Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Examples exhibiting arbitration skills 1.1 Rationale and deletion 1.2 Adding links 2 numbers by first edit/adminship dates? 3 Final push to get table completed 4 Dispute link question 5 Withdrawn candidates

[edit] Examples exhibiting arbitration skills

[edit] Rationale and deletion

When I inserted the column, I explained the reason on #Examples exhibiting arbitration skills, but not here. I understand that it was reverted, because I assume that the reverter did not know my reason for adding it:

Actions count more than nice statements, so I would like to see examples of how candidates handled tricky arbitration issues. To this end, I just added a column "Examples" to the Summary table - please help me populate it! I also encourage candidates themselves; and I think it's also fine to insert counterexamples. Thanks, Sebastian

Please allow me to reinsert this column. I really feel it is important, and I don't see that it does any harm, even if many fields will be empty initially. That will only help us see for which candidates we have no example yet. — Sebastian (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Our posts just crossed. At the same time, Tra wrote:

"I've merged that column into the notes, for now. It takes up a lot of space and it only applies to one candidate at the moment. If information is added for more candidates, it could probably be given its own column."

I'd like to reply that it doesn't take that much space: No more than the word "Example", which is much less than "Date of first edit" plus "Date of adminship" plus "Date of nomination", which together may be equally important. — Sebastian (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the column because adding it caused the other columns to shrink slightly making the table as a whole to be quite squashed and untidy. I moved the one example you had put initially to the notes column, since this is the place where information that does not apply to most candidates goes. If there were arbitration skills information for several candidates, the column could probably be re-added. You say that the blank spaces help show where this information is missing - it's still possible to see where it's missing even without its own dedicated column and I think the slightly extra effort involved to find blanks outweighs the shrinking of the columns.

I am also slightly concerned that a column of this nature may be a bit subjective and would be more suited to discussions, questions or in userspace, rather than this table, which is more for just giving general facts about the candidate. On a side note, if you're copying the wikicode into Word to make the edits, be careful that straight quotes like " are not changed into smart quotes like “ and ” since this messes up the table syntax. Tra (Talk) 00:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm embarrassed about mistakes like the Word quotes, which is something I'm usually aware of. (I wish there was a Word setting for quickly changing back and forward between doing these autocorrections).

You're making two points:

• Space: I don't think this is such a big issue. We can save a lot more space by abbreviating month names. If space is your concern, I also don't understand why you reverted the column headings "First edit" and "Adminship" back to "Date of first edit" and "Date of adminship"; do you really think any voter could not be aware that these columns contain dates?
• Objectivity: This is a serious concern which needs a solution. You're right that a simple link to an edit only shows a tiny portion of reality. Maybe we could instead link to a page with descriptions? That of course is more work, and more stuff to read, but I think it would be a good solution when a link is perceived as subjective. — Sebastian (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice your removal of 'date of' from the headings so I accidently added them back in during the revert. Sorry about that, they're gone now. As for a page of descriptions, the questions page would be a good place for discussing examples with the candidates but it probably isn't the best place if you simply want to list the diffs without discussion. Tra (Talk) 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviating the month names is a good idea. I've added that to the table. Tra (Talk) 01:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem about the headlines - that could have happened to me, too. I agree that the questions page would be a good place for discussing examples because you're right that the candidates need to be involved anyway. And I agree that a simple list of links on the talk page would not be optimal. So how about if we reintroduce the Examples page? We could abbreviate the months in the two other columns, as well, so we should end up with a narrower table than before. I think having examples is much better than having none. As soon as there is a discussion about any of them on the questions page, we can simply replace the link with a link to the discussion. I'll keep (at least) all the question pages of people for whom I will enter links on my watchlist. Could you agree with that? — Sebastian (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, let's give it a try. If it doesn't work, it can always be removed later. Tra (Talk) 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I'm fine with removing it if it doesn't turn out. In the worst case I will at least have learned something about the candidates in the process. — Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding links

I started by adding the information for the 5 candidates that signed up first. I'm hoping that this serves as a model for others. I haven't looked at the links themselves yet and need to do other things for the rest of the day, but here are my experiences so far: My source was what the candidates themselves wrote in reply to questions. What I found especially helpful was Brian New Zealand's question, usually #6, a question by maclean and one under Additional questions (#2). When a candidate points to a page where they contributed, I use the link to its history. — Sebastian (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] numbers by first edit/adminship dates?

I realize the cat is out of the bag so feel free to tell me to go climb a tree, but why are we 'ranking' candidates according to when they first edited, became an admin, etc? I don't understand the rationale here, and would like to remove it but would like even more to see some discussion first. If this has been discussed elsewhere I apologize; I don't see why we can't rely on voters to do the math themselves if it's important to them. -- nae'blis 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This was suggested by Carcharoth Jd2718. I'm not 100% sure what they are there for but I'd assume it's supposed to, as you said, save voters from doing the maths themselves. Tra (Talk) 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It was suggested by me. I asked for dates of first edits and date of adminship. Tra or Carcharoth responded by building this table. It has since been greatly expanded and refined.

On my talk page I converted the dates to total number of months, and Carcharoth picked this up and brought it to this table. I think the calculations are hard to do while visually scanning three dozen entries.

In the process of adding this information, we encountered and reported data for previous names. This was interesting.

Finally, knowing these dates helps me form a picture of the candidate, as does reading his edits, ArbCom cases he has been involved in, etc. No one has to use this information. But there might be some who want it. Jd2718 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning behind any "first edit", "adminship" dates would be to show how long a particular candidate has been around Wikipedia for. I understand the arguments that someone who has been actively involved for a year might be more "on the ball" than someone who has only been peripherally involved for four years, but these are simple, demonstrable facts about the candidates, and help to make them more than just a name. If voters want to know what to do with a table like this, I would say it is just to get a general idea about each candidate - a starting point so that you have some picture in your mind what the differences are between the candidates, and some ideas for places to start looking for more about them. Obviously don't let the table guide you in your voting decisions - that would be mostly determined by reading the statement and questions pages for the candidates, which is why that is up front. By the way, thanks to SebastianHelm for moving this table to this location. Carcharoth 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final push to get table completed

copied from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006

Some collaborative work has been taking place to produce the summary table seen here. There may be better tables around elsewhere, and the Signpost might also produce some useful summaries of information. I suppose the questions are:

• Is the current form of this table acceptable. ie. does it strike a balance between usefully summarising information (good) and over-emphasising certain aspects of a candidate's record (bad)?
• What needs to be changed and how can it be improved further?
• Can it/should it be made more visible? Where is the best place to put the table? How can this be done without giving the wrong impression that it is in any way official? How can it be made clear that it is mostly produced by the voters, and not the candidates?

If the summary table is acceptable, I'd be happy to maintain and update it until the elections start, though I'd hope that it would also be maintained by the community, in the same way that it was built. Carcharoth 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

end copied section

And to update this, more work needs to be done on this table so it is up-to-date, objective, and balanced. Some entries need dates and links and supporting diffs. Unfortunately, I'm away this weekend, but will be able to look in on this on Sunday evening. Carcharoth 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the visibility, the current situation is that it is linked from near the bottom of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006. Tra (Talk) 02:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: How can this be done without giving the wrong impression that it is in any way official?
We could just add something to that effect on top of the page. BTW, while it is not as official as a guideline or an AfD vote, there is only a gradual difference: It is as official (or correct) as our articles - the result of a collaborative effort. — Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute link question

Kirill Lokshin is linked to the Giano RfA. Is this in error? Jd2718 18:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be the wrong link; there's no reference to him anywhere on that page. I've commented it out for now. Tra (Talk) 19:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was meant to be a link to the workshop page, as I was merely a participant in the discussion, not a party to the case itself. Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn candidates

Is there a tidier way to mark candidates as withdrawn after voting starts? I don't want to see them removed from the table completely, as that distorts the history slightly. Maybe move to a different table down the bottom? Carcharoth 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "that distorts the history slightly"? — Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Only that I think the table should preserve a record of how many candidates entered the voting phase. Don't care how it's done, but just want to avoid the impression that 36 candidates started. See how it is handled on the election pages. Stuff is marked as "withdrawn", not just quietly removed. It is just more informative to update, rather than remove. Carcharoth 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've set his row to grey and strikethrough. Does that look any better? Tra (Talk) 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. I have a slight preference for keeping it in a separate table because that will reduce scrolling for the reader, but it's not worth any extra effort. — Sebastian (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)