Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:56, 18 November 2013

2013 Arbitration Committee Elections

Shortcut

WP:ACE2013

Status

Thank you for participating in the 2013 Arbitration Committee Election. Results are available here.
Please offer your feedback on the Election process.

For the enjoyment of complaining

I have no idea what's going on here. Luckily I don't care about the arbitration committee, so it doesn't matter that much -- but I'm a pretty smart guy and don't think I could make heads or tails of this page without intense study, which could say something about what other uninitiateds are seeing. Of course, there's also the possibility that I'm simply not as smart as I thought I was, in which case you may want to disregard this. Contributors may nevertheless want to take the approach that stuff like this should be written with dumb people in mind. Pretend your audience has not one iota of a flippin' clue what a "tranche" is, for instance. Also the timeline graphic is made more confusing by its 8-bit kerning (what the hell is a cardidate?). equazcion → 08:46, 10 Nov 2013 (UTC)

I think "tranche" is a word that someone decided, long ago (before my time), should be the word that Wikipedia uses instead of the more common "class" or "group" to refer to the, er, classes of arbitrators whose terms expire in different years. Personally I think the vast majority of readers can figure out what it means from the context. As far as I know, nobody has ever bothered to try to change it, though when I am writing about the subject in the annual election RfC's, I usually say "tranches or classes" because the word "tranche" does seem awkward to me. (Someone else in the RfC this year pointed out that, outside Wikipedia, the term only seems to be used in the context of a certain type of financing transaction, and I have never seen it used outside the financing context either.) But as I said, it is one of those things people seem to just live with. Neutron (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be changed. I have three college degrees and I still had to look up "tranche" in the dictionary. I'm guessing it comes out of Wales' work in finance. And also, in previous iterations, there were different tranches for different lengths of time (one year, two year, three year) and each tranche had a different name. As it is now, it should simply say that 8 Arbitrators are elected each year for terms of two years and if there are vacancies from the previous year's class/cohort, there will be X openings for a one year term.

Maybe the Election Committee could make this change? I think it is confusing language for people who've never participated in an Arbitration Committee Election before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think this is a big issue, but I am adding the parenthetical term "(groups)" after "tranches", so if anybody really can't tell what "tranches" means from the context (or from the new link to Wiktionary), it might be clearer to them. I would not remove the word "tranche" because, whether we like it or not, that is the word that Wikipedia editors have been seeing in this context for years - perhaps as long as the committee has existed. This way everybody will be happy. (Just kidding, I know nobody is ever happy.) Neutron (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voter guide on banned user's talk page?

Since Kiefer.Wolfowitz is currently under an indefinite ban (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds#Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned), I seriously question whether he should be maintaining an ACE2013 voter guide on his talk page (see User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Voting guide: Arbitration Election 2013). What do others think? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a static complaint I'd leave it alone, but a banned user using userspace to actively maintain a project should probably be gone. I think are are maybe 3 people watching this page, so you should post this at ANI. equazcion → 22:07, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Okay 13 people. Still, though. equazcion → 22:07, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

(ec) He wrote a good guide in 2012 (and was polite enough to say that mine was better). Does being banned change his ability to observe? The position at the receiving end of sanctions might add a different viewpoint, I can tell you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Banning Policy says that a site-banned editor "is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia", with the single exception that editors may appeal their ban via their talk page. This particular editor was indefinitely banned, by the Arbitration Committee, and must wait until at least next August before he is allowed to ask ArbCom to end his ban. The prohibition on site-banned editors using their own talk pages is frequently not enforced in practice — but in this case the user is (IMO) actively attempting to engage the community, not only by putting together recommendations for voting in the upcoming election, but also by tagging his "voter guide" with a category tag that may presumably cause his material to be included in the list of voter guides.

Since I am standing in this election, and Kiefer's comments are highly critical of my candidacy, I realize some people may see a conflict of interest in my bringing up the issue. That's why I chose to discuss it here and see what other people think, rather than taking it straight to WP:ANI or some other enforcement forum. I also realize that since the prohibition on site-banned editors soapboxing on their talk pages is not consistently enforced, the consensus might be that it's OK for Kiefer to say whatever he wants on his talk page, but not OK for him to try to get his "voter guide" listed amongst the officially recognized guides. If people think Kiefer has crossed the line and ought to have his talk page access blocked, I think it might be better if someone else (other than I) were to bring the issue to ANI. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this. equazcion → 23:21, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

I am posting a link to this discussion (and the one that Equazcion started at ANI) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Coordination, which seems to be the right place to get the attention of the people running the election. At least, that is where you go when you click on "Contact the coordinators" on the election template. It seems that nobody has actually signed up to be a "coordinator" yet, but we do have three appointed Election Commissioners, and I would say this is an issue for them. (And I would also say the real issue is not that the user in question is posting about the election on his talk page, but that his talk page is listed in the Voter Guide section of the "official" election template.) Neutron (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is now being discussed in multiple fora and should be centralized. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like his Talk Page access has been revoked. I understand why but I found his guide interesting to read. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better chart?

Since I complained about the timeline's readability, I thought I might do something about it. The timeline coding is pretty limited, and normal-sized text just comes out all stupid looking, but I managed to mangle it into something that I think is more readable: Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent/sandbox. If anyone thinks that version is better they can feel free to replace the current one, or let me know and I'll do it. equazcion → 23:38, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought about doing that when I saw your post above, and actually went into edit mode on the template - and immediately realized it was nothing that I should be touching with a ten-foot pole. I figured that a technical-type person like you would come along and fix what I would probably only break more. It is definitely more readable without the distracting spacing issues (and doesn't smash letters together, so no more "Cardidate".) The only thing I would point out is that the phrase in the introduction, "on one screen without scrolling", may no longer be accurate depending on one's browser settings. I had to shrink everything down two levels, but I guess I usually have my browser set on can't-see-very-well-even-with-glasses. And actually at that size it is now much more readable than it was before, so I would say, please post it. Since it is still possible to see it on one screen (even though someone might have to change browser settings), I guess the description can remain as is. Neutron (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I view Wikipedia at 125 per cent magnification (running Vector skin on Chrome) and the sandbox version has about a quarter of the chart out of sight to the right. If I scroll over to the point where the tool bar on the left disappears, it fits on the screen very nicely. It looks good in mobile view. Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart shows the whole works on one screen, but is too tiny and blurry for me to to read. Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent is also quite blurry on my set-up. My preference would be the sandbox version -- Diannaa (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) I tried to keep the size down, but it seems the timeline coding is so limited that there's not much to be done about it -- it's either small enough to cause the text issues or large enough to bleed into scrolling territory for some users. I think the latter is the lesser of the two evils though. I will post it but I'll remove the message, since most users are likely to leave it at the default browser size and scroll to view it, if their screen resolution calls for it. Thanks for the feedback :) equazcion → 00:50, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the "Recent" chart is only supposed to show enough years to include the beginning of each currently sitting arbitrator's term; so we can actually knock two years off the start, which would make it more compact. Happy‑melon 11:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the decision and shorten it so it is more readable, Happy‑melon, but do you know where I could find data about previous years ARBCOM compositions from previous years? I would love to see some actual election results but it appears in early years, the "winners" were just announced without knowing how they ranked or what their approval percentage was. I've gone to previous election pages but I was wondering if this data was elsewhere. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found the original at Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart that shows the history of ARBCOM elections (although some names are unreadable. If you knew where I could find election totals (numbers), I'd really appreciate it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow the link to each election at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee elections. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad, I've already gone through the categories and pages. It's just that sometimes I find information has actually been posted to a different location (like to Signpost or Jimmy Wales' talk page. For example, I've found some data on Wikipedia on an editor's subpages and the user isn't active any longer. It was a complete accident that I stumbled upon it. And being a regular Editor, I have no idea what information is on pages which have been deleted.

I thought someone familiar with older elections (before 2007) might remember if this was the case here. I'm going through a discussion now about deleting old administration pages and putting my pitch in for keeping them for archival purposes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cut down the chart as Happy-melon suggested. equazcion → 12:50, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Q. Why does the chart state "Dec 2013 top 8 Candidates" and "Dec 2013 9th place"?

I could probably explain this better if I understood it fully myself, but according to my reading of the vacant seats section, the top 8 candidates get 2-year terms, while the 9th place candidate gets a 1-year term. equazcion → 14:20, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

In other words, 9 candidates will be elected. The one of those who comes in last (the one with the least votes out of those nine?) only gets a one-year term. The other eight all get two-year terms. But I'll let someone who actually knows what they're talking about confirm this. equazcion → 14:24, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

The 8 in the bottom section were elected in Dec 2011 and have sat for 2 years so they are out of a job (unless re-elected) when the new AC takes over. So the chart reference (appreciate not made by you) to "Dec 2013" is misleading. I agree with your sentiments way up top. The whole thing is as clear as mud and shrouded in oblique language. Leaky Caldron 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying it's unclear that the arbs elected in 2011 are now up for re-election, yeah, I'd have to agree. If I understood this whole thing better I'd give the whole page a rewrite with simpler language. I'm not sure what could be done about the timeline though -- I'm not sure if a timeline is the best way to illustrate what's happening here, not to mention the timeline extension's dilapidated workings. equazcion → 14:38, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Lowest turnout for candidates ever?

Perhaps I haven't paid as much attention to arbcom elections as others, but unless I'm mistaken, so far we have the lowest turnout for candidacies for arbcom since it was founded. I can think of a dozen excellent candidates but I doubt they would be interested.--MONGO 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are behind 1 from this point last year, so it is too soon to say. Often, candidates wait until the later half of the nominating period before announcing. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to pose this question, for those who are familiar with previous elections, Monty, if this was an unusually low number of candidates. Are there typically a lot of Editors filing statements on the last day? Also, it seems like in previous elections, the nomination period was longer (two weeks?) but I can't recall when that changed. Having such a short nominating period means that you'll mainly get candidates who've been thinking about running for a long time along with candidates who are acting more impulsively (nothing wrong with that if they are a strong candidate!). There is less time to go lobby Editors who you'd think would be good candidates, to persuade them to run.

Also, MONGO, I know of at least two (could be three) candidates who have already withdrawn. I think the level of experience and tenure on Wikipedia from the candidates who are still running in the election is pretty high. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any hard figures, but as a rule of thumb, candidacies are announced disproportionately very early or very late, with few in the middle period. Hence, I suppose, the belief that the length of the nomination period is not overly important, since a longer period just produces a larger 'middle' section... Happy‑melon 21:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Happy‑melon...there is so much regarding the way things work at Wikipedia that isn't written down anywhere. It's part of the "collective memory" that is probably buried in talk page comments. This turnout led me to wonder if there might not even be nine candidates running! I guess in this case, Wales would appoint some people. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without delving into past history and past dramas, I doubt that Jimbo would appoint people to the committee who were not elected. I remember reading something about the idea that, if the Arbitration Committee believed that it had been left with an insufficient number of members, Jimbo would consider calling a special election. More generally, I suspect that if it turns out that there are fewer than nine candidates, there will be a great deal of discussion about a large number of possibilities, ranging from... well, let's not even go there unless and until we have to. Let's just say that if it does happen, the resulting controversy will be the Next Big Thing on Wikipedia. But there is still a week to go before the deadline for nominations. I am hoping there will be at least 18 candidates. Neutron (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that last year 13/21 candidates passed the 50% cutoff. While it is certainly better to have an abundance of acceptable candidates, that we can seat those with the highest supports, based on last year's numbers, we would need only 15 candidates to fill the 9 seats. If it looks like it may be close, perhaps voters could be encouraged to oppose sparingly, but I agree we should see what the field looks like at the close of nominations before worrying too much. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 9 or fewer candidates then there is no reason for those who oppose for tactical reasons to do so and very little with only 10. My gut feeling is that those who vocally vote tactically are a greater proportion of all vocal voters than those who silently vote tactically are of all silent voters, but I obviously have no way of knowing whether that is true. Certainly if I am wrong then a small electoral field is more likely to demonstrate this than a large field. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~There would still be a reason for voting tactically - to try to stop people you don't like getting 50% -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

(No, forget that, I'm misusing "tactical" there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe you were misusing "tactical", but that is what a lot of people on Wikipedia seem to think it means. Personally, I don't worry about whether voting is "tactical" or not, because there is nothing wrong with "tactical" voting. All voting is designed to achieve some objective, and it is the voter's business what the objective is. Neutron (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - nothing wrong with it at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with tactical voting. My point simply was that if there is no tactical voting then in theory there should be fewer oppose votes. The reason being that there are two reasons to oppose - (1) because you think the candidate would not be suitable for arbcom, and (2) because you think a different candidate would be better suited. If every candidate with >=50% support is guaranteed a seat then there is no reason to oppose for reason 2. Indeed, if people only support their favourite N candidates there is a greater chance of any individual candidate being in that N. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there are still only 9 candidates, I've taken the liberty of dropping reminders that the nomination period is almost up at WP:AN WP:VPM WT:ARB/N and WT:ARB, mentioning the current nu,ber of candidates. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extra link

I want to link a userpage essay that I want to create (as nobody bothered to ask any questions) explaining my liberal position of the administrative job, and the risk of me "resigning" during my term, which given my history in the project, I feel I need to give a long explanation and its a major concern from voters. Is it still possible to link it to my candidate statement once I write it. Thanks Secret ^account 02:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, as long as you tacked it onto the end and noted you added it later. I'm not a coordinator though, so take that with a grain of salt. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will discuss this with the other commissioners. Giant Snowman 12:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Secret: - what is your actual concern here i.e. what policy/guideline are you afraid you might violate? Giant Snowman 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should ACE2013 guides make "ratings" of other guides with personal comments or charges about the authors thereof?

Is it proper to "rate" other guides on the basis of personal comments about the person who has not yet even written any ratings of any candidates? I am affronted by one user whose guide says to ignore my unwritten ratings on the basis that I was added to a case after the workshop and evidence phases were completed -- thus (apparently?) making any ratings I offer to be anathema. I suggest that each guide should stick to issues about candidates, and not make personal comments about other editors who are not candidates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:, please can you be more specific so we can look into this further? Feel free to e-mail us. Giant Snowman 12:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] shows the diff in question from, of all people, an ArbCom clerk trainee!. It calls my POV "extreme" and says I was a "party" to Lord Voldemort (I was warned in no uncertain terms to even avoid mentioning the "case" by the way) and that this "greatly affects my guide" which is interesting as I have not yet written a single rating of any candidate whatsoever! I suggest, in fact, that his own utility as a clerk is now moot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see the issue with this, as I believe that I had issues with your 2012 guide. But I have removed the section anyway. My role as a clerk has nothing to do with this; clerks have written guides, and are writing guides. --Rs chen 7754 20:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you referred specifically to a recent case as being the problem -- and that my views are "extreme" -- I ask you to note that this is still a problem from my point of view, as I find the possibility that a clerk would have such prejudice about any editor to be exceedingly distasteful, just as I would find any ArbCom candidate showing such prejudice about any editor to be, frankly, unqualified for any position of trust. And you did not remove the claim that some ACE2013 essays are "extreme" and so your "redaction" is actually pretty much wertlos. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks always have the option to recuse from a case, and if you are concerned about this in a future proceeding you are involved in, you can always ask for it. As I recall, the TPM case was before my time as a clerk. In addition to this, the userbox at the top of your page is what I was basing my concerns on; I don't think that was improper. But I'm not going to fight this. --Rs chen 7754 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from the WMF

The WMF wishes to make the following statement, in response to questions raised on my talk page.

The Wikimedia Foundation has been asked to clarify and/or expand on a previous decision of the legal team, specifically that the Foundation would not allow users to have Checkuser or Oversight rights added to the user account of a user who had not passed a request for adminship or an equally rigorous community selection process.

Our legal and community advocacy team has been asked whether running for (and winning) a seat on the Arbitration Committee would meet the "rigorous community selection process" test, and therefore qualify an elected ArbCom member for Checkuser/Oversight rights. We believe that being elected to ArbCom is an involved process that strongly demonstrates community trust, and that there is a reasonable expectation that Arbitration Committee members on the English Wikipedia's Arbcom will hold those tools, except in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, we will not object to the assignment of checkuser/oversight tools to any user who runs for, wins, and is seated on the Arbitration Committee.
Respectfully,
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy

I am, of course, open to clarification, though I'm traveling tomorrow, so it may be a couple of days. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 ::::Yet you referred ''specifically'' to a recent case as being the problem -- and that my views are "extreme" -- I ask you to note that this ''is'' still a problem from my point of view, as I find the possibility that a clerk would have such prejudice about any editor to be exceedingly distasteful, just as I would find any ArbCom candidate showing such prejudice about any editor to be, frankly, ''unqualified for any position of trust''.   And you did ''not'' remove the claim that ''some ACE2013 essays are "extreme"'' and so your "redaction" is actually pretty much ''wertlos''. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 :::::Clerks always have the option to recuse from a case, and if you are concerned about this in a future proceeding you are involved in, you can always ask for it. As I recall, the TPM case was before my time as a clerk. In addition to this, the userbox at the top of your page is what I was basing my concerns on; I don't think that was improper. But I'm not going to fight this. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
+== Statement from the WMF ==
+The WMF wishes to make the following statement, in response to questions raised on my talk page.
+-----
+The Wikimedia Foundation has been asked to clarify and/or expand on a previous decision of the legal team, specifically that the Foundation would not allow users to have Checkuser or Oversight rights added to the user account of a user who had not passed a request for adminship or an equally rigorous community selection process.
+Our legal and community advocacy team has been asked whether running for (and winning) a seat on the Arbitration Committee would meet the "rigorous community selection process" test, and therefore qualify an elected ArbCom member for Checkuser/Oversight rights. We believe that being elected to ArbCom is an involved process that strongly demonstrates community trust, and that there is a reasonable expectation that Arbitration Committee members on the English Wikipedia's Arbcom will hold those tools, except in exceptional circumstances.  Therefore, we will not object to the assignment of checkuser/oversight tools to any user who runs for, wins, and is seated on the Arbitration Committee.<br />
+Respectfully,<br />
+Philippe Beaudette<br />
+Director, Community Advocacy
+-----
+I am, of course, open to clarification, though I'm traveling tomorrow, so it may be a couple of days.  [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 23:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)