Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table

Examples exhibiting arbitration skills

When I inserted the column, I explained the reason on #Examples exhibiting arbitration skills, but not here. I understand that it was reverted, because I assume that the reverter did not know my reason for adding it:

Actions count more than nice statements, so I would like to see examples of how candidates handled tricky arbitration issues. To this end, I just added a column "Examples" to the Summary table - please help me populate it! I also encourage candidates themselves; and I think it's also fine to insert counterexamples. Thanks, Sebastian

Please allow me to reinsert this column. I really feel it is important, and I don't see that it does any harm, even if many fields will be empty initially. That will only help us see for which candidates we have no example yet. — Sebastian (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our posts just crossed. At the same time, Tra wrote:

"I've merged that column into the notes, for now. It takes up a lot of space and it only applies to one candidate at the moment. If information is added for more candidates, it could probably be given its own column."

I'd like to reply that it doesn't take that much space: No more than the word "Example", which is much less than "Date of first edit" plus "Date of adminship" plus "Date of nomination", which together may be equally important. — Sebastian (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the column because adding it caused the other columns to shrink slightly making the table as a whole to be quite squashed and untidy. I moved the one example you had put initially to the notes column, since this is the place where information that does not apply to most candidates goes. If there were arbitration skills information for several candidates, the column could probably be re-added. You say that the blank spaces help show where this information is missing - it's still possible to see where it's missing even without its own dedicated column and I think the slightly extra effort involved to find blanks outweighs the shrinking of the columns.

I am also slightly concerned that a column of this nature may be a bit subjective and would be more suited to discussions, questions or in userspace, rather than this table, which is more for just giving general facts about the candidate. On a side note, if you're copying the wikicode into Word to make the edits, be careful that straight quotes like " are not changed into smart quotes like “ and ” since this messes up the table syntax. Tra (Talk) 00:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm embarrassed about mistakes like the Word quotes, which is something I'm usually aware of. (I wish there was a Word setting for quickly changing back and forward between doing these autocorrections).

You're making two points:

Space: I don't think this is such a big issue. We can save a lot more space by abbreviating month names. If space is your concern, I also don't understand why you reverted the column headings "First edit" and "Adminship" back to "Date of first edit" and "Date of adminship"; do you really think any voter could not be aware that these columns contain dates?
Objectivity: This is a serious concern which needs a solution. You're right that a simple link to an edit only shows a tiny portion of reality. Maybe we could instead link to a page with descriptions? That of course is more work, and more stuff to read, but I think it would be a good solution when a link is perceived as subjective. — Sebastian (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice your removal of 'date of' from the headings so I accidently added them back in during the revert. Sorry about that, they're gone now. As for a page of descriptions, the questions page would be a good place for discussing examples with the candidates but it probably isn't the best place if you simply want to list the diffs without discussion. Tra (Talk) 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviating the month names is a good idea. I've added that to the table. Tra (Talk) 01:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

numbers by first edit/adminship dates?

I realize the cat is out of the bag so feel free to tell me to go climb a tree, but why are we 'ranking' candidates according to when they first edited, became an admin, etc? I don't understand the rationale here, and would like to remove it but would like even more to see some discussion first. If this has been discussed elsewhere I apologize; I don't see why we can't rely on voters to do the math themselves if it's important to them. -- nae'blis 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was suggested by Carcharoth. I'm not 100% sure what they are there for but I'd assume it's supposed to, as you said, save voters from doing the maths themselves. Tra (Talk) 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested by me. I asked for dates of first edits and date of adminship. Tra or Carcharoth responded by building this table. It has since been greatly expanded and refined.

On my talk page I converted the dates to total number of months, and Carcharoth picked this up and brought it to this table. I think the calculations are hard to do while visually scanning three dozen entries.

In the process of adding this information, we encountered and reported data for previous names. This was interesting.

Finally, knowing these dates helps me form a picture of the candidate, as does reading his edits, ArbCom cases he has been involved in, etc. No one has to use this information. But there might be some who want it. Jd2718 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning behind any "first edit", "adminship" dates would be to show how long a particular candidate has been around Wikipedia for. I understand the arguments that someone who has been actively involved for a year might be more "on the ball" than someone who has only been peripherally involved for four years, but these are simple, demonstrable facts about the candidates, and help to make them more than just a name. If voters want to know what to do with a table like this, I would say it is just to get a general idea about each candidate - a starting point so that you have some picture in your mind what the differences are between the candidates, and some ideas for places to start looking for more about them. Obviously don't let the table guide you in your voting decisions - that would be mostly determined by reading the statement and questions pages for the candidates, which is why that is up front. By the way, thanks to SebastianHelm for moving this table to this location. Carcharoth 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]