Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012

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.

Template has wrong nomination dates

Someone should fix this. I don't know how. Jd2718 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's what the template says: "The nomination period is running for 10 days: from Saturday 00:01 UTC, 12 November until Monday 23:59, 21 November.

Please go here if you are interested in running for ArbCom for 2012." But the article says November 11 - November 20. Jd2718 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Template says 2011 instead of 2012

When I created my candidate profile just now, the links to my statement, questions, and discussion pages were broken. Apparently, the template still says "2011" in a couple of places, whereas it should say "2012". I fixed this in my own profile, but someone should fix the template. — Richwales 06:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I found the source of the error, and it should be corrected now. Monty₈₄₅ 07:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not. "Vote" link leads to Special:SecurePoll/vote/240 - should be 259  The Steve  12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Duplication in general questions

(Cross-posted from the questions development talkpage.) As a potential candidate I haven't said too much about the question set, but I just noticed that general questions 5(b) and 5(d) overlap significantly. It might be worth combining them—but it should be done quickly, before candidates start answering them. Sorry not to have pointed this out sooner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy needing fixing

The banner at the top of the project page says "The nomination period is running for 10 days: from Sunday 00:01 UTC, 11 November until Wednesday 23:59, 20 November." However, 20 November is Tuesday, not Wednesday. This needs to be fixed ASAP, either by changing "Wednesday" to "Tuesday" (and hoping that no one who read it said to himself or herself "great, I'll post my candidacy on Wednesday"), or by changing "20 November" to "21 November." Sorry not to have noticed this sooner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There were actually several errata in the dates; I've had a clean-up. Happy‑melon 15:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Guides not showing up

I'm not sure if this is a problem for anyone else, but the last two guides added to {{ACE2012/Guides}} (Collect and Reaper Eternal)aren't displaying on the template. Hot Stop (Talk) 15:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

They wrongly wrote "{{{" for the needed "({{". The risk of this error could be dramatically reduced by the use of a structured-programming coding-style. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Userspace template

• Template:RfX-notice

I updated the template and its log help page to include ACE. - jc37 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ineligible candidate/spam?

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Zoran Georgiev was created by Zoki75 (talk · contribs), an editor with only 20 edits. Plus it reads like a resume. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're just going to leave it for now and probably toss it under the elections since it's not been transcluded. --Rschen7754 04:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It reads like it was roughly copy-pasted from somewhere, with the random words like "Edit" and "Add a position" inbetween the actual content. It might be a copyvio from something, maybe a website such as LinkedIn. - SudoGhost 04:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That was my impression as well, though the copy past of it from there includes the edit button text, which suggests to me that it may be the original author who copied it to wikipedia, which is the only reason I didn't tag it G12. Unless someone wants to delete it on the copyvio grounds, my position is it should just be left there untranscluded in the interests of transparency. Monty₈₄₅ 18:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Just found 2 more: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/ --Rschen7754 02:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your link above doesn't show any specific candidates. Which ones did you mean to show? Lord Roem (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because I already deleted the page and replaced it with something else... sorry :( --Rschen7754 04:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blade and I tripped over each other deleting Zoran's page. I don't see any similar pages at Special:Prefix; perhaps someone already deleted them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Candidate guide

Not sure if the editor who started it is waiting for nominations to close, or intends to complete it later in the week, but I thought it might be worth pointing out here Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Guide which was started earlier today. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this ok?

Just for the sake of exploring a hypothetical situation, let us say that a candidate added a nomination at the last minute. And let us further presume that their candidate statement consisted of a a link to project they started attached to the words "vote for me" and nothing else of substance, including the required statements regarding identifying to the foundation and disclosure of accounts. And let us further presume that said candidate was already warned, by a sitting arbitrator no less, about canvassing for their pet project in inappropriate ways, and that this candidate has already stated quite openly that they do not believe they have a realistic chance of being elected. What, if any, action is warranted in reaction to such a scenario? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In such a situation, hypothetically, the election administrators should be dealing with this. However, unfortunately we don't have any yet. --Rschen7754 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That isn't quite right. As of ACE 2011 there were five groups of election volunteers: coordinators; scrutineers; election administrators (as opposed to general Wikipedia admins); miscellaneous Foundation sysadmins/MediaWiki developers (ask Happy-melon to explain the difference sometime, I don't recall) mostly Tim; and random functionaries (mostly MuZemike). Coordinators were self selected from the community; scrutineers were stewards recruited by the aforementioned random functionaries to validate election results; election administrators were also recruited by random functionaries to help coordinate between the community and the scrutineers and had the same technical access as scrutineers; miscellaneous Foundation sysadmins/MediaWiki developers set up the SecurePoll interface; and random functionaries help coordinate the whole thing. As you can see from this list, it is very much not actively organized.

As of now, that same division of responsibilities can still be true, with the exact same oversight, which is to say none. In addition, there is an Election Commission past due to be appointed that has a mandate to solve election related disputes. It is not a body meant to "run" the election so much as a place to solve problems if and when the other people running the elections have a problem they cannot solve by themselves, especially in time sensitive situations. By the wording of my proposal, the Election Commission can choose, if they wish, to take on more responsibility and hoard day to day responsibilities, but in the meantime there is nothing stopping the rest of us from keeping calm and carrying on.

My original plan was to be as silent on election procedures as possible (I also had planned to write a voters guide this year). I believed the Commission would be appointed on time or close to it, and they should have the right and responsibility of figuring out how they want to organize themselves and their relationship with the other election staff. The Commission has still not been appointed. Now, it seems that we have to run the risk of handing them a broken system fait accompli, because many people are impatient and a few people are behind.

Unless there is some serious objection in the next few hours I will do the following:

• I am going to get the e-mails of everyone who ran and did not withdraw from the Electoral Commission and get them talking so they are prepared to hit the ground running on their appointments. They will be looped in on any e-mails I'm sending
• I am going to recruit coordinators by general announcement, and by hunting down the people who have done this before and have proven they have good sense. Once we have a few, we will decide amongst ourselves how to fix the not at all hypothetical situation you've presented us.
• I am going to contact Tim Starling so we can see how long we have before access permissions to SecurePoll need to be set in stone, which will give us a deadline to decide whether or not the EC makes Election Admins superfluous.
• I should be finished sometime Thursday morning, which, for those of us in the United States, is a day generally reserved for family.

If anyone has any objections to my game plan, feel free to speak up, but I am pretty certain that what I am doing is both in line with past practice and to the Electoral Commission proposal.--Tznkai (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine plan. BTW, I think the solution to the non-hypothetical hypothetical situation is to (a) insist on the statements about ID'ing to the foundation and other accounts, with removal from the ballot if this isn't done, and (b) not worrying about the rest of it, as the results of the election will take care of it for us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for your replies. I had not really been following the coordination aspects while I was pondering running myself so I was not up to speed on those matters. I hope I did not come across as demanding or impatient, in all honesty I have not paid much attention to the opening stages of this process in the past, I generally would just look it all over when it was time to vote and make my decisions then. So, no real hurry, was just curious as to the appropriateness of such a candidacy. Thanks to all who put their time into this running this process, it looks like a lot more work than I had previously realized. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've left notes to the two candidates who don't have statements, the rest have either statements that comply, or that at least arguably do. Hopefully they both just add the statements, and we don't need to decide anything further. If they don't, someone will need to decide by the poll finalization deadline what happens, but I don't think the candidate's motivation or goal in running should be considered. Monty₈₄₅ 00:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. So long as they comply, there won't be an issue. It may have just been an oversight. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that Jimbo wouldn't appoint anyone who refused to identify, but I hope it wouldn't go that far. --Rschen7754 00:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

David Fuchs is a sitting arb, who's already identified to the foundation, and who made their "ain't got no socks" statement in 2010: [1]... And the concern is not that Jimbo would appoint someone who refused to ID to the foundation, the concern is that such a statement has been required for a while, and has kept others off the ballot before. No sense wasting everyone's time voting for/against someone who won't make such an assurance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My general opinion is that anyone who meets the basic eligibility criteria (500 edits, no siteban, willing to ID, willing to declare socks) gets to run, regardless of how meritless their statement is or certain their defeat is. Among other things, the community didn't direct higher eligibility thresholds at the RFC, letting people with no shot run has little chance of harm because they will lose, and letting people with no shot run deprives them of the argument that they would have won but for the removal of their candidacy. I do think that in the future the community might consider a restriction along the lines of "If a person obtains less than 33% in a given election, they are precluded from running in the next subsequent election." Someone doing that poorly in an election probably needs more than a year to fix whatever flaws the community found. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. While the community's determination that as many candidates as possible should have the opportunity to miserably fail never ceases to amaze me, the community very clearly is determined that that should be the case. Happy‑melon 11:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Election Staff coordination, recruitment

In an effort to get us ever so slightly more organized, I've set up Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination, listing all of the staff and their roles, and the corresponding talk page so that election staff can be quickly contacted, and the staff can coordinate among themselves. If you want to be an election coordinator, just go ahead and sign up. We should probably also consider centralizing some of the talk pages at /questions /candidates to this talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo in questions

I presume that there is a typo in question 3.d.ii.

It should be (i) and not (a)? : )

Anyone want to be helpful and fix that in everyone's questions? - jc37 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Template:ACE2012 is wrong

It's one full day off the time when voting is scheduled to begin. Can someone fix it please? Risker (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Actually, having a countdown in the template strikes me as too cutesy, but I guess I'll choose my battles and not argue about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

SecurePoll

Hi everyone, we have just under 36 hours before voting starts. Do we have a link to the SecurePoll page yet? I'd like to put it in the watchlist notice nice and early - at the moment the notice will appear on the watchlist on Monday but the link to the voting interface will be broken. Does anyone know what the status of the SecurePoll setup is, and whether it will be ready on time? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The election coordinators sent an email but haven't heard anything back yet. Conversation is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination#Status of setting up SecurePoll. 64.40.54.65 (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the update. I've commented out the watchlist notice until we can be sure that the system is working. I figure that no notice at all is probably better than a notice with a broken link. If the link becomes available, you can start a new edit request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details, and leave a message on my talk page. Or if you happen to be an admin, just add it. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l

The Arbitration Committee has recently been made aware that information posted to its arbcom-l mailing list was inappropriately shared outside of the Committee this month. The disclosures involved posts made to the mailing list by arbitrator Jclemens on November 6 and 7 (UTC), and pertained to some of his positions in the coming Arbitration Committee election. These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election. The unauthorized disclosures were reported to the Committee separately by two non-arbitrator candidates in the current Arbitration Committee elections, and our understanding is that other candidates and other editors have also received correspondence repeating some or all of the information.

Arbitrator Elen of the Roads has confirmed that she shared information, including direct quotes from the mailing list, with two non-arbitrators within 24 hours of Jclemens' original posts. This information was subsequently shared with other parties, including at least some of the current candidates. The Committee was made aware of this on November 13. On polling the arbitrators, Elen of the Roads disclosed that she had released a portion of one email to non-arbitrators, and denied sharing any further emails. She subsequently clarified on 25 November that she had released information from two separate emails, including the full text of one.

In addition, an email written by Jclemens was copied and sent to at least some current candidates on November 19 from a Gmail account. There were certain modifications made to the email that do not match the original or the information shared by Elen of the Roads. All arbitrators have been polled, and all have denied sharing that post with anyone outside of the Committee.

Arbitrators supporting this statement: Casliber, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie
Arbitrators recused from voting on this statement: All current candidates (Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad)
Arbitrators inactive on voting on this statement: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this statement

Wrong real-time voting log

On the voting page, the first link to the real-time voting log is OK, but the second link (in the "You may change your vote by starting over" bullet point) is a link to last year's log. Deor (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of mainspace

What does "mainspace edits" actually refer to? Articles? Articles and WP:* but not User* ? Tarc (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

While it can depend on who is asking, typically, main-space = the article namespace. And project-space = the Wikipedia namespace. - jc37 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mainspace--В и к и T 19:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Article space. There are I think a number of reasons to call it main space as opposed to article space, some are covered at Wikipedia:Main namespace. Monty₈₄₅ 19:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I ask because Niabot has only 93 edits to article-space, and is listed in the voter logs. So either there isn't a hard-coded 150-edit prohibition, or this is something that is manually taken care of after the polls close? Tarc (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a hard-coded 150-edit prohibition, but it doesn't distiguish among name spaces (so 1 article edit and 149 userspace edits work). We intend to work with the Scrutineers to review voter eligibility and have the Scrutineers strike those who do not meet the 150 mainspace edit requirement. MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination/Instructions for scrutineers indicates that the voting system does not check name space, or when they met the 150 cutoff, only that there are 150 edits in total when the voter eligibility list was compiled. Someone will need to strike the vote manually. I'm sure there is a proper way to flag that issue for review, but I'm blanking on what it is. Monty₈₄₅ 19:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Once the election closes, make a signed note on the manual log page. A scrutineer will review and strike the vote in SecurePoll. Until then comments on the talk page cna keep track of who needs to be struck. MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the count of mainspace edits include only article edits, or also article talkpage edits? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It only includes article edits, not article talkpage edits. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but we have lots of watchers of the voter logs, and it might be an idea to start a page where they can identify votes whose eligibility needs review. I remember we used to have a page like that back in the olden days... Risker (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like its being done by annotating the voter log directly. I'll start up a thread on the talk page to monitor whether each user has been communicated with.--Tznkai (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are edits made in writing Signpost articles considered mainspace edits? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The canonical definition of the requirement is that this query must return a second page of results. Signpost articles are not written in the article namespace, so the answer to your question is no. Happy‑melon 14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I created a talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Log where people can leave comments about votes that need review. MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just filled that out, will direct people there from the coordination page as well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Didn't think this was possible

This page indicates I voted twice. I didn't. Moriori (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what happened. Perhaps you pressed the "vote" button twice? Anyhow, it probably doesn't matter, as the most recent vote is the only one counted. Multiple voting is allowed for that reason. dci | TALK 02:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just as well I noticed, because as there were actually two votes recorded from me at 00:19, the second one would have superseded my carefully considered yes and no choices, meaning that my vote is currently in the system as a no-vote for every candidate. Poo-bah. I'll re-enter them later. I am not conscious of hitting the button twice. Cheers Moriori (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Lord Bromblemore is shown as having voted twice also so I have alerted him to the situation. Moriori (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that I had voted twice, but I didn't think anything of it at the time. I'm not sure why the duplicate vote would be all "no-votes" or how you came to know the duplicate vote was that way, but thank you for notifying me. (I have voted again, and this time I'm only listed once, so I think the problem's solved, at least for me.) -Lord Bromblemore (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know our second votes would be all no-votes, but correctly surmised it. If someone who has already voted revisits the voting page, it automatically defaults to a no-votes status. No probs now. Moriori (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this and both being gracious enough to re-submit. Given its infrequent use, SecurePoll is pretty much an unmaintained outside of its creator and one or two other people. This means there are very few "extras" built into the code, like being able to review your own vote or getting confirmation of your submitted ballot. But, it seems to work well enough for our limited needs. MBisanz ^talk 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I "visited" the voting page after voting, but all I did was look at the page — I did not click the "submit" button. The voter log currently shows me having voted only once, at the original time when I did in fact vote. Are you saying my original vote was silently cancelled (with no indication thereof in the voter log), simply because I did a "look-but-don't-touch" of the voting page later on?? — Richwales 22:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your "look but not submit" should be an issue. The securepoll voter log has one vote recorded from you at 00:29, 27 November 2012. If you had submitted a second time, we would see it. So, you should be fine. Lord Roem (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Good 'ol SecurePoll. It's well worth having even in its current unreconstructed state. But who's for putting an update of this old hack onto the WMF techs' radar for next year? Tony (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We can try, but it's my understanding that the techs and the WMF in general are strapped for developer resources. I highly doubt they would dedicate time to this project that is rarely used in the WMF-universe in place of the other niceties we've requested that have a larger impact (global abusefilter, global renames, forced SUL, threaded discussions, WMFLabs, etc.) MBisanz ^talk 15:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

They're hiring like it's going out of fashion. Huge increase in budget. What's in it for us? Tony (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I filed a bug when we first held elections using SecurePoll because I had entered two votes. This was possible because I voted first using the regular server, then again using the 'secure' server (that is, secure.wikimedia.org—not the newfangled https://en.wikipedia.org site). Could this be why some editors who attempted to change their vote have actually voted twice? (Tony1's remark intrigues me: I don't think that bug was ever fixed, despite the considerable expansion of the WMF's development team.) AGK [•] 19:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The secure server has been replaced with https, so that particular bug is no longer possible. MBisanz ^talk 16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"This election has finished, you can no longer vote." message

When I click on "Cast your vote here" in the boxes at the candidates statements page, it takes me to this page informing me "you can no longer vote" because the "election has finished". (Obviously it's an old link to the 2011 election, but should be corrected less it confuse and discourage some editors from voting.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've updated {{ACEcan2012}} to the right poll. There's a lot of references to different years there, I've updated the edit button too. Worm^TT(talk) 13:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a limit to number of Support votes allowed?

Is there a limit to number of Support votes allowed? (For some reason I have the impression there is a limit of eight, but I can't find any instructions regarding that.) MathewTownsend (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't, and there would be no way for anyone to verify it if there was. You may vote for or against as many candidates as you wish. Happy‑melon 15:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Turnout

Just for fun, I'm keeping track of turnout as recorded on the voter log after the end of each day and comparing it to the same #s from last year. The numbers don't reflect votes that may be struck afterwards, so they will be inflated a bit; but, as last year's also didn't reflect those changes until the end, the comparison is still apt.

Last year, 729 eligible votes were cast. Almost half (49%) were cast within the first 72 hours. More than two-thirds (71%) were cast within the first week.

The first table shows a cumulative total day by day, comparing this with previous years:

	2012	2011	2010	2009
Day 1	284	186	216	264
Day 2	384	279	307	393
Day 3	445	355	377	471
Day 4	495	413	472	524
Day 5	533	455	534	569
Day 6	561	485	611	615
Day 7	593	512	666	644
Day 8	628	540	706	703
Day 9	658	565	763	754
Day 10	685	598	854	784
Day 11	705	631	X	812
Day 12	737	653	X	837
Day 13	770	682	X	915
Day 14	858	733	X	994

The second table shows the number of votes for each individual day, comparing this with previous years:

	2012	2011	2010	2009
Day 1	284	186	216	264
Day 2	100	93	91	129
Day 3	61	76	70	78
Day 4	50	58	95	53
Day 5	38	42	62	45
Day 6	28	30	77	46
Day 7	32	27	55	29
Day 8	35	28	40	59
Day 9	30	25	57	51
Day 10	27	33	81	30
Day 11	20	33	X	38
Day 12	32	22	X	25
Day 13	33	29	X	78
Day 14	88	51	X	79

Turnout declined over the past few years; hopefully this year it will go up. --Lord Roem (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Voter Suppression tactics have backfired! Rock the vote! You don't even need your gun-club permit! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So the total numbers of "voters" last year is roughly around the same amount as the number of active admins? - jc37 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I predict 1200 votes at the close of voting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely, though it wouldn't be a bad thing, In 2008, there were 984 votes; in 2009 there were 996 and in 2010 there were 850. In 2011, as noted above, there were 729. In other words, a downward participation trend since 2009, but things are more active this year. Risker (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If the voting trend reflects last year, and 49% vote within the first 72 hours, we would be on track for around 900 votes this year, of course any statistician trying to claim as much from such a limited data set would be fired. Monty₈₄₅ 16:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• A high voter turnout would usually reflect discontent with the status quo, right? Is anyone doing exit polling on this? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• A largish number of candidates and positions. A bit of controversy. These things draw in interest without necessarily indicating discontent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• We've surpassed 2011 turnout by a significant margin! While the numbers will likely shrink a bit, we're very close to 2010 turnout as well. --Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I hadn't quite realised what was meant by "the numbers will likely shrink a bit", but having followed what has been happening at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Log, I see now what you mean. I am not going to comment directly, as that would not be appropriate as a candidate in the just-concluded elections, but are there statistics available on the number of votes struck each year and how that affected the final 'real' turnout figures? I know three duplicate votes were not struck last year, but I can't remember whether the number of votes struck out was published last year (and the two years before that when SecurePoll was used)? Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't believe those numbers are published anywhere, but you can use the tables above and the # of eligible votes cast at the front of each ACE page to find the difference. For example, it appears four votes were struck between the end of voting and the announcement of the results last year (733 votes after voting & 729 eligible votes at the end of the process). Lord Roem (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Turnout is not terribly important because the committee, while necessary and valuable, isn't terribly important to Wikipedia overall, as indicated by research recently published in the Signpost. Voting well should be a large time commitment on the part of the voter, so the fact that not that many Wikipedians do so isn't of concern to me. NE Ent 12:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Further notice

While I'm glad to see the turnout has been strong so far, I am worried that the watchlist notice alone is insufficient. As someone pointed out to me, some users don't use the watchlist and some users won't notice the little line at the top. My thought was to use a newsletter bot to deliver a message inviting people to vote to the Signpost's subscription list. I would modify the list to remove those who have already voted and ask the bot owner to respect the {{nobots}}, but I think this could be a new way to invite additional participation. Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What has the notice been in the past? I'm concerned that the Signpost's subscription list could be seen as a specific subgroup of wikipedians. I know that at least one election guide writer and some of those asking the candidates questions have indicated that they feel the Signpost has portrayed some issues unfairly and have not subscribed. Is there a way to justify selecting this subgroup to spam about the elections? Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In the past, we've spammed a few noticeboards and stuck in a watchlist notice. I picked the Signpost's list because it's the only large list of people who are not opposed to newsletters that I'm aware of. Even The Bugle's list is a full 200 people shorter. I would justify using the Signpost's list because a) It was not created with this use in mind, so it is unlikely to have a selection bias that would otherwise impact the outcome of the election and b) There is no other record of a similar large subgroup on the project that is ok with receiving notices. MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a fine idea to me, as many people don't use their Watclist. Having a notice on the main Signpost page including template) itself would be a better thing to do. And as always this can be implemented only if the community approves of it. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point it would be best to save the idea for the next election RFC. The methods of announcement were covered, albeit with a low level of discussion in the last RFC, and adding a major new method at this point doesn't seem prudent without a pretty strong consensus in favor, Monty₈₄₅ 21:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the editor of the Signpost. :-) We're planning on doing a story on Arbcom this week, so this may be unnecessary. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okey, I'll defer to you. I realize the RFC might've covered this, but was just trying to think of how else the election could be promoted to people likely to vote. MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• You don't really want to overstate the importance of ArbCom. Is it really relevant to the typical editor?
• I personally found it strange and surprising that there is no (obvious) notice of an election at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I stuck some notices up, at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#The_2012_Arbitration_Committee_Election_is_open, but I didn't know how to edit the main page to provide similar notice. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is an excellent idea, but I believe Monty is correct in that it would be prudent to wait until next years ACE RfC and get community input before implementing it. One thing that can be done at this time is adding a brief note to {{CENT}}, which is widely viewed. I'll leave it up to the Commissioners to decide if they want to add a notice to CENT. Also, the Signpost did make a brief mention of ArbCom in the last issue, but it forgot mention that voting was open. Perhaps in their story next week they could specifically mention that voting is open. Best regards. 64.40.57.55 (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm hesitant about spamming the Signpost list, but a CENT message is definitely in order. Happy‑melon 09:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A CENT notice seems perfectly reasonable. I'd also suggest simple "Hey, in case you missed it..." notes at the Village Pumps - certainly the miscellaneous one, likely the policy one, maybe the others. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why no follow-up questions?

Why not allow a threaded discussion should the original Q and A prove unsatisfying? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the heading for each question section and the purpose of the questions page is to permit voters to find out how the candidate feels and responds to certain questions. There is a discussion page for people to discuss how THEY feel about the candidate, include the candidate's answers. The discussion page discussions permit third-parties to respond to the questioner's opinion of the candidate's response. Follow-up questions are permitted, but they can't be structured as a threaded discussion because third-parties can't participate in them and if they could, it would clutter up the page and negate the effect of providing a questions page for voters to review the candidate's answers to questions. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay ... I hear you on formatting, but then wouldn't it be better to reformat versus removing? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I said somewhere else that some of the responses didn't lend themselves to easy re-formatting, so I wanted to leave it to the candidate/questioner to reformat in a manner they thought they made sense, if it could be done. MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment on this again, but that needs clarification. You did indeed say those things to me, and I explained why, in the circumstances, I wasn't going to do that. The end result is several of my questions sit there without valuable clarifications and answers. I remain unhappy about that, and can think of many better ways this could have been approached. At least one of the candidates seems to agree. This really is the last you'll hear from me on this subject, unless I'm directly asked about it, but I wanted to make sure my feelings about the final result of all this meddling with election pages were clear. I don't think this is anybody's "fault" but I do think it's a damn shame it happened. Begoon ^talk 06:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with questions

Please list the individual questions for the candidates on the template. It's a headache for me to find them (apart from stalking MBisanz), and it must be impossible for most voters. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite frustrating. Why does MBisanz feel the need to "hide" questions? I've been reemed for refactoring, but really, moving comments so that they cannot be found is compromising the integrity of this election. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No questions have been hidden or moved. Only threaded comments have been moved and pointers placed to their location to permit others to engage in the discussion. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I added links to the questions for individual candidates to the discussions page. One had to go to the discussion page and look up (which people rarely do, according to Murph the Surf) to see a questions link. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okey, thanks for doing that, I couldn't figure out what you were asking for. MBisanz ^talk 14:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Turnout observation #2

Lord Roem's doing a great job of the daily tabs (see above), but for interest's sake I compared the actual names on this year's voter log with last year's. Interestingly, only 272 voters appear on both lists. I have no idea what that means. Manning (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Color me surprised. I would have guessed that the makeup of votes would include four main groups, plus a small handful of others:

1. Active admins,
2. Highly active editors, who happen not to be admisn for various reasons
3. One off voters who don't regularly vote, but were affected in some way by an Arbcom action
4. Newish - editors who are relatively new, plan to become active, so participate, but haven't in the past

I would have pegged the first group at 4-5 hundred, the second at 2-3 hundred, and the last two as under a hundred. Nothing in the numbers disproves these WAGs, but while I would expect that the third and fourth groups would have little overlap between years, I would have expected high overlap between years for the first two groups. One of my assumptions is seriously wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You will note that Manning was using incomplete data from this year. A large number of votes came in after he analysed the votes cast so far, so the analysis needs re-doing now that voting has closed. There are several years' worth of data if someone wants to compare the log from each year and see whether people consistently vote or not from year to year. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously I could only use the data that was current at the time. I'll get around to redoing it with the full tally tomorrow. Manning (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

While I knew it was incomplete, I thought it was close to complete, so my error. I look forward to an updated version.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Too Young?

Hello all. I have studied the candidates, issues, and guides. I believe I’m too wiki-young to vote. I see I should have had 150 mainspace edits by Nov. 1st to be eligible. Would someone kindly let me know if this is indeed correct? Maybe check my edits and confirm that I am too new to vote? I’ll check back to this page to see if anyone responds. In advance, thank you! And best of luck to the candidates (well, most of ‘em). Albeit27 (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. It appears you only have 80 mainspace (article) edits to date. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hot Stop - for clarifying! I appreciate it.Albeit27 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Userbox

If anyone else feels like showing their democratic spirit with a virtual "I Voted" sticker, I made a userbox, {{User:Audacity/Userboxes/Voted}}:

This user voted in the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections!

Feel free to use. Λυδαcιτγ 17:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You betcha ツ Thank you muchly! Fylbecatulous talk 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Results

I'd like the raw unofficial results to be released asap.

Then you guys can throw out the socks and ineligible votes, and report the final tallies with the usual delays....

It would be informative to the community to know how the socks voted! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm still working with the Scrutineers to help them understand the SecurePoll interface, I wouldn't expect speed at this stage. Also, releasing unofficial results and then revised results with ineligible votes removed could disclose the votes of the ineligible voters, which wouldn't be in line with the rules. Once the election ends, all the votes are locked in the uneditable magic that is SecurePoll and any struck votes are visible as being struck, so there is no danger of stuffed ballot boxes, hanging chads, or the like. MBisanz ^talk 19:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I think I know what the answer to that is going to be. First of all, someone who voted without having sufficient edits to do -- perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the rules or just as an innocent mistake -- still has the right to the privacy of the ballot. They just don't have the right to have their vote count. Second of all, a few years ago there were a few voters (three I believe) who cast a second vote, no doubt assuming that their second vote would wipe out their first vote (because that is what the instructions say.) Through no fault of these voters, their first votes were not wiped out. Because this problem was not caught until the results were announced, these first votes could not be removed from the tally because the revised results would have revealed how these three people voted in total, which would pretty much reveal (at least roughly) how they had voted individually. Fortunately, these three votes could not have changed the order in which the candidates finished, or put anybody under 50 percent support, so the election admins decided to keep these extra votes in the tally. But I don't think they are going to be interested in revealing the "raw" results, when the same thing could happen, however remote the possibility. So I think we all just have to wait. Neutron (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say it is unlikely that the difference between the raw tally and certified results will reveal the vote of any individual struck voter, though there does remain a small chance. Depending on the number of struck votes, the randomness of the votes should prevent a direct connection, though with the low number of votes struck, we can't be certain that it will. Balanced against that, I don't see much advantage in the raw release, other then perhaps to end the drama about the two arbs. Monty₈₄₅ 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It could actually increase the drama instead of end it though. If a candidate ended up flipping from 49% to 50% or moving ahead of another candidate because of a struck vote, people could understandably be upset. I lost the AUSC election by half a vote last year, so such things do happen. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ending drama, Monty? That would be out of keeping with Wikipedia, The Land of Perpetual Drama. Neutron (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that premature release of data might cause a drama-fest, so it is best avoided. This is a slow process, but the goal is accuracy and fairness, not expediency. The changing of the guards doesn't happen for a couple of weeks anyway. Fortunately, Arb doesn't have a fiscal cliff to deal with, so the necessary delay won't actually break anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Matt that no interim results should be released. All community members, eligible voters or not, are entitled to a secret ballot. Please sit back and continue to chew your fingernails patiently. Happy‑melon 13:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure we've gone through this every year since we started using SecurePoll, and the dangers remain the same.--Tznkai (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as a reference point; last year's election also ended up December 10. It took eight days before the results were posted [2]. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Curious that this cannot be largely automated. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC).

The SecurePoll extension was written 8 years ago and it's used maybe three times a year by the Wikimedia Foundation for elections that are not time sensitive. There are two developers who even know how to install SecurePoll and it was hard enough finding one this year to start the election. I don't think the Foundation is willing to expend resources to refine this tool with more advanced automation. MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Where are the exit poll results? Count Iblis (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What exit polls? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Count Iblis was trying to be funny. Neutron (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Temporary approval of checkuser status

So that they may complete their duties as scrutineers of the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections, the stewards User:Pundit, User:Teles, User:Quentinv57, and User:Mardetanha are authorized to grant themselves checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. They are authorized to use these rights solely for the purpose of fulfilling their duties as scrutineers. They may retain these rights until the election results are posted and verified; at that time the checkuser rights should be relinquished.

• Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies
• Supporting after posting: SilkTork
• Abstaining: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad
• Not voting at time of posting: Casliber, PhilKnight, SilkTork, SirFozzie
• Inactive for this motion: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Vituzzu (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this statement

Guides' Tables

Each one of the guide writer's votes against the candidates.

Total number of supports, opposes, neutral votes, net support and percentage of support received by the candidates from the guide writers.

I leave here two tables I designed with information collected from the Guides. Those tables provide the guide's overall perspective of which are the candidates that should be elected. Of course, this does not represent the final outcome, but may have some use. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Really cool tables. Well done sir. Lord Roem (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I will do a comparison table between the final votes and the guides when the results are announced :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

10 hours earlier and we'd have published them in the Signpost. Good work, and thanks. Tony (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, sadly. Don't worry. I will design a very fancy one for the next issue of the Signpost. You're welcome, Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Very impressive work. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You misread my "oppose with regrets (neutral)" as "neutral" rather than as "respectful oppose". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me. I thought that the "neutral" between the parenthesis held the true significance of your recommendation. So, which is the true meaning? oppose with regrets : oppose? I am willing to fix it, so that the tables are as accurate as possible. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer's guide supports Kww and PGallert and opposes D. Fuchs, Keilana and Salvio G. (I found Kiefer's use of "neutral" in parens confusing as well). Hahc21, the upper left corner of your top table would be an ideal place for the legend: green = support, grey = neutral, red = oppose. (for clarity and posterity). Good job on both tables! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I will update the table with your legend recommendation. I have updated both tables, fixing Kiefer's votes and adding a legend at the top left corner. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding! When are you running for ArbCom? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea (I may never run), but thanks for the compliment. I have developed some additional tables; they can be found in this category at Commons: [3]. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job! I'll note that the tables would have been more useful if they were published at the beginning of the election (maybe next year?) I'll also suggest putting highly correlated guides together - i.e. if two guides gave pretty much the same recommendations they should be in adjacent rows and the most extremely different guides put one on the top, the other at the bottom. I'm sure there are easy algorithms for the selection of which guide to put in which row, according to this principal. Principal components analysis or factor analysis might be the more difficult places to start. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Next year I will make sure my tables are ready before the vote period starts. Then, we can show the voters a better perspective of the recommendations done by the guide writers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to list your table of guides, you will have to out shout Risker, and others scared of listing tables. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading that page, what Risker was saying is that this tables should not be included in the voter guide template, and I agree with him. This tables should only be posted here, in the ACE2012 talk page, like I did with my tables, and like now is done with Ealdgyth's chart. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This year's consensus was allowed with disclaimer. NE Ent 22:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This chart also exists: Summary chart by Ealdgyth. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The closes doesn't distinguish between summary tables by a guide writer of their own recommendations, and a summary of all guides. My reading of the consensus is that the latter, which is at issue here, did achieve a consensus against including it in the official template. I would suggest making sure to raise it again at next year's RFC so that the point can be clarified. I don't think anyone has an objection to them after the voting concludes of course. Monty₈₄₅ 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

While the consensus from the RfC on handling this sort of material during the election is hazy at best, I don't think anyone can make much of a claim that it is problematic after voting has closed, no. Happy‑melon 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So when they are not very useful nobody is against it? Doesn't free speech apply on Wikipedia? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "free speech". The First Amendment? If so, the answer is no. Also Smallbones, the argument for keeping summaries of summaries out is that it justifies an editor solely relying on what the majority of guides say, without actually going to read them. If a voter wants to rely on guides, that's their prerogative. But, a nudge towards actually reading what a guide says, rather than just a summary of the guide-opinions, is not something to fret over. Lord Roem (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess that Wikipedians are against using those tables as official guides. What I believe this means is that I can make my tables as soon as all the guides are up and put it here, or on my userspace, but not add it to the guides template of the elections, because it would mean that my tables are official guides, which they aren't. My tables, for example, are statistic data that is very useful, in my opinion. They give a global perspective of how consensus is flowing between the guide writers and we can use such data to know how elections work, and why. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This year it would have meant you would add a disclaimer as indicated by Tom Paris's closing. Knowing that editor X opposes candidate Y without understanding the reasoning behind their reservations (or support) isn't really the idea behind the guides. Next year will be guided by next year's RFC. NE Ent 02:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the issue. Those tables are not guides, because they don't offer the reasoning behind the supports or opposes, as you stated. They are just statistic data like the turnout tables above, or that's how I see them. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Free speech, as protected by the First Amendment, does not exist on Wikipedia because the First Amendment acts as a restraint on governmental intrusions into free speech. Wikipedia is a private sector endeavor because it is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a priivate organization. As such, the First Amendment does not require the Wikimedia Foundation to provide for free speech on Wikipedia.

2. As I understand it, the prohibition to linking guides of guides from the ACE template is based on the idea that guides should not provide a plain substitute to critical review by the voter or serve as a grounds for furthering conflict. Guides on their own provide reasoning why an individual believes the way they do and also have an internal consistency because they are the product of an individual actor. A guide of guides does not provide such reasoning and does not show the same internal consistency because of aggregation. Additionally, guides of guides in the other meaning of the term (guides which review the content of another guide) would serve to increase conflict between the guide writers without providing further insight of benefit to voters.

3. However, as the election has concluded, there are no longer voters who might be mislead by a guide to guides, so it is fine to put them on this page.

4. To hopefully prevent this sort of thing next year, I'm working on a draft Arbcom Elections policy that would replace the ad hoc RFC every year at User:MBisanz/ACE Draft. You can feel free to edit it now, but you can also wait until I put it in the projectspace for discussion. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit/Bullocks. "guides should not provide a plain substitute to critical review by the voter or serve as a grounds for furthering conflict."

The no-summary table guideline protects the fragile-eggshell child egos of candidates for ArbCom, many of whom are obviously regarded as utterly unsuitable for ArbCom by the community.

The same concern for the tender candidates is also served by the plaintive request that guide writers disclose past interactions with candidates, a requirement that is not required for Administrators or ArbCom members. For example, Hersfold did not disclose his blocking-buddy relationship with Alexandria, on the civility enforcement case. Does anybody doubt that after their roles in the purloined letters of Arbcom and in 2012's decisions, Risker, Hersfold, etc., would receive nearly as much red as Jclemens--Jc37? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As I gather, there are two schools of thought on the topic. The first is that Arbcom makes weighty decisions and there is no means of community removal of arbs, so ACE is like a crucible that should vaporize any candidates whose imperfections would render them unsuitable for the position. The second is that arbitrating is already an unpleasant job that is inherently unenjoyable because of the adversarial nature of the proceedings and negative connotation of sanctioning another person, so ACE should operate in such a way as to minimize any additional unpleasantness that might deter competent individuals from seeking out the position. Regardless of which school one belongs to, there was an RFC and the community adopted a more restrictive position regarding gudies, which is why things were done the way there were. MBisanz ^talk 14:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The second position would explain the opposition to guides, and explain the relevance of this comment here, I'm guessing...? I guess as an election-supervisor, you cannot say too much now.... 14:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Eh, it doesn't effect the outcome, so I don't mind talking. My position is fairly well known that I think the arbs and community are far too lenient in dealing with disruption and too indulgent and tolerant of disruption in arb-related processes. That said, I don't get to enforce my own view, so I'm limited to doing what the community tells me I can do under policies/RFCs. For example, I personally oppose linking guides of any kind from the ACE template, but the community says people can, so I don't delink them. MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Words from a wiki-infant. Love these tables Hahc21! I read the guides, but knew I was too new to vote. For fun and self-ref I did an informal (way less expert) table similar to #1. Altho lol, because I don’t know you professionals I had to put in whether or not the candidates were currently sitting, for how long, and for those who were swirling in,,, umm,,, controversy. I didn‘t know there was an election until I happened on to it by accident. Is there any way that people can be better informed (without spamming) next year? Just a thought. Thanks to all participants, admins I’ve noticed being of great assistance, clerks, guide writers, and scrutineers, etc. I’m not sure how immersed I’ll be by next year, but I’ll at least be a toddler by then and able to vote!Albeit27 (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Guide submission deadline?

Like others, I find Hahc21's tables highly interesting. But I also understand the reservations against including meta-guides into the election template. Moreover, inspired by the tables, I've looked at the hit stats for the guides and what I've found is that while the hit stats were on the same order of magnitude, in total views as well as peak days, one guide stood out with a much higher rated peak day, which is SandyGeorgia's late release (stats). Now, this is of course easily explained as resulting from election-news-hungry folk like myself loitering around the ACE page and template, holding out for updates etc. However, it could nonetheless be argued that a late release like that may create a certain distortion of competition by grabbing the last-minute attention of voters.

My line of thinking here is that maybe for next year a guide submission deadline for inclusion into the template might be a good idea.

(On re-reading, I should perhaps clarify that I'm in no way alleging any intent on SandyGeorgia's part. I'm sure that she didn't go for a "late release buzz" or some such. All I'm saying is that with a submission deadline, we'd be safeguarding ourselves against unintended effects of that kind.)

--87.78.3.199 (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy had 1742 views. My 2595 views ain't chopped liver, even if most of the readers focused on the role-playing game. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you're against a guide submission deadline? --78.35.245.52 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reason for a deadline. Sandy writes carefully and documents her assertions, so her writing process does not need rushed. Most of us revise guidelines to provide the best information to be provided to the community, and a deadline would hamper such revisions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)