Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 1 December 2012 (→Enough: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:06, 1 December 2012 by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (→Enough: fix)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

2012 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

  • Thank you for participating in the 2012 Arbitration Committee Election. The results have been verified and published.
  • Please offer your feedback on the Election process.
ArbCom
Candidates
Candidate guide
Candidate statements
Questions for the candidates
Discuss the candidates
Voter guides
These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Guides to other guides are ineligible.

order

Could the order order of candidates be served up randomly? It matters: "Specialists in the mechanics of voting have long recognized that the order in which candidates’ names appear on a ballot influences voters’ decisions." NE Ent 15:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The order of candidates on the SecurePoll ballot screen is randomised, yes. There are mechanisms we have used in the past for randomising the order of sections on an ordinary page (MediaWiki:Common.js/shuffle.js, although it can be done with one line of jQuery nowadays). They could be applied to WP:ACE2012/C iff people think it's important to do so. Happy‑melon 15:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
A decision for the Election Commission (when elected) surely? Leaky Caldron 15:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it should be done - and sooner rather than later (as non-candidates are already looking at the page). --Philosopher  16:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
A an issue for the Election Commission to establish a community consensus on, for sure. The EC's mandate to make decisions unilaterally extends only to issues where gathering community input is impractical, which is not the case here. Happy‑melon 16:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
If there is consensus for it, we could randomize it the same way as the guides are in the template, an effective, albeit inelegant solution. I agree though, this is not the sort of pressing issue that requires intervention from the commission. Monty845 18:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
If it is intended to change what the usual format has historically been then it is precisely the sort of unexpected event that the EC should endorse, otherwise what it the point of their role? "The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with unforeseen problems in the 2012 Arbitration Committee election process". The suggestion above was obviously unforeseen and to some, will be controversial. Leaky Caldron 19:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The community has plenty of time here to develop a consensus for or against this action through the usual processes and without causing a lot of drama. The EC members would certainly be involved in evaluating and then implementing that consensus, but it really doesn't need an executive order. The EC should deviate from the usual decision-making processes as little as is practical; their special mandate is to be entrusted with filling in any gaps between what would 'normally' happen and what can happen. If a decision is needed within hours rather than days, or if it comes at a time when it's not possible/feasible to hold a calm and rational discussion of an issue, that is when the EC's mandate becomes important. Happy‑melon 20:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As long as the order on the ballot is randomized, I don't see a need to randomize WP:ACE2012/C. That's been alphabetical for as long as I can remember, and is probably more convenient that way for all concerned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that the order on the "candidate page" should remain alphabetical (and the order on the ballot itself should be random.) Randomizing the ballot itself is sufficient to eliminate the advantages/disadvantages of different ballot placements. Neutron (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

protection?

Why is this page fpp? There's no evidence of disruption. NE Ent 12:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It is protected because the nomination period is closed, and hence there is no reason to edit it to add, alter or remove candidacies; the protection makes that fact clear to people who might otherwise not realise. Such protection is in line with the protection of similar pages when their time for input is passed. If the consensus is that protection is not necessary I will, of course, remove it... Happy‑melon 12:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom election pages have always been routinely fully protected as soon as it is no longer relevant to edit them; they're not "wiki" insofar as they are the record of a process rather than live documents. — Coren  12:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy states (Misplaced Pages) therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing, so that anyone can add material and correct errors, and that the purpose of protection is "because of a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open." Analysis of past candidate pages shows: historically unprotected candidate pages have not been vandalized or disrupted, protected is not standard, and needs for maintenance edits (category adjustments etc.) may arise. Note: unprotected may mean fully unprotected or semi- protected, not motivated enough to check.

I spose I can see the point that this is a high volume page, etc etc. My thought is that, while I dunno if this is directly covered in PROTECT, there are a lot of various pages, and it's nice as a helpful preventative stop this isn't the page you want to edit. (to ask questions, for example). So I suppose I could support IAR for now. Though if there is a good reason to drop it to semi or remove it, then of course, we should.

But regardless, I would presume that it would drop to unprotected (or perhaps semi-) after the elction is over. And I think I'll unprotect 2007 and 2009 along that line of thought. (Feel free to revert : )- jc37 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Does a FPP page look different to editors with a sysop bit? I'll note Electorical Commission page makes it clear we're done in a way that doesn't require FPP or prevent any future maintenance edits; this would be a preferred way of addressing the pages. NE Ent 03:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Section removal

I object that the section previously located here, titled "Civilty", has been removed at the discretion of a single editor after numerous editors before validated the sections presence by editing the section. Editing is a form of consensus building; the removal is an effort to supersede the collective voice that had existed, without the benefit of a greater consensus to do so. It should be reinstated. My76Strat (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your section was in the wrong place and in this place it was unrelated to the Election itself. It was a vague question advertising another venue. I've now moved it to the appropriate venue: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Questions/General#Civility. MBisanz 15:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. I am more agreeable that it was moved, opposed to removed. Thank you for helping to correct a mistake that was mine. Best, My76Strat (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course. Glad to help. MBisanz 19:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough

Is there a point at which the people managing this election are prepared to step in and stop harassment? It seems that folks like Raul can serially troll the questions of someone he doesn't like simply to smear the candidate - see Raul's "questions" to Elen. Even a 40-watt intelligence can see that question 2 is answered:

  • Raul: "I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this is a case of retroactive CYA."
  • Elen: "Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks."

and to compound that by accusing a candidate of lying is well beyond the pale. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add the weight of a second voice to this request. My76Strat (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting point of view from RexxS, who is a self-described friend of sockmaster Merridew. On the other hand, I do think there are some trolling questions on that page, and they are not the legitimate questions from Raul. Wehwalt seems to have gone off on a lecture rather than a question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Category: