Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Coordination

Coordinator resources

Responsibilities of coordinators

• Quickly and accurately responding to questions and problems raised at the election talkpage.
• Setting up and monitoring the required candidate pages.
• Identifying and stopping disruption (mostly in the form of inappropriate commentary and questions from voters, edit warring and so on).

Useful links

• ACE2009 to get an idea of what is in store.
• Feedback 2009 the feedback from last year's election.
• 2010 RfC on Voting This year's consensus on voting.

Suit up, test drivers needed

I've been tinkering with the process candidates need to go through to get their nomination statements and question pages set up, and could use some feedback on the process. I'd be obliged if you could go to WP:ACE2010, roleplay like you're a candidate looking to stand or a voter trying to find out how to ask a question and let me know how it goes. Cheers, Skomorokh 18:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do captain. I'll take two hours since I have to balance doing a good job with this and not getting caught by my boss, but I'll do a run. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it Sven. Skomorokh 19:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(false bug report removed) Right, so everything worked fine for me. I placed a 'you're at the wrong place' style warning message in the pages where people would land if they forgot to insert their username during the assisted submissions sections, so what happened to me the first time shouldn't happen again. My test candidacy is up, I posed a question on example's page, so I'm pretty sure that I've done a full run. I'd like someone to check it over though, and not just because I want someone to read my exceedingly bad submission statement. More because knowing myself, I'm quite sure I managed to miss something. Hope everything goes well, Sven Manguard _Talk 07:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we still need that test, or should we get rid of the candidacies for Sven Manguard and Example now? Sven Manguard _Talk 23:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Shame on you people. We got caught with our pants down here, and my reputation is in tatters now... I'm ruined forever... RUINED!!! </sarcasm>

Seriously though, this shouldn't have happened. I feel silly about the whole affair. Please make sure that this page is watchlisted and that we continue to communicate with each other. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 19:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's absolutely trivial Sven, don't sweat it. And thanks again for testing out the interface. Skomorokh 19:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If I really cared about it, I wouldn't have used my <sarcasm> tag on the above comment. Thanks for the moral support, but I think I'll live. I do regret not being able to save the "gangsta rap" though. I think it would have been fun to work on in my spare time. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunday's RfC Closing

We should probably prep the RfC for closing. If I remember correctly, when MuZemike set it up, he stated that he only wanted it to run for a week so that there would be time for any changes to be made before the submissions begin. That week would end tomorrow (Sunday.) Based on the current climate in the RFA, I'm thinking the following:

1. Statement by Will Beback (for doing SecurePoll again this year) is adopted as formal policy for the 2010 election, consensus of 75% (opposed to Statement by Angus McLellan.) It's 74 to 23 now, assuming all the votes are legitimate and nothing changes (which, of course, it will before Sunday, if only because I am saying this).
2. Statement by Risker (felf nom and support > oppose requirements) is adopted as formal policy for the 2010 election. No direct comparison to weigh against for consensus, and wide support for it.
3. Statement by Neutron (no withdrawing once voting has started) is adopted as formal policy for the 2010 election. No direct comparison to weigh against for consensus, and wide support for it.
4. Statement by Hipocrite (none of the above) is confirmed as a community consensus, and we should do our best to get in for the 2010 election. Failing that, we harass the developers mercilessly for a year so it winds up in the 2011 election.

   Risker and Hipocrite's statements are not in direct conflict with one another, although the question of what were to happen if none of the above won a plurality has yet to be firmly addressed and resolved.

5. Statement by Od Mishehu (voting one at a time, rather than all at once) is confirmed as a community consensus, although a weaker one that Hipocrite's or Risker's. We should do our best to get in for the 2010 election. Failing that, we harass the developers mercilessly for a year so it winds up in the 2011 election. If only enough time for one of the changes to be made exists, priority goes to Hipocrite's.
6. Statement by Seraphimblade (ability to see and confirm your own votes) is confirmed as a community consensus, although a weaker one that Hipocrite's or Risker's. We should do our best to get in for the 2010 election. Failing that, we harass the developers mercilessly for a year so it winds up in the 2011 election. If only enough time for one of the changes to be made exists, priority goes to Hipocrite's, then to Od Mishehu's, then this (unless this overtakes Od's in support in the next day, of course).

I don't see any other things with enough support to act upon. I'd appreciate it if another one of you did the write up, preferabally UltraExactZZ or 7, as they are the only two coordinators that didn't comment in the RfA. Skomorokh only commented once, if the others are unwilling or unable. Tony, Fetchcomms, and I have participated heavily, which may present the illusion of impropriety, especially in something as touchy as voting. As long as I don't have to write it though, I'd rather it be well written and documented more than anything else. (I am excluding myself from writing because I personally feel to involved, am not confident in having the confidence of the community in my judgement in such an important matter, and have a term paper to finish editing this weekend, rendering my time online limited.)

Happy Halloween, and good luck with the RfA closing. See you on Monday. Sven Manguard _Talk 08:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best if a quite independent admin closed the RfC. Perhaps Skomorokh has plans to ask at the appropriate noticeboard, with a note that it's an involved set of issues.

Please see my comments on the technical realities, and how embarrassing it would be to have to ask Roan Kattouw to program and test for a new nihilist "none of the above" button. I have also left a note against Od Mishehu's statement warning users that they may ask for the change to be made by the tech, but not to expect it at this late stage. Whoever closes should be aware of the technical limitations if things are left so late.Tony (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I happen to agree with you. Hipocrite's idea is terrible, IMO. There is absolutely no technical difference between voting neutral for everyone and voting none of the above. I mean, I already cut and pasted somewhere the text that said that neutral was entered as a technical change, since people are now required to vote for all candidates. Also, the concept of voting none of the above with the stated idea of leaving a seat empty is shortsighted, shows a lack of understanding in the political process, and is counter intuitive in achieving any other goals that the voters had in mind. Sanctimoniously improving quality and reducing quantity is not at all effective. In short, I would love to ignore it, but I am duty bound to report consensus no matter how stupid or destructive pointless it is. As you said, the techs won't do it anyways, at least not in 2010. Considering Risker's statement, if there is a group of people that don't want ArbCom filled, they should just vote oppose for every candidate. That, and they have to overthrow Jimbo Wales, and likely depose of the board of trustees, the stewards, burecrats, and most of the Admins. Short of that, ArbCom isn't going away.

TLDR I am duty bound to report consensus, but we all know the techs won't do it, at least not in 2010. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion that there is "consensus" for Hipocrite's proposal. If you look at the talk page, there was some disagreement there. I think that RfC is a very limited and flawed means for obtaining or determining consensus on proposals like this. Because "opposes" are not permitted, it becomes the affirmative obligation of someone who is opposed to propose a competing statement, which in this case did not happen until a few hours ago when I did it, probably too late for many people to see it before the RfC is closed. So, assuming that this cannot be implemented for the 2010 election anyway, I think this proposal should be regarded as "undecided" for now and should be the subject of another RfC when the election is over, rather than being pushed for implementation in 2011.

And by the way, the no-withdrawal proposal (number 3 above) was made by me, not Risker. Neutron (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that an RfC is intended to judge consensus and is not a vote (otherwise there would be an 'oppose' as well as an 'endorse' section), it is essential that the comments expressed on the talk page be taken into consideration. Looking at WT:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure#Comment on the opinion from Hipocrite, I can't see the consensus for NOTA, based on the strength of the arguments. In fact, the proposal itself is ambiguous, since it is unclear whether the intention was to add a fourth option to S/N/O (and what that meant), or to add another candidate called NOTA (when the purpose of Support/Oppose NOTA is undefined). I hope the closer takes into account the talk page commentary, to save the embarrassment of having to call another RfC to clarify what the proposal meant. --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Then by all means, scrap that one entirely. I think it's less than worthless, but that's just me. Also, the whole 'technical infeasibility' thing plays a role. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it mind-boggling that not only are the rules for this election being made up this close to the election, but that even this close to the election, there is no procedure for determining the rules. I have gotten somewhat involved in commenting on the procedure for this election (as I did last year to a lesser extent) because I know something about the subject in the "real world." I have been involved in elections from several different angles, including as a candidate, but I have never seen elections where the rules are made up as we go along, as they are at Wikipedia. And now that I think about it, last year, the rule-making process was still going on after the election was actually over. This needs to be corrected, but the difficulty in getting consensus on anything (or even defining "consensus", or deciding whether consensus is necessary on any given issue) is so difficult that that correction is unlikely. I'm thinking of volunteering to help with the process after this election is over, but at the same time I have to wonder whether it would be quicker to just check myself into a psychiatric ward now and get it over with. Neutron (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To some extent, I share Neutron's concerns. Some of the main "rules" for last year's elections were made up on the fly as we worked through a new system, but there was an RFC after the fact that identified strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, nobody from the community picked up on the fact that it might take a bit of time to actually make sure these recommendations were implemented. I do feel that sitting arbitrators are probably too conflicted to do this ourselves - after all, we have six sitting members deciding whether or not to run again, and effective next year it will be half the committee - so we aren't the right group to really be implementing these changes. Heck, I felt awkward making a statement on the current RFC, one that I figured would be relatively non-controversial, and I don't have to worry about an election this year. What we need are 3-4 people who are willing, starting this year, to work with the current election coordinators, and then continue the work in a timely manner through 2011. This is in no way a criticism of this year's election coordinators, who I suspect assumed that most of these issues had been resolved by last year's work. Turns out that wasn't entirely the feeling of the community. In any case...finding people who will agree to carry forward their work, to establish a timeline including resolution of issues at least a month in advance, and dealing with technical concerns, would be the preferred course of action. I hope that experienced and committed editors will be willing to step up to the plate, just as Tony1 and Skomorokh have done the last two years. Risker (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

←Agree with Risker. I'm not being self-satisfied in saying that I did try and try earlier this year to get things rolling; just to point out that once the election is over, like an annual exam it's the last thing people want to think about. I suggest that in the days after the 6 December close of voting, when there's a hiatus, we get the community to decide on at least the timing and scope of an RfC next year early enough that technical changes might be made without a rush. Techs are very unwilling to commit to rushed changes because their task can be unpredictable. Tony (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, this is terrible practice. On the other hand, if we look closely, the rules for this election will likely end up being the same as the rules in the 2009 election. If we look at the consensus, the desire for the secret ballot has increased, and technical side will prevent in-system withdraws and effectively kill none of the above. As to the 50% requirement and the self nom stuff, Jimbo Wales has already stated that these were already unofficial requirements. I think most of this is that people want their input heard, and the only time that the community as a whole is able to focus on Arbcom elction rules for a prolonged period of time is right before the elections. Participation would be lower if this were done in, say mid-June. I think that we might get good enough participation if we did the RfC right after the election, but it's iffy. I wish I could say there was a better option. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC is closed. We have our mandate. I personally think that Neutron and Risker's statements should have become policy but that's not the closer's interpretation, and I'm not in a position to challenge it, even if I wanted to (which I really don't.) Let's move on to finishing the test runs. I think that's mostly done too, but as far as I can tell, only Skomorokh and I have run through it. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC) This year's elections are going to be a rousing success. I can feel it.

Brief the developer(s) and scrutineers on their roles

Is there anything that the coordinators can do to help at this point? The only unchecked task is "Brief the developer(s) and scrutineers on their roles", and I'd like to help, but I am not sure who to brief and what to tell them.  7  23:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Monitoring the voter log is definately something that needs doing. For that matter, monitoring the election as a whole is something that you can do. I don't know what is going to happen in this election, but there are going to be questions asked, lost users trying to find specific pages, some vandalism, accusations of wrongdoing, etc. and we are going to need as many people watching as much of the election as possible. We're going to need everyone for this. Hopefully, it will be a smooth ride, but after reading a comment Skomorokh made about needing more admins and checkusers participating, I invited all of the still active admin coordinators from 2009 to join up this year (minus Skomorokh of course) and one two already have joined up. Good luck sir, and may the force be with you. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there'll be some communication in the next 12 hours about elections organisation and roles. Thanks for asking. Tony (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A day in the life of an election coordinator

Ciao all. Some of you may have signed up and are now wondering what it is you are supposed to be doing. Until now, Tony and I have been taking care of the backroom business, but as the live period of the election approaches, we will need everyone to step up and get their hands dirty. Specifically, here is what needs to be done:

• As editors nominate themselves, check their eligibility for standing. Candidates must have had 1,000 mainspace edits before the opening of the nomination period and not be blocked. An easy way to roughly check the former requirements is to pull up their contributions, switch to display 500 revisions per page, stipulate mainspace edits only be shown, and see if the contributions go back two pages.
• In the case of apparently ineligible candidates, inform them that they appear not to be eligible. If they contest it in good faith, raise the matter on the main election talkpage.
• In the case of eligible candidates, leave them a welcome notice by substituting {{ACE2010 candidate}} on their user talk page and responding to any follow up comments or queries they might have.
• Update and maintain the candidate guide as the nominations come in.
• Make sure each candidate has a properly formatted nomination statement (of max 400 words, with declarations of other accounts used), questions page, candidate profile (statement + questions) and profile talkpage (n.b. level three section headers only).
• Make sure that each nomination statement is transcluded at /Candidates, and that each candidate profile talkpage is transcluded at /Discussion.
• Watchlist the election talkpage and the coordinators' talkpage and respond promptly to requests for clarification or help. If you are not confident about a reply, leave it for another coordinator.
• Monitor as many question + discussion pages as you are comfortable with, and intervene against any inappropriate posting, especially violations of WP:NPA, WP:OUTING, WP:HARASS, WP:POINT, WP:BAN. If you think something needs the attention of the other coordinators, leave a message at the coordinators' talkpage or contact a volunteer privately.
• Make sure that no voter asks more than one question per candidate, and that the questions do not exceed 75 words.

Questions, comments and so on welcome. You should also have been briefed on what to expect by email. Mahalo, Skomorokh [updated 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)]

Most of this grunt work is falling on Sven and I at the moment, and it's quite a bit even with only three candidates; any help would be most appreciated chaps. Skomorokh 14:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm freer from Wednesday. Some bolding and underlining of a few things they're getting wrong might be in order, like the level-three headings? Tony (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks. Skomorokh 15:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, by bolding/underlining, I meant on the template that prints the instructions for the individual questions on each candidate's questions pages. Tony (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sorry. I'm not sure how much good that would do; most of the candidates have ignored the instructions on the election page, the candidate page, the editnotice and the talkpage welcome, will bolding these really help? Skomorokh 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Like this (instructions to voters, rather than candidates). Tony (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've had that change implemented for future questions pages; you might want to make sure the existing ones are consistent. Skomorokh 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IRC channel

I've revived the election IRC channel in case there are urgent issues that need speedy and private resolution. The channel can also function for discussion amongst coordinators and general chitchat, and will likely be dead most of the time. If you are an active IRC user please, put the channel on autojoin and add your IRC username at the top of this page. Cheers, Skomorokh 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's beyond me: I can get into The Signpost's IRC webchat, but this thing rejects me. I need to download something, do I? Tony (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm having no trouble with it. I have firefox and got the free IRC browser ChatZilla. What's the signpost IRC? I will join up and wait for you there if you want. Sven Manguard _Talk 15:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Massive question overload

If mass questions are posted to the talk page instead of the questions page, like this, it appears to be an end run around the election rules. While individual candidates may not mind, this puts pressure on all the other candidates to allow it too. I think we should either allow unlimited questions, or else enforce THE RULES throughout the election pages, no matter where questions are posted. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We've encouraged voters to post whatever questions they like to candidates' user talk pages . It's the candidate question pages, which are advertised to voters, we are trying to keep in order. Candidates are expected to respond to legit questions there; the ones on their talkpages they can do what they like with. Work for you? Skomorokh 17:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever has been decided is fine with me. I'd encourage the candidates to ignore question-spam. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I'm glad you raised this, J., and I agree with both of you. What say a prominent message be posted at the top of the talk page of any candidate who is encouraging/allowing mass spam-questions to be posted. Is something like this OK?

Please note that while candidates are expected to respond to all of the general questions and are encouraged to engage with voters elsewhere on their candidature, they should by no means feel obliged to open their candidate talk page to an extension, as it were, of the individual questioning process. This matter is entirely at the discretion of each candidate. Tony (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC) (for the election coordinators)"

Way ahead of you Tony :). Feel free to substitute your wording; I'm trying to find a way to stick the notice into a template but the coding is a little tricky. Skomorokh 16:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to subsitute it, but can't see how to. Your textis not at Template:ACE2010 discussion, or the /doc page associated with it. It's not typed into the candidate pages. Lost. Tony (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It is in the template, but you have to dig around in its bowels a bit to find it. Skomorokh 03:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Important question

• I wish to know whether, on any individual editor's talk page, a group of three to four possibly voting editors on Wikipedia are allowed right now (as in, currently) to discuss the nominations, comment on who all they think are good/bad nominees and who they're ready to support? I enquire because I'm literally confused on whether such an action by the editors would be considered inappropriate under any of our guideline? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking only as far as the election coordinators are concerned, we only monitor the election pages. We encourage good faith discussion of the merits of candidates on the relevant election talkpages. Voter conduct elsewhere is subject to the usual community standards and any relevant ArbCom directives. If this answer is vague, please feel free to ask a more specific question... Skomorokh 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for the reply. Would you be able to please guide me to any community standard/policy/guideline (or ArbCom directive) that either allows or prohibits the discussion of candidatures on user talk pages? That would allow me to directly take up (or ignore) the issue. Thanks and sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To echo Skomorokh, you are free—within existing guidelines such as WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY, and any specifically related ArbCom or community-based directive—to discuss on user talk pages the election, ArbCom, candidates, and related issues. Tony (talk)

Thanks Tony. Somehow, what Skomorokh wrote was different from what you've written. As much as I perceived from Skomorokh's statement, the election talk pages can be used to discuss the merits of the candidates; while the user talk pages have to adhere to existing community standards. And I'm quite not clear whether there is a directive/policy/guideline that specifically allows/disallows such discussion without it being called canvassing/votestacking/et al. Further light (that is, if you can guide me to any policy/guideline that describes this issue) would be helpful. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to be more clear: this is an election, voters are encouraged to publicly assess and debate the candidacies (as long as they don't violate the obvious policies or guidelines doing so). I don't know why anyone would think responsible discussion to be inappropriate, and there is certainly no rule prohibiting it. Best, Skomorokh 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, I think I know which discussion you are referring to, and it's perfectly legit as long as guidelines/policies such as WP:CANVAS and WP:CIVIL are followed appropriately. Discussion of candidates is expected and should be encouraged so that the right people are chosen. AD 23:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, wouldn't it be easier for you to just ask or tell me directly what it is you're concerned about? I'll be traveling today, but will be glad to catch up later, but most certainly voters can discuss candidates on talk, and that is FAR preferable to the backchannel rumormongering that goes on with other people. At least you know where I stand, in public. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• @Skomorokh: Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it and in fact agree with your viewpoints; and at the same time realise that there apparently is no policy or guideline that exists which either prohibits or approves of such discussion, especially for RfA/Admin votes, two of our important forums. Regards.
• @Aiken: Nice to hear from you after a long time :) I agree with you and Skomorokh. Actually as I mentioned above, my query was skewed towards whether a policy/guideline/directive existed... It's quite apparent that as no specific policy/guideline/directive exists, we assume good faith in general. Thanks again for the note Aiken. Best.
• @SandyGeorgia: Ma'am, my apologies in advance if my questions sounded affronting. That wasn't the intent. And as I mentioned on your talk page, I would have necessarily informed you through email about the administrative action that I intend taking on your talk page, but only with your explicit knowledge, not otherwise. Now that you have joined the discussion here, allow me to mention some of the lines that I was particularly concerned about in your discussions:

• '...unless some better candidates surface, the only alternative now is for everyone to oppose every candidate..'.
• the admin corp is out of control and the arbs need to clean their own house.
• the arbs are doing a darn good job of shooting themselves in the foot
• I learned how rotten the admin corp and RFA process was
• If I pulled the kind of crap admins and arbs get away with, I'd be gone

I'm sorry for mentioning this, but it does seem as if you are exhorting the people engaged in the discussion and perchance the watchers/viewers to vote against the candidates who had forwarded their nominations at that moment of time, against Arbs in general and against administrators. I'm perfectly all right with assuming good faith simply based on my request to you to kindly not make such statements against groups of candidates and to kindly remove the said statements as soon as possible from your talk page. I should request you to also kindly re-read our project content guideline Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC which will provide you further details on why statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons will be generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive. At this juncture, I should mention that in case you do believe that these statements do not qualify on the above mentioned guideline, I should be removing them myself. I look forward to seeing you discuss the issue more proactively ma'am. My apologies again for bringing up the issue. Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, I'm concerned about the way you are apparently intending to misuse your shiny new tools, and hope that you won't find yourself in the unfortunate position, as a new and not-yet-fully-informed admin, of disrupting user talk pages and stifling discussion of arb candidates. I see that several editors opined on your RFA that you weren't yet fully up to speed, and that this kind of misunderstanding was a real possibility. The best I can offer you for now is two suggestions: 1) given your lack of understanding of arb elections and discussions permitted on user talk pages, I strongly suggest that you remove your name from this page, and wait perhaps a year until you are more fully versed in arb elections, and 2) point that Polemic business about "further details on why statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons will be generally considered divisive" at arb Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), as she might benefit from that information, considering her malignment of the "entire group of FAC reviewers" on this page. Good luck with that ! Should you choose to disrupt my user talk page and stifle correct and polite discussion of the arb elections, I don't think that will end very well for you. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Material errors of fact in guides

What is to be done about a guide that has material mis-statements of the facts? Per my concerns stated at User talk:Elonka/ACE2010, this guide presents links to accounts claiming that they were formerly held by certain users, when in fact these account were never held by those users. The users accounts appear to have been renamed. The abandoned names were then registered as new accounts by vandals and misused. Sorry if this is confusing; ask me for further explanation if I am not being clear enough. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The default answer:

1. Keep the main guide as accurate and complete as possible.

2. Notify guide writers of discrepancies between the theirs and that, in the hopes that they will correct it.

3. Trust voters will do the minimum of research and discover the truth for themselves.

The above might be too polyannaesque an approach so here are two three options for firmer handling:

1. Tag disputed statements as you would in an article, i.e. with {{dubious}} or similar.

2. Temporarily suspend guides with serious errors of fact from the central listing.

3. Directly editing the guide to correct the fact (this should only be used where it is very unlikely to be objected to).

Thoughts? This conversation is perhaps more appropriate for the main election talkpage. Skomorokh 03:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we finish it here because I'd rather not raise a big fuss. I have just taken care of Default Answer 1. As for Default Answer 2, I posted my concerns some time ago, but there has been no response from the author. We should not rely on every user to figure out what happened for themselves when the record can easily be corrected. (Consider that the writers of the main candidates guide did not perceive the matter correctly either.) Therefore, I request Firmer Handling option 2 be applied as the least intrusive option. I will not delist the guide, because of my past dispute history with the author. Instead would a neutral party to consider acting on my request? As soon as the errors are fixed, the guide can be re-listed, so this course of action should not be too inconvenient. Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. My other issue is that several of the guides are little more than stubs, and it's rather annoying for voters to go there and learn this for themselves. I wonder why we don't delist those that are not even close to being useful, even for the ?five candidates we already have, and ask that they be filled out more before relisting. Of course they'll be a work in progress, but the bottom line, I think, is that they should deal with at least most of the candidates already nominated in enough detail to be useful. Sandy's and Polargeo's, at first look, are in this category. Tony (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with delisting any stub guides. Why annoy voters by linking to the logical equivalent of an "Under Construction" web page. Advise the authors to add some content to the guide, and then list it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be fair, the list of candidates is little more than a stub. No harm in giving a prod to the authors of the empty guides though. Skomorokh 04:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Baloney-- it's not even close to election time, and we haven't got any candidates yet. Leave 'em linked now so that voters taking an early look know what to come back to when guide writers actually have someone to write about (or do you want to prejudice early lookers by showing them only the guides that are up early, including one that just had to be removed?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the issue of Elonka's guide...could one or some of you delist it and prod her to remove the false links? She's mistakenly linked to accounts that were never controlled by the two candidates. Those were imposter accounts set up by vandals. See how I fixed the Candidates Guide already. Jehochman ^Talk 12:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On it, thanks. Skomorokh 12:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Elonka-watching could take more time than election watching! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about questions

So the guide is unclear about the mechanism of asking questions. I have a question that I wish to ask of all of the candidates. However, the individual questions section says this can't be done. The general questions section would seem appropriate, but it isn't clear if the questions are fixed or open for additions. Please advise, as the question has relevance to my work at the foundation, and it would be a shame if it couldn't be asked of the candidates. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The general questions were open to community discussion for some time before the election, and are now fixed. Given the huge number and length of individual questions last year, and the fact that the distinction between them and general questions dissolves when exactly the same IQ is pasted into every IQ section of every candidate, voters are encouraged to ask IQs that are specific to each candidate. The alternative, which we encourage, is to start up a discussion on the talk page of the candidate's question page, which is automatically transcluded to a central discussion page. I think you'd find voters would pick up on any good question you ask there of the most appropriate candidate you ask it of. I've just posted one myself to NYB's discussion section, specific to his RL legal expertise. Give it a try there? Hope this helps. Tony (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The downside to that being, voters are MUCH less likely to view every single candidates user talk pages (including histories and archives) in order to see all questions. The community discussion being prior to the election was not an option for me because the grounds for my question did not form until after it was complete. So what options are available? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The two options are to use the talkpage of the candidates' question pages (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Casliber/Questions), or their user talk pages. Best, Skomorokh 13:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Header changes

Just a quick heads-up: I'll handle changing the header when enrollments close and when voting starts (Midnight UTC is 8 AM my time). This is not set in stone and if anyone else wants to do this, you are more than welcome to; just post here to let me know not to change it. Thanks! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for volunteering Barts1a. Do you know what needs to be done? Cheers, Skomorokh 12:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done a couple of preview edits and I have a fairly good idea. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. For reference this was last year's change; the major difference this year is the bigger font for the active period. Skomorokh 12:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done a draft for when nominations close here. Feel free to suggest changes/improvements. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tinkered with a thing or two, but it looks good. Thanks again, and feel free to help out elsewhere if you're so inclined. Best, Skomorokh 12:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup on Aisle 5...

Well, maybe not quite, but if someone could tidy this up, I'm sure all involved would be grateful. Best that it be someone who's formally "neutral" in all aspects. Risker (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tony (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)