Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011

2011 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

• Thank you for participating in the 2011 Arbitration Committee Election. The results have been verified and published.
• Please offer your feedback on the Election process.

Timetable for ACE2011

The topic of the timetable for the Arbitration Committee Elections for 2011 is being discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Last-minute change in number of seats

Per User:Iridescent's departure and as indicated by ArbCom (see here), there will now be 7 open seats up for grabs for this year's ArbCom election. –MuZemike 00:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If for any reason another vacancy occurs before the end of the election, a question not considered by the RFC will arise regarding how long the term for the 8th seat will be. If there are no further vacancies, the 8th seat question will not arise until the next election. Monty₈₄₅ 00:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Might have to ask the election admins for a ruling if it happens. Tony (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have notified TParis, who closed the relevant section of the RFC, of this discussion. I don't think the election admins would be the ones to decide, they are appointed only to oversee the actual vote. If there is no consensus in the election RFC, then I think we would need to start a new RFC to determine the term length, if that seat ends up needing to be filled. Monty₈₄₅ 15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this should even be an issue. The issue WAS how to get from tranches that were unbalanced (9/6) to tranches that are as balanced as possible (8/7) in light of the reduction of the ArbCom size to an odd number. Now that issue has resolved itself: Tranche Alpha (NewYorkBrad etc.) has 8 members and Tranche Beta has 7. We should just "accept" that gift from fate, and then if any more vacancies arise in Alpha before the end of the election, they will be filled in the election for the one year remaining in the term, and then next year the 8 seats in Alpha will be up for election. Does it really have to be any more complicated than that? Does there really need to be an RfC on whether the tranches are 8/7 or 7/8? It just seems so trivial and there surely are much more productive things we can all be doing with our time on Wikipedia than worrying about that. Neutron (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what Tony1 is getting at is that adding a seat during the election is equivalent to "moving up the goalposts" and making it easier for candidates to get in. –MuZemike 19:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get around to it, but I had in mind proposing that the number of vacancies be fixed on the opening of nominations, to prevent resignations or removals during the election that might be seen as tactical or politically-motivated. Barring mass-resignations, I still think this should be the way to go (i.e. fix open seats at 7 come what may). Skomorokh 15:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Identification to the Wikimedia Foundation

This should be required at least while vote counting. This is just to remove the possibility of a person getting kicked out after 1 month. Not likely, but possible. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 00:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reasoning behind the scheduling of the elections is that successful candidates will have sufficient time between the posting of results and 1 January (when new members are seated) to provide their identifying information to the WMF. Risker (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Although candidates could consider digging out their driving license or passport and getting it scanned now, so they can email it when asked. :) PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea of mandating that the candidates identify themselves ahead of time was put forward but did not receive consensus in the RfC. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

URGENT objection

• "Has a registered account and has had at least 150 mainspace edits by 1 November 2011"

Though nomination already has started, I want to make an urgent objection. The word "mainspace" should be removed, as it sees mainspace and other (template, discussion, Wikipedia, etc) as inequal. PaoloNapolitano 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of your position, the RFC established a clear community consensus for the requirement of 150 mainspace edits. If you want the RFC consensus overruled, you would need a community wide discussion on the issue, and I think it is unlikely you would be able to establish consensus before the end of the nominating period, if at all. Monty₈₄₅ 20:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And you knowingly participated in the WP:ACERFC, which you could have objected to this back then. I have a hard time trying to AGF that you weren't aware of that. –MuZemike 23:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine a user not noticing the "mainspace" in the RFC and thinking it applied to any edits. Regardless, though, the results of the RFC stand, and they require 150 mainspace edits. We can't be changing the rules after the nominations start. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Who will remove Paolo's candidature, which cannot be accepted under our eligibility rules? AGK [•] 23:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. Secret ^account 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will not make too much fuss about it. Count me in next year, I will keep on as an outside watchdog for another year.... PaoloNapolitano 13:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitewide notice

This year's elections seem pretty quiet. Should we have a sitewide notice (similar to stewards elections earlier this year) to attract more editors? - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably. We need more candidates. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 11:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, last year about half the candidates came forward in the last day and a half or so of the nomination period. There is a lot of 'waiting to see who else steps up' going on right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-11-14/News_and_notes#Call_for_candidates_in_the_ArbCom_elections – Hopefully those not seeing the watchlist notice will read the Signpost. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The RFC close stated that the sitewide notice should only be for the voting phase. Monty₈₄₅ 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't specifically listed in the RFC, but would adding the nomination period to WP:CENT be appropriate? Just a thought.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar thought, but editors are rather insistent that that particular tool be used for discussions, not announcements. If nominations are very slow in coming we can do a wider round of announcements before the weekend. Skomorokh 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Create a candidate statement" button

You would have more candidate standing if you unblocked the "create a candidate statement" button. Every time I click on it, it then takes me to a page saying that teh page I want is blocked, and can only be played with by admins. How can I put forward my candidacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about exactly how you were stopped from creating a nomination? If there is a problem I would like to fix it. Also, note that you clearly do not meet the candidate edibility criteria. Monty₈₄₅ 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Thehistorian10 is referring to "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/". That page was deleted and then protected after someone accidentally created it. Thehistorian10 probably forgot to insert his or her username after the slash character. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you place your username (without the "User:" prefix) after that last slash. That will take you to a candidate page with your own username in front of it. Hope that helps. –MuZemike 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be good for Thehistorian10 to review the eligibility requirements listed here prior to putting more effort into submitting a nomination. –xeno^talk 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Geni and alternate accounts

According to our standing instructions for candidates, the Arbitration policy, and the pre-election RfC, one of the requirements of standing for election is that the prospective candidate disclose any alternate accounts in their nomination statement. In the case of Geni (see nomination), the candidate has indicated that their disclosure might not be complete, as they can't recall all past accounts used. So technically, this would seem at odds with the candidates' requirements, and barring spontaneous memory recovery does not look like being resolved, which leaves us in a bit of bind as to the candidacy.

On the one hand, the rules are clear and supported by consensus, and while I think in Geni's case (given the number of alts and their long history of contributions) the omission is genuine and innocuous, to create a precedent that "I forgot that account" would leave the door open for evasions by unscrupulous candidates in future.

On the other hand, to bar the community from judging a candidate of long-established stature whose history of alternate account usage is very well known on a technicality might be unfair on the candidate and a detriment to the elections at large.

I didn't think it appropriate that this be decided by a handful of volunteer election co-ordinators so I am bringing it here for the community's decision. If you agree with the assessment that the statement does not meet the requirements, should we IAR in this case? Thank you for your consideration, on behalf of the co-ordinators, Skomorokh 12:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly an unusual case and this meets the spirit of the rule, so IAR. Why someone would need to disclose an account that isn't actively being used or hasn't been significantly used in the past in any case is, to my mind, bizarre, but I didn't write the RfC statement. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a bot account, and a public sock, but I can't guarantee that I didn't make a doppelganger or two; I just don't remember. When you've been editing for several years, that's the sort of thing you start forgetting. :/ --Rschen7754 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the reason for this is so we can judge the human (not the account); given that, any old accounts which are practically unused shouldn't be a big deal unless they were to reveal some major problems. I'd say that any account which wasn't used against the rules of WP:SOCK, was never blocked, and wasn't used in the past couple years is probably irrelevant. And the entry "A significant chunk of the first page of Special:ListUsers are mine created to push some rather abusive usernames off the first page" (currently the last one) clearly indicates that their purpose is reasonable; these were nearly all made before account creation was logged (September 2005). I see no reason why this requirement should prevent Geni from running. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Preloader error led to candidate discussion pages bearing trailing slashes

The preloader had an error leading to all the discussion pages being created with trailing slashes [1]. Could someone do the needful and move them all to the proper locations? –xeno^talk 19:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the actual voting procedure?

As usual, there is no indication of what the actual voting procedure is - how many votes do you have, can you oppose as well as support, etc. As usual I can't remember from last time. It would bwe useful to explain this in advance of the voting opening, so that voters can bear it in mind when considering. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point John, I'll sort an explanation out tomorrow. Skomorokh 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A small but entertaining number of people impersonating the candidates

Hi folks! One might imagine that most well-balanced people are busy getting on with contributing to the encyclopedia, and obsessing over the arbcom elections would be the furthest thing from their minds. However, the candidates should congratulate themselves that some people, at least, are very interested in what they think or what others think about them. Some jokers (or perhaps just people from that part of the world) have been using IRC to impersonate candidates in this year's elections and approach editors privately under false pretences. (Gasp, shock, horror, chiz chiz, etc.)

So, for those of you who are so de-sensitised to things like the recent series of drunken monologues about Libyan politics that you still tolerate IRC, do be aware that most people who approach you with a flimsy excuse as to why they are signed in with a different username than usual, are not who they say they are. For a week or two.

An oversighter/checkuser (I forget which, they might be both) and operator on the channel in question, has been given all the relevant details. They reacted by taking a nap, presumably to ensure heightened alertness for dealing with further occurrences of this problem later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly are they doing? Seeking bribes for favors to be granted by their namesakes once elected? Or what? Neutron (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it didn't get that far, since "hi I typed my name wrong but oh well" isn't the sort of thing I treat as a very convincing explanation. Hopefully no-one else will either... the above note is just for those who might be slightly more forgetful of such caution :D --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Could a coordinator please withdraw my candidacy? I have posted a lengthier explanation on my talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 02:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)