Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Questions/General
|
|
Linking to other Q&A sessions?
[edit]From the sound of "Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time." there will be a lot of Q&A sessions going on outside this formal questioning structure. This could swiftly get chaotic, especially as some of the more important questions may end up getting asked on user talk pages, rather than here (incidentally, I disagree with the limit of one individual question per editor per candidate, a few more than one is reasonable in some cases). What is needed is to avoid posting questions that are too similar to previous ones. But to get back to user talk pages, there will be some candidates with other stuff happening on their user talk pages, so it would be better, IMO, to have an "overflow" area (either here or as a subpage in user talk space) for candidates to answer additional questions (or chose not to answer them). That way, you allow for more discussion and questioning, but keep this page readable. One more problem with user talk space is that it is possible that drama may arise on some user talk pages if voters feel they can harangue a candidate there. Who deals with that sort of thing? Part of the reason for having separate election pages is to limit any drama to these pages and avoid it spilling out elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth, I'd like to comment on your observation that "some of the more important questions may end up getting asked on user talk pages, rather than here", and "This could swiftly get chaotic". Elections are messy affairs, and so are wikis. Limiting individual questions to one per editor per candidate (max. 75 words) is a practical response to the complaints in previous years (especially last year) about the "thousand and one questions" syndrome on the public elections pages themselves. Last year, the one-question rule appeared only in passing and was ignored; this year we are serious about it.
The election coordinators and admins are caught both ways: SandyGeorgia, for example, has been complaining that there is too much bloat even under this year's arrangements: "But as the Arb election process grows more and more cumbersome with lengthy "process" and question pages,...".
Yes, the chaos will surely occur, but has been shifted at least partly to other pages. Too many voters last year said they were so turned off by the huge bloat that they didn't read any of them. This time, voters will at least be able to read a core of responses of reasonable length; and they will still be free to explore other pages if they find there is not enough text with which to judge the suitability of a candidate on their election page.
If you have a better way to constrain the number and size of individual questions on election pages, please let us know. No one has yet come up with the magic bullet, and sometimes allowing more ("a few more than one is reasonable in some cases") will just open the floodgates: we'd need a special sub-committee to police that. Tony (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- My suggestion was actually cunningly hidden in the header - link to where other discussion is going on. This is why I suggested overflow pages rather than random section of user talk pages (that could be archived as well). The scenario I am thinking of is that someone reads all the centralised information, and then votes, but a few days or weeks later comes across some user talk page discussion where the candidate was asked and answered a question not found here, and reads something that would have changed their vote. If a candidate is answering questions about their candidature somewhere other than on these pages (e.g. in a Signpost interview, on their user talk page, or anywhere else linkable), then surely it is good etiquette for the candidate or questioner to link from here to there (and the other way). In other words, provide voters with the information that discussion is also happening elsewhere, but don't expect them to hunt high and low for it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, the procees, even if imperfect, is there for a reason, and should be adhered to both in letter and spirit. I therefore propose that candidates give much higher priority to answering any questions on the official questions page. I also think editors that have questions should restrain themselves even outside the official page. - BorisG (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- My suggestion was actually cunningly hidden in the header - link to where other discussion is going on. This is why I suggested overflow pages rather than random section of user talk pages (that could be archived as well). The scenario I am thinking of is that someone reads all the centralised information, and then votes, but a few days or weeks later comes across some user talk page discussion where the candidate was asked and answered a question not found here, and reads something that would have changed their vote. If a candidate is answering questions about their candidature somewhere other than on these pages (e.g. in a Signpost interview, on their user talk page, or anywhere else linkable), then surely it is good etiquette for the candidate or questioner to link from here to there (and the other way). In other words, provide voters with the information that discussion is also happening elsewhere, but don't expect them to hunt high and low for it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit request
[edit]{{editprotected}}
Please make this change to the page, as is being done to the existing transclusions. This emphasis is being made in response to voters' interactions with the discussions. Thanks, Skomorokh 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. Not sure this page needs full protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Martin. Skomorokh 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
