Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table

Block log
Is it really necessary to add that in the notes column? We already have it under "other links". &mdash; Sebastian 09:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I now realized that the "b" was not for being blocked, but for admins who blocked others. I already used "b" in that meaning in user tcb. I'm wondering if we can find another way to include that in the links column. Anyway, I'm too tired now to think this through. &mdash; Sebastian 09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For now, I changed "b" to "block log" in the template. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I will look at the block logs and check how many of them are clearly inappropriate or older than a year or two. Maybe we should add a column with a number for the appropriate recent ones, and a link to the log if there were any others? &mdash; Sebastian 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Block log caveat
I've moved the note about "block logs" to the top.

Although it's intrusive, I think it's actually important enough to do so (subject to formatting).

By the time someone has skimmed the table, they will frequently already have their main impressions made up, of which "has been blocked" is one. Many may not actually notice the note at the very foot of the page, or if they do it may not change the first impressions.

Hopefully given the importance of the caveat specifically (the rest of the notes are pure annotation), this will be seen as a less than ideal layout, but one of necessity. FT2 (Talk 15:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it not be easier, in the case of the users whose only blocks are self-blocks or manifest mistakes (eg being hit by Robdurbar when he went rogue), to not give a link? Or failing that, all the candidates' block logs could be linked to, even those whose block logs are empty. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think linking them all is the solution. Then let the voters follow the links and make their own judgments. Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer a link that distinguished "block log with manifest innocent items only" vs "block log with significant items". That would really work for me. It would help to see who has 'genuine' blocks and who doesn't. But the concern is, could this actually be done, in a non-contentious manner that none would feel poorly miscategorized? FT2 (Talk 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Block log review
To help discussion, I have reviewed all candidates whose entry shows a block log:

Candidates with obviously clean block logs (all blocks are tests or were reversed with no negative implication)

Candidates with at least one block reflecting on conduct:
 * also
 * and :*
 * also
 * and :*
 * also
 * and :*
 * and :*

Candidates with uncategorized block logs:

FT2 (Talk 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is it's not necessarily so clear cut. There's already one account that you're not sure about and people might also have different opinions on whether a particular block affects their ability to be an arbitrator. I would say that the fairest thing to do would be to link to all of the candidate's block logs by adding the link in userlinks-abbr which as well as making sure that people click the link before forming their judgement, would also allow clean block logs to be verified as well. Tra (Talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I had the same thought (above) ("But the concern is, could this actually be done, in a non-contentious manner that none would feel poorly miscategorized?"). So, agreed that judging will be problematic and hence listing all may be best. FT2 (Talk 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot one:

I am perfectly fine with the consensus to simply link to all.

However, for the record I want to state that while I agree with Tra that one can never be perfectly fair, I don't think it is completely impossible to create a list by fair criteria. Ideally, one could search for the conversation that took place at the time of the block and go from there. As a second approximation, I would simply exclude blocks that have been reverted and then list the time in months this was before the election. Such a list could look like this: &mdash; Sebastian 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible templates
or

The above used Template:userblock and Template:user13, respectively. Personally, I prefer the latter.

(Noting that I'm not a fan of the single letter "abbrev", as I don't think most users will use it.) - jc37 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer Template:user13, too. &mdash; Sebastian 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added the User13 template to each. We should now be able to remove the "block log" entries from notes (except for those of alternate usernames, of course). - jc37 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: what are the small numbers (43 and 70?) for? &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Number of months (since first edit, as admin). Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"A" for incumbents only or for ArbCom clerks, as well?
Someone proposed to “change "A", and keep it purely for arbcom members. This isn't aimed at anyone, rather, it's because clerk work really isn't the same as actual arbcom case work and (as in the case of Flonight last year) some people see the distinction as crucially important. Clerks may or may not have arb experience, but a proportion of users will probably wish to review their actual work. You already have an entry in the "Notes" column for arbcom clerks which is better.”

I don't think this would be an improvement. There are currently only two candidates with "A" in their Portfolio column. I intended the "A" only as a reminder; if someone wants to know what it stands for, can just look into the next column - the Comment column, which tells if the candidate is a clerk or an arbitrator. I intended "A" for anything that is so involved that it equates about a dozen of lower case "a"s, because I feel it would be ridiculous to require a long chain of links when every voter can see that the person has solid experience with and continuous dedication to ArbCom. &mdash; Sebastian 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Similarly to the "A", we could also use other capital letters in cases where a candidate has been so involved in an area that a portfolio would be superfluous. &mdash; Sebastian 19:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd want to see evidence and portfolio from anyone who isn't already on arbcom. Privileging those who have helped arbcom but not sat on it, been party to its decision-makings, or made decisions as part of it, by implying they do not need to evidence a portfoilio, is unhelpful; I'd want to see one anyway on principle since administrating arbitration pages or any other side-role at Arbcom, is a fundamentally different role than evidencing decisions in difficult conflicts. This is not "about" any given person; it's evidence I'd expect every candidate to be positively encouraged to select and provide. FT2 (Talk 15:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's different, although probably not fundamentally. I think it's a very relative job experience and I'm still not convinced of your view. However, I don't want to impose my view on others, and since nobody else agreed with me I will delete it for the clerk and only keep it for the incumbent. &mdash; Sebastian 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about the Portfolio column
The following raised the following questions and concerns (in section below):
 * "Who determines what is "remarkable" in terms of editing contributions?" (User:jc37)
 * "I realise this is a well-intended idea, I just would like us to stay Neutral in its entries." (User:jc37)
 * Carcharoth would favour a "candidate only can add links" rule

The obvious answer is that everyone WP:OWNs it. However, it is natural that candidates or their supporters will be the ones mostly editing their respective cell. I think this is healthy; so far it has not been necessary to limit editing since no malicious edits happened in that column. I hope enough eyes will be watching this page so any malicious edits can be reverted quickly.

I don't see remarkability or neutrality as a big issues; as the name portfolio implies, it is supposed to highlight skills. There obviously exists the temptation to post unremarkable links, but to some extent that will backfire when voters actually click on the links; so there is some sanity built in the concept. (Of course there can be abuse, but that's not much different from the real world. I once was in a photo shop and saw a photography student openly trying to buy some pictures to use in her own portfolio. At least that can't happen here!) If a link absolutely shows no connection to the claimed skill, I feel we can handle it as I did yesterday: Replace the letter with a "?" and ask the poster why ey posted the link. In yesterday's instance, the candidate provided a more direct link that clearly indicated that ey indeed had the claimed experience.

Two clarifications:
 * The column already existed last year. There are only two differences: It was named "Examples", and it only contained conflict resolution related links (which now would be called "c").
 * As last year already, I alerted every candidate on talk page about this, and as a courtesy populated the column with links which I gleaned from eir statement. I even gleaned some links from question lists. I admit I was a bit partial in that I only did so for candidates who I'm interested in or who replied favorable to my message. &mdash; Sebastian 01:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Consist....
Looks good, just need some consistency in the notes. I'll do it if nobody else does when I get home. Keep up the good work. M er cury   14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerned
As nice as this is, I think we should be careful about inserting what could be seen as biased or POV additions. The "portfolio" and "notes" columns in particular.

For example, would I be correct that all entrants with any "block" entries have that noted in "notes"?

Also, who determines what is "remarkable" in terms of editing contributions?

I realise this is a well-intended idea, I just would like us to stay Neutral in its entries. - jc37 04:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I assumed the 'remarkable editing contributions' was for the candidate to select. I picked a few articles I was proud of and thought turned out well, and ignored those which do not flow properly. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The portfolio column is more Sebastian's idea. I think it can work well if handled properly. As far as I know, he has been notifying the candidates and inviting them to add links, though some may have been added by others. I would favour a "candidate only can add links", and making that clear to readers of the portfolio part of the table. The other parts of the table are similar to last year, including the notes column. The aim is to have it as comprehensive as posssible - all the block logs of the main accounts with blocks are there, and also those of the previous or alternate accounts, where known. Possibly it would be better to have links to all the block logs, and let people find out for themselves if there are blocks or not, and why. Also note the block disclaimer at the bottom. I tend to agree with those who say that block logs are really only a starting point for finding out about part of a candidate's history. The main reason for this table is that it helps to have everything in one place to refer to. Having the information spread across 20+ candidate statements could end up discouraging people from voting. Of course, you will always have those who vote for the wrong reasons, or focus too much on one things and not others (name recognition, block logs, access levels, length of time here), and there will be some who think just the candidate statement, or just the on-wiki contributions, should be what is used to decide on the merits of a candidate. This is just one more addition to the mix. The way to get it working well is, as always, to get more peopl involved with editing it! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree "block logs for all candidates as part of links" would be another option, see comment below on caveat as well. FT2 (Talk 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The message that started this section concerned two issues for which this page already contained sections - and  above. I think the concern regarding block logs has been resolved, and I will reply to the concern regarding the Portfolio column in the  section. &mdash; Sebastian 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawals during the elections
I think that withdrawals during the voting stage are different from withdrawals during the nomination stage. Would it be possible to list somewhere those that withdrew? One for pre-voting withdrawals and one for during-voting withdrawals? Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you see a use for listing it, go for it! I was just too lazy to maintain it, and I was concerned things like the number of columns might change, but that turned out to be more stable than last year. &mdash; Sebastian 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote instead. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
I am placing a COI on the main page based on a post Hist to my talk page by User:SebastianHelm who claims sources and most of the actual edits are from the candidates themselves. It is not only allowed it appears that it is actually encouraged. Please review WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY for guidance for obtaining unbiased references and edits. Jeepday (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right, the portfolios are generally provided by the candidates. I see how this can clash with your expectation if you expect everything on this page to be neutral. Since this is similar to a job application, I thought of career portfolio, and it seemed obvious that the word portfolio already expressed that it's provided by the candidate. Indeed, some people would even go so far as to allow candidates only to edit that column (see above). I will add that information to the "Columns of this table" section, and I hope that that clears up that misunderstanding. Thank you for bringing it up here! &mdash; Sebastian 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that Jd2718 did that already. I will merge the note ey wrote into the "Columns of this table" section. &mdash; Sebastian 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is great improvement, I personally still believe there are COI concerns here but much has been done to address my initial comments. Jeepday (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone would be so kind as to place something similar to following in the notes field on the Jeepday candidate row. "This candidate has declined to provide direct references and encourages each voter to perform their own research on a candidates performance or find a reference source without potential conflict of interest concerns." thank you :) Jeepday (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What a lame excuse! From the beginning of written history, for any position, be it political or in business, it has always been an integral obligation of candidates (or their supporters) to provide some proof that they are fit for the job. Don't tell me you never sent out a resume that wasn't written either by you or by a person who wanted the best for you! The portfolio column is here to give everyone a chance to do so. If you don't want to take that offer, that's fine, but don't blame others! &mdash; Sebastian 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I doubt anything that on this page will significantly impact my standing as the voting progresses. I have made public statements at that are signed and in places where there is no doubt who the author is that are available at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Jeepday, Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/Arbitration series, Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Jeepday/Questions for the candidate additionally User:Jeepday provides links to what I believe are some of my better contributions to Wikipedia as well as link to Kate's Tool.  Please review the statements at my talk page history on whom would be the active party in updating information on this table before, considering if I my responses here constitute a comment like "What a lame excuse!" or implications that I have responsibility to contribute to this table.  Had I realized earlier what I now know I would not have participated as I have in the conversations that brought me to write this entry.  I stand by my position that the activity on this Summary table did violate Conflict of interest and remains questionable. Jeepday (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:COI fairly clearly deals with the editing of mainspace articles, and decisions about whether to keep or delete them. I do not think it applies here. Forget COI. Is there something improper about the summary table? Consider that this is an election. It would be hard (but not impossible) to imagine this occurring without self-promotion by the candidates. Everyone started with a statement, even you, right? Signpost interviewed all of you, right? And you chose whether to answer and what to say. Same thing for your candidate question pages. So I think we've all accepted that there will be self promotion here. The only issue left is whether you were informed that you could supply links to the summary table. Jd2718 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)