Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-19/Arbitration report
Discuss this story
I wonder if the increasing intensity of ArbCom cases and onsite disputes are what contributed to the reduction in interest... Stifle (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a crappy job that tends toward burnout. The job is actually to deal with the thorniest and stupidest issues on the entire encyclopedia. Think of it as taking one's turn in the barrel - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- They could make things a lot easier for themselves by insisting on succinctness, getting rid of the so-called workshop page, and conflating the "principles" section of each judgement down to one or two votes. WRT the text, which has been altered, SecurePoll did not make "expressing an opinion on each candidate mandatory": SecurePoll has always provided for default "neutral" and (this year) "no vote" buttons. The instructions explicitly say that this default will have no effect on the voting tally. Tony (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- No kidding. They've got these enormous processes and then they slow those down and drag those out. Muhammed Images is about a one week case, exactly three well-placed topic bans and a little menacing growling and it's resolved. Now watch them take four months to fail to fix the problem. WAAAAAAY too much personal politics... Carrite (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- They could make things a lot easier for themselves by insisting on succinctness, getting rid of the so-called workshop page, and conflating the "principles" section of each judgement down to one or two votes. WRT the text, which has been altered, SecurePoll did not make "expressing an opinion on each candidate mandatory": SecurePoll has always provided for default "neutral" and (this year) "no vote" buttons. The instructions explicitly say that this default will have no effect on the voting tally. Tony (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow, half of the elected candidates got under 50% support, and the other half were not much above that watermark. How's that for consensus? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- The news article should have clarified what it meant by 'percent of support' . The eight successful candidates all individually got more supports than opposes, so in common sense terms they all got above 50% support. The pie charts seem to be using 'all votes cast' as the denominator (i.e. total number of boxes checked by all voters combined), and to use that to compute 'percent of support' seems unusual. For a more understandable summary, see the 'percentage' column in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011#Results. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed: ArbCom needs reformation. ResMar 05:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)