Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates

order
Could the order order of candidates be served up randomly? It matters: "Specialists in the mechanics of voting have long recognized that the order in which candidates’ names appear on a ballot influences voters’ decisions." NE Ent 15:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The order of candidates on the SecurePoll ballot screen is randomised, yes. There are mechanisms we have used in the past for randomising the order of sections on an ordinary page (MediaWiki:Common.js/shuffle.js, although it can be done with one line of jQuery nowadays).  They could be applied to WP:ACE2012/C iff people think it's important to do so. Happy‑melon 15:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A decision for the Election Commission (when elected) surely? Leaky  Caldron  15:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be done - and sooner rather than later (as non-candidates are already looking at the page). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A an issue for the Election Commission to establish a community consensus on, for sure. The EC's mandate to make decisions unilaterally extends only to issues where gathering community input is impractical, which is not the case here. Happy‑melon 16:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus for it, we could randomize it the same way as the guides are in the template, an effective, albeit inelegant solution. I agree though, this is not the sort of pressing issue that requires intervention from the commission. Monty  845  18:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is intended to change what the usual format has historically been then it is precisely the sort of unexpected event that the EC should endorse, otherwise what it the point of their role? "The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with unforeseen problems in the 2012 Arbitration Committee election process". The suggestion above was obviously unforeseen and to some, will be controversial. Leaky  Caldron  19:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The community has plenty of time here to develop a consensus for or against this action through the usual processes and without causing a lot of drama. The EC members would certainly be involved in evaluating and then implementing that consensus, but it really doesn't need an executive order.  The EC should deviate from the usual decision-making processes as little as is practical; their special mandate is to be entrusted with filling in any gaps between what would 'normally' happen and what can happen.  If a decision is needed within hours rather than days, or if it comes at a time when it's not possible/feasible to hold a calm and rational discussion of an issue, that is when the EC's mandate becomes important. Happy‑melon 20:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As long as the order on the ballot is randomized, I don't see a need to randomize WP:ACE2012/C. That's been alphabetical for as long as I can remember, and is probably more convenient that way for all concerned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the order on the "candidate page" should remain alphabetical (and the order on the ballot itself should be random.) Randomizing the ballot itself is sufficient to eliminate the advantages/disadvantages of different ballot placements.  Neutron (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

protection?
Why is this page fpp? There's no evidence of disruption. NE Ent 12:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is protected because the nomination period is closed, and hence there is no reason to edit it to add, alter or remove candidacies; the protection makes that fact clear to people who might otherwise not realise. Such protection is in line with the protection of similar pages when their time for input is passed.  If the consensus is that protection is not necessary I will, of course, remove it...  Happy‑melon 12:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ArbCom election pages have always been routinely fully protected as soon as it is no longer relevant to edit them; they're not "wiki" insofar as they are the record of a process rather than live documents. &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy states (Wikipedia) therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing, so that anyone can add material and correct errors, and that the purpose of protection is "because of a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open." Analysis of past candidate pages shows: historically unprotected candidate pages have not been vandalized or disrupted, protected is not standard, and needs for maintenance edits (category adjustments etc.) may arise. Note: unprotected may mean fully unprotected or semi- protected, not motivated enough to check. I spose I can see the point that this is a high volume page, etc etc. My thought is that, while I dunno if this is directly covered in PROTECT, there are a lot of various pages, and it's nice as a helpful preventative stop this isn't the page you want to edit. (to ask questions, for example). So I suppose I could support IAR for now. Though if there is a good reason to drop it to semi or remove it, then of course, we should.
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements unprotected. Two reasonably legit edits in 8 years.
 * Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements protected; routine maintenance edits have occurred since election.
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006 protected, couple of routine edits.
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements protected, some routine maintenance.
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements unprotected, no vandalism or disruption in 4 years.
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements protected, no edits.
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates unprotected, 1 maintenance edit no vandalism 2 years.
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates unprotected. no vandalism 1 year. NE Ent 20:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

But regardless, I would presume that it would drop to unprotected (or perhaps semi-) after the elction is over. And I think I'll unprotect 2007 and 2009 along that line of thought. (Feel free to revert : )- jc37 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does a FPP page look different to editors with a sysop bit? I'll note Electorical Commission page makes it clear we're done in a way that doesn't require FPP or prevent any future maintenance edits; this would be a preferred way of addressing the pages. NE Ent 03:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Election is over -- does this still need to be protected? NE Ent 22:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks differently; the edit window I'm typing into right now is pink if the page is full protected. Courcelles 20:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest giving it a week or two to let everything die down again. If no one has unprotected by then, feel free to drop me a note, and I'll see about it if you like. - jc37 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Section removal
I object that the section previously located here, titled "Civilty", has been removed at the discretion of a single editor after numerous editors before validated the sections presence by editing the section. Editing is a form of consensus building; the removal is an effort to supersede the collective voice that had existed, without the benefit of a greater consensus to do so. It should be reinstated. My 76 Strat  (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your section was in the wrong place and in this place it was unrelated to the Election itself. It was a vague question advertising another venue. I've now moved it to the appropriate venue: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Questions/General.  MBisanz  talk 15:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarification. I am more agreeable that it was moved, opposed to removed. Thank you for helping to correct a mistake that was mine. Best, My 76  Strat  (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. Glad to help.  MBisanz  talk 19:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough
Is there a point at which the people managing this election are prepared to step in and stop harassment? It seems that folks like Raul can serially troll the questions of someone he doesn't like simply to smear the candidate - see. Even a 40-watt intelligence can see that question 2 is answered: and to compound that by accusing a candidate of lying is well beyond the pale. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Raul: "I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this is a case of retroactive CYA."
 * Elen: "Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks."
 * Please add the weight of a second voice to this request. My 76  Strat  (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting point of view from RexxS, who is a self-described friend of sockmaster Merridew. On the other hand, I do think there are some trolling questions on that page, and they are not the legitimate questions from Raul.  Wehwalt seems to have gone off on a lecture rather than a question. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes well, I guess that's what we'd expect from you, Sandy. It's not the first time you've attempted to deflect legitimate criticism by attempting to smear the messenger. Do I take it then that you believe Raul's harassment to be legitimate and that his accusation of lying is acceptable? I certainly don't. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I generally don't consider it a "smear" when my friendships are pointed out-- I'm generally proud of my friendships. YMMV.  Raul's questions are entirely legitimate: your characterization of them is not.  Now, this discussion is moot, since it has now been clarified that threaded discussions (likely) belong on talk.  But what is curious is that you show up to question Raul's threaded discussion, but not Wehwalt using the page to lecture.  "I guess that's what we'd expect" applies.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)`
 * RexxS, just a general question with no application to anyone in particular, but let's say some candidates made untruths and half-truths in their replies to questions. What should be done? Should someone point it out? Or would you always and in all cases consider that harassment? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern, Gimme, and I agree that there is a grey area: one person's 'harassment' may be another person's 'pursuit of the truth'. The problem is that the Q&A format is not suited to resolving those grey areas on Wikipedia. That inevitably requires more voices and other opinions to form consensus. A candidate who repeatedly has to deny a false accusation will look bad, even if innocent ("mud sticks"); while a candidate who evades answering a genuine concern may look reasonable, even if guilty ("spin"). It seems to me that opening up the discussion by moving threads to the talk page is the best way of letting others shed more light on issues raised, rather than restricting the discourse to a slugging match between two editors on the Q&A page. I hope that sounds sensible to you, and would appreciate your thoughts on any flaws you find in my reasoning. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are questions about candidates actions, wouldn't the sensible approach be for the candidate to respond honestly and directly to the questions asked? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. But when the candidate answers honestly and directly,
 * Raul: "I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this is a case of retroactive CYA."
 * Elen: "Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks."
 * what is she to do when Raul calls that a "non-answer" and accuses her of lying? More voices are clearly needed at that point, wouldn't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you have chosen to make this discussion specific. That's your choice. Are you sure that's what you want to do? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There will be occasions where it is instructive to illustrate a general point ("when the candidate answers honestly and directly") with a specific example. If you like, I'll reformat it to remove the specificity:
 * Questioner: "I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this is a case of retroactive CYA."
 * Candidate: "Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks."
 * what is the Candidate to do when the Questioner calls that a "non-answer" and accuses the Candidate of lying? More voices are clearly needed at that point, wouldn't you agree?
 * Is that better for you? --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the one asking the question doesn't think the reply is on point, then shouldn't they have some right to follow up? And wouldn't the sensible approach be for the candidate to reply to that? Furthermore, let's recall that you said another editor's statements were "patently untrue" and defended that when they were right and you were wrong. So you surely can have no issue with saying someone is lying if they're not. Do you have a problem with pointing out lies if the person is, indeed, lying? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you when I said a few lines above, "one person's 'harassment' may be another person's 'pursuit of the truth'. The problem is that the Q&A format is not suited to resolving those grey areas on Wikipedia. That inevitably requires more voices and other opinions to form consensus. A candidate who repeatedly has to deny a false accusation will look bad, even if innocent ("mud sticks") ..." If you could perhaps explain which of those words you didn't understand, I could help you. Secondly, I'd really rather you cut out the 'ad hominem' tactic again. If you want to personalise this, then I'll draw your attention to WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. So no more smeary hinting with unfounded acusations; put up or shut up, please. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See, there you are saying (or implying?) I'm lying. Thank you for illustrating my point: by your own argument, why are you not guilty of harassment? No "consensus" needs to be involved here; you damn well know what I'm referring to, and what you said . Please cut out the obstructionism. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You against me: Furthermore, let's recall that you said of another editor "everything you say is patently untrue". I . You then  without apology thirty minutes after my request, hoping that nobody would notice. That is the cheapest piece of manipulation of talk page guidelines I've had the misfortune to have seen from you. You refuse to supply any evidence to back up your attacks above. You put a derogatory quote into my my mouth and refuse to source it when challenged. It's clear who is doing the lying here, and it's not me. You're an embarrassment to the project. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just Wow. So I got the quote off in the part that was not on point. The point was that you called statements of mine "patently untrue". And you reply here and you do not address that at all. You also refactored my own statement in violation of talk page guidelines yet you have the temerity to question me about it? I notice that you like to quote NPA now. Did you ever quote that in regards to any derogatory statements Merridew made regarding me or anyone else? You know what that makes you if you did not. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The only guidance is: Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.


 * My thought is that threaded discussion of the type present in several candidate pages is inappropriate and pending concurrence from my co-Commissioners, I am prepared to move it to the candidates' discussion pages. However, anything reasonably structured as a question that otherwise doesn't violate policy appears permissible under the standards the community has set.  MBisanz  talk 22:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If the exchange were to take place as threaded discussion on the talk page, then folks like myself - who were offended by this sort of accusation - could at least make clear our views on the issues and broaden the discussion. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I imagine you have similar concerns about Wehwalt's "question". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, you know very well that Wehwalt's question is not comparable to Raul's. The former is appropriately generalised, whereas the latter utterly badgers the candidate about a recent incident in which Raul was directly and prominently involved. AGK  [•] 23:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know that at all. What I do know is that there are a series of questions that have never been answered, there have been multiple attempts to get the taunting and disruption on FA pages to stop, there are contradictions in accounts from arbs, and attempting to get to the bottom of these issues as they relate to one's capacity to serve as an arb is appropriate.  Since we have different accounts from different arbs, I will pose the general questions elsewhere at another time.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What upside-down world do you live in AGK? Most normal people would expect a candidate to answer about their own past actions, and it shouldn't be surprising if many of the questions come from those directly and adversely affected by a candidates actions. Your reply wouldn't have anything to do with your own involvement and bias, now would it AGK? Or are you afraid of having to answer questions about your behaviour next year? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gimme, the problem is that I didn't make this decision by myself, which is how you keep representing it. There were a number of opinions swirling around both at the time of Barong and when the editor reappeared as Alarbus, and one could not say there was consensus, although by a small majority the decision was to allow him to continue to edit. Is the question you want an answer to actually 'why did Arbcom allow this editor to return to editing?' If so, why not just ask that, and stop asking daft questions like 'why did you say X when the answer was actually X' and making this massive fuss about how I've done the guy unspecified favours because he's my bosom buddy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen, my question is about your clarification, which appears to me (and probably to Raul) to be you saying Y when the committee said X. Why not answer that, Elen, on your questions page? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I keep saying that what I said was what the majority of the committee was working to. I've just said it again. Are you seriously arguing that somehow I *me personally* stopped the guy from getting blocked even though the Committee wanted to sanction him. If so, please be honest in what you are asking, so I can give you an honest answer along the lines that this scenario exists only in your own head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gimmetoo: Without making any substantive response, I'll note that I have said several times now that I do not intend to run for a second term. I always intended to sit on the committee for only one term, and therefore I have nothing to fear come ACE2013—because I will not be a candidate. AGK  [•] 21:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll strike that part. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate that. AGK  [•] 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This wouldn't be allowed at RfA
Regardless of how this election turns out, I think that an RfC concerning this topic will be in order. I have clear doubts as to whether some of the questions I have seen on some of the candidates' question pages (or honestly some of the behavior and interactions I have seen in relation to this election) would be allowed at RfA. And since this process would apparently rely more on questions (due to the secret ballotting election system in place as the process instead of WP:CON), the questions would appear to be a bit less "optional" than at RfA as well.

For now, I would suggest/request that the commissioners at the very least pretend this is like RFA, and ask themselves whether the community would find each question relevant to the tools and responsibilities that go along with being an arbitrator. If not, the questions should be removed. And also, anything that is a personal attack (even if veiled), either toward the candidate and/or anyone else, should at the very least be moved to some talk page, if not just outright removed.

In Mbisanz's defence in particular, I'll note here that he did make a request to cunard concerning one of his questions. Though I am unaware if there was any follow up action to that. - jc37 02:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, I'm trying to look at things with a critical eye, but it's hard because while they are aggressive questions, they do, for the most part, relate to candidate or Arbcom. The community didn't put limits on the questions and arguably people should be permitted leeway in questioning given that Arbs are not removable by the community, so they have to get it right. Also, while some look like veiled attacks, it could also be said that they are simply expressing the questioner's perception of a situation, which isn't explicitly prohibited (I don't think it is). While we can look for personal attacks, relevancy is a tough quality as things could be barely relevant, but still on topic. Please feel free to flag any situations I may have missed though.  MBisanz  talk 06:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In progress
I'm moving the comments now. Please bear with me, this is very tedious. I'm trying to be as complete as possible and will post here when I'm done so people can flag anything I missed. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 03:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I've moved all the comments from questions pages. If you find any I missed or new ones occur, please let me know.  MBisanz  talk 05:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please add links to the follow up discussions. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Short question about this process
I'm grateful for the work MBisanz put into this clean up, prompted as it was by jc37's valid concerns. I'd ask anyone reading this to also read this discussion I had with him on his talk page, where he was very helpful. I'm bringing it here because we've already had that discussion and I don't want it to look like I'm "bugging" him for doing his job by prolonging it there. In the process several valid (in my opinion) follow up questions/clarifications were moved, along with the candidates' valid responses. I could reformat and replace them, as we agreed was possible, but frankly, after consideration, I'm not inclined to, because [a] I might do it wrong (again?) and I don't want to create any more mess, and [b] I'm not confident to be the judge where my own questions and their responses were involved. I do note that subsequently, at one of the candidate's requests, one such move was reverted and reformatted. Does anyone have any thoughts or advice concerning this? ("shut up and stop being so touchy" is a response I would consider valid here ) Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did Rich's request because it was so straightforward I only had to move the indent marks and it reads as if it was a new question, plus I'd already said you could reformat yours if it would really be a follow-up question. Your situation would require a bit more copy-editing to make look the same, so I felt more comfortable leaving it up to you because you actually know what will make sense. Not bugging, it's my job :)  MBisanz  talk 06:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No criticism of you was intended, you've been very helpful, and I'm sorry if you thought I was saying that you should have done mine when I pointed out Rich's had been done. I wasn't, but I can see how it could seem I was, sorry... I was just seeking wider advice on whether or how to approach my own, is all.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be sorry, I don't feel criticized, I was just explaining why I acted the way I did. My advice would be to re-format it without changing the candidate's response or the meaning of your words, but so that it is clear it is a q&a, not a discussion.  MBisanz  talk 06:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure - I guess my problem is, that after looking through all of the moves, that would leave me with an awful lot of clarifications to reinsert, and I'm not confident doing that for the reasons I list above. I think, on reflection, I'll take my own advice above, and leave it. I do think this might have caused less of a "problem" if the clerking had been given more resources earlier on, though, so that there didn't have to be such a large "mass move". I'll be honest, and say it has left me a little pissed off, since most of my questions now sit there without the clarifications that, in my opinion made them useful. I'll just be more careful to ask perfectly formatted questions, and read all the instructions more thoroughly if I participate again. Mea culpa. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Links please
MBisanz,

Please add links to wherever you disappeared the QA threads.

This is very confusing to me. 21:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
 * I'm trying that now, although my time at this moment is somewhat limited so I may not finish in one sitting.  MBisanz  talk 21:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅  MBisanz  talk 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

sigh

 * This is all so very sad. There are real people with real feelings on the other side of that computer screen.  ALL have done their very best to make this project a better presentation to the public.  The attempts to denigrate other people, to outright try to rewrite history in an effort to make another person look bad simply amaze me.  People make mistakes, hell ... I do it on a daily basis.  We're supposed to be here to share knowledge .. and yet we expend so much time trying to point out the faults of individuals.  On the front of it all, our articles are really good.  Wikipedia gives so much to the world; and yet behind the scenes we fight, bicker, back-stab, and try to eat our own.  We give lip service to "editor retention", and then slam anyone who doesn't conform to some imagined "rulz".  The whole "our articles are better" concept is an amazing attempt to say "I'm better than you".  We don't need to step on others to make ourselves better.. we need to help others up.  Every day is a new day to share wisdom, and every moment spent in denigrating others is time wasted.  "Time" is so very precious, and it shouldn't be wasted on hurting others - it should be spent in helping others. — Ched :  ?  10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * “It’s really hard to be conscious of this on a minute-by-minute basis online, but the Internet is made of people, and it works best when we remember that this thing is not a series of tubes but a conglamaration of human beings.” — John Green Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  14:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since we're quoting, hopefully everyone's response to Ched's post would be something along the lines of So say we all.... I'm sure I might have ruffled some feathers with some of the things I've said at some points during this election, but I'm personally comfortable that I haven't done it in order to upset anybody, rather to highlight things I felt were worth highlighting. We all have our own style, and mine isn't always perfect, but I'm damn sure I haven't spent the time I have here just to make enemies. ymmv.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying it like it is has its place, but in general I agree with Ched. Really, out situation is the normal when people don't have a "reason space," where they basically try to decide things on Enlightenment principles without emotion.  The fact is that we can't all get along emotionally, but we can, technically, make a contract to be reasonable in certain corners.  But no one will agree to put aside emotion for 10 minutes a day.  Most don't even know how to do this; it's sort of a meditation practice.  If we wrote a list of problems, then put aside emotion for 10 minutes, we'd find we can solve things quickly over a few weeks.  We as a society no longer believe in reason.  We got too caught up in reason's doubts and complications, and forgot that it is also powerful on a daily basis and psychologically.  Be— —Critical  16:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been away for a few days and I've only just seen this - thanks Ched, your words are humbling. It's not about who's "best", about who should "win", about whose ideas of authority should triumph, or any of that - it's about enabling as wide a range as possible of ordinary people out there who are trying to do their bit to assist in making knowledge available to as many people as possible. It behooves us all to remember that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 January 2014
this page is currently appearing in Category:Pages with script errors due to the error caused by. to fix this error, replace the line {{#switch:{{interval|n={{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|11 November|21 November|format=time}} with the line {{#switch:{{interval|n={{#time:d F Y}}|11 November 2012|21 November 2012|format=time}}

note that this error is caused by the fact that CURRENTTIMESTAMP is not a date (see a similar fix [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=591040424 here]). Frietjes (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * {{done}} and I also unprotected the page. Legoktm (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)