ツ Thank you muchly! Fylbecatulous talk 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Results

I'd like the raw unofficial results to be released asap.

Then you guys can throw out the socks and ineligible votes, and report the final tallies with the usual delays....

It would be informative to the community to know how the socks voted! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm still working with the Scrutineers to help them understand the SecurePoll interface, I wouldn't expect speed at this stage. Also, releasing unofficial results and then revised results with ineligible votes removed could disclose the votes of the ineligible voters, which wouldn't be in line with the rules. Once the election ends, all the votes are locked in the uneditable magic that is SecurePoll and any struck votes are visible as being struck, so there is no danger of stuffed ballot boxes, hanging chads, or the like. MBisanz talk 19:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I think I know what the answer to that is going to be. First of all, someone who voted without having sufficient edits to do -- perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the rules or just as an innocent mistake -- still has the right to the privacy of the ballot. They just don't have the right to have their vote count. Second of all, a few years ago there were a few voters (three I believe) who cast a second vote, no doubt assuming that their second vote would wipe out their first vote (because that is what the instructions say.) Through no fault of these voters, their first votes were not wiped out. Because this problem was not caught until the results were announced, these first votes could not be removed from the tally because the revised results would have revealed how these three people voted in total, which would pretty much reveal (at least roughly) how they had voted individually. Fortunately, these three votes could not have changed the order in which the candidates finished, or put anybody under 50 percent support, so the election admins decided to keep these extra votes in the tally. But I don't think they are going to be interested in revealing the "raw" results, when the same thing could happen, however remote the possibility. So I think we all just have to wait. Neutron (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say it is unlikely that the difference between the raw tally and certified results will reveal the vote of any individual struck voter, though there does remain a small chance. Depending on the number of struck votes, the randomness of the votes should prevent a direct connection, though with the low number of votes struck, we can't be certain that it will. Balanced against that, I don't see much advantage in the raw release, other then perhaps to end the drama about the two arbs. Monty845 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It could actually increase the drama instead of end it though. If a candidate ended up flipping from 49% to 50% or moving ahead of another candidate because of a struck vote, people could understandably be upset. I lost the AUSC election by half a vote last year, so such things do happen. MBisanz talk 19:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Ending drama, Monty? That would be out of keeping with Wikipedia, The Land of Perpetual Drama. Neutron (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that premature release of data might cause a drama-fest, so it is best avoided. This is a slow process, but the goal is accuracy and fairness, not expediency. The changing of the guards doesn't happen for a couple of weeks anyway. Fortunately, Arb doesn't have a fiscal cliff to deal with, so the necessary delay won't actually break anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Matt that no interim results should be released. All community members, eligible voters or not, are entitled to a secret ballot. Please sit back and continue to chew your fingernails patiently. Happy‑melon 13:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure we've gone through this every year since we started using SecurePoll, and the dangers remain the same.--Tznkai (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as a reference point; last year's election also ended up December 10. It took eight days before the results were posted [2]. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Curious that this cannot be largely automated. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC).
The SecurePoll extension was written 8 years ago and it's used maybe three times a year by the Wikimedia Foundation for elections that are not time sensitive. There are two developers who even know how to install SecurePoll and it was hard enough finding one this year to start the election. I don't think the Foundation is willing to expend resources to refine this tool with more advanced automation. MBisanz talk 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Where are the exit poll results? Count Iblis (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What exit polls? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Count Iblis was trying to be funny. Neutron (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Temporary approval of checkuser status

So that they may complete their duties as scrutineers of the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections, the stewards User:Pundit, User:Teles, User:Quentinv57, and User:Mardetanha are authorized to grant themselves checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. They are authorized to use these rights solely for the purpose of fulfilling their duties as scrutineers. They may retain these rights until the election results are posted and verified; at that time the checkuser rights should be relinquished.

  • Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies
  • Supporting after posting: SilkTork
  • Abstaining: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad
  • Not voting at time of posting: Casliber, PhilKnight, SilkTork, SirFozzie
  • Inactive for this motion: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Vituzzu (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this statement

Guides' Tables

Each one of the guide writer's votes against the candidates.
Total number of supports, opposes, neutral votes, net support and percentage of support received by the candidates from the guide writers.

I leave here two tables I designed with information collected from the Guides. Those tables provide the guide's overall perspective of which are the candidates that should be elected. Of course, this does not represent the final outcome, but may have some use. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 00:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Really cool tables. Well done sir. Lord Roem (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I will do a comparison table between the final votes and the guides when the results are announced :) — ΛΧΣ21 00:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
10 hours earlier and we'd have published them in the Signpost. Good work, and thanks. Tony (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Lol, sadly. Don't worry. I will design a very fancy one for the next issue of the Signpost. You're welcome, Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 00:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Very impressive work. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You misread my "oppose with regrets (neutral)" as "neutral" rather than as "respectful oppose". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me. I thought that the "neutral" between the parenthesis held the true significance of your recommendation. So, which is the true meaning? oppose with regrets : oppose? I am willing to fix it, so that the tables are as accurate as possible. — ΛΧΣ21 05:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer's guide supports Kww and PGallert and opposes D. Fuchs, Keilana and Salvio G. (I found Kiefer's use of "neutral" in parens confusing as well). Hahc21, the upper left corner of your top table would be an ideal place for the legend: green = support, grey = neutral, red = oppose. (for clarity and posterity). Good job on both tables! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I will update the table with your legend recommendation. I have updated both tables, fixing Kiefer's votes and adding a legend at the top left corner. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Outstanding! When are you running for ArbCom? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea (I may never run), but thanks for the compliment. I have developed some additional tables; they can be found in this category at Commons: [3]. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 21:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job! I'll note that the tables would have been more useful if they were published at the beginning of the election (maybe next year?) I'll also suggest putting highly correlated guides together - i.e. if two guides gave pretty much the same recommendations they should be in adjacent rows and the most extremely different guides put one on the top, the other at the bottom. I'm sure there are easy algorithms for the selection of which guide to put in which row, according to this principal. Principal components analysis or factor analysis might be the more difficult places to start. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Next year I will make sure my tables are ready before the vote period starts. Then, we can show the voters a better perspective of the recommendations done by the guide writers. — ΛΧΣ21 22:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If you want to list your table of guides, you will have to out shout Risker, and others scared of listing tables. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Reading that page, what Risker was saying is that this tables should not be included in the voter guide template, and I agree with him. This tables should only be posted here, in the ACE2012 talk page, like I did with my tables, and like now is done with Ealdgyth's chart. — ΛΧΣ21 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This year's consensus was allowed with disclaimer. NE Ent 22:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This chart also exists: Summary chart by Ealdgyth. — ΛΧΣ21 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The closes doesn't distinguish between summary tables by a guide writer of their own recommendations, and a summary of all guides. My reading of the consensus is that the latter, which is at issue here, did achieve a consensus against including it in the official template. I would suggest making sure to raise it again at next year's RFC so that the point can be clarified. I don't think anyone has an objection to them after the voting concludes of course. Monty845 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
While the consensus from the RfC on handling this sort of material during the election is hazy at best, I don't think anyone can make much of a claim that it is problematic after voting has closed, no. Happy‑melon 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
So when they are not very useful nobody is against it? Doesn't free speech apply on Wikipedia? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "free speech". The First Amendment? If so, the answer is no. Also Smallbones, the argument for keeping summaries of summaries out is that it justifies an editor solely relying on what the majority of guides say, without actually going to read them. If a voter wants to rely on guides, that's their prerogative. But, a nudge towards actually reading what a guide says, rather than just a summary of the guide-opinions, is not something to fret over. Lord Roem (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I guess that Wikipedians are against using those tables as official guides. What I believe this means is that I can make my tables as soon as all the guides are up and put it here, or on my userspace, but not add it to the guides template of the elections, because it would mean that my tables are official guides, which they aren't. My tables, for example, are statistic data that is very useful, in my opinion. They give a global perspective of how consensus is flowing between the guide writers and we can use such data to know how elections work, and why. — ΛΧΣ21 01:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This year it would have meant you would add a disclaimer as indicated by Tom Paris's closing. Knowing that editor X opposes candidate Y without understanding the reasoning behind their reservations (or support) isn't really the idea behind the guides. Next year will be guided by next year's RFC. NE Ent 02:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
That's the issue. Those tables are not guides, because they don't offer the reasoning behind the supports or opposes, as you stated. They are just statistic data like the turnout tables above, or that's how I see them. — ΛΧΣ21 02:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
1. Free speech, as protected by the First Amendment, does not exist on Wikipedia because the First Amendment acts as a restraint on governmental intrusions into free speech. Wikipedia is a private sector endeavor because it is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a priivate organization. As such, the First Amendment does not require the Wikimedia Foundation to provide for free speech on Wikipedia.
2. As I understand it, the prohibition to linking guides of guides from the ACE template is based on the idea that guides should not provide a plain substitute to critical review by the voter or serve as a grounds for furthering conflict. Guides on their own provide reasoning why an individual believes the way they do and also have an internal consistency because they are the product of an individual actor. A guide of guides does not provide such reasoning and does not show the same internal consistency because of aggregation. Additionally, guides of guides in the other meaning of the term (guides which review the content of another guide) would serve to increase conflict between the guide writers without providing further insight of benefit to voters.
3. However, as the election has concluded, there are no longer voters who might be mislead by a guide to guides, so it is fine to put them on this page.
4. To hopefully prevent this sort of thing next year, I'm working on a draft Arbcom Elections policy that would replace the ad hoc RFC every year at User:MBisanz/ACE Draft. You can feel free to edit it now, but you can also wait until I put it in the projectspace for discussion. MBisanz talk 03:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Bullshit/Bullocks. "guides should not provide a plain substitute to critical review by the voter or serve as a grounds for furthering conflict."
The no-summary table guideline protects the fragile-eggshell child egos of candidates for ArbCom, many of whom are obviously regarded as utterly unsuitable for ArbCom by the community.
The same concern for the tender candidates is also served by the plaintive request that guide writers disclose past interactions with candidates, a requirement that is not required for Administrators or ArbCom members. For example, Hersfold did not disclose his blocking-buddy relationship with Alexandria, on the civility enforcement case. Does anybody doubt that after their roles in the purloined letters of Arbcom and in 2012's decisions, Risker, Hersfold, etc., would receive nearly as much red as Jclemens--Jc37? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
As I gather, there are two schools of thought on the topic. The first is that Arbcom makes weighty decisions and there is no means of community removal of arbs, so ACE is like a crucible that should vaporize any candidates whose imperfections would render them unsuitable for the position. The second is that arbitrating is already an unpleasant job that is inherently unenjoyable because of the adversarial nature of the proceedings and negative connotation of sanctioning another person, so ACE should operate in such a way as to minimize any additional unpleasantness that might deter competent individuals from seeking out the position. Regardless of which school one belongs to, there was an RFC and the community adopted a more restrictive position regarding gudies, which is why things were done the way there were. MBisanz talk 14:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The second position would explain the opposition to guides, and explain the relevance of this comment here, I'm guessing...? I guess as an election-supervisor, you cannot say too much now.... 14:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
Eh, it doesn't effect the outcome, so I don't mind talking. My position is fairly well known that I think the arbs and community are far too lenient in dealing with disruption and too indulgent and tolerant of disruption in arb-related processes. That said, I don't get to enforce my own view, so I'm limited to doing what the community tells me I can do under policies/RFCs. For example, I personally oppose linking guides of any kind from the ACE template, but the community says people can, so I don't delink them. MBisanz talk 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Words from a wiki-infant. Love these tables Hahc21! I read the guides, but knew I was too new to vote. For fun and self-ref I did an informal (way less expert) table similar to #1. Altho lol, because I don’t know you professionals I had to put in whether or not the candidates were currently sitting, for how long, and for those who were swirling in,,, umm,,, controversy. I didn‘t know there was an election until I happened on to it by accident. Is there any way that people can be better informed (without spamming) next year? Just a thought. Thanks to all participants, admins I’ve noticed being of great assistance, clerks, guide writers, and scrutineers, etc. I’m not sure how immersed I’ll be by next year, but I’ll at least be a toddler by then and able to vote!Albeit27 (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm with MBISanz and Risker; these sorts of tabulations are interesting after the fact, but harmful if done in advance. Unfortunately, they may lead voters to go by a percentage tally of the guides, without using any of their own critical reasoning or reading any of the disclaimers, etc in each guide. I was busy all spring, summer and fall with a re-landscaping project (which explains my late entry, it finally froze here, I'm sorry I was late!), but if I miss next year's RFC, I hope someone pings me so I can weigh in on a number of matters, including excluding these kinds of guide tallies. I think these things are a really harmful exercise in nothing the elections should be about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I should oppose you out of pure spite, but I have to agree with that perspective. (insert winking emoticon or whatever here) Posting this sort of thing during the election is just asking for lazy, uninformed participation. While I wouldn't expect anyone to read every single answer to every single question asked of every single candidate, we should expect more than for them to just look at a chart and decide to do what it says. I know we all like to imagine that no good Wikipedian would be so intellectually lazy and irresponsible, but sadly that is not the case. The voter guides themselves are already a shortcut to doing your own research, and are highly variable in their thoughtfulness, attention to detail and method of determining support or opposition. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, you are a good case in point; my opposes were in several different categories, and some weren't really "opposes" of the person, rather the problem that ArbCom has grown too large in my opinion, and I don't advocate supports of folks I don't know well, and I thought we needed to be ultra-picky this year because the Committee needs to heal from the rift. My oppose, for example, on Beeblebrox was nothing like my real opposes, but this tally of guides weights all of my opposes the same. If this kind of tally discourages folks in advance from reading the guides, they don't see that my reasoning on several opposes was personal voting strategy, concerns about rounding out the committee, unrelated to concerns that different voters may have-- and each voter should make up his or her own mind! That's why we spend so much time typing up our rationale! These guides to guides are horrible. Horrible. Nor do they account for a guidewriter's personal biases (and I went to lengths to make sure readers understood what mine were). Kill 'em next year. Just as useless are the page view analyses, since they are so dependent on when one got the guide up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Sandy (if I may say so), do you mean your strong oppose to a candidate who strongly supports two people you don't like (lacking a more precise term) should show brighter in a table? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
These "tallies" are not intended to become guides to guides (at least mines) and to override what we, the guide writers (yes, I wrote a guide too), spend so much time typing. My perspective is that those tables work very well as statistic data that provides useful information regarding to how the opinion of the writers relates to the overall voters. For example, in 2011, of the 8 candidates that received the higher overall support from guide writers, the first 7 became arbitrators, and the eight (Worm That Turned) lost by a small margin. This means that writers almost accurately appoint what community wants. Of course, such information should be published only after the election period is over, and never be included in the guides template. — ΛΧΣ21 23:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. The direction of causality is not that easy to determine. It could also mean that the community appoints what guide writers want. In fact, the latter is the more likely direction of causality, whether or not this sort of table is constructed. If we can conclude that this table actually reflects community consensus on who should be selected as an arb, then the logical conclusion is to do away with elections entirely and merely use the summary recommendations of guide writers to appoint an arbitration committee! Of course, we know by a very simple litmus test, which are the better guides :) --regentspark (comment) 23:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if RegentsPark voted based on guides or their own judgement? NE Ent 23:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This means that writers almost accurately appoint what community wants. No, in last year's case it doesn't mean that at all. What it might mean, in last year's case, is that the horrid guide to guides that was linked in the template influenced voting. Please consider correlation, causation, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It makes little difference whether these tables exist during or after the election. I think two sayings are relevant: "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws", and "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". With a meta-analysis table, a lazy voter might just vote in line with the average of what the guides say. Without a meta-analysis table, a lazy voter might just vote in line with what the first guide he reads says, and just skim for the words 'support' or 'oppose'. There's no indication that meta-analysis will increase lazy votes: lazy voters will be lazy regardless. If you want to truly eliminate laziness in voting, the guides themselves should be banned from declaring support or opposition of candidates, and be limited to presenting factual information such that the reader is required to make up their own mind - in other words, a guide on the candidates and their backgrounds, not a guide on who to vote for.
Personally, I find good statistical value in the meta-analysis tables and if they'd been available during the voting (which I sadly missed), they would probably have encouraged me to read more guides than I would have previously, if only to see 'why does X guide like/dislike candidate Y?'. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: "The horrid guide to guides that was linked in the template influenced voting." Although I agree that guides to guides should never be added to the template, you can't say that it successfully influenced 729 voters. Of course, you may speak truth, but the guides, in principle, are developed to guide (and influence) voters; so the harm a guide to guides can do is the same as that of a normal guide, if not less. A well-developed, stats-based tally of guides offer a global perspective of the general opinions by all the writers as a group, and this avoids the existence of misled voters guided by any specific biased guide. Although I expect the same results to my still-to-be-completed statistics of 2010, I'm sure that almost all the candidates with the most support by guide writers always become arbitrators; why? because 20 writers are a sample of community, and we can do statistics starting from that. — ΛΧΣ21 23:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
A well-developed, stats-based tally of guides offer a global perspective of the general opinions by all the writers as a group, No it doesn't. For example, your tally reduces all of my opposes to the same weight, and accords all of my supports the same weight. That's but one error. What is a "well-developed, stats-based" tally, anyway? Would "well-developed" give equal weight to all commentary, regardless of the reams some of us wrote explaining the strength or weakness of our decision? I suspect you don't have a background in statistics, and all the ways they can be lies, lies, and damned lies. Another one of your statistical errors is that you don't know if voters were guided at all by the guides, by a tally of the guides, or by their favorite guidewriter, who happened to be right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"Reduces all of my opposes to the same weight". As far as I know, when you're going to vote, you have three options: Support, Oppose, No vote. Regardless of your reasons, if you oppose a candidate, you oppose a candidate, and all opposes should weight the same because this is an election, not an RFA. If we had "leaning support", "weak support", "strong support" or any other options on the SecurePoll system, then I'd have to redesign my table. Regardless of how strong or light is your support/oppose to a candidate, what matters is how you are going to vote. I am leaning to think that the vendetta against guides to guides comes from two reasons: It's a way to blame bad election choices from the past (which is faultable to guide writers, after all), and because guide writers feel that guides to their guides are a threat to their work. Like someone said above, "there's no indication that meta-analysis will increase lazy votes", and there is no indication that last year's guide to guides influenced all voters. Also, "I suspect you don't have a background in statistics", I suspect you are the one that doesn't have a background in statistics, but I won't discuss that because statistics do not include what the voter think, but what the voter do (I guess you should know that, you work in election articles). Why they did it, that is a psychological issue that I'm not willing to evaluate. — ΛΧΣ21 00:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
oh, my. Well, if all voters think as you think, then we certainly do have a problem with guides. I hope that when I go to the pains to distinguish between a candidate I strongly oppose on serious grounds having to do with their capability, morals, ethics, knowledge, temperament, etc from a candidate that I don't have any strong reason to oppose but just doesn't fit for me this year, but may fit for the next guy, that readers aren't thinking and reading as you seem to be, in black-and-white, yes-or-no terms. No, you wouldn't have to redesign your table to account for the nuance in guide writing; you'd have to not do the table if you aren't able to reflect guidewriter nuanced views accurately; when I say "leaning" whichever direction, you don't know how I voted, and I'm not advising my guidereaders as I am in the 'strong' category.

You suspect I don't have a background in statistics? You know what they say about assuming, don't you? None of us knows what the voters did or didn't do based on what we wrote: thinking that we do know that is extending a conclusion from data that we don't have. Your table is cute, but it tells us nothing about who read what and whether what they read influenced their vote. The concern is what happens if we put up things just like you have done; it represents my views in black-and-white terms, without even giving a link to my guide so readers can see how I have been represented and what I actually said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. I am very black-and-white in elections. That is a disease that we Venezuelans have. I'd admit that the information that is on my tables brings little to nothing when it comes to votes before the voting period is closed, but I guess it offers some valuable information after all. Anyways, with those tables, I just wanted to add some colour to the elections and bring some statistic data for discussion. I never intended to make it a guide to guides, and that's why I published the tables after the election period was over. I thought that some additional graphs were needed. I guess I assumed wrong, and I apologize. — ΛΧΣ21 00:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no need to apologize, and I'm sorry if my words pegaron muy duro; I just hope we don't see any possibility of guides to guides, or tallies, being used next year, and want to say that forcefully. As to how Venezuelans vote, speak for yourself, please; nosotros es mucha gente. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I like the charts. Since I only looked at maybe 2 or 3 guides, and that was after I voted, it's kind of cool to see a quick overall view of how candidates were assessed by guide writers. The dialog here indicates to me neither SandyGeorgia nor Hahc21 are experts at statistics -- the former because statistics don't lie if they're applied properly and the latter because 20 self-selected individual don't make a statistically valid sample. I also find it both sad and arrogant this notion that guides to guides will warp the weak-willed lazy editors who are too stupid to figure out how to vote by themselves. NE Ent 01:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
My comments are a bit late, and disagreeing with two editors I highly respect gives me pause but here goes: On balance, I think the Guide of Guides (GOG) is useful, ought to be published earlier and prominently, but not in such a way that it appears to be Official. I accept that a GOG can be misused, but if we reject everything that can be misused, we'll have tumbleweeds blowing through this place.
I used the Ealdgyth summary, and I think I used it responsibly. An ideal might be that all voters pour over all candidate statements and edit history to reach independent opinions, but that's unrealistic. Many of us are busy, and need to take some shortcuts, even for something as important as this election. I used the summary to persuade me that I didn't need to spend much time reviewing Newyorkbrad,NuclearWarfare, Count Iblis, and YOLO Swag. I didn't spend zero on those four, in fact I thought an idea espoused by Count Iblis was one of the best ideas I saw in the whole list. However, it was fairly clear which way the wind was blowing, and substantial time on those four wouldn't be fruitful. I "skipped" some other, because I felt I had a good sense of their positions and actions, and I felt comfortable determining my vote on my own. That left a small number of candidates where I needed to do more homework. In these cases, I read the opinions of the guides, not just the bottom line result, and looked at additional material.
I respectfully disagree with SandyGeorgia's concern that the summary doesn't distinguish between "oppose" and "OPPOSE". I fully support finer gradations when it comes to say, movie reviews, because I go to few movies, while others may go to more, so a simple thumbs up, thumbs down doesn't differentiate the list for differing watching habits. In contrast, I can't reject one candidate any more than any other, so the gradations aren't as helpful. That said, I did read the comments, so when my draft vote differed from SG's I was less covered in the case of a weak oppose than a strong oppose. I there is merit to SG's concern, the result should be that all guides make the distinction in clear ways, so the GOG can be colored appropriately.
In short, I found the GOG useful for triage, and helpful to me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
We would like all arbitrators to examine all evidence and come to their own conclusions, too, before coming to the discussion and submitting proposals (for further discussion). In reality, arbitrators' time is limited, and they should invest their time where it can be expected to do the most good, or at least some good (to meet their duty or to be less than their expected contributions writing articles, etc.).
Similarly, editors can look at a few guides by authors they know and look where there is disagreement and invest their time where it is expected to do the most good, not by deciding to review the contributions of Newyorkbrad and YOLO_Swag over the last few years.... Like everything else, it's a Bayesian decision problem. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I do not want all arbitrators evaluating all evidence. Horribly inefficient. I endorse the Count's suggestion that a subgroup of three or four sign up for each case, and review it thoroughly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Guide submission deadline?

Like others, I find Hahc21's tables highly interesting. But I also understand the reservations against including meta-guides into the election template. Moreover, inspired by the tables, I've looked at the hit stats for the guides and what I've found is that while the hit stats were on the same order of magnitude, in total views as well as peak days, one guide stood out with a much higher rated peak day, which is SandyGeorgia's late release (stats). Now, this is of course easily explained as resulting from election-news-hungry folk like myself loitering around the ACE page and template, holding out for updates etc. However, it could nonetheless be argued that a late release like that may create a certain distortion of competition by grabbing the last-minute attention of voters.

My line of thinking here is that maybe for next year a guide submission deadline for inclusion into the template might be a good idea.

(On re-reading, I should perhaps clarify that I'm in no way alleging any intent on SandyGeorgia's part. I'm sure that she didn't go for a "late release buzz" or some such. All I'm saying is that with a submission deadline, we'd be safeguarding ourselves against unintended effects of that kind.)

--87.78.3.199 (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy had 1742 views. My 2595 views ain't chopped liver, even if most of the readers focused on the role-playing game. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so you're against a guide submission deadline? --78.35.245.52 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen any reason for a deadline. Sandy writes carefully and documents her assertions, so her writing process does not need rushed. Most of us revise guidelines to provide the best information to be provided to the community, and a deadline would hamper such revisions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing speaks against revising one's guide at any point after they have been initially included into the election template. It's about new names popping up in the election template and grabbing the attention of voters on the home stretch. Your guide had more views, but your peak day was nowhere near the peak day hits of SG's guide. Many views in a short time usually generates more exchange, more general awareness. Sandy's guide was viewed ~900 times within only two days. That's what I'm referring to as a potential problem. The reason for a submission deadline (i.e. latest date for inclusion into the election template) is obvious imho: prevent potential distortion of competition at a very low cost. --87.78.20.82 (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't fix what isn't broken. Guides are updated at any point where the writer feels the need to add relevant information and there's no reason to impose a freeze on their creation or on their development. SandyGeorgia is a community member who's been around forever and it seems natural to me that folks are interested in her opinion. Regardless, I see that Kiefer has noted that his guide which was published previously to SandyGeorgia's got significantly more views. In any case, who cares. Snowolf How can I help? 22:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Who cares? Anyone interested in preventing potential distortion of competition at an exceedingly low cost.
there's no reason to impose a freeze on their creation or on their development. -- I agree, and I am proposing neither. Just a deadline for inclusion into the election template. Anyone is free to create their own guides after that, just not to have them included in the template. And of course any guide already included may be updated at any later point. --87.78.20.82 (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, I don't understand the fear of community discussions of candidates or of editors reading guides. If you worry that Sandy delayed her guide to surprise voters and nefariously increase her readership, you should read her explanation of this year's guide on her talk page, and you should remember that her guide last year had the most readership. Guide writers who want to surprise voters and gain extra views (if they are living in a fantasy world) can do so. There is no need to ban such guides. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to ban such guides -- You mean there is no rule against publishing in this manner. I know that. That is why I am proposing that rule.
If you carefully re-read my first comment, you will find that I'm making it very clear that I am alleging no intent on SG's part.
But yes, in addition to unintended effects, there is also the possibility of someone exploiting that effect. We don't need any more Rovian tactics on Wikipedia, at least that's my opinion, but you appear to disagree.
Oh well, at least I've brought the issue up. If the community has no interest in fair elections, too bad. --78.35.237.178 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Your assertion that publishing late guides an advantage had one piece of evidence, Sandy's guide from this year. As I explained, her guide the year before was also the most popular. Explaining a constant with a change is an interesting exercise in logic; perhaps you have studied sociology or political science?
My point is that others are free to exploit this alleged advantage, so it is not a stable advantage. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Question-based guides like mine suffer under a deadline, since they're dependent on the candidates answering the questions in time. --Rschen7754 13:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Improper template in 2012

Monty's template stated that guides to other guides were ineligible, "based on the expected outcome of the RfC". When the RfC failed to find consensus to support Monty's statement, Monty's statement remained.

Monty and MBisanz, since you were aware of TParis's close of the RfC, why did you fail to update and correct Monty's mis-statement? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't update it because the close at the RFC is in tiny text referenced from the top of the RFC close that I read briefly a couple of times, but didn't sit and contemplate at length, also I didn't create {{ACE2012}} nor did I sit down and compare all of the various texts on the numerous ACE pages for consistency with the RFC; I hoped that if anyone saw a problem, they'd edit the problem themselves or tell me about the problem so I could fix it. I'll also note that the first time the discrepancy came up was today, after you, me and Hahc had mistakenly assumed it was in the RFC. MBisanz talk 21:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough! :) I agreed with Monty's assement of the RfC. Today, I am surprised that an administrator actually followed the letter and spirit of the consensus policy, rather than as usual going with a mild super-majority (as most administrators do), but my surprise was lessened when I recognized the administrator, for whose honor and duty I vouched more than a year ago.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for next year

I'd like to propose that election guides next year not be in userspace but elsewhere. My concern is that Sandy's election guide mentioned me, PumpkinSky, TCO, and Br'er Rabbit (under various names she chose to use in each case) some 50 times. Most of these mentions were in a negative light and gratuitous; none of the four individuals mentioned were candidates. I gave serious consideration to nominating Sandy's page for deletion as an attack page, which, let's face it, it was, but based on past experience, I felt it would generate more heat than light. Alternatively, a ban on the mention of non-candidates seems in order, especially when the user in question has been in repeated conflict with each of the users she mentions, as is true in this case.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

With the proliferation of socks and returning users under various names engaging in ongoing disruption of FAC (that was supported or ignored by arbs or arb candidates), it's a bit hard to refer to all of the involved without using the many names many times. Perhaps if users stuck to one name, the 50 could have been reduced. Sounds like a case of editcountitis, though. All of the issues mentioned pertained to arb candidates or arbcases. Wehwalt, your name was used once, to say that you started an RFC, and not in a negative light; if you had a problem with that, you could have pinged my talk and I could have switched it to passive voice. The only other mentions of your name were to add a link to talk to respond to your commentary. Exactly the same for TCO: one mention to say that he launched an RFC, nothing harmful. The others (Jack Merridew/B'rer Rabbit/Alarbus and his various socks, and deceptive returning user Rlevse/PumpkinSky) most certainly were factors in arbcases and arb conduct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense, three of them had never had any arbitration proceedings. If you wish to recommend arbitration candidates who will support your friends and go after your enemies, you are free to do so, but leave our names out of it. I suggest that in future, mentions of or references to people who are not arbitration candidates, members, or parties to accepted cases, not be allowed over their objection, especially when past conflict exists and is not or inadequately disclosed. Moving it outside userspace would allow for on-page rebuttal without worries over censorship.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. Rlevse/PumpkinSky was a former arb, returning in breach of RTV and revisiting an old grudge, and when questioned several sitting arbs were less than forthcoming on the matter. One arb was basically a bully. Merridew is a prolific sock who taunted and poked for months, revisiting an old grudge, switching account names when he encountered resistance to imposing his preferred citation style on articles, and the arbs have given us at least three different answers about why they allowed the disruption, taunting, switching of names to avoid detection to continue and whether they knew Alarbus was Merridew. Your facts are wrong. Further, the situation was complicated by Merridew and Rlevse joining together, with less than half a dozen users, to prolong the situation (until Merridew was community banned). Some arbs have said they knew it was him; others have denied that. We do not have a straight story yet about why a known previously sanctioned editor was allowed to visit months of taunting upon FAC, and why he was allowed to switch names to avoid detection as he sought to impose his preferred citation style on articles, although he was under sanction to stick to one account.

I mentioned you once, and TCO once, as having launched RFCs; I would have gladly switched those to passive voice if you had asked. I didn't see those statements as harmful; perhaps you do for reasons unknown.

So, it sounds like you would have preferred that I use passive voice on two occasions (RFCs were launched, without saying by whom), and you don't believe we can discuss prolific socks, disruptive users, community banned users or users violating RTV to revisit old grudges, and actions arbs took or failed to take wrt those users, when discussing election issues? In your opinion, then, what can we discuss in evaluating the fitness of an arb to continue in the position or be elected to the position? Are those not the very matters they are elected to decide? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My proposal for an ACE policy partially addresses this concern by prohibiting questions that reference the questioner's behavior or past interactions with the candidates. I'm not sure about how to fix the specific situation the two of you are talking about though. MBisanz talk 01:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Any number of ways. Allowing the election coordinators to delete, either on request or sua sponte, attack material. Allowing same-page rebuttal to anyone who is not an arb candidate, member in the past year, or party to an accepted case whose name is dragged in. I'm not responding to Sandy's claims of "disruption" btw although they are false, because I'm trying to keep the topic on this issue. Allowing such pages to be used for grudges is not likely to advance the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You (and anyone else who engaged) had same-page rebuttal on my guide; in fact, that accounts for two additional uses of your name, as I specifically pointed a link to talk. Every candidate who questioned my arb guide had a same-page link posted to their rebuttal; there was nothing hidden out of sight, nothing on talk that wasn't linked from the same page.

So, if we cannot discuss sitting arbs or candidates positions wrt prolific socks and returning users violating CLEANSTART and RTV, in your opinion, why not? Are these not exactly the matters we elect arbs to decide? And had those arbs answered the questions (which to this day, some have not; we still have at least three different accounts, two of which are from arbs I have never known to lie or shade the truth), there would have been nothing left to visit on my arb guide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For example, if permitted rebuttal, PumpkinSky might have pointed out that he was blocked at 0000 on 2 February two minutes after Sandy cried out for his block in this conversation by an administrator who in that conversation had referred to PumpkinSky as an "idiot" and a "dingus". That might have affected how voters viewed Sandy's comments, since she was not upfront about her conflicts with PumpkinSky. Or anyone else, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, your claim again that I somehow got Moni3 to block Rlevse (oh, my, AGF much?), ignoring that even Elen of the Roads defended the block as correct. If PumpkinSky had asked for that rebuttal, it would have been linked and discussed. Broken AGFometer and false allegations against Moni3 and all. You want Moni3 mentioned now, but just a few minutes ago, you were saying that people who weren't candidates shouldn't be mentioned. Which is it? Moni3 had nothing to do with arb elections; do you want her mentioned or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Further. I have never asked Moni3 (or any admin, for that matter) to take any action on my behalf, nor would I ever do that. So stop making that allegation; put up or shut up. Your claim that I got Moni3 to block Rlevse is a blatant failure to AGF and a personal attack on both Moni3 and myself. Nonetheless, had anyone asked on my guide, they would have been allowed that rebuttal, as I did in every case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Good. I accept the assurance you would have allowed redaction or rebuttal in the same spirit of AGF you extend. In that case there is no reason not to have an explicit right of rebuttal or redaction in future and perhaps MBisanz can draft appropriate language. (and your "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" comment including " I've been ... ummmmm ... informed that Rlevse still has friends in powerful places. Not only has there been no block, there's not even a tag on his page. Yay ANI !!! So, what's the next step for getting this account blocked?" speaks for itself, doesn't it?) (and I didn't mention Moni3 by name. You did.)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to "accept my assurance"; you can look at my guide and see every comment, rebuttal, query specifically linked, noticeably. You are wanting to have it both ways. Disclose any previous biases (which I went to great and verbose pains to do), but don't talk about who launched RFCs. Don't talk about non-candidates, but do talk about Moni3's block (which has what to do with the price of beans in China?) Which is it; your message is inconsistent, and there was never a rebuttal problem on my guide. Had you asked me not to say who launched RFCs, I could have left out those names. Is this just about you taking the opportunity to spread your upset about cleanup on a TFA to yet another (fourth) page, where you can sully Moni3's name at the same time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad we've agreed in future years editors should have rights when they are abusively dragged in to political polemics. Given that, I see no point in extending the conversation.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like "have you stopped beating your wife yet"? And God surely knows that changing two inaccurate lefts to rights in an image caption after you unwatched was no skin off my back. Seriously, Wehwalt, you should learn to let go of things once in a while so you don't grow old before your time. Or at least stop using every opportunity you can find to revisit done business. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
At any rate, MBisanz, I think it's been conclusively demonstrated from the above the need for such a provision as I suggest. Please let me know when you propose yours; if you do not include a provision, I will suggest an amendemnt.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a note to say that MBisanz's draft policy is a huge step forward. Once these small issues are resolved, I do hope the community will generate consensus to adopt it. Tony (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that guide writers should commit to keep track of the ongoing question/answer process and update their guides as appropriate. If, for example, someone writes a guide with recommendations based only on the candidates' nomination statements and their answers to the standard questions, and never revisits their initial impressions based on the good or bad things the candidates say in response to later questions, they're not (IMO) helping the community as effectively as if they would see how the candidates handle additional questions and then revise their ratings up or down accordingly. If a guide writer really doesn't want to do this for some reason, I suppose that's OK, but they should make it very clear that they're basing their comments solely on initial responses (or solely on candidates' responses to one specific set of questions), so readers will be fully informed and can weigh the usefulness of that particular guide appropriately. — Richwales 20:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Archive_1"