Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table

Block log

Is it really necessary to add that in the notes column? We already have it under "other links". — Sebastian 09:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I now realized that the "b" was not for being blocked, but for admins who blocked others. I already used "b" in that meaning in {{user tcb}}. I'm wondering if we can find another way to include that in the links column. Anyway, I'm too tired now to think this through. — Sebastian 09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I changed "b" to "block log" in the template. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will look at the block logs and check how many of them are clearly inappropriate or older than a year or two. Maybe we should add a column with a number for the appropriate recent ones, and a link to the log if there were any others? — Sebastian 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio column

Someone proposed to “change "A", and keep it purely for arbcom members. This isn't aimed at anyone, rather, it's because clerk work really isn't the same as actual arbcom case work and (as in the case of Flonight last year) some people see the distinction as crucially important. Clerks may or may not have arb experience, but a proportion of users will probably wish to review their actual work. You already have an entry in the "Notes" column for arbcom clerks which is better.”

I don't think this would be an improvement. There are currently only two candidates with "A" in their Portfolio column. I intended the "A" only as a reminder; if someone wants to know what it stands for, they can just look into the next column - the Comment column, which tells if the candidate is a clerk or an arbitrator. I intended "A" for anything that is so involved that it equates about a dozen of lower case "a"s, because I feel it would be ridiculous to require a long chain of links when every voter can see that the person has solid experience with and continuous dedication to ArbCom. — Sebastian 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to the "A", we could also use other capital letters in cases where a candidate has been so involved in an area that a portfolio would be superfluous. — Sebastian 19:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consist....

Looks good, just need some consistency in the notes. I'll do it if nobody else does when I get home. Keep up the good work. Mercury 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned

As nice as this is, I think we should be careful about inserting what could be seen as biased or POV additions. The "portfolio" and "notes" columns in particular.

For example, would I be correct that all entrants with any "block" entries have that noted in "notes"?

Also, who determines what is "remarkable" in terms of editing contributions?

I realise this is a well-intended idea, I just would like us to stay Neutral in its entries. - jc37 04:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]