Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Archive 1

This is the archive page for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011.

Timetable for ACE2011

The topic of the timetable for the Arbitration Committee Elections for 2011 is being discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT objection

"Has a registered account and has had at least 150 mainspace edits by 1 November 2011"

Though nomination already has started, I want to make an urgent objection. The word "mainspace" should be removed, as it sees mainspace and other (template, discussion, Wikipedia, etc) as inequal. Paolo Napolitano 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of your position, the RFC established a clear community consensus for the requirement of 150 mainspace edits. If you want the RFC consensus overruled, you would need a community wide discussion on the issue, and I think it is unlikely you would be able to establish consensus before the end of the nominating period, if at all. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you knowingly participated in the WP:ACERFC, which you could have objected to this back then. I have a hard time trying to AGF that you weren't aware of that. –MuZemike 23:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a user not noticing the "mainspace" in the RFC and thinking it applied to any edits. Regardless, though, the results of the RFC stand, and they require 150 mainspace edits. We can't be changing the rules after the nominations start. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who will remove Paolo's candidature, which cannot be accepted under our eligibility rules? AGK [•] 23:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Secret ^account 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will not make too much fuss about it. Count me in next year, I will keep on as an outside watchdog for another year.... Paolo Napolitano 13:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitewide notice

This year's elections seem pretty quiet. Should we have a sitewide notice (similar to stewards elections earlier this year) to attract more editors? - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. We need more candidates. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 11:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, last year about half the candidates came forward in the last day and a half or so of the nomination period. There is a lot of 'waiting to see who else steps up' going on right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-11-14/News_and_notes#Call_for_candidates_in_the_ArbCom_elections – Hopefully those not seeing the watchlist notice will read the Signpost. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC close stated that the sitewide notice should only be for the voting phase. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't specifically listed in the RFC, but would adding the nomination period to WP:CENT be appropriate? Just a thought.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar thought, but editors are rather insistent that that particular tool be used for discussions, not announcements. If nominations are very slow in coming we can do a wider round of announcements before the weekend. Skomorokh 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can link them to the candidate discussion pages then.--Tznkai (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Create a candidate statement" button

You would have more candidate standing if you unblocked the "create a candidate statement" button. Every time I click on it, it then takes me to a page saying that teh page I want is blocked, and can only be played with by admins. How can I put forward my candidacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about exactly how you were stopped from creating a nomination? If there is a problem I would like to fix it. Also, note that you clearly do not meet the candidate edibility criteria. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Thehistorian10 is referring to "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/". That page was deleted and then protected after someone accidentally created it. Thehistorian10 probably forgot to insert his or her username after the slash character. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you place your username (without the "User:" prefix) after that last slash. That will take you to a candidate page with your own username in front of it. Hope that helps. –MuZemike 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be good for Thehistorian10 to review the eligibility requirements listed here prior to putting more effort into submitting a nomination. –xeno^talk 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geni and alternate accounts

According to our standing instructions for candidates, the Arbitration policy, and the pre-election RfC, one of the requirements of standing for election is that the prospective candidate disclose any alternate accounts in their nomination statement. In the case of Geni (see nomination), the candidate has indicated that their disclosure might not be complete, as they can't recall all past accounts used. So technically, this would seem at odds with the candidates' requirements, and barring spontaneous memory recovery does not look like being resolved, which leaves us in a bit of bind as to the candidacy.

On the one hand, the rules are clear and supported by consensus, and while I think in Geni's case (given the number of alts and their long history of contributions) the omission is genuine and innocuous, to create a precedent that "I forgot that account" would leave the door open for evasions by unscrupulous candidates in future.

On the other hand, to bar the community from judging a candidate of long-established stature whose history of alternate account usage is very well known on a technicality might be unfair on the candidate and a detriment to the elections at large.

I didn't think it appropriate that this be decided by a handful of volunteer election co-ordinators so I am bringing it here for the community's decision. If you agree with the assessment that the statement does not meet the requirements, should we IAR in this case? Thank you for your consideration, on behalf of the co-ordinators, Skomorokh 12:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an unusual case and this meets the spirit of the rule, so IAR. Why someone would need to disclose an account that isn't actively being used or hasn't been significantly used in the past in any case is, to my mind, bizarre, but I didn't write the RfC statement. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bot account, and a public sock, but I can't guarantee that I didn't make a doppelganger or two; I just don't remember. When you've been editing for several years, that's the sort of thing you start forgetting. :/ --Rs chen 7754 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the reason for this is so we can judge the human (not the account); given that, any old accounts which are practically unused shouldn't be a big deal unless they were to reveal some major problems. I'd say that any account which wasn't used against the rules of WP:SOCK, was never blocked, and wasn't used in the past couple years is probably irrelevant. And the entry "A significant chunk of the first page of Special:ListUsers are mine created to push some rather abusive usernames off the first page" (currently the last one) clearly indicates that their purpose is reasonable; these were nearly all made before account creation was logged (September 2005). I see no reason why this requirement should prevent Geni from running. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been open a week and the responses are unanimously in favour of upholding Geni's candidacy, no action will be taken. It might be worth revisiting this issue in the post-election feedback. Thanks all for commenting. Skomorokh 12:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preloader error led to candidate discussion pages bearing trailing slashes

The preloader had an error leading to all the discussion pages being created with trailing slashes [1]. Could someone do the needful and move them all to the proper locations? –xeno^talk 19:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No-one else seems to be addressing this so can I ask why this matters? If pages are moved, do the redirects need to be suppressed? Skomorokh 12:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because the talk pages aren't in the right locations next to the candidate pages. The redirects may be suppressed if there are no incoming links. –xeno^talk 13:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which talk pages do you mean exactly? The candidate talkpages (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/SilkTork et al) are in the right place, with no trailing slashes, as is the collected discussion page, as far as I can make out. Skomorokh 13:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the matter has resolved itself by people just creating the pages at the right locations. At this point, the pages with the trailing slashes should be checked for any comments, and then could probably be deleted per G6 [2] –xeno^talk 13:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I've redirected the remainder, so all should be sorted now. deletions make new editors cry. Skomorokh 14:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way. Though I don't see how that chart is relevant; it relates to deletion of new users edits, I highly doubt deleting these pages would not impact new users view of Wikipedia. –xeno^talk 14:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! just kidding, you deletionist swine. Skomorokh 14:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! –xeno^talk 14:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small but entertaining number of people impersonating the candidates

Hi folks! One might imagine that most well-balanced people are busy getting on with contributing to the encyclopedia, and obsessing over the arbcom elections would be the furthest thing from their minds. However, the candidates should congratulate themselves that some people, at least, are very interested in what they think or what others think about them. Some jokers (or perhaps just people from that part of the world) have been using IRC to impersonate candidates in this year's elections and approach editors privately under false pretences. (Gasp, shock, horror, chiz chiz, etc.)

So, for those of you who are so de-sensitised to things like the recent series of drunken monologues about Libyan politics that you still tolerate IRC, do be aware that most people who approach you with a flimsy excuse as to why they are signed in with a different username than usual, are not who they say they are. For a week or two.

An oversighter/checkuser (I forget which, they might be both) and operator on the channel in question, has been given all the relevant details. They reacted by taking a nap, presumably to ensure heightened alertness for dealing with further occurrences of this problem later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly are they doing? Seeking bribes for favors to be granted by their namesakes once elected? Or what? Neutron (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it didn't get that far, since "hi I typed my name wrong but oh well" isn't the sort of thing I treat as a very convincing explanation. Hopefully no-one else will either... the above note is just for those who might be slightly more forgetful of such caution :D --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal

Could a coordinator please withdraw my candidacy? I have posted a lengthier explanation on my talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 02:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the same general procedure for candidates withdrawing before voting as was done in 2009: removing Maxim from the guide, untranscluding the candidate statement, discuss, and questions for the candidate, and posting a notice as appropriate.--Tznkai (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we thought was unthinkable has just happened

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In the interest of clarity, I'm moving these comments to the above section and closing this section. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry is standing down as an arb at the end of the year, so do we go into and RfC mode (for the 2 days 8 hours left before voting) and get a rough consensus or how will this work? (See this for details) -- DQ (t) (e) 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm biased, but since candidates need 50% support anyway this should really be filled through the election. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. HurricaneFan 25 15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the seat should be filled if a candidate meets the 50% threshold. For me the question is the term length. There are three ways I think the 8th seat could go. First, we could have it always be a one year seat filled by the candidate with the 8th most support. This would make sure that no tranche was larger then the other, and one extra seat being elected each year is not overly burdensome, and is still less then there would have been without the change. Second, we could have it be a 2 year term, and anticipate that during any given cycle, one Arb seat from the most recently elected tranche will become vacant, and will be able to be the 8th seat for the alternate tranche. The problem with that would be that there is a risk of all the arbs staying, which would leave an imbalance. My third proposal would be a hybrid of the two, we fill all 8, but the 8th place will be a one year term, however if another tranche beta seat opens during 2012, the 8th place arb would be promoted to fill the remainder of the two year term. I don't think we need to conclude an RFC before voting starts, as long as there is no significant dissent other whether the seat should be filled at least a year term, the specifics of the term length can be decided as the voting proceeds, or even after it is concluded. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize what I said in the earlier section, I think we should stick with the previous plan of electing seven members of "Group 2" for two-year terms, and treat this as a "one-year" vacancy in "Group 1." So the "top 7" are elected for two-year terms and the eighth for a one-year term, assuming all meet the 50% threshold. It also would be nice if we could keep this discussion in one place at a time. Neutron (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.