Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/Archive 1

ACE pages created
Did I miss anything?— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 18:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Think just a couple of redirects, one line in the Module. — xaosflux  Talk 18:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WLN expiry
The initial ACE RFC participation seems to have dropped off after the WLN expired, I bumped the expiry from 2 to 3 weeks at Template:ACEWatchlistNotice. This is used for all of the notices, prob only need 2 weeks for the commissioner RfC one though but didn't want to build per-rfc timers. Feel free to revert if you hate this. — xaosflux  Talk 13:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Back to 2 now. — xaosflux  Talk 09:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

todo list
Let's keep the todo list completed tasks (feel free to start adding all the open future tasks too) so this can be more easily reused in the future. — xaosflux  Talk 13:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Candidate order randomisation
Last year, following this discussion, I had a bot running to purge the candidates list frequently, which in effect caused a new randomised candidate order every minute (the closest reasonably technically possible to a new candidate order every refresh). Wondering if that purging is desired again this year, or if it's not really useful? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit excessive, but if you want to it should be fine. The point of randomization is so that different readers see the candidates in a different order - not really so that the same reader constantly sees them in another order (in fact a never-implement request was for some same-read-stickiness that never got invented).  So you could prob throttle that back to say every 15 mins. —  xaosflux  Talk 23:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either way, just wanted to raise it for clarification. If it's not useful then it's better not to use it. I agree that, ideally, it would've been better if it showed different orders for different people, rather than for everyone including the same person, although IIRC that implementation seemed to be technically infeasible without non-ideal JS hacks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it could still be useful if you feel like doing it - just saying that the usefulness of 1min vs 15min is negligible, so I'd lean toward the later. — xaosflux  Talk 23:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

joke/troll condidacy
Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Dark Clouds of Joy/Statement I leave it to you all what to do with this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging the EC: I've assumed that "no obvious trolls" was a good default condition until the EC made a decision, so I've blocked this person and removed them from the candidate's page.  If for some reason you read this differently than I do, I will of course defer to your decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Commenting individually, and not on behalf of ElectCom: I noticed that according to checkuser, this user is a likely sockpuppet to the banned user User:Darkness Shines. Assuming this is correct, this user is obviously ineligible to stand as a candidate for this election. Mz7 (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh. Well, Darkness Shines certainly wasn't my guess, though I'm not a CU. But the main point is, no matter who it is, they're using an undeclared sock to run for ArbCom, and obviously trolling in the process. I wouldn't think the decision would hinge on whether their undeclared previous account was actually a banned user, although (1) it seems very likely, and (2) it would make it even easier to justify!  --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , wow. I haven't come across Darkness Shines in a while.  Obviously, it's not an eligible user and I think I can safely assume my statement holds on behalf of ElectCom. — CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 00:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Questions from links to transclusions
Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to change the current links to the individual question pages on Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Questions into transclusions, so that the page would provide an easy overview of all the currently asked questions. Also, while checking how this would look I noticed there was a typo in Template:Arbitration Committee candidate/preload/questions causing all question pages to be noincluded (the / was missing from the closing tag). I have fixed that, and will fix the individual pages -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  17:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * these questions (and the number of candidates) can grow significantly, see Special:PermaLink/1055595194 for an example of what it could look like - that page is rather unwieldy. Fixing that other should be fine. — xaosflux  Talk 19:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux while I get what you mean I think its still worth it for the convenience of being able to view all the questions at once (next year when I remember to I'll propose a general questions page, but thats a matter for RFC) -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  19:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * how about both? Create Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Questions/All and populate and maintain it. You can put a wikilink to it at the top of the questions list. —  xaosflux  Talk 19:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux can do, but right now I'm messing around with Template:Arbitration Committee candidate/preload/questions to see if I can remove the need to manually remove a line -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  19:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Page created and wikilink added to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Questions -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  20:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)