Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:30, 17 November 2008

• WT:ACE2008

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Free speech zone

In the last few years some administrators have used 'civility' as the new censorship. For example, Giano has been improperly blocked several times for a lack of 'civility' when there wasn't any such thing, when he was simply speaking inconvenient truths.

The American election process (and I'm sure other countries as well) has a long standing tradition to not censor or interfere with candidates advertisements. This is in contrast to non-election broadcasts where broadcasters can be fined if people complain about their emissions.

I'd like to propose that this year's Arbcom election be a free speech zone for the candidates - where they can participate freely and openly without fear of getting blocked by some petty little administrator because they speak an inconvenient truth. This should extend to candidates only because of the potential for troll abuse. --Duk 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable applying American ideals to a website that is firmly global, and likewise, to any process therein. I don't think my discomfort is anything but immaterial here, however: I do not recall a candidate ever being blocked on the basis of what they have said in the course of the election, and I see no reason why that would change this year. AGK 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, you're probably right. Screw any American ideal, such as free speech. --Duk 18:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we may need to bounce some people for certain atrocious behavior, such as injecting anti-American bigotry into an election. But maybe the arbitrators can be in charge of that. --Duk 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-American bigotry? How exactly was AGK dismissing free speech? He merely pointed out that we're a global website and therefore we can decide ourselves how to run an election. Now, I agree with your points about free speech. I just think we can improve on the media-circuses that are American elections. (Disclaimer: I'm a Brit.) Your demand that AGK is banned for not wanting a carbon-copy of an American election here is uncivil. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer Contributions} 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That was entirely uncalled for, and I think you should consider redacting it. AGK presented a counterpoint, it in no way makes AGK bigoted for doing so. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, redacted, but to reemphasise; AGK's problem with my free speech suggestion was something about it being American. I mean really ... go read what he said. --Duk 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What on earth...? My comment was intended at exploring all aspects of what you said, and not to attack the American system and what it stands for. I'm British; attacking America would, on many levels, be attacking what I stand for and proudly support. Yet, here I go—defending myself. I have nought to defend here, thankfully: some sane folks have piped up and pointed out that my comments have been completely misinterpreted. Good grief.
And my opinion stands. You're suggesting we modify the elections to compensate for a non-existent issue, Duk. Never has a candidate been penalised for what she or he has said in an election, and I anticipate no such problem this year, either. AGK 19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the comments apparently accusing AGK of bigotry being ridiculously out of line, the U.S. is also an example of the incredible nonsense that occurs when there are no controls about lying, cheating, and attacking. Probably worth the risk in the real world, but I'm not convinced Misplaced Pages is similar enough to the United States of America to be making any policy decisions on U.S traditions.--Tznkai (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying "there is no chance you'll be blocked, whatever you say" sounds like a recipe for chaos to me. At the same time, I hope and expect admins will be restrained in dealing with issues that come up in the course of the election. Sam Korn 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, with the exception that candidates should be sanctioned for personal attacks as normal. A candidate statement that calls out individual arbitrators for being douchebags, for example, would be right out. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Too much risk of legit critism being viewed as personal attacks.Geni 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe calling someone a "douchebag" is ever a legitimate criticism, even if the person is a douchebag. Criticism is always welcomed, but assumptions of bad faith, in particular, need to be avoided. There's no reason to accommodate a "race to the bottom" as in United States elections. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Person X has been entirely infectual as an arbcom memeber and has endangered the project something I intend to try and reverse" Personal attack Y/N?Geni 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not; neither is "I don't trust person X". But compare "Person X has intentionally made Misplaced Pages worse" or "Person X is a habitual liar". There's no reason we cannot have high expectations for collegial and professional discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting pages, Templates, and You

I'm starting to code templates for use during the election, so that votes are indented uniformly regardless of who is indenting or why. I have three put together, which I'll post below. The question I'm coming to is that we have discussed moving comments to the candidate's discussion page (probably the Vote page's talk, at this point), but have we nailed down a standard to use in deciding which comments move? Wordcounts, more than 2 sentences or 5 formatted lines, or some other standard would work, but it needs to be uniform. I mention this now, because I'd like to have consensus early this time around.

As for the templates, I have three so far for your review. {{indentvote}} cites the 150 mainspace edits requirement, and adds a link to the user's 150 namespace 0 (mainspace) contributions prior to 1 November - in theory, if there are earlier contribs, the user has suffrage. {{newuservote}} links to the User creation log for the voter, again to verify that they were registered after 1 November. {{anonvote}} is for IP voters, and links to the Why should you register. All three templates link to the Election process page, which states the mainspace and registration requirements.

I've given User:Example a voting page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Example, where I added some dummy votes and indented them. Please have a look and let me know what you think. I plan to code a template for Duplicate votes, and one for blocked/banned sockpuppets linking to the checkuser or what-have-you, but are there other in-line voting templates that would be of use? Thanks for the input, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one for alternate accounts, as in "Voter X is a declared alternate account of Voter Y, duplicate vote struck". Other than that, I cannot think of anything you missed. MBisanz 14:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Easiest option there might be a parameter on the duplicate vote template. "User has already voted (For/Against) this candidate (Using the alternate account X)." It should be trivial to write up a switch to make sense - my only dilemma is that {{dupevote}} is already in use as an AFD duplicate !vote template. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For clarity and to keep the voting pages as uncluttered as possible, I'd rather see one non-subsituted template with a simple #switch statement to determine the output. So {{ACE|editcount}} ~~~~ instead of {{subst:indentvote}}. The actual content looks very good and extremely transparent. Happy‑melon 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now created {{ACE}} as an amalgamation of all these templates. Happy‑melon 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely the way to go. How do we get the User and Editcount parameters to work, though? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out, and added a second parameter. Now {{ACE|editcount|Ultraexactzz}} returns Template:ACE, which shows that I have suffrage. Great template, Happy-melon. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

An obvious question: why not semi the vote pages? After all, nobody who is not autoconfirmed could have sufferage. No need to indent anon votes then. — Coren  15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the answer isn't as obvious? Ping? — Coren  04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see it both ways. Semi-protection would prevent ineligible voters from voting, which is simpler overall. It's less transparent, though - there's something to be said for letting anybody vote, and then disqualifying votes based on objective and measurable criteria. Unless they're personal attacks or what-have-you that would be removed anyway, the votes remain in place as statements of the voter's sentiments for or against the candidate - they're just not counted. I'm inclined to leave the pages unprotected, but I certainly wouldn't object if consensus disagrees. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Anons would still be welcome to comment on the associated talk pages, though. Personally, I think that there is a net gain to preventing non-autoconfirmed accounts from editing the page altogether, but I don't feel so strong about it that I'd make a fuss unless people are already in general agreement. — Coren  16:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my position as well - unless there's a groundswell of support for semi-protecting the vote pages, I'd say we should leave it be. We might consider leaving the option on the table if there are a lot of shenanigans; most of the options for reporting severe disruption involve a report at ANI, which would probably trigger protection anyway. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding running

Jimbo, Arbitrators - as we all know, Jimbo has stated he will retain the power of veto over any candidates whom he or the Arbitrators would consider not to be a good, safe, and trusted appointment for the community. With this in mind, perhaps if there is anyone running who you would consider would not be such an appointment, could you advise them to withdraw (either publically or via email)?

I would imagine it would be far better to prevent these occurances before they arise; allowing candidates to run knowing that they wouldn't make it even if they did win is a waste of everyone's time. I cannot think of anything that would cause more heartbreak for the candidate, or hysterical, scabrous Wiki-drama, than nixing someone who came in the top five (six?) of the "popular vote".

I am especially interested in finding out if it's worth my running; I think I'd make a good arbitrator, but if I'm going to run only to be told at the end "actually, no thanks", I'd rather know now. Thanks. fish&karate 09:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth cross-posting this to Jimbo's talk page and the arb-l mailing list, since I doubt Jimbo reads this page, and some arbs may not be paying close attention to it yet. MBisanz 09:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing about Jimbo's role is, it's not likely to be needed often (it hasn't been for the last several elections) because it's likely in most cases that the community's decision will be a good one. Even if there were a candidate who would not be likely to be okay, there's not likely to be need for Jimbo to pre-empt anything or step in most times, because the community is historically extremely likely to say so themselves by means of usual voting. The bigger problem would be if the community as a whole began to go "off the rails" and became an unmoderated battleground without the backing of users and admins who had the ability to enforce the historical view that it's purely an encyclopedia. FT2  11:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you see a candidate listed who has some sort of horrible, but publicly unknown, history of policy violations that would make them unsuitable, will you all say something promptly, or will you let them and the community waste a huge amount of time considering their candidacy? This is a hypothetical question. Jehochman 11:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the concept of the ideas "the community is wrong" and "Jimbo is always right" came from. Other Wikipedias manage to have an ArbCom without the intervention of a divine leader. Other communities manage to get it right every time. If the community appoints somebody, that should be respected by Jimbo, and not chucked back in everyone's face as a complete waste of everyone's time. Jimbo never needs to step in. This is not 2003 anymore. We are perfectly capable of making our own decisions, thank you. Al Tally 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Other communities do not have an ArbCom as complex or as important to the general running of our project as enwiki does, Majorly. Additionally, the point being made is that the community could be wrong—hence Jimbo having the power of veto over the appointments—but in practice it rarely is—hence his never using that power. It's important to understand the theory behind the safety-valve arrangement, and I'm not sure you do. AGK 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You clearly under-estimate the importance of other communities' ArbComs. ArbCom is there to arbitrate user disputes primarily; that they choose to involve themselves with other things is not my business (well, it is, but nothing I can do about). The community isn't wrong - the idea "everyone" made a mistake, and Jimbo was the only person in the right, is utter nonsense. We don't need, or want a "safety-valve" - I don't trust Jimbo's judgement one bit in this arena (remember his appointments of Kelly Martin, Essjay, Jayjg etc, all without community approval, all disasterous). I understand the theory behind the "arrangement", but don't understand why we need it. The community is, in fact, never wrong (read WP:CONSENSUS). People can make mistakes individually, but there's never, ever a case when everyone is wrong, and therefore justifying the right of one man to make the decision on behalf of us is an extremely bad one. Again, this isn't 2003. We have grown up, and don't need someone making decisions for us. We are a community, and what the community agrees with (i.e. consensus) is what goes. Always. Al Tally 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I totally agree, and I want to reiterate my earlier suggestion that we hold a vote on whether the community's choices should have an automatic mandate. Everyking (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• For my money, I remain undecided about whether the JIMBO veto should continue or not, but I do think it would be good to propose a "Misplaced Pages:Project Leader" policy that actually assesses which of the powers traditional held by JIMBO are supported by community consensus is. My strong suspicion is that all of them are still supported-- but it'd be a useful to actually establish that as a fact, rather than a guess. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• I attempted that some time ago over at WP:JIMBO. It rapidly devolved into something descriptive rather than prescriptive, though of course Misplaced Pages mythology states that that's the nature of all policy. Anyway, if you want to pick up that torch, you certainly have my blessing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me-- all involved should peek at Misplaced Pages:Project Leader to see if I've missed any of Jimbo's powers. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon is resigning

Jpgordon is resigning at the end of the current term. Therefore, another seat will be open, and this needs to be updated on the page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

General Questions

OK, based on the discussion above, and on Anthony's excellent proposal, I've put together the General Questions page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Questions/General. The page provides instructions for posting a question for all the candidates. The questions themselves go onto a list at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Questions/General/List, which can be substituted onto a Question page for each candidate on 17 November. Individual questions can then be asked to specific candidates on that same page. Please doublecheck me; if this format works, then I'd propose adding a request for questions to the main election page. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. When will it be appropriate to put some questions to the page?
2. How does everyone feel about the propriety of a candidate placing questions there?

I ask, because there are a number of questions I feel raise important issues that I would like to see all candidates answer, and given that those questions are uniformly asked of all the candidates, I see no ethical concern with it but I also know I haven't been designated the Fount of all Morals by anyone. — Coren  21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We had discussed asking the community for questions on 3 November, but hadn't in the absence of a format. Wouldn't bother me a bit if you went ahead and added your questions (just remove my example question). As for candidates asking questions... it might seem hinky to voters, just as some voters have problems with candidates voting against their opponents. But I don't think there should be a rule against it, necessarily. Besides, there aren't any candidates yet - so it's no problem. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I'm going to go ahead and post a request for questions at WP:AN, WT:ARBCOM, and WP:VP. I can't think of any other good venues, nor do I think the general questions warrant a watchlist notice. Besides, people checking nominations will also see the link to add questions, so that'll take care of itself, I imagine. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What's with the a/s/l question that Giggy added? I can see why he put it there, but surely there is a better way to phrase it. Lankiveil 03:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

I don't mind it. It's lighthearted in formulation, certainly, but it's succinct and harmless. — Coren  16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Example's Candidacy

Perhaps it's because things are slow today, but I decided to put together the candidate pages for next week. Please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Example, which shows the format for candidate statements when everything is added in. We have the usercheck, for the useful links about the candidate (contribs and whatnot) - though we might swap that with {{admincheck}} if we want to include blocks and deletions and whatnot. I've put together a mockup Questions for the candidate page, which shows where the general and specific questions would go. Next, we have the discussion page - per consensus above, this will be the talk page for the candidate's Vote page. In this case, it's at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Example. Finally, the voting page, seen at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Example. I think these formats are consistent with the discussion above, and should work well for when we begin to get nominations in 6 days (!). Please pick these apart, if you could, so they're solid on Monday. Thanks again!

Ultraexactzz, please remove the self-identification section from the Candidate statements/Example and Vote/Example. Jimbo has already stated that it is not required unless the candidate is offered an appointment, and it gives an unfair advantage to candidates who choose to do so. I suggest a mandatory question for all candidates instead: "Do you meet all requirements for membership on the Arbitration Committee, and if you are offered an appointment to the Committee, will you provide the necessary identification information to the Wikimedia Foundation?" Risker (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Those were a holdover from the proposed format, and I didn't mess with them. As for that question - you can certainly post it now, if you like. No objection here. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Process details

Hey all. I'm preparing for transclusion tonight, and I had a number of practical questions that pop up:

1. Should the empty voting page be there, or do we leave a redlink until voting opens?
   • Corollary: if we put the voting page in now, shouldn't there be a standard "Don't vote yet" message at the top?
2. Same with the question page. Redirect to the general list until answer time comes? If I understand right, the plan is to subst the general questions into the candidates' pages on the 17th; does this mean that no individual questions will (can) be asked until then?

— Coren  20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the voting page could be created, perhaps with a template (statement at top, links to questions, support/oppose sections). And yes, there should be a note, just in case people forget.

I was under the impression questions could be asked whenever people wanted to, so I'd surely expect pages to be created more-or-less immediately. Best of luck by the way. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Answers for Coren:

1. There should be no voting link. You'll use {{Arbitration Committee Elections statement}} to create your statement, which incorporates a ParserFunction to hide the voting link until voting is open. (When voting does open, the candidate—or any bystander—can subst: the necessary material onto candidate voting pages. This can be done a few days before voting opens, if desirable, but for now, voting pages can remain non-existent.)
2. Please redirect until we have created a template for individual question pages, detailing instructions, terms of usage, and so on. Oh, and no—questions can be asked of candidates immediately after nominations start being accepted, I believe... Or have I missed a discussion regarding not accepting individual questions until 17 November?

Good luck with your candidacy! AGK 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Reading back, I think you're correct about the 17th for individual questions. I'll redirect to the general question page, then. — Coren  21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think a template for question pages is needed - all it will be is headers such as "Questions from John Doe". It doesn't really need any template to make that. I don't see why questions can't be opened as soon as nominations do. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the point is consistent instructions, and a pointer to the general list for those questions best asked all candidates. We probably want to have that ready soon, though. — Coren  21:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it's best if we allow individual questions to be asked as of 10 November 2008 (ie., as soon as the respective candidate statement is live). It fits in better with the principles behind candidate statements: once we start accepting statements, we are saying "we as a community want to find out how suitable each candidate is for the ArbCom."
  Point of enquiry: do we stop accepting questions at the same time as we start voting? I think that's the best course of action, but it wasn't the way we did things last year. Thoughts? Do we stop allowing questions to be asked on 1 December (when voting opens) or on 14 December (when voting closes and the election therefore concludes)?
  AGK 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Once the election is over would be better. No point in stopping questions unnecessarily. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of stopping as voting opens; or at least some time before voting closes— I don't think questions at the bottom of the 9th are productive, or fair. — Coren  22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Coren on this one. It's fair—questions stop on the 9th, and voting opens on the 10th. How Do You Turn This On, would you be adverse to—for now—stopping questions on the 9th...? AGK 22:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the 9th from? I though voting opened on the 1st? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; yes, I meant stopping questions on 1 December 2008. AGK 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking for users who aren't around for the time questions are open. This is a very important election, and it doesn't seem right to bar people from asking a question just because they weren't around at a certain time. Just my opinion. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a difficult issue, actually. If you'll allow me to be extreme for a moment: do we allow people to vote in January simply because they didn't notice the Election was live? The election is advertised in the sitenotice from tonight until late December; I am quite sure folks will be able to get their question in. Should we cut questions off on 1 December, but extend the deadline if we notice a lot of folks wanting to ask more? Would that be a good solution? AGK 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I really can't see any benefit in a deadline. People should be able to ask questions whenever and wherever they like, of the candidate, even once the election is over. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Personally, I think allowing questions after voting has started is unfair to the people who already voted most of all. Strictly speaking, every vote should be for the same package: statement, questions and answers. There is also concern about a question posed far into an election that throws a curveball that may take some time to answer properly and would be prejudicial. — Coren  22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to vote?

Hi!

Sorry for bothering you, I know that voting hasn't started yet, but I think it is better to get some clarifications as soon as possible.

I guess rules of being eligible to vote will be the same as in previous elections, right? Let's quote the relevant part:

"Who can vote?

In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process 1 November 2007."

(of course, "2007" will be replaced with "2008").

Now, here is interesting problem: I was eligible to vote, according to these rules, in the previous year (and I successfully exercised my right to vote), but now recommended tool shows that I made only 143 mainspace edits. IT IS WRONG! Some articles edited by me (good articles IMO) has been deleted since previous elections and now edit count shows less edits in mainspace than I have really performed.

So, my question is: am I allowed to vote in 2008 ArbCom elections or not?

If the answer is "no", than I think that this would be pretty absurd outcome, because I was able to vote in previous elections (somehow related: Ex post facto law).

Thank you for your time. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the number to go by is the number listed under Special:Preferences which is the "total" number on the tool you link to, which says you have 242 edits and are therefore eligible to vote. MBisanz 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all tools calcalate edits the same. Some don't count deleted edits, but Prefs does count them. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are the published voter criteria (if they are published)? I think last year it was 150 mainspace edits, which isn't something that you can get from special:preferences. Also, I'm not sure how you check the prefs number of someone else - of course the edit totals need to be verifiable by others. MBisanz, can you explain how that works? Avruch 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate shows total edits including deleted edit counts. If someone doesn't have enough edits to meet the criteria, but would if deleted edits were included, I'm sure an admin could just do a hand count of deleted edits. In this case, Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen has 143 mainspace edits that are not deleted and I verify he has at least 7 mainspace edits that are deleted, so he has made at least 150 mainspace edits. MBisanz 04:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate question pages

{{subst:ACEQuestions}}.
This should be added to every candidate's "/Questions for the candidate" page.

Assistance in doing this would be appreciated.
AGK 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All candidates that were submitted at this point in time have had their question pages sorted (or, in a few impressive cases, have taken the initiative to do it themselves!). If any bystanders could watch for new candidates and give their question page the treatment, it would be much appreciated: this will be very much an on-going process. (Or perhaps I should simply tweak the instructions such that the candidates create their own question page...?) AGK 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to fix the instructions I expect (Where are they by the way, I was meaning to add a note to them but couldn't work out where they were located) – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had to do a complex bit of fiddling with Extension:Inputbox to get the instructions page. It's located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Editintro.
I've added an instruction to it which should now have all new candidates create their own question page with the desired template.
AGK 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Usercheck et al

On the candidate statement pages, would anyone object to swapping the {{usercheck-short}} template with the {{admincheck}} template for administrators? Or, alternatively, using admincheck for all candidates? The non-admins would just have no items under deletion logs and the like. I ask because having a candidate's deletion, block, and protection logs might be of value in evaluating them. For comparison:

• Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've used {{admincheck}} from the get go myself, so I obviously wouldn't be opposed. — Coren  21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Admincheck renders an annoyingly long utility that is somewhat less pretty than usercheck-short, but otherwise, it does seem like a more thorough option, yes. I therefore offer my support to your proposal, for what it's worth. AGK 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As Coren notes, it's an option - no problem either way. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Recorded debates and discussions

Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Seddσn

General questions redux

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but according to what I'm reading, the general questions aren't substed to every candidates question page by default, but only if the candidate wishes to subst them? That would seem to defeat the purpose of "general" questions... - jc37 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the original plan was to have them substed by default on the 17th, but that this was later dropped. I think that the main reason one would put questions on the general page is mostly one of convenience: it allows all candidates to see it without having to post it to a large number of candidate question pages. — Coren  13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The plan was indeed to subst the entire list to each candidate's questions page, and let them answer as they saw fit. We never planned for individual questions before the 17th, though, so when editors began asking specific questions, some candidates began copying the general questions over and answering them on their own. At this point, on the 17th, we'll lock the list of general questions and post it to each candidate's questions page - unless they've done that on their own. In that case, I'll make sure that they have all of the general questions, and I'll note the fact somewhere on the page. The end result will be that all candidates will have all general questions, which is the whole point of having the list in the first place.

Nominations are open for another week after the 17th, so new candidates would get the entire list right away, as their question page is formatted. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All candidates save one have received all of the General Questions. The remaining candidate had expressed an interest in formatting the question page in a particular way, and I screwed up the formatting when I posted the questions - so I reverted myself and asked them to do it in a manner to their liking. Thank you to everyone who posted questions. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Views?

As an arbitrator I find myself conflicted on something.

1. I have questions related to one or more candidates that (as an admin) I would ask questions about, and (possibly if there were any very significant matters) may feel inclined to support or oppose based upon.
2. These include awareness of non-trivial matters that (like any issue raised at arb election) others might want to know of, should they choose, and that others may or may not feel were important to be aware of.
3. However an existing arbitrator raising a question to a candidate or stating concerns is likely to be given a lot of weight, and may polarize or be contentious. (And arguably isn't best practice - existing arbitrators should possibly be neutral to the election and I've never voted on one.)
4. But "being neutral" is not the same as, having awareness or insight yet staying silent. Should the facts be mentioned, or the candidate asked what they mean, even if the asker is neutral?

In brief, there are a couple of matters/issues that make me uncomfortable, and I'm not sure if I should raise them, ignore them, or whatever, to the candidates concerned. And equally a couple of candidates have handled matters out of the public realm, that suggest they would do well at Arbcom. Should that be mentioned?

These aren't "privacy issues", they are like everyone elses' views, the results of working and interacting with various users over time.

The essence is, that those who might have especial knowledge, also are conflicted in whether to mention it due to "weight". But equally, to not mention possibly serious matters, is to let the community go unaware of matters that some will feel aggrieved they didn't know. Mostly I'd like answers/comments by the candidate, and I've considered asking by email, but a couple are such that I'm not sure if that's enough light or if I should keep it "to myself" that way. I'd consider asking or commenting, but ideally as an admin only.

How would other users wish me to resolve this dilemma?

FT2  15:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Juggling your hats is a difficult game. Play it by ear, I'd say, and handle on a case-by-case basis: if you really need to speak up on a particular point, I would say do so. Staying silent (and maintaining "neutrality," which silence seems so often to be called) is going to be less helpful than speaking up and making sure the best candidates are Elected this year. Oh, and I would point out that the weight your comments are given is very much an unofficial phenomenon, and a positive one; you shouldn't need to sculpt your contributions around not having your comments being given weight, because that the community pays serious attention to what you say is a clear sign that we want to hear what it! (Ie., so don't deny us that!) AGK 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

communicate, FT! better out than in, and to do less would be akin to spreading fud at this point... it all comes out in the wiki wash regardless :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lorem Ipsum

It's not a great look in my book to have this protected page with 'lorem ipsum' within the instructions.. p'raps someone could change it to 'will be confirmed presently' or some such - maybe even with a link to the most suitable page for discussion on the subject? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

care to suggest a suitable linky ? John Vandenberg 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

John: Privatemusings is referring to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote, and specifically to the collapse box. I created that box with the intention of detailing the voting criterion, but I've yet to do so; as a temporary fix, I filled it with {{Lorem}}. AGK 10:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he is suggesting that it points to some sort of discussion about the voting criteria, but I dont know if there is any current discussion about the voting criteria for this year .. ? He also suggest putting in some sort of estimate when a voting criteria will be announced. This is an important detail that needs to be finalised very soon. John Vandenberg 12:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

spot on, Jay - I see it's been updated now.... now it seems a little silly to have a collapsible box for one sentence - but it's no biggie! - I'm not sure I totally understand why it's protected, perhaps it would survive unprotection, and the regular wiki editing processes would whip into whatever shape consensus determines is best :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree on both points, Privatemusings: collapse box removed (and guidance for confused voters given); and, page unprotected. AGK 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishzilla withdrawing

Bishzilla is frantically doing research for the "General questions," and I'm, or we are, starting to realize the huge amounts of work involved in the life of an arbitrator. My RL in 2009 simply isn't going to allow it. Presumably, the general questions of Newyorkbrad are intended as a wakeup call about workload, and I hope all the candidates have read and considered those questions. If anybody out there is listening, I want to make just one remark pertaining to the great quagmire of needed ArbCom reform: it's high time to bring in more arbiters, and to reorganize the committee in a way that puts a more reasonable burden on each individual, and allows them to remain part of the editing community. There have been various suggestions for how to accomplish this, and there's little point in naming my favourite among them. You, dear reader, can probably think of a few systems right off the bat.

Anyway. Of course I always knew that being an arbiter is a lot of work. But just how much work it is, is something I've only realized when trying to deal with this election, and all the general questions, and the background to all the general questions. I'm very sorry to have wasted people's time, but I'm withdrawing Bishzilla's candidacy right now, before the voting starts. While, or if, I have your attention, I want to emphasize that the Bishzilla candidacy was not a joke. If little 'shonen had run for ArbCom, she/we would also have realized round about now, for just the same reasons, that it wasn't realistic, and would have jumped ship. As for why Bishzilla ran rather than Bishonen... well, the distinction didn't seem important. And for another thing, Bishzilla is an admin and Bishonen is not. (Everyking's indignant remarks on Misplaced Pages Review about both of them being admins are mistaken.) My sincere thanks to all the nice people who have posted individual questions to the dino. all the bishes, 19:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC).