Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates

Phil Sandifer is considering running. Can someone post his statement for him, or is there an already set-out procedure? - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He may not be eligible to stand. WP:ACE2013#Timeline states "An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who: (ii) is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans,", however this clause is not present on the Candidates' page. I will bring this to the attention of the commissioners. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I recuse on this, but I will notify the other two commissioners that attention is needed here.--v/r - TP 00:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recall Lir ran ... there's also got to be something about last-second hellbans JUST BEFORE nominations open - David Gerard (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he's ludicrously implausible, there's no reason not to let him run. But if he's even slightly plausble, then really ... you have to let him - David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this ultimately comes down to which set of criteria is correct for this year's election. If banned users are allowed to run (and he meets the other criteria) then there is no reason not to allow him. If banned users are not allowed to run, then he will not be allowed regardless of his plausibility. If anyone dislikes whichever is determined to be correct then they should bring it up for discussion in next year's RFC (noting it on the feedback page is probably the best way to ensure it gets remembered at the time). Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the controlling RFC close: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. Candidates: Requirements: 500 edits, editor in good standing, not under block or ban, meets the Foundation's access to non-public data, willing to identify, and has disclosed alternate accounts (or disclosed legitimate accounts to Arbcom). A candidate isn't disqualified for being blocked after the nomination was made, except for sockpuppetry.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Phil Sandifer is not eligible to stand as a candidate in the 2013 ArbCom elections. TParis has offered no opinion on this matter. On behalf of the Election Committee, GiantSnowman 22:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur. Happy‑melon 22:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Blocked is blocked, banned is banned. Seems to me that would make him ineligible. "Someone" can't possibly "post his statement for him" without knowing where it is. Why don't you post his statement David, as you seem to have the inside track. Let's see what happens? --Cactus.man ✍ 02:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I read "Can someone post his statement for him" as meaning "Would it be allowable for someone else to copy a statement written by a blocked/banned user on their talk page to the candidates page?" not "Please can I (or someone else) copy the statement Phil Sandifer has written...?". Phil's contributions show he has made no contributions to en.wp since 31 October, he was banned on 6 November. I know Phil and David are friends on Facebook so it is not unlikely that the expression of interest was made there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question. What about candidate Arthur Rubin, who is currently under sanction by ArbCom (topic ban)? Is this compatible with "in good standing"? Kraxler (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Good" enough to run, I think. The rest is for the voters to decide. Neutron (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Neutron. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the topic ban is acknowledged and he understands that he will need to recuse from that topic area if elected then I don't see that as a barrier to standing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Kraxler (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Courcelles has withdrawn, can we collapse his section so that it's clear to voters that he's no longer a candidate? I assume this would be within the EC's purview. - MrX 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both withdrawn editors have been moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates#Withdrawn candidates. GiantSnowman 12:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to withdraw as well after a lengthy thought process and discussion with several editors, including current and former Arbs. My style of communication needs to improve, not to mention I had some fundamental misunderstandings with how the committee in actually worked and time restraints. I prefer to stay active in OTRS and if I graduate next fall, run next year for the committee. Thanks Secret ^account 20:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we enter the home stretch of this election, I believe it should not go unsaid—that we, as a community, recognize the immeasurably valuable gift which we have received; by the emergence of such an exceptionally strong field of candidates! Your collective willingness to selflessly serve Wikipedia, while offering the best of yourselves unto us, deserves unwavering gratitude—even admiration, and other nuances of esteem.

You each have personified our highest core values with exemplary campaigns; amassing a deluge of insight within the bounds of civil discourse—fully demonstrating the sound efficacy of professionalism, and the appropriateness of assuming good faith. I am honored to extend these tidings, and hope that others will endorse these 11th-hour sentiments with comments of their own. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not. The proof of the pudding....etc. I cannot see anything that marks this field as exceptional and I disagree that they have all "personified our highest core values with exemplary campaigns". Leaky Caldron 11:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some very good candidates, but also some candidates who (in my opinion) would make appalling arbitrators. I still have my notes about the 2011 and 2012 elections, and based on them the quality of the field is broadly similar: (Support/Neutral/Oppose) 2011: 10/1/6 (support 58%), 2012: 15/2/5 (support 68%), 2013: 12/4/6 (support 55%). I do not vote tactically, so the number of seats is not a factor. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree, and so do most guides. But the campaign has been clean on all sides, as far as I'm aware. Of course anyone standing deserves thanks (and perhaps psychiatric advice). Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't compare to many former years and didn't watch every corner of the "campaign", but am delighted that most of the candidates who dared to look at a fact from a recent case looked a little deeper than those in the case, a good sign, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]