Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Coordination

2017 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now closed. The results have been posted to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017.
• Feedback on the election may be left on the feedback page.

It is currently 19:58 (UTC), Saturday, 4 January 2025 ()

Commissioner change

FYI: Per self-request and the reserve plan, User:Ymblanter has resigned from the election commission and User:DoRD has been added. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So, just because this is a useful place to note this, that means the Electoral Commissioners are User:Ritchie333, User:Yunshui, and User:DoRD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the wasted 15 seconds, didn't mean to actually ping you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Initialized and added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Coordination. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive annual questions to the candidates

Hello, Ritchie333, Yunshui, and DoRD. I understand this is the place for contacting you as election coordinators. Collect has posted the exact same questions as in 2015 and in 2016 to all the candidates, with minor wording variations from earlier years, as for instance here. Those questions obviously refer to Collect's own arbcom case in 2015, and their purpose seems to be to express resentment of things that happened during that case, rather than to actually request meaningful information from the candidates. It must be quite hard to understand the point of them for any candidate who does not have a detailed familiarity with that case, especially the first question, "Should the existence of a 'case' imply that the committee should inevitably impose 'sanctions'?" (Apparently an arb, or someone, made a thoughtless statement to this effect on a casepage, and Collect hasn't got over it.) I think it's disruptive to keep repeating these grudge questions every year. The candidates have enough work to do replying to relevant questions, and readers trying to follow the election have enough to read, without attempting to take stock of increasingly (as Collect's arbcom case recedes into history) meaningless questions. The work and time involved may be minor for Collect himself — just copypaste the questions — he never seems to take the trouble to respond when he does get replies, not even to a "thank you". (I may have missed something, of course.) But for those candidates conscientious enough to try to deal with all questions, however ill-judged, and/or fearing being criticised for not answering everything, these mechanically repeated annual questions must be a bother they really don't need in mid-campaign. And it entails more bloat for those of us trying to follow the election. I have twice asked Collect to desist from adding the questions to more candidates, on the basis that they're disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He has declined to stop, pointing out that he uses the questions as a basis for a voter guide.[1] Here's his 2016 voter guide, so you can see if you find its usefulness outweighs the inconvenience of this annual bloat of the candidates' question pages. (Personally I don't think it tells a reader much.) Please put some pressure on Collect to stop it, and preferably also, if you would, remove the questions per this RFC. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC).

There is so much bad faith assumption that must occur for the above comment to even make sense. Questions are questions, answer or don't. Usefulness of guides, saying "Thank you", or it being "mid-campaign", strike me as quite silly complaints. Arkon (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that I rather think that different candidates appear each year, and that therefore the partial repetition is no more a sin than the use of "standard questions" has been for administrators over many years now. I further suggest that removing the questions is not a proper act of the committee running the election. Collect (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Meh, the removing questions part is somewhat authorized in the RFC Bish linked. But, as you can see there, your questions aren't even near the realm where that would come into play. Arkon (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'd better summarize my central point, since neither Collect nor Arkon seem to have taken hold of it. It goes like this: should editors be able to post 'candidate questions' which are really just thinly veiled whinging about a years-old ArbCom decision which everyone else has forgotten, but which the questioner nurses as an undying grudge? Bishonen | talk 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC).

  Oh, I got that loud and clear, that's the "bad faith assumption" I mentioned above. Arkon (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Should an administrator assert bad faith by a person who asks similar questions for a number of years without such an accusation being made before? is a better question. I note that I bear no "grudges", that, for example, I did not assail a major plagiarist who gave "evidence" against me, nor any "grudge" about any Wikipedian who has repeatedly posted on my talk page about my perceived sins, nor about others as well whom I won't dignify by naming. My questions are there are an attempt to see what the positions of candidates are on such issues in general, and attacking me personally repeatedly is, in my humble opinion, ill-befitting of any neutral party. Collect (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Answering questions is optional. Candidates are either free to leave things blank or to answer dumb questions tersely. I don't like the assembly line questions asked of all candidates very much either, but there should be free range of discussion permitted. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • If a question is truly transparently a grudge question, I can easily see how the candidate might point that out in the response, and might reasonably be able to say in response "Sorry, I'm not here to reopen old wounds" or something similar. Having said that, I also think that, in at least a few theoretical cases, such questions might actually provide us with very useful responses from the candidates, and wouldn't want to see potential voters lose potentially useful information because the question is perhaps a very personal one for s the person asking it. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly object to the idea that these questions are disruptive. As to the idea that they are "really just thinly veiled whinging about a years-old ArbCom decision which everyone else has forgotten", I object to that too. I recall answering these questions when I ran in December 2014, and was proud to receive Collect's highest score for my answers. I think they're good questions, and I take Collect's voter recommendations into consideration before I vote. By the way, I know nothing about that ArbCom decision. wbm1058 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above: There's nothing wrong with these questions and they should be left alone. Part of being an arbitrator is responding to people with specific years-old grievances. Candidates can respond to those questions as they wish, but they shouldn't be shielded from them. Second, the questions are neither personal nor in bad faith. In fact quite the contrary - they inform a surprisingly neutral voter guide (a minor example, Collect endorsed me in 2016 after asking these questions, yet I was a drafter of the 2015 case and the one who proposed the topic ban). I've no idea if the voter guide based on these questions actually carries any weight, but that's a matter for voters, not us here.

And as a general point we should be very uncomfortable with election coordinators removing questions outside of obvious vandalism and personal attacks. This is an open election for people volunteering for an often unpleasant and argumentative job. Let's let the community ask what they want. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now been online since 1982 (I think those years are described as "B.I." or "Before Internet" to many here). I have seen many folks come and go -- and those who hold grudges have a short life. Unless they feel they hold a "position of power" so they can continue their grudges, of course. :) I have now read well over 2 billion words online (albeit not memorizing them), and written a few million. I had many "underlings" under a contract, which seems to be risible to those who follow my every edit - reporting me for noting that a person's name should not be given in Cyrillic on Wikipedia without a genuine real-life source. And being reported for saying on my own talk page that saying a living person is a close relative of a notorious war criminal is likely not proper under WP:BLP. Again, thank you. Collect (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm keeping away from the issue of whether the questions should be allowed, but Collect, I hope you don't mind a critique of one of them. It's the first one, "Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?" The answer is obviously no, the only answer you're ever going to get is no (varied only by the number of words used to say no), and you're never going to get a yes. So what's the point? What can you possibly hope to get from it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, a few have averred a belief that sanctions are needed in the past. Sorry to disabuse your belief that no one would do so. More to the point, the degree to which they answer the question (that is to answer more than "yes" or "no" indicates their position as to the primary purpose of the committee. Now? Collect (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, I don't recall anything even close to a yes in answers over the past couple of years (but I can't swear to it as I haven't re-examined them), and to me the no is as obvious a no as "If someone is accused of something are they automatically guilty?" is a no - and I really don't see how any elaboration is needed. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, thanks for listening and responding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying "no" and nothing else, "no, because if a dispute goes to Arbcom, there are going to be many factors in play and a simple solution will not work", or (as practiced by the Revd Ian Paisley) "no, and I denounce you as the antichrist". So I think it's a fair question to ask. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note I have semi-protected this page for LTA disruption, personal attacks and partial outing, and I have rev-deleted. The attacks were mainly aimed at me, so it would have been better for another admin to deal with it, but I thought speed was needed - please feel free to review and tell me if you think I did wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

SecurePoll

Have arrangements been made with the Office to configure SecurePoll for this year? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I compiled a complete list of eligible voters; I can't see obvious evidence I forwarded this to the WMF so I've just done it now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Just following up ... has anyone communicated to the Office regarding details such as the dates of the election, and received confirmation that things are set? I realize this may sound like a silly question, but a few years ago it turned out that this had fallen through the cracks, and the election had to be postponed as a result.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The date was suggested by the Office in the first instance (it was originally scheduled to be today) because there is an Arbcom election for another Wikipedia (I forget which) happening in a few days. Our main point of contact is on holiday at the moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to set Newyorkbrad's mind at rest; I've been assured by the guys at the WMF that the poll is now being tested and will be ready for Monday. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Protection

FYI, that since a troll had been blanking pages from multiple IPs I tried to go ahead and set semi-protection on this years main election pages until it was over. I messed up the p-batch and full-protected them for 2 days instead. I believe I have gone ahead and reset the protection to semi-protection for the remainder of that two day period, but I thought I should leave a post here in case any issues arose. You all are of course free to do whatever you want regarding my protections. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Request

Hello, Ritchie333, Yunshui, and DoRD. I am sorry to disturb, but may I request a quick look at Question 14 on my question page whenever you have time? I would like to know if the question is considered as appropriate (WP:POLEMIC) per the RfC. Since I have already answered the question, I don't mind if the question is kept or not, but I thought it would be better to solicit some opinions from the coordinators. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Badgering of Dysklyver

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Questions#Questions_from_Beyond_My_Ken is, in my opinion, excessive. Can you please move some or all of that discussion to the talk page? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Well both sides of the discussion there seem happy to carry on, but I think it's outlived its usefulness in informing the electorate, so I think it best if A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver and Beyond My Ken take their differences to their user talk page (either one will do). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer if it was continued on my talk page, mostly for the ease of people finding it when reviewing my ArbCom related arguments. I don't mind it what has already been said is kept on the question page or not, I will leave that to an uninvolved person. Dysklyver 11:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)