Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Change for next year

Overall last year's elections went smoothly. However, one thing I believe we should be stricter in next year is moving voter's comments to the talk page. It's probably best to move all such comments, but especially comments that are rather lengthy or contain diffs should be moved. The reason is that some opposers tend to use these to cast the candidate in bad light by give a one-sided view of a situation he was involved in, in a manner that the candidate cannot really respond to on the voting page. Voters that feel the need to write a long story about the candidate tend to be people with an axe to grind, anyway. It would be easy to construct a bot to do the moving. >Radiant< 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While I do think there needs to be some change in format to make it easier for voters to get through all of the material, I don't think it is fair to focus on comments by "oppose" voters. Candidates and their supporters also tend to have a "one-sided view" and may also have an "axe to grind". It's ok to have a "one-sided view" in elections, because if you support (or oppose) someone, you want them to get elected (or not) and you say why. The difference between a well-reasoned, thought-out, factually based opinion, and "axe-grinding", often comes down to whether one agrees with the opinion or not. Lengthy essays and comments that go "over the line" are a different story, as they pose issues of readability and disruption, respectively, and those are valid issues. 6SJ7 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's why I said all comments should be moved, not just the opposing ones. The point is that vote comments can be (and are) used to give lopsided views of the situation that cannot practically be responded to. >Radiant< 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1. I would like to see a bot alert editors to potential problems, such as lack of sufferage or overlong responses. Editors seemed good at catching sufferage problems, but it would also be good work for bot.
2. I tend to agree with Radiant! that long criticisms and/or endorsements should go to the talk page, or maybe an all new "discussion" page. Maybe we could have a rule that the !votes have to be limited to 30 words or something, and may include a link to a longer statement on the talk and/or discussion page.

Thanks, TheronJ 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That has been the defacto situation in the past although the limit was probably less than 30 words.Geni 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• (2) has never been the de facto situation to my knowledge, although it is a good idea for the future. I should add that any criticism or endorsement containing a link or diff should automatically be moved as well. That way the candidate can explain himself on the talk page if necessary. >Radiant< 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)