Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 16 October 2007

Change for next year

Overall last year's elections went smoothly. However, one thing I believe we should be stricter in next year is moving voter's comments to the talk page. It's probably best to move all such comments, but especially comments that are rather lengthy or contain diffs should be moved. The reason is that some opposers tend to use these to cast the candidate in bad light by give a one-sided view of a situation he was involved in, in a manner that the candidate cannot really respond to on the voting page. Voters that feel the need to write a long story about the candidate tend to be people with an axe to grind, anyway. It would be easy to construct a bot to do the moving. >Radiant< 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While I do think there needs to be some change in format to make it easier for voters to get through all of the material, I don't think it is fair to focus on comments by "oppose" voters. Candidates and their supporters also tend to have a "one-sided view" and may also have an "axe to grind". It's ok to have a "one-sided view" in elections, because if you support (or oppose) someone, you want them to get elected (or not) and you say why. The difference between a well-reasoned, thought-out, factually based opinion, and "axe-grinding", often comes down to whether one agrees with the opinion or not. Lengthy essays and comments that go "over the line" are a different story, as they pose issues of readability and disruption, respectively, and those are valid issues. 6SJ7 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's why I said all comments should be moved, not just the opposing ones. The point is that vote comments can be (and are) used to give lopsided views of the situation that cannot practically be responded to. >Radiant< 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1. I would like to see a bot alert editors to potential problems, such as lack of sufferage or overlong responses. Editors seemed good at catching sufferage problems, but it would also be good work for bot.
2. I tend to agree with Radiant! that long criticisms and/or endorsements should go to the talk page, or maybe an all new "discussion" page. Maybe we could have a rule that the !votes have to be limited to 30 words or something, and may include a link to a longer statement on the talk and/or discussion page.

Thanks, TheronJ 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That has been the defacto situation in the past although the limit was probably less than 30 words.Geni 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• (2) has never been the de facto situation to my knowledge, although it is a good idea for the future. I should add that any criticism or endorsement containing a link or diff should automatically be moved as well. That way the candidate can explain himself on the talk page if necessary. >Radiant< 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see the value of the word limit but I'm not sure why there should be an outright ban on brief explanations for why someone is supporting or opposing. Maybe some with more experience of ArbCom elections could explain what prob these caused in the past - old voting pages don't look unduly long... Also, why the objections to diffs/links. Surely "Oppose. Due to ... " isn't a disruptive comment? WjBscribe 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Questions

Are there any qualifications (other than editor in good standing) to be an arbcomm candidate? And what are the sufferage requirements (generally)? --Rocksanddirt 22:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

to run is generaly 1000+ edits. To vote is normaly a bit over 100.Geni 23:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominations

Last year we started accepting nominations on October 1, 2006. Presumably it's the same thing this year, unless Jimbo or the committee says otherwise. I'll create the nominations page, copying last years format (I have no intentions to run). Picaroon (t) 02:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back to Nov 1; while last year's page said Oct 1, the first statements only came in Nov 1. Might as well reflect this trend Picaroon (t) 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

The page says the elected arbitrators will join Tranche Alpha - is that just naming and the terms expire in 2010, or does it imply something different? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, purely naming - they're not like Alpha Dogs or anything :) Daniel 11:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Six or five?

There's six strings in Alpha, as opposed to five for Beta and Gamma. The sixth was occupied briefly by Essjay. Any ideas of it'll be six electees or five from this election? Daniel 11:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's six, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't think Essjay's seat is going to be completely "abolished". Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on if any seats in other strings are taken. (Will flcelloguy's seat be treated as filiocht's last year? Maybe, maybe not) Wizardman 15:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And it also depends on Jimbo's decisions to appoint. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 15:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hard-line view on commentary

I agree totally with Radiant! here, and suggest limiting it to signatures and timestamp only. One candidate, who was eventually successful, almost was not appointed after his vote went from >95% to <85% in the space of six hours, due to a user posting a patently false comment on the voting page which led to a pile-on in opposes before it was removed. The candidate couldn't reply, and it led to a very bad situation. Daniel 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just let the candidate respond to opposes as they see fit? If the opposer wants to make a further comment in response to the reply, it can be moved to the talk page. Picaroon (t) 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought voting was evil? 86.29.44.23 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope.... Daniel 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So voting is fine for elections, but not for RfAs? Weird, 86.29.44.23 01:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess it'd be too controversial to have discussions, where there's 30+ candidates trying to get 5 or 6 spots. And I don't think Jimbo would appreciate the whinging etc. that would come with having to decide. Daniel 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither the Arbcom elections nor RFA is a "vote" in the sense that the outcome is binding. RFA is a means to help the bureaucrats determine community consensus to promote; the ArbCom elections are the means by which Jimbo assesses community views about candidates (since he can't possibly know them all). Jimbo is not bound by the results and can appoint anyone he wants no matter what the vote count is. Thatcher131 04:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I am pretty sure that last year, Jimbo chose to appoint those who had the highest percentages in favor, without exception. (I realize that the year before, he skipped one or two.) It is therefore clear that he is inclined to go with the results of the election unless he sees a good reason to the contrary. And it therefore follows that the votes DO mean something, if only because Jimbo has decided that they do. It is not simply a discussion. 6SJ7 06:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to the process of ArbCom elections but I'm finding the opposition to a comment/diff being added to a vote puzzling. I agree we shouldn't be allowing vast diatribes but it doesn't seem unreasonable for people to add a sentence explaining why they support or oppose the candidate. WjBscribe 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WJBscribe, in that someone may have a serious reason for opposition that they wish to bring to the communities attention, allowing a small sentance to clarify a vote would allow them to do that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2007's case workload - reference for potential candidates

If any one is considering running and is wondering what the workload would be like, see User:Picaroon/Stats for case statistics in 2007. I'm not trying to scare anyone, but if you are appointed, it is hoped you will participate actively, and that means reading over and voting in most of the ~8 cases a month. If you fail to do so, the clerks break out the cattle prods - and that's never pretty. Picaroon (t) 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Things to do

Well the time is coming soon, should we start getting some pages organised for candidate statements to go on and the process for which users can enter the election? E.g. start gathering nomination templates, instructions for entry and eligability for voting? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is basically how it worked last year:

• Nominations start Nov 1. You have to 1000 edits or more on enwiki by this day to run. Blocked/banned users may not run.
• Candidates place a statement at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote. 400 words or less. Link to a longer statement in your userspace if you want.
• Candidates create their own subpage at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Username and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Username. Copy&paste statements to top of both of these pages.
• People ask questions, using level 2 headers, at that page, and candidate responds (or doesn't) as they feel best.

• On Dec 1, nominations are no longer accepted.
• Voting begins same day at the /Vote/Username pages. Supports and opposes only, no neutrals. Keep reasoning brief, link to longer comment on talk page if you must.
• You must have 150 mainspace edits before Dec 1 to vote. You may only vote once per candidate, and not for yourself. Possible sockpuppet votes should be listed on this page for investigation. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite and explain why their vote has been indented. If you want to withdraw your candidacy, place archive templates on your voting page and move your section on /Vote to #Withdrawn candidates.
• Voting ends on Dec 15. Jimbo comes along and decides the result. Everybody lives happily ever after. The end.

How's that? Picaroon (t) 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Threshold to vote

Last year the requirement was 150 edits to vote and accounts created before Oct 1. Those seem generally sensible, but I was wondering if we should exclude the sandbox and User:/User talk: namespaces from that? Anyone have thoughts on changes to the standing requirements for voters? WjBscribe 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me, all users participating should have an understanding of what they are participating in. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Way to complicated to run edit counts on. Let's just make it 150 mainspace. Picaroon (t) 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)