Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates

Um...the candidates page is looking rather empty. As of now, there's only five days left, and if no good candidates step up to run, we'll end up with a pretty small ArbCom. --Biblioworm 22:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you surprised? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty normal for this point in the nominations process. For whatever reason, most people don't like to put their names forth any earlier than they have to; the vast majority of nominations, especially those for "serious" candidates who planned ahead, will come in the last 24 hours nominations are open - probably more than a few in the last one hour. That's not to say that if anyone's interested, they shouldn't be throwing their hat in now if they want, but every year there's no candidates for a time and every year it makes people nervous, and every year we end up filling the committee just fine after all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe my memory's faulty, but this year feels... empty even in comparison to previous years. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We are now exactly halfway through the nominations period, and there are definitely fewer candidates this year than at this point in previous years, even taking into account the tendency of nominations to cluster near the end. Indeed, we still have only a single candidate, and while he is a sincere candidate, he has stated that he initially nominated himself by accident. I have discussed before how the ArbCom does not play as central a role in dispute resolution as it has in the past, but its work is still important and interesting enough that hopefully some more people will offer to do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• While I may have nominated myself by accident, I am not taking it any less serious than any other candidate should. I believe that those candidates that wait until the last couple days or hours have something to hide as they are intentionally giving the community less time to ask questions and get to know them. I'm working my way through the questions I have received so far, and some of them are taking more thought and consideration than others, but I'm glad to have the opportunity to answer them and hope more candidates step up to the plate sooner than later. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Most often, candidates who nominate near the end of the time period are of the "I wasn't sure if I wanted to run (or, I wasn't going to run), until I noticed how few candidates there were" variety, rather than avoiding scrutiny. Regardless of timing, running for ArbCom is, I must tell you, a rotten way of avoiding scrutiny (and serving on ArbCom even more so). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that, NYB. Over the last several years, I've had reason to believe, sometimes months in advance, that a good half of "hesitant" candidates were planning to run, much as they might deny it. Risker (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The ArbCom has totally failed the Wikipedia community. After all these years of failure, how could we believe that electing this or that candidate would make a difference? Even the best candidates, when elected, go along with the system of total secrecy in deliberations, the contempt towards the community, the abuse of honest and constructive volunteers, and the protection of abusers. The best thing for this project is for people to reject this failed process by not nominating themselves and voting against any candidates who do stand. Everyking (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyking accidentally raises a new possibility, which is that one of the reasons people have for not running is "a non-negligible part of the job is having people tell me I suck for volunteering my spare time to try and help". Ironholds (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"he has stated that he initially nominated himself by accident". That - assuming it's not some clever ploy or ruse - might actually earn my vote. I'll take a "candidate by accident" over "average power hungry candidate" (no offense to present company - that's that word "average" in there) any day. Volunteer Marek  06:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The reasons for not nominating oneself are legion, we do not know how many candidates have decided "not this year." What no-one wants to do is nominate themselves and withdraw. I have certainly considered it, especially where it looked like we could have an entire slate of non-admins. I have, though, the additional disincentive of unfinished business with ArbCom. I have also asked at least three other people to run, so far they have recoiled with horror.

As far as Everyking's "openness" comment, there are things a candidate can do, for example pledge to publish all their ArbCom mails relating to cases, with certain redactions.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

As a rather last minute candidate, my reasons for waiting were not to evade scrutiny but simply it took that long to make up my mind about standing. Despite thinking about it off and on since last year, it took off-wiki discussions with several people before I was convinced that standing is the right thing for me to do. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea that waiting is done to avoid scrutiny is specious. There is a six-day gap between the end of the nominating period and the beginning of voting. This is when the majority of questions are posed and most of the voter guides are written, and there is still plenty of time for scrutiny during the fourteen days that voting is open.

The folks here and at certain other websites who are beating that drum are either unfamiliar with how the process works or are deliberately ignoring facts that don't play into their paranoid view that everyone who runs for arbcom is some sort of power hungry politician type. This is a hard job these people are volunteering for. It's a daunting responsibility and no matter what you do there will be those who will hate you for it.

I'm not running again because I was worried that, being an incumbent, I might place higher this year and be obligated to do this for two more years. I was willing to commit to two, but I just don't want to spend three years of my life doing this and I won't take a position if I don't intend to see it through. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi!Somehow I've managed to mess up my transclusion. Could an admin have a look and see if it's fixable?Thanks!→StaniStani 11:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks to Od Mishehu!→StaniStani 11:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's hoping some of the sitting arbs (maybe) or other admins decided to bite the bullet and run. John Carter (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that the mid-week Tuesday deadline might catch some people out who haven't realised that the nomination period is about to end? Have notices and reminders been posted in the relevant places around Wikipedia? Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think so, but if the pool of candidates remains rather sparse and somewhat thin, particularly given the timing of the closing, I think it might, maybe, be possible to extend the closing time a few days or maybe even till the weekend. I hope. John Carter (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Who, if anyone, would make the call as to what constitutes a "good" candidate? StAnselm (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Speaking of which, are you planning to run again? Altamel (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For various reasons (mainly too many other things going on and other plans for the future), no, I'm not planning to run for re-election. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully, the number of candidates has gone up a little. However, I still don't think there are enough for us to wind up with a full committee. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• How many seats are supposed to be filled? From the editors listed right now, only 2 might get elected, with two others as long shots. Dave Dial (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • At max, nine seats. Altamel (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's disappointing. But understandable, the requirements are daunting. Dave Dial (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind expanding the deadline another day so we can get more candidates, this seems like the weakest field in recent memory in my opinion, and with the number of seats available, maybe we can convince a few more people to run for this dreaded job. Secret ^account 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be possible. The dates were decided during a 30-day RfC, so changing them might require a considerable level of consensus, which I doubt we'll reach in 3 hours. → Call me Hahc21 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There are now 19 candidates. (not counting one that is obviously not serious) Whether they are weak or not is for the voters to decide, but it seems like plenty. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That raises a good point: the phrase "weak". It is a bit disrespectful to label a panel of people who had the guts to not only run, but to jump in early, as "weak". I've seen too much of that phrase lately. Dennis - 2¢ 23:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, and it is especially unbecoming from someone who was both active in the election commission and nominated themselves to be on the committee itself. Although that candidacy is now withdrawn, it is worth remembering that when you are an arb, what you say is going to be subject to scrutiny so you probably shouldn't say unkind things about the others who have volunteered to run. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Especially since if you ever get dragged to Arb, they are the ones who decide your fate.... ;) Dennis - 2¢ 00:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I meant not enough qualified candidates for nine seats, Beeblebrox you just used the term elsewhere on why you ran for the committee last year. I used the wrong wording as "weak" but the meaning stays the same. User:Kudpung created his nomination prior to the closure time, so he should be able to run. Secret ^account 00:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

And to be clear, I've seen "weak" in many places, I wasn't singling you out in particular. This just looked like a good page to make the point. Looking now, I see a good many quality candidates. Dennis - 2¢ 02:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, this year's election has already become a topic of conversation. To the extent that the Arbcom electoral system may be due for a major overhaul and there's 10 months left to get it right once and for all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note The election commission is discussing Kudpung and JoeSperrazza's nominations.--v/r - TP 06:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Where? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On the dedicated mailing list - QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I see Joe's nomination coming in just after the deadline on the candidates page, but where/when is/was Kudpung's nomination? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it got deleted. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Kudpung was deleted by Secret "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: per request) ". The one edit to the page was timed at 23:53. User talk:Kudpung#Your ArbCom candidatcy indicates that Kudpung themselves doesn't want it undeleted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think JoeSperrazza's nomination should be allowed, per WP:IAR, as it was only just over the deadline. Why be so tight? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 17:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that WP:IAR should apply to anyone here. Bad ISPs, bad connections, bad battery in a watch: these things shouldn't make us too bureaucratic about deadlines, particularly when the intent is clear and the gap is merely minutes. Dennis - 2¢ 17:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza's nomination appeared nine minutes after the deadline. I would probably give that much leeway too, but if someone next year were to file 19 minutes late, or 29 minutes late, and were not placed on the ballot, that person would have a legitimate question as to where the line is being drawn. If the line is drawn at the original deadline and not one second later, it avoids that issue but could have harsh results for reasons mentioned by Dennis, or other reasons. Once you start giving leeway, you have to decide how much. (As for Kudpung, I see no evidence in the edit history of this page that a nomination was ever posted and then deleted. It wouldn't have been revdel'd or suppressed, right? Perhaps it was posted on the wrong page?) Neutron (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Kudpung definitely gave the appearance of basically meeting the deadline, or at least apparently trying to, as the edit was 7 minutes before the deadline. I can't see any really valid reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt and list him. Regarding JoeSperrazza's nomination, I would be a bit more hesitant about OK'ing that one, but I would think that we can grant a little flexibility of an indeterminate nature. Theoretically, although I hope nothing like this ever happens, emergency medical treatment after a mugging could delay an obviously intended and documented intention for self-nomination for some time, and I can see in extreme cases where maybe even a day or two of "delay" might be acceptable. 9 minutes is probably close enough as well, as internet connections can be erratic for some people at some times. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the election commission will have an answer to all this well before voting starts. My views (speaking as en editor and voter, not as an arbitrator) are that there should be a degree of flexibility allowed, as was argued by Secret and others over allowing a late submission for the electoral commission. There is a degree of irony there. I'm a bit puzzled as to why Secret took the actions he did (removing one candidacy, protecting the page, and deleting another unsubmitted candidacy [admittedly the latter was by request of the page author, so that is routine]). Removing candidacies and protecting election pages are all actions I would have expected to be taken by the election commissioners, or at the least to be presented to them for review by any admin taking those actions. Regardless of the outcome here, can we at least establish the expectations for who should be taking such actions in future? Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Removing candidacies and protecting election pages are all actions I would have expected to be taken by the election commissioners, or at the least to be presented to them for review by any admin taking those actions." I agree completely with that. As a candidate I have refrained from making any edits to the official pages at all (other than to add my candidacy), even ones that could never be controversial (e.g. [1]). Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If it is determined that their candidacies are valid, please make sure they wish to continue first... --Rschen7754 02:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That's being done too. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Secret has mentioned that he was out of sorts due to various reasons around the time he withdrew his candidacy, and on a few occasions in the past he has had medical problems. So I think we should be understanding about any inappropriate use of his administrator privileges on election pages where he was recently a candidate; we can assume he had the best of intentions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• In order to have time for questions to be posed, we really need a decision on this posthaste; @QuiteUnusual:, @Mike V:, @TParis: - request to have a ruling by 06:31, 21 November 2014 (2 days after this was posed). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  We're waiting on a response from one of the individuals involved. FYI, the Ping didn't work for some reason - no Notifications appeared for me anyway. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I receive no ping. If it is decided to allow my candidacy to go forward, please let me know, I would be pleased to continue in the process. At the same time, should it be decided to not allow it, I will continue to support that decision. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

At the moment we're leaning toward disallowing yours and allowing User:Kudpung's based solely on the timestamp of the completion of the statement pages. However, we do not want to force Kudpung into a race he chooses not to be in and have been trying to speak to him on it since the 19th but we've yet to hear from him. So - I think the window of opportunity is closing soon.--v/r - TP 01:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the discussion on my talk page is sufficiently conclusive. I have also responded to an email from an election commissioner. Much as I appreciate the community's concern for my withdrawl (which is technically not a withdrawal because technically it never happened because the page does not exist), I would ask you all to simply respect that decision, not speculate on the reasons for it, and to not waste any further valuable time discussing it. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that settles the matter then.--v/r - TP 02:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

TParis, that may settle the matter from your perspective, but I would like to formally request that the election commissioners (you and QuiteUnusual and Mike V) sign off somewhere on-wiki on their verdict here, unless that has already been done somewhere I have missed. On a personal level, I'm still not comfortable that it was considered OK for a candidate (you) to submit four hours late for the Electoral Commission, but someone submitting nine minutes late for the ArbCom elections is rejected (by the same commission that includes someone who submitted their commission candidacy late). This has nothing to do with who should or shouldn't be on these bodies, but a desire for standards to be consistent here. As it is, this reeks of double standards. You yourself said: "I'm willing to accept the opposes as a consequence if WP:IAR is not enough justification to add my name anywho.". Why does that apply to you but not to late ArbCom candidacies? The matter of late candidacies for both bodies (the electoral commission and ArbCom) should at a minimum be brought up again for review by the community in the post-election questions. Carcharoth (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

For next year, I recommend that it is defined which part of the multi-edit process of creating a candidacy is the key one for the deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter was that the RFC set the deadline for when candidates had to nominate themselves and that there was no flexibility or discretion available to adjust this. However, the RFC did not define (and nor did the instructions on the nomination page make explicitly clear) exactly what was required in order to complete the nomination. My view was that Kudpung in creating their nomination statement in advance of the deadline (albeit not transcluding it) could be considered to have met the criterion to stand. With JoeSperrazza as their nomination statement was created after the deadline then I didn't believe the criterion had been met and we had no discretion to move the deadline. That's the opinion I expressed to the other two Electoral Commission members. QuiteUnusual (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

After discussing the nominations, we agreed that there was some ambiguity on the candidate nomination page, which states, "Statements must: (i) be submitted after 00:01 UTC on 9 November 2014 and until 23:59 UTC on 18 November 2014". (What is considered submitted? Having fully created the nomination page? Posting it to the candidacy page?) I searched for any precedent in previous elections, but wasn't able to find much. As JoeSperrazza's nomination was created and posted to the nomination page after this timeframe, we deemed it ineligible. In Kudpung's instance, the nomination was created prior to the deadline. We attempted to contact Kudpung to confirm if he still wished to proceed and eventually received confirmation that he did not wish to run. In TParis's defense, he initially opined to allow both candidates to run, so I don't believe it's fair to consider this a case of double standards on his behalf. However, I wholeheartedly agree that the ambiguity in the candidate nomination requirements and the consistency concerns for the election commission and the ArbCom candidates should be discussed in the election feedback page and brought up in next year's RfC. Mike V • Talk 04:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, I screwed up my nomination and was unable to transclude it before the deadline. That's how closely I observe deadlines. If Arbcom or its election organisers later extended me some margin of flexibility, that was very kind, but by then my mind was made up not to run after all. I think perhaps for the future, it needs to be written down what constitutes the physical deadline and that it needs to be adhered to however nice we are. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere showing all the current and former arbs? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History. → Call me Hahc21 15:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• The complete chart can be viewed on {{ArbitrationCommitteeChart}}, the recent arbitrators are:

Happy editing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was fast! Thanks to both of you! Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have created a list of all the candidates. If you spot any flaws, feel free to correct them. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a good reason why links to voter guides in the nav box are hidden? If not, I would like to request that someone with knowledge of the template unhide them so that users can easily find them. Thank you.- MrX 17:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It switched from uncollapsed in 2009 to collapsed in 2010 and all elections since. There was something of an edit war about this in 2010; collapsing was proposed as a compromise by @Jehochman: and it stuck.

Some people don't believe the guides should be included in the template at all; others think they should be uncollapsed. The RFC for this year's elections endorsed having them on the template, but didn't address their collapsedness. But this seems a pretty good compromise, so I'd recommend keeping it this way, if for no other reason than reasonable compromises are so desperately rare around here that they need to be nurtured at almost all costs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the detailed background Flo.- MrX 18:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations are now closed for the ArbCom elections and I protected the page. Secret ^account 00:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)