Template talk:ACE2010

This is a navigational template for the December 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections. Skomorokh 17:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voter guides

When ready to add a voter guide section, my own link will be at: User:Elonka/ACE2010. --El on ka 15:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elonka, I've stuck it in the hidden comment. Skomorokh 15:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks! --El on ka 04:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair

There has been some discussion about voter guides at WP:BN. I think these sort of guides should be allowed on users own pages but should not be linked to via a template featured on the election pages. This allows several established insiders to have an unfair influence on an election that is already heavily stacked towards established insiders. I am not sure if this is the place to have this discussion but this is a start. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to raise this question at the election talkpage (which fwiw should be the first port of call for any questions of significance), as it is part of an important broader issue with discussion/debate/review of candidates that has been cited as a problem with the secret ballot. Skomorokh 16:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good standing

Am I an editor in good enough standing to post a guide? I added a link to the template then removed it when I realised there could be questions. I intend to post a fair and honest analysis of the candidates but I wish to get this sorted out before I spend some considerable time doing this. Polargeo (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wording I chose to avoid something like "all editors are welcome to write guides and have them included", which could be used by disruptive elements to maintain they had a right to a soapbox. If you or anyone can think of a more adequate wording, please do suggest it. As far as I am concerned you are in good standing, assuming you can set aside any animus you might have arising out of your ArbCom case. Best, Skomorokh 13:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This troubles me; considering double standards, I don't know what an "editor in good standing" is, and suggest it be removed unless more clearly defined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the recent arbcom case has given me a good deal of insight but I would certainly not use an election guide to attack arbiters who voted for sanctions against me specifically for that reason. I think the good standing thing should be altered though as there are a variety of standards that could be retrospectively applied. In essence I agree with SandyGeorgia. Polargeo (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if "good standing" refers to

Editors with block logs a mile long (Giano, Malleus Fatuorum)
Editors who are currently blocked, have a list of socks a mile long, arb sanctions in place, but talk page access
Editors who have no block log but have written unscrupulous guides in the past
Editors who were recently blocked for having one sock that made valid points but have much valid commentary to contribute about arb elections

etecetera. Please clarify what the hell "good standing" means, because the current arbcom doesn't seem to have a consistent working definition, and they take on some editors while allowing others to disrupt even more. If the arbs can't (for whatever reason best known to them and kept that way) or won't do their job wrt disruptive editors, I hope the election monitors will. I suggest that editors currently indef blocked for disruptive behaviors should not be permitted a guide, even if the arbs choose to allow them to continue to disrupt via their talk page. We need some standards here to address the double standard. I don't know if that should be extended to other editors who have arb sanctions in place, because I'm only aware of some cases, and don't know how far the double standard extends to other cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that currently blocked editors should not be allowed to post, currently banned editors should not be able to post but arbcom sanctions are very wide ranging. I think as long as there is no disruption, intelligent election guides from established users should not be disallowed as further peripheral punishment for editors who may have some sanction against them. Polargeo (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the disclaimer because there was call to do so on the election talkpage; the wording of it is entirely up for debate, with the only stipulations being that it makes clear that writing guides is not the privilege of a select few insiders, and that listing of the guides is not an entitlement so that it's clear trolling, revenge platforms and so on will not be tolerated. Beyond that, I don't see a need to over-specify who gets on the pedestal. I stress: suggestions on how to better word this are most welcome. Skomorokh 14:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you say something just like that. "Revenge platforms and so on will not be tollerated" whatever was the consensus at the discussion (if this takes too many words then use a link), rather than going with the highly debatable language of "editors in good standing" Polargeo (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest that "currently indeff'd editors" are not in "good standing", depending on the definition of the day, which seems to vary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I indeff'd Sandy? Polargeo (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea-- are you? Hell, maybe I even don't know what that means, considering some current inconsistencies among current and former arbs ... I don't follow every case. I don't know anything about your situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was just being silly. User:Polargeo is indef blocked :) Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need the "in good standing" wording on the template. To my knowledge, we haven't had problems with wildly inappropriate pages in the past, and if we see such this year, the pages can be dealt with individually. There's also way too much variance as to what "good standing" means. In some situations, good standing might mean, "has over 1000 edits, is not under any active arbitration sanctions, has not been blocked in the last 90 days," but I don't think that applies here. If someone was blocked recently, and wants to post their own guide, fine. If someone is under arbitration sanctions and wants to post their own guide, I'd be very interested in what they had to say, so again, I don't think they should be restricted from adding their guide to the template. I could think of a few reasons to exclude guides from the template, but per WP:BEANS I don't want to go into too much detail. In general though, I think it'd be obvious if a guide was inappropriate, like if 5 guides showed up from obvious sock accounts. But again, that hasn't happened in years past, so I'm not too worried about it this year. If we have to have a qualifier, maybe simply, "any eligible voter is allowed to make a guide"? --El on ka 14:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are indeff'd users blocked for disruptive editing, with a long history of socks, "eligible voters" if they still have talk page access? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have one specific editor in mind who you may wish to exclude. Polargeo (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way of knowing how many other (similar) situations there may be. And given the frequency of their blocks, if Giano or Malleus were blocked at some during the elections, are they "eligible voters"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Good standing" just means not blocked, doesn't it? If so, why not just say "not blocked"? Tony (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Tony-- the serious question is whether indeff'd editors with talk page access can vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user can find out whether or not they are an eligible voter, by checking here. The requirements, to my knowledge, are: 150 mainspace edits before November 1, 2010, and not blocked during the election. From what I can see, Polargeo 2 (talk · contribs) is not an eligible voter, because s/he does not have sufficient mainspace edits (only 38 instead of 150). I would still be interested in Polargeo's thoughts, but by an "eligible voter" criterion, his/her guide should not be on the main template. Instead, maybe we could add a section on the talkpage for guide-writers in that category? --El on ka 15:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I am user Polargeo and now edit from Polargeo 2. This is recognised by arbcom. Polargeo (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is ArbCom going to allow Polargeo 2 (talk · contribs) to vote? --El on ka 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is can I post a guide is it not? I can always seek permission to vote and I don't think that would be a problem. Polargeo (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom gives permission for you to vote, I'd have no trouble with adding a link to your voter guide to the template. --El on ka 15:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if ArbCom had a choice in the matter, which they absolutely don't, attempts by accounts which do not meet the eligibility criteria to vote will be rejected by the software. Skomorokh 15:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So because of this are you now removing my right to post a guide. Isn't that a little bit harsh? When you know I am an established user with over 10000 edits and a former admin. It rather seems like this would be removing my right to comment on a technicality. Polargeo (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The editor who removed your guide was a chap named Polargeo 2; I suggest you take up any grievances with him. In the meantime, I still haven't read many constructive suggestions for what the wording of inclusion criteria ought to be, so I am going to assume the current wording of "all guides written responsibly and in good faith are welcome for inclusion" is acceptable to all. Skomorokh 15:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't mean to remove anyones guide. Please show me the link where I did this? Polargeo (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here you go. Best, Skomorokh 15:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And who's guide does that remove other than my own? Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sense of humour faliure. I am trying to have a say here. Polargeo (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sko, what does that mean? Are indeff'd editors with talk page access allowed to vote or not? Polargeo has mentioned I seem to have a specific case in mind, and I'm curiously unable to answer that adequately, since the editor in question has been granted talk page access, from which grenades can be lobbed, but the recipients are expected to remain silent or be sanctioned. If that editor can vote, I have no problem with that, but putting up a guide is a whole 'nother matter, considering the editor's long history of disruption and continued behaviors on talk, which should not be extended to a guide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only accounts which are forbidden from voting are those without 150 mainspace edits before Nov 1st, and those which are blocked. The software will check your account against these criteria when you try to vote, and stop you if you fail them; no nuances taken into account. Skomorokh 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I could have Polargeo unblocked easily if I had the password for the account but I don't therefore I edit from Polargeo 2 which is a situation known to arbcom. I would host any guide at Polargeo 2. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Polargeo (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a necessary connection between voter eligibility and the election guides, but no worries as far as I am concerned. Sorry if you do get disenfranchised by the technicalities though. Skomorokh 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've gotten to the bottom of that (indeff'd editors can't vote), yes, I submit that only eligible voters should be able to put up guides. In fact, they shouldn't be able to use their talk pages to lob grenades, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting I am disenfranchised through a technicality? Could you please see your way to making an exception as I am not blocked and I have edited wikipedia for a sufficiently long time but not under this precise account (ie Polargeo rather than Polargeo 2) I understand the issue with the election software but surely not with the ability to post opinions. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me? I don't know anything about your case, but I don't see why the election monitors couldn't decide whether an exception should be made. The case I'm referencing is different because that editor continues to lob grenades from talk, but recipients aren't allowed to respond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have no idea about this situation then. I do know it has been a tough time at DYK and FA recently though and I have a lot of sympathy with Rlevse's situation even though I would not have made those edits myself. Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they don't let you put up a guide, you could always do what other indeff'd editors do: get someone to proxy for you and write it for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could always seek to get Polargeo unblocked and write it for myself if that gets around the technical difficulties you see here. Polargeo (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have requested that an arbcom member unblocks Polargeo for the sole reason of posting an election guide. It does seem rather a waste of their time though. Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us get this sorted out. I intend no harm I would just like to be able to have my say as a long term user. A consensus should be reached rather than a quick technical exclusion. I am not blocked from editing and I have the requisite experience on wikipedia to be able to post a guide, can we be sensible here. Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud. Blocked editors CANNOT vote. Period. The mechanics of the system prevent them from doing so. Blocked editors may not create a voter guideline, because that would require creating a page, which they cannot do. If any change needs to be made here, it should be to restrict voter's guides to editors who are eligible to vote. Risker (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Edited to add: Polargeo, I am not quite sure how your situation can be addressed; you've locked yourself out of the only account you have that would meet the voting criteria, and you would need to be logged in to that account in order to actually vote. Lifting the block on that account is not going to change that. Sometimes there are unanticipated consequences to one's actions. Risker (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors eligible across multiple accounts but not their current one are disenfranchised due to software limitations, not for any good reason. Why import that contorted logic here, the symmetry of shooting ourselves in the other foot? I really don't see the justification in preventing long-standing committed members of the community such as Polargeo from having an election guide here on the basis of their bad timing in changing accounts at the wrong time of year. Skomorokh 18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Polargeo account has been (or will be) unblocked. The "unanticipated consequences" to which I refer is the inability to vote, because Polargeo has scrambled his password. Risker (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I just read the entire thing. I just want to say that this entire thing could have been resolved in about five posts if SandyGeorgia just said what was on her mind on the first post. Now, ArbCom, and by extention ArbCom elections, are complicated and contentious as it is. Please just say what you want to say clearly and on the first post, instead of playing at subtlety. Anyone who has seen you around knows that you are perfectly capable of speaking your mind plainly, so I don't quite understand why you chose this to be the time to temper your words. Also, for the record, Polargeo does not appear to be currently blocked. Now he just needs to crack his scrambled password... Sven Manguard _Talk 03:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, if the Polargeo account starts editing again, it will be blocked in a heartbeat, since its original owner has stated categorically that he cannot access it. As to what SandyGeorgia was referring to, it seems to be completely unrelated in any way to the Arbitration Committee election; the user she appears to be referring to is blocked and cannot make a voting guide, and anyone proxying for her to do so would, I hope, be sanctioned severely. There are all kinds of banned and longterm-blocked editors who would just love to try to influence Arbcom elections, or to create disruption surrounding it. Risker (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, Sven, but have you followed a certain recent RFA lately? Sometimes editors aren't able to speak plainly, because of positions taken by arbcom. In this particular case, an indeff'd editor has the platform of a talk page, while attacked editors have no right of rebuttal, in fact, the editor in question's Name Must Not Be Mentioned, even by attackees, and I have good reason to think that talk page access will be utilized to advance a position in Arb elections,considering the timing of the granting of talk page access to a user who had multiple socks uncovered only weeks before, and the current discussion about linking to any talk pages where Arb elections discussion branch. The simple question could have been answered early on: do users with talk page access have the ability to vote or create a user guide. Now it's clear; that the questions weren't answered sooner is certainly not my fault. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. I'll be watching the whole process from afar, and if I see anything kinky I'll take it to the other coordinators, most of whom are admins, and they can make a decision on removing said kinky things. I'm a coordinator because I like bringing order to messes, and I hold no illusions as to the slim chances of ArbCom going off without a hitch, but I know my limitations, and as has been reinforced in several places, I should not be removing anything short of blatantly obvious vandalims, (character spamming is the wihtqoaeiufcnfqwu4t!) My comments towards Sandy were not because I have an opinion on the matter, but because the conversation was drawn out in such a manner as to make Ents look efficient. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments to Sandy are malinformed. A simple question was intermingled with Polargeo's situation, which obscured what should have been a simple answer. And given the consideration that any discussion that branches to talk pages must be linked, we've given an indeff'd user the ability to advance positions via talk, whether they can write a guide or not, in spite of dozens of socks, some discovered recently, and limited right of rebuttal from anyone attacked on that user's talk. And, we have posts signed by that user on talk that don't appear typical of that user's writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to do a double take on that one. Maybe this did become overly complciated through no fault of your own. For the record, Sven dosen't see the need for the thrid party speaking, although Sven finds it fun, he recognizes that it can be confusing. Sven should probably stop now... Sven Manguard _Talk 16:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. That seems to sort it out then. I don't know about SandyGeorgia's other concern and I will not get involved in it. I will post a guide as Polargeo using my legitimate; recognised (by email via arbcom) and fully linked alternate account User:Polargeo 2. I will abstain from the voting due to my personal decision taken when I handed in my admin bit not to edit as User:Polargeo. Thanks again, I hope the election goes smoothly. Good luck everyone. Polargeo (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there appears to be disagreement on whether or not Polargeo's guide should be linked on the template (since he is not an eligible voter), perhaps we should open this up to a wider discussion? --Elonka 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand you Polargeo is an eligible voter and Polargeo 2 is a legitimate alternate account of Polargeo. Please note the block on Polargeo was lifted by an arb as a formality after arbcom discussions that were started purely because of this thread. You have the power to halt this run around now or to demand I actually edit again as Polargeo, I don't see how you gain from this situation. Polargeo (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but the point is moot if you can't access the original account. The original account can vote now, if you unscramble the password. Your new account can't vote because the system sets one requirement for all accounts, and cannot build in exceptions. It's a technicality, not an action against you. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes I cannot vote using Polargeo 2 and I am not asking to be able to vote by this avenue but that does not mean I cannot post a guide as Polargeo using my legitimate alternate account unless you say that is not possible. So are you saying I cannot post a guide even though I am eligible to vote as Polargeo? Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. Enough is enough. I'm going to be BOLD (or incredibly stupid) here and just close this out in a really simple way: Yes, you can write the guide, you can link to the guide on the template. Your guide will be held to the same standard as every other guide, whatever that standard is (just don't commit libel or personal attacks and I doubt there will be a problem.) Whatever your history is, I have no idea. As long as you're constructive, I don't care about history, so you're fine with me.
        
        TLDR: Write the freaking guide!
        Now can we please move on here? Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Since Polargeo (talk · contribs) is now unblocked and is therefore an eligible voter,[1] I have no objection to him creating a guide, be it via his Polargeo or Polargeo_2 account, and having it linked on this template. --El on ka 14:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRC link

Just a few notes on the IRC link:

The elections have had an open IRC channel for as long as I can remember. Whether it's advertised here or kept to the domain of the select few is a matter for debate, but I would prefer to have everyone be welcomed for utility and fairness.
Editors and particularly candidates need an immediate means of getting coordinator attention to problematic postings. Last year for instance, there were persistent attempts to post defamatory private information about a candidate that had to be deleted by the coordinators. Forcing candidates to raise these issues publicly on-wiki only advertises the inappropriate content; I thought it better that they could go on IRC, find a coordinator and raise the issue (takes less than a minute to do all this).
Before adding the link to this template, I put it at the top of the coordinators' talkpage.

I should add that last year the channel was dead most of the time, but facilitated useful responses to routine issues raised (e.g. "when do nominations open?", "I am blocked, can I vote"?"), as well as valuable interaction and updates from the scrutineers. Skomorokh 13:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sko-- would just like to see more discussion of this. I Hate Off-Wiki communication :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand; my only motivation for joining IRC in the first place was to spy on the cabal ;) Skomorokh 13:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to spy on the cabal, you should see some of what lands in my inbox :) I usually don't reply :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

While I appreciate the satire in Volunteer Marek's guide, it's pretty obvious that it's not a real guide "written responsibly and in good faith", and I question whether it should be linked on this template? --El on ka 15:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely removed my response to this point because of Elonka's objection on my talkpage. However, I think her objection more than reinforces my point. Polargeo (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It is written in good faith, which is all that matters. Humorous punditry is still humorous. PS. And if you want to get started on whether humorous advise is responsible or not, I suggest doing so on WP:PHILOSOPHY :) PPS. Have you asked VM about his opinion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is both humorous and extremely carefully considered. It would be a shame to remove such good satire but I don't think that is likely so I think we should just sit back and enjoy. Polargeo (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]