2021
Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 17:59 (UTC), Sunday, 30 June 2024 (
)
![]() | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
|
|
I have created a draft list for review. You can find it at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/SecurePoll Draft. The code used to make this list can be reviewed at User:Cyberpower678/ListGen.php. Options used for this list:
Best — CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 14:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm just noting for the record that I've blocked Horizon of Happy ( talk · contribs · block log) who I have CU-confirmed to be a sock of WMF-legal globally banned user known as AttackTheMoonNow ( talk · contribs · block log). If they want to appeal to ArbCom they're welcome to do that; I can also provide private information regarding this block to any checkusers. What you do with the questions they asked is more related to the coordinators or the candidates than to me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On my question page, I declined to answer a question from Littleoliveoil unless they rephrased it. What has transpired since is that they have written at length without actually asking any more questions, including this appalling comment " I communicated with Slim Virgin concerning a couple of arbitrations. She was extremely distraught and died quite soon after, and yes I am linking them for good reason which I can't explain here. " which basically implies that somehow ArbCom contributed to Sarah's declining health and eventual death. This is tasteless and crass in the extreme, and not in any way a question. Her latest "question" is explicitly not a question and she actually says she does not want a reply. I don't believe the question page is a place for users to simply make statements of their own and ask that ElectCom take whatever action they deem appropriate. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I really don't want to deal with this further but I also don't want to treat other good-faith editors with disrespect, so I'll try to answer the questions asked. Cyberpower I was replying to Beeblebrox's question, as is allowed by the guide for questioning candidates. And to both Brad and Cyberpower: I could easily, after the fact, dissect my initial question if it wasn't clear. Beeblerox's reply which leaned on snarkiness and assumed I was loading the question somehow was what turned my question into something not meant. I knew I was allowed to reply to a question as the guide says. All Beeblebrox had to do was to ask me to clarify the question in a way that simply dealt with the syntax of the question. When I saw that he assumed I had loaded the question and when I saw the tone of his response I believed he felt this was personal attack so my first response was to assure him that it wasn't. I then attempted to explain my question. Nothing in Beeblebrox's responses to me and their tone led me to believe he understood what I was saying so I tried again to explain as is allowed. The matter could have stopped on the question page. However, Beeblebrox brought this here where an admin hatted the replies to the questions Beeblebrox had asked. How does that make sense in terms of other readers understanding the development of the thread? Further Beeblebrox's major emphasis here, was to bring up my comments about SV which he had to know would elicit an emotional response rather than a logical one. I'll repeat that I had a relationship with SV and knew her concerns and felt they had to be mentioned. How this escalated, first, to an admin partially hatting comments, and when I responded to him with frustration he hatted the rest, which sadly looks very vindictive to me, to then this page where several editors thought it was fine to pile on for perceived wrongs is beyond me. Beebbelbrox has now posted in multiple places, and created a mountain out of something that could have been left alone. That my intentions were cast in such a bad light is disturbing. And that a sitting arb was supported in this is also disturbing. Had Beeblebrox simply asked, as you did here, and with out the "tone", to explain what I was saying, I would have understood his concerns and could have rewritten the question. I believe there are issues with arbitration as a process. I have always acted with respect towards arbs for the jobs they do whether I agree or not. But this interaction with an arb is a concern to me. In my mind while arbs are not super humans in any way, they should be able to act with a certain level of decorum, they should be able to remove themselves from a situation especially where intentions where not to attack anyone and where I went out of my way to explain that nothing I was saying was an attack or loaded. I don't know Beeblebrox, and as far as I know have never interacted with him so this entire mess is way beyond me. At the moment, given my state of mind about this situation, this is the best I can do to explain; I won't post further on this issue. Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Xaosflux: Lists are ready. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/MM— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 14:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we get our WMF contact to take a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Unable_to_login_to_the_secure_poll_for_the_ACE. Seems like some people are having problems, sometimes, getting to the vote when using mobile interfaces. We may need to update the WLN or elsewhere to let voters know that if they have a problem they should try again from a desktop with a current browser? — xaosflux Talk 20:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obvious sock is obvious [2]. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a slow-motion edit-war about whether User:Nick/ACE2021 is a guide and so should be appear listed on the ACE template or not. I have a view about its appropriateness but I don't know whether, as a candidate, I should be expressing it publicly?
I think it would be useful, for now and potentially future years, to get a determination on whether pages like this qualify. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The best way to decide how to vote ...is itself a subjective comment. Indeed this year's guides are possibly the most objective (as near objective as one can be), at least I am unable to see anything emotional or vindictive as in previous years. I believe it's best for the voters themselves to decide whether to find a guide useful or to take it with a pinch of salt - some of the guides even include a caveat to this effect. In fact the 'Discuss this candidate' section tends to focus more on the personal relationship between the voters and the candidates and should probably be squinted at - even my own comments there ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Fuck off( (ACE rule from 2020). A counter argument is that it doesn't violate these as it is satire. — xaosflux Talk 16:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
How does nobody have anything better to do than argue over whether my vastly superior voting guide should be allowed to stay or not. Nick ( talk) 20:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
... Don't let a grumpy old bastard like me ...). Mz7 ( talk) 10:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think I have checked the 4 voting requirements at least 3 times again and again, but the SecurePoll page still says "
I read one of the voting guides, but still facing this error. Can anyone please guide me? SassyGamer483 ( talk) 19:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
made at least 150 mainspace edits before Monday 00:00, 1 November 2021. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
If I make 150 mainspace edits before 00:00 6 December 2021, will I be eligible for voting? SassyGamer483 ( talk) 07:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay now I understand this SassyGamer483 ( talk) 07:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The user Hijiri88 asked the candidates some questions. Currently he is under a WP:AE block of 2 weeks, which extends beyond the voting phase of this election. As the Electoral Commission has the power to remove or hide questions, and has already collapsed the questions from a different blocked user, I am requesting that the Electoral Commission review whether it is appropriate for Hijiri88's questions to remain on the candidate questions pages. Best, 96.5.254.136 ( talk) 21:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
That's a pointed question... [line break] am I willing to give you assurances regarding an appeal in order to get your vote? No. [line break] am I willing to give you a fair hearing, as one voice out of fifteen, if I'm elected and you appeal? Yes.). See User talk:Hijiri88#Just so we're clear :
I couldn't find a way to properly phrase this as a question without simply saying "Would you support my appeal if I made it again at some point next year?", which doesn't feel appropriate.He admits that a direct question would be inappropriate but is trying to sidestep that. Best, 96.5.254.136 ( talk) 20:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Directions say to notify you here, so here I am. This has already been brought up at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#"Blocked_from_the_English_Wikipedia_at_the_time_of_their_vote". If this is unnecessarily duplicated, my apologies. Not trying to spam...just trying to follow the directions/rules. Buffs ( talk) 22:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
AND ipb_sitewide = 1
). —
xaosflux
Talk
02:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I am quite sure that I have had enough mainspace edits before a certain date, but it still shows I am not able to vote. Please check. -- NotReallySoroka ( talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
has made at least 150 mainspace edits before Monday 00:00, 1 November 2021, as you only made 133 mainspace edits before November 2021. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I know coordinating is a fairly thankless job, so let me just say thank you to Electcom, the scrutineers,and anyone else who helped keep this thing from going off the rails. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, anyone,
I'm not sure if anyone is watching this page, months after the election. But I think we have a problem with an ACE template. Specifically, candidate pages are appearing in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2022 candidates, a red link category. But they aren't candidates from 2022 they are from last November. According to WP:REDNO, red link categories have to either be created or removed from the page but the category can't be removed which means it's the result of a template. Should these pages just be deleted? Thanks to anyone who is monitoring this page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
2021
Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 17:59 (UTC), Sunday, 30 June 2024 (
)
![]() | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
|
|
I have created a draft list for review. You can find it at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/SecurePoll Draft. The code used to make this list can be reviewed at User:Cyberpower678/ListGen.php. Options used for this list:
Best — CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 14:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm just noting for the record that I've blocked Horizon of Happy ( talk · contribs · block log) who I have CU-confirmed to be a sock of WMF-legal globally banned user known as AttackTheMoonNow ( talk · contribs · block log). If they want to appeal to ArbCom they're welcome to do that; I can also provide private information regarding this block to any checkusers. What you do with the questions they asked is more related to the coordinators or the candidates than to me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On my question page, I declined to answer a question from Littleoliveoil unless they rephrased it. What has transpired since is that they have written at length without actually asking any more questions, including this appalling comment " I communicated with Slim Virgin concerning a couple of arbitrations. She was extremely distraught and died quite soon after, and yes I am linking them for good reason which I can't explain here. " which basically implies that somehow ArbCom contributed to Sarah's declining health and eventual death. This is tasteless and crass in the extreme, and not in any way a question. Her latest "question" is explicitly not a question and she actually says she does not want a reply. I don't believe the question page is a place for users to simply make statements of their own and ask that ElectCom take whatever action they deem appropriate. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I really don't want to deal with this further but I also don't want to treat other good-faith editors with disrespect, so I'll try to answer the questions asked. Cyberpower I was replying to Beeblebrox's question, as is allowed by the guide for questioning candidates. And to both Brad and Cyberpower: I could easily, after the fact, dissect my initial question if it wasn't clear. Beeblerox's reply which leaned on snarkiness and assumed I was loading the question somehow was what turned my question into something not meant. I knew I was allowed to reply to a question as the guide says. All Beeblebrox had to do was to ask me to clarify the question in a way that simply dealt with the syntax of the question. When I saw that he assumed I had loaded the question and when I saw the tone of his response I believed he felt this was personal attack so my first response was to assure him that it wasn't. I then attempted to explain my question. Nothing in Beeblebrox's responses to me and their tone led me to believe he understood what I was saying so I tried again to explain as is allowed. The matter could have stopped on the question page. However, Beeblebrox brought this here where an admin hatted the replies to the questions Beeblebrox had asked. How does that make sense in terms of other readers understanding the development of the thread? Further Beeblebrox's major emphasis here, was to bring up my comments about SV which he had to know would elicit an emotional response rather than a logical one. I'll repeat that I had a relationship with SV and knew her concerns and felt they had to be mentioned. How this escalated, first, to an admin partially hatting comments, and when I responded to him with frustration he hatted the rest, which sadly looks very vindictive to me, to then this page where several editors thought it was fine to pile on for perceived wrongs is beyond me. Beebbelbrox has now posted in multiple places, and created a mountain out of something that could have been left alone. That my intentions were cast in such a bad light is disturbing. And that a sitting arb was supported in this is also disturbing. Had Beeblebrox simply asked, as you did here, and with out the "tone", to explain what I was saying, I would have understood his concerns and could have rewritten the question. I believe there are issues with arbitration as a process. I have always acted with respect towards arbs for the jobs they do whether I agree or not. But this interaction with an arb is a concern to me. In my mind while arbs are not super humans in any way, they should be able to act with a certain level of decorum, they should be able to remove themselves from a situation especially where intentions where not to attack anyone and where I went out of my way to explain that nothing I was saying was an attack or loaded. I don't know Beeblebrox, and as far as I know have never interacted with him so this entire mess is way beyond me. At the moment, given my state of mind about this situation, this is the best I can do to explain; I won't post further on this issue. Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Xaosflux: Lists are ready. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/MM— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 14:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we get our WMF contact to take a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Unable_to_login_to_the_secure_poll_for_the_ACE. Seems like some people are having problems, sometimes, getting to the vote when using mobile interfaces. We may need to update the WLN or elsewhere to let voters know that if they have a problem they should try again from a desktop with a current browser? — xaosflux Talk 20:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obvious sock is obvious [2]. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a slow-motion edit-war about whether User:Nick/ACE2021 is a guide and so should be appear listed on the ACE template or not. I have a view about its appropriateness but I don't know whether, as a candidate, I should be expressing it publicly?
I think it would be useful, for now and potentially future years, to get a determination on whether pages like this qualify. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The best way to decide how to vote ...is itself a subjective comment. Indeed this year's guides are possibly the most objective (as near objective as one can be), at least I am unable to see anything emotional or vindictive as in previous years. I believe it's best for the voters themselves to decide whether to find a guide useful or to take it with a pinch of salt - some of the guides even include a caveat to this effect. In fact the 'Discuss this candidate' section tends to focus more on the personal relationship between the voters and the candidates and should probably be squinted at - even my own comments there ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Fuck off( (ACE rule from 2020). A counter argument is that it doesn't violate these as it is satire. — xaosflux Talk 16:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
How does nobody have anything better to do than argue over whether my vastly superior voting guide should be allowed to stay or not. Nick ( talk) 20:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
... Don't let a grumpy old bastard like me ...). Mz7 ( talk) 10:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think I have checked the 4 voting requirements at least 3 times again and again, but the SecurePoll page still says "
I read one of the voting guides, but still facing this error. Can anyone please guide me? SassyGamer483 ( talk) 19:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
made at least 150 mainspace edits before Monday 00:00, 1 November 2021. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
If I make 150 mainspace edits before 00:00 6 December 2021, will I be eligible for voting? SassyGamer483 ( talk) 07:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay now I understand this SassyGamer483 ( talk) 07:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The user Hijiri88 asked the candidates some questions. Currently he is under a WP:AE block of 2 weeks, which extends beyond the voting phase of this election. As the Electoral Commission has the power to remove or hide questions, and has already collapsed the questions from a different blocked user, I am requesting that the Electoral Commission review whether it is appropriate for Hijiri88's questions to remain on the candidate questions pages. Best, 96.5.254.136 ( talk) 21:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
That's a pointed question... [line break] am I willing to give you assurances regarding an appeal in order to get your vote? No. [line break] am I willing to give you a fair hearing, as one voice out of fifteen, if I'm elected and you appeal? Yes.). See User talk:Hijiri88#Just so we're clear :
I couldn't find a way to properly phrase this as a question without simply saying "Would you support my appeal if I made it again at some point next year?", which doesn't feel appropriate.He admits that a direct question would be inappropriate but is trying to sidestep that. Best, 96.5.254.136 ( talk) 20:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Directions say to notify you here, so here I am. This has already been brought up at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#"Blocked_from_the_English_Wikipedia_at_the_time_of_their_vote". If this is unnecessarily duplicated, my apologies. Not trying to spam...just trying to follow the directions/rules. Buffs ( talk) 22:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
AND ipb_sitewide = 1
). —
xaosflux
Talk
02:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I am quite sure that I have had enough mainspace edits before a certain date, but it still shows I am not able to vote. Please check. -- NotReallySoroka ( talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
has made at least 150 mainspace edits before Monday 00:00, 1 November 2021, as you only made 133 mainspace edits before November 2021. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I know coordinating is a fairly thankless job, so let me just say thank you to Electcom, the scrutineers,and anyone else who helped keep this thing from going off the rails. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, anyone,
I'm not sure if anyone is watching this page, months after the election. But I think we have a problem with an ACE template. Specifically, candidate pages are appearing in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2022 candidates, a red link category. But they aren't candidates from 2022 they are from last November. According to WP:REDNO, red link categories have to either be created or removed from the page but the category can't be removed which means it's the result of a template. Should these pages just be deleted? Thanks to anyone who is monitoring this page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)