Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates

Language
current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators (emphasis mine) is kind of confusing. Should it just say "individuals may not ... while serving as arbitrators"? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This wording is taken directly from Arbitration_Committee/Procedures. Might be best to open a WP:ARCA or see if the arbitrators would start a motion to change the wording, as this wording would need to be updated both here and also at the procedures. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

What misplaced modifiers are and why it's a good idea to fix them
I write this short tutorial in response to some recent reversions of what I see as fully innocuous and appropriate minor edits. I cannot see why anyone conversant with English writing would object to them unless annoyed at being shown to have made a writing error that, if minor in this context, may not be in others.

What is the meaning of this sentence:

Only install refrigerant lines outdoors in dry weather.

Any of five meanings could be drawn from it, depending on what the reader considers only to be modifying. If you don't see this, do contact me and I will list all five, with amusing commentary.

You may say “It doesn’t matter where "only" is put! You could figure out from the context what the writer means!”

Really? Why should anyone have to “figure out from the context”, what a competent writer can easily express with unequivocal and graceful clarity, irrespective of context? Do you really think your job as an editor is to make readers work harder than they would need to work if you took the trouble to write clearly? Then I think you are not an editor.

Moreover, there may be readers whose first language is not English and whose understanding depends on literal translation. Literal translation of idioms, semantic or syntactic, doesn’t work well. If you don’t know any foreign languages and have not wrestled with misplaced modifiers or other idiomatic syntax in them, this proposition will be lost on you, as will the related proposition that you don’t know your own mother tongue as well as you imagine you do.

Place a modifier directly before the term it is intended to modify and not before terms it is not. How hard is this to do?

And in case you haven't worked out what the writer meant, it's Install refrigerant lines outdoors only in dry weather. Chenopodiaceous (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This has to be one of the top contenders for WP:LAME I have ever seen. Mz7 (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My perspective is that the other side of this argument is that this page is now much more like an archive as the election cycle is over, and perhaps secondly that they consider the wording okay enough to be left. If the wording is going to be left as is, then further discussion may not be needed, but as I said in my protect summary I would encourage talk page discussion before further reverts. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * So, leave it alone. This documents how the page was during that process - including anyone that might argue over if the phrasing impacts the rules. Improvements for next year are welcome, and you can note the changes you want here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021. —  xaosflux  Talk 11:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This page should read exactly how it read during the election, anything else would be ahistorical and could lead to much larger problems down the road than the alleged one that the edit seeks to correct. This would be the case even if there were spelling errors or gross inaccuracies, let alone things as minor as this one. Once protection expires the page should be returned to that state for those reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If I have an opinion, it's the practical "if we don't change it here, then someone will forget about it, then when this page is inevitably copy-pasted to next year, the issue will remain" (which is a general support that the change should happen). The one word difference also going to kill anyone changing it now. --Izno (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The text is not just blindly copy-pasted because of the need to update it for the results of the RFC. Xaosflux has provided the link above where you can note that change so that it isn't forgotten (which is the exact reason that section exists) so there is no benefit to changing anything here, only disadvantages. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, just like how all those questions we planned to ask for 2021 definitely got asked in the expected way when questions opened. ;)
 * As for "no disadvantages", this change now guarantees there are no disadvantages next year with no effective loss of anything for this past year. In fact, I can't see an actual disadvantage here this year. It's arguing over the placement of one word, which in fact the user tried reasonably to fix during the elections this year. Izno (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * maybe people just didn't care enough? The process was well advertised and I remember pinging everyone who left a comment or suggestion for something to change at the time. So if it is actually important enough to try and change the rules mid-election and then try again to rewrite them after the fact then there will be ample opportunity for next year to see if people agree it is an improvement. Changing history because somebody might not remember to do something they will be reminded about at the appropriate time is not something that should be encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think more to the point is that these aren't applications. I suggest using something like this for the next election:I don't feel it is necessary to alter last year's instructions. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those who take the time to copyedit text and explain their reasons for doing so should not be so quickly dismissed. While this may not be a big deal to many people, I found this post informative, and don't see why this simple correction cannot be allowed to stay. – bradv 🍁  02:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it changes the rules the elections were run under (a) without consensus and (b) after the election has finished. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it? I don't see how this edit actually changes the meaning of the text, but I do see how it makes the intended meaning clearer. – bradv 🍁  02:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then propose it as an improvement for next year. The wording used on the election page should reflect the wording approved by consensus in the RfC. Whether the changes make any difference to the meaning and/or whether they would or would not make (what you believe to be) the intended meaning clearer is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor anyone else here has said that they disagree with this copyedit on its merits, but yet you're insisting on an unnecessary process to ratify it. I don't see the point of that. – bradv 🍁  02:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The process is not unnecessary: we have a month-long RfC to decide the rules of the election, those rules are then set in stone (which is why the change was reverted during the election). I do not understand why anybody is arguing for changing the rules the election was run under after the election is over - there are no circumstances in which it is ever going to be correct (unless you want to rewrite history, which is not something we do want to do on Wikipedia). It's the same as changing the text of an RfC long after it has closed - the only things it can do are (a) absolutely nothing, or (b) muddy the waters about the consensus reached. Neither are a benefit to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At the risk of continuing WP:LAMEness, I don't think we're saying we need a finding a consensus to update this phrasing for next year, just that next year is where it should be updated, where as historical pages should be preserved as best possible in the way they were presented during their use. — xaosflux  Talk 12:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * you are absolutely correct, of course; the proposed edit does not change our advice to candidates, it clarifies that advice. However, it is sufficiently nuanced and delicate use of language that it may not be immediately apparent to all editors. Or apparent immediately to all editors. Or apparent to all editors immediately 😎  However, I agree that this page as it stands should reflect the conditions the last electionwas held under, and that the suggested alteration should be carried forward, via the RfC, rather than applied retroactively.  SN54129  12:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here: the edit has no substantive effect on election procedures. If we were talking about some kind of retroactive change to the eligibility criteria or word count limit, then I could understand the fervor here. However, in this case, both versions of the sentence have the same intended meaning and are equally understandable by proficient English speakers—certainly by the prospective ArbCom candidates who are the intended audience. I see no harm in letting the new version stay, nor do I see any harm in letting the old version stay. In fact, I don't understand how this issue matters at all. I suggest we all spend no further energy discussing this, whether it's here or in an RfC. Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)