Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Archive 1

Notes from the 2008 elections.

These are issues that arose during the last vote, and are recorded here for reference. Refer to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008 for the discussion at the time.

Comments with votes used as 'ballot-box campaigning'

During the 2008 elections issues arose from people using comments with their oppose votes to make negative campaigning statements that could not be rebutted due to the restriction on threaded commentary on voting pages. --Barberio (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the issue resulted in an apparent strong majority of support that "The ballot box is not the place to campaign" and that discussion about the candidates should be kept to candidate talk pages, and general campaigning elsewhere. There was also a significant minority that felt that giving a "rationale" comment should be required for all votes. --Barberio (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

'Arbitrator concern' and canvassing issues

For me, so far, the following came up:

1. There needs to be a clear understanding how arbitrators may comment, or ask questions, of candidates. This is problematic since arbvitrators may have good knowledge of the role, or behaviors, and of issues, that (like any admin) they feel need raising; at the same time some users will react with "Arbitrator has this concern" as a sort of "kiss of death". Perhaps some admins willing to proxy for (well merited) arbitrator questions, so the issue can be asked without "OMG ARB" being an issue?
2. Likewise users need to know where concerns over canvassing should go - this may need to be off-wiki since it can often include copies of emails which can't usually be posted.

Will add more as needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Secret ballot

Concerns were raised over if the election should be moved to a secret ballot. Jimbo Wales, presumably in his position as final judge of the election, made a comment in support of votes being taken in private as an option in addition to public voting. [1] --Barberio (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a discussion about secret ballots for Arbitration Committee elections. A majority of the users supported the Schulze method and secret ballots, like in the last Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. A Horse called Man 21:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Audit Subcommittee elections that start later this month, and it will be support/oppose voting; we intend to use secret voting for this election unless some unanticipated difficulties arise in getting it configured quickly enough. Schulze method is not designed to select a large number of "winners" (indeed, it is designed to select a single winner), and is counterintuitive in an atmosphere where voting has always been done as support/oppose rather than required ranking of choices; there is no way to oppose a candidate. One step at a time; let's trial secret balloting first, and then have a full community discussion over a longer period about whether support/oppose or some other method is the preferred method of vote counting. Risker (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the question becomes, then: Should we be preparing a standard arbcom election, in the style used for 2008 and prior years? I've updated some of the standard templates for 2009's dates, but don't want to dig too deep into that process if we're going to switch over to secret balloting or something just as different. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty much settled that secret balloting was preferred. If so, someone can dig up the links and post them here. If not, the audit subcommittee elections end on Nov 7, with Arbcom voting beginning on Dec 1. Assuming secret ballot functions properly for the subcommittee election, that gives you 2 weeks to discuss whether to have a secret ballot for the arbcom election, and then one week to either configure the secret ballot software or to set up the traditional election pages. Thatcher 18:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, with all due respect, no, I don't think it was settled. The only consensus was in one small poorly advertised RfC. As I'm digging through, the only place that the RfC seems to have been advertised was in one small announcement at the Village Pump Policy page,[2] and then after the RfC closed there was one tiny announcement buried in a "Discussion report" of a Signpost article, saying that the proposal was "soundly endorsed".[3] But I don't believe that qualifies as adequate proof of community-wide consensus for such a major change. Better would be to make big announcements about it everywhere: WP:AN, WP:AE, Centralized Discussions. Then if there's still an obvious consensus, proceed. Otherwise, stick with the way we've done it before, and continue to engage in discussion about possible changes for next year's election. --Elonka 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any of what Elonka mentions (unless my memory stinks ... ummm, wellllll ...) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out here what I said below, which is that the discussion was advertised at Centralised discussions. See here. I will agree that it can be easy to miss discussions if they are not well-publicised. But equally, it is easy to be busy during the period when such discussions take place. I've sometimes thought "how did I miss that?", and found out that I forgot to read the Signpost that week, or something. Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am most disturbed to see secret balloting in place, considering the disgusting canvassing in favor of one candidate last year who was elected to ArbCom on a marginal vote. How is the community to help expose this canvassing if ballots are secret, and how are we to have trust in the final outcome? I seem to remember a graph from last year that showed the upturn in one candidate's percentage, that coincided with the canvassing, but I can't locate that graph now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I was one of those marginal candidates. If canvassing was going on with respect to other candidates, or on my behalf without my knowledge, I would have wanted to know about it. Can I ask that if you encounter such canvassing in future, that you do something about it? Maybe suggest a mechanism this year for people to report unacceptable levels of canvassing beyond things such as "I've voted for X, who are you voting for?" Simply saying that you were aware of "disgusting" canvassing, and not naming names or giving details, doesn't really help, other than cast a cloud over all the marginal candidates. The graph you are looking for is, I think, this one. Carcharoth (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I did not receive canvassing for you and wasn't aware of any; thanks for asking so I could clarify. But the canvassing that did occur was not only ethnic block voting. I really don't know how to reveal cavassing without divulging private e-mail, which is a barrier I don't want to cross. Perhaps others can suggest ways that canvassing can be reported, assuring that e-mails will be held in complete confidentiality, but since reporting canvassing would normally result in an investigation, I don't see how confidentiality can be assured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing is unfortunately inevitable. At least a secret ballot prevents the "oppose - molests small dogs" spoiler vote. Perhaps the only way to neutralise canvassing is to allow everyone to do it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course canvassing is inevitable, but secret ballots make it harder to expose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why expose it? It is only a problem if one tries to ban something when no ban can be effective. Better just to accept it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your response makes no sense to me, so I can't reply. Do you really think canvassing was a factor, for example, with some of the top nominees? Or do you think it affected only the candidates who were appointed on slim margins? I get a pretty decent amount of e-mail, and try to be in touch with the community, so I know what my answer to that questin is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. I strongly suspect that canvassing went on for ALL candidates. I was certainly approached by numerous people trying to solicit my vote for a whole variety of candidates. It is inevitable and unpreventable. I see absolutely nothing to gain by trying to stamp it out. People are going to canvas, on-wiki and off-wiki, using irc, IM, e-mail and doubtless other means. You may detect some of it, you will inevitably miss most of it. I can't see the point in caring.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

←Scott, the point of caring is that a clandestine "please vote for me" contest doesn't necessarily get us arbs with the right skill-base. Candidates have ample space to describe their skill-base, and the election is widely advertised. It's a tough job being an arb, and elections and skill don't usually mix well; that is why canvassing should be open and public, not via email or IRC, where it's possible for lots of agendas to swirl around undetected ("I'll support Blogistan over the Twitter Republic if it comes up at ArbCom"—aargh). I don't see why different rules should apply to canvassing here than for RfCs. However, I'm not prepared to make a big thing of this at such a late stage. Tony (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, that might be true, but there is absolutely no way of preventing it. We might also use the same argument for saying people ought to read what the candidates say on their question pages, and not vote simply on the basis of how their wiki-friends vote. However, requiring people to read the questions is also unenforceable - just like trying to prevent canvassing is unenforcable . Anyway, most civilised countries agree that secret ballots overall tend to reduce the opportunities for electoral manipulation.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, with a secret ballot, there will be much less point in canvassing, because the canvassed can say, "Yes, sure, I'll vote for X, if you vote for Y," then ignore it, and vote whatever way they want. That's the beauty of it. All the usual double-dealing will be a waste of time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my point also. Thatcher 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec re to SV) Perhaps that's valid; I know I would be likely to lodge more Oppose votes on a secret ballot. In fact, with secret balloting, I suspect we're going to find much lower Support percentages, because people will be less afraid to oppose, causing Jimbo to dip even lower to fill ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, "dip even lower" is not the way I see it. The more I think about it, the more advantages a secret ballot has, including not publicising the votes afterwards. Tony (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dip lower" in strict numerical terms, perhaps, but if the previous elections had inflated Support numbers, then the winning candidates could have the same level of real support. Thatcher

having a secret ballot has another advantage of just eliminating the "horse race" aspect of it, which can create some irritating behavior, and encourage last minute canvassing.--Tznkai (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've come around on this, and see the benefits of a secret ballot, but have some followup questions. Who will be auditing (the Auditing Committee, I presume)? It is often "the community" who identifies socks, ineligible voters, duplicate votes, etc. ... will that task fall to them, or be another burden on an already overworked ArbCom. (I apologize if I've missed this; I can't keep up with the entire page :) Also, if this task falls to the Auditing Committee, will they pledge confidentiality if canvassing e-mails are forwarded to them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that when an account votes, then the fact that they voted will NOT be secret, simply the content of the vote. This means that if people sock, the community can investigate that as before, without breach of the secret. If there is any other impropriety, that can be investigated by admins or arbcom, as before on the same grounds. The content of anyone's vote will not be disclosed for any purpose, including that of investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott MacDonald (talk • contribs)

There will be some small group of scrutinizers (scrutineers?) who will have access to all the relevant data. They will either be drawn from en.wiki or the foundation level, I believe the decision is ultimately up to Jimbo, but the details are lacking.--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That response concerns me, because the community is helpful in picking up invalid votes, and this seems to place a very high burden on a small number of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Woah, Hold on, I thought in that RFC all the talk was of a 3rd party voting system, not vote counting by some selected group of wikipedians?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

e/c I understand your concerns, but hopefully I can allay some of them. First of all, (if i understand it correctly) who is voting is immediately visible to everyone, so some problematic trends will become rapidly apparent. Second, we're about to test the secret balloting (barring an application of Muprhy's law) with the audit subcommittee elections.--Tznkai (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Cube lurker, there has been a lot of talk and no decision that I am aware of. I personally advocate taking care of it in house, which seems tidier to me, for the same reason we rely on in house CU and OS. Others have made fairly compelling arguments that it should be outsourced to stewards (which are elected at the meta-level), other language CUs, or Foundation appointment (similar to this election committee). Tznkai (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think, particularly considering recent events still fresh in our minds, it's outrageous to expect us to trust the integrity of the process if it's done behind closed doors by a selected group of wikipedians.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The list of all users that have voted is publicly-viewable, and everyone is welcome to participate in the auditing of that list, as with any election. The election admins have immediate access to checkuser-like data on all votes cast, which gives them additional resources in identifying sockpuppet votes and reduces the burden on CheckUsers (although their involvement may still be necessary), but gives them no other 'secret powers'. At no time does any person have the ability to determine how a particular vote was cast, and the election admins have no involvement with "counting votes"; that is done entirely by the software. Happy‑melon 07:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression there was some sort of human being involved in auditing the votes themselves, for those of us who are on occasion distrustful of software?--Tznkai (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean in terms of counting the votes? If the WMF servers are incapable of correctly adding up a pile of ballots, we have greater things to worry about than a subcommittee election...

Election admins have the ability to strike votes that appear to be illegitimate; although neither they nor any other use have the ability to see how the votes they are auditing have been cast. The only information they have access to over and above ordinary users is checkuser-like data on the votes. Happy‑melon 07:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If I understand what you've said, (only half way through my morning coffee), then I'm far less concerned then I was when I last posted.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Without getting all conspiracy theory on you, machines screw up sometimes (more accurately, people programing, operating, and maintaining the machines screw up, but the point is the same). I am unaware of any significant voting system out in the real world that doesn't leave open the option of human beings chasing down the votes. I was under the impression that the board election, for example allowed a more manual tally by the appropriate staffers.--Tznkai (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In any voting system there must be some way, some how, for some one to put the jigsaw pieces back together and check the figures in the presence of all the information. If you cant to get really technical, securepoll stores voting data in two tables: one table stores a vote id and details about the user that cast the vote, and the other stores the same vote id, and details about how the vote was cast. There is, quite deliberately, absolutely no method in the software to link between the two tables and get the complete picture on any vote; both tables are considered private data for the purposes of database dumps, toolserver replication, etc; you'll find them wherever you'd find checkuser data, and nowhere else. So in this election, the people who potentially have the complete picture are the sysadmins, who have shell access to the database. But remember that these people could quite easily be logging your form submissions and seeing how you vote anyway. Or they could just go and write a few extra votes into the database if they felt the urge. You have to trust someone.

If we get to the end of the vote, hit the "tally" button, and learn that every single voter apparently opposed every single candidate, we will get a sysadmin to look at the raw tables and check that that was indeed the case, but the chances of the votes being correctly recorded and yet tallied wrongly, are very low (in principle, of course, zero, but even assuming that there is an error somewhere in the code, it's much more likely to result in votes being recorded wrongly in the first place). Of course, machines screw up. We're not giving people the nuclear codes here. Happy‑melon 17:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Requiring a petition, increasing numbers and reducing term

Is it at all on the table to completely revamp the system rather than just once again rearrange chairs on the Titanic? I would very much so like to see us abandon the "special class" of arbiters and go with something a little more community oriented, like having cases heard by a randomly selected pool of willing admins. That solves problems like burnout (there's 1 case/year max for each person) and arbiters being an aloof special class. If we are unwilling to consider drastic reorganization, there are at least some less drastic things we can do:

• Require a petition to stand for election. You must submit signatures from 50 qualified voters in order to run. Right now, there are enough candidates that reading all of the questions + answers for all of the candidates would potentially be a full-time job. So if we eliminate the ones who would never stand a chance of being elected, we at least reduce the scale of any problems we do have.
• Increase the number of arbiters. Burnout and inactivity are two serious problems arbcom has right now. Why not increase the number of arbiters to 20 and then assign ten of them randomly as each case comes along? By spreading the workload, you help resolve those issues.
• Rotate the membership more. Reduce the term to 18 months and have elections every six months. Again, this helps with burnout and it encourages more qualified people to step up (being an arbiter isn't going to consume the next 3 years of your life any more).

I'd really like to see us take more than token changes - there's a lot that needs to be reformed. --B (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been a lot of very good ideas coming forward from the RfC; the one that I find most problematic from both a candidate and a franchised voter perspective is the every-six-months election. I can tell you honestly that answering the questions—over 250 of them for most candidates—consumed over 200 hours; reading the responses of 20 or 30 candidates over that many questions would take at least 50 hours. Requiring signatures of 50 qualified candidates is also an extremely high barrier, given the number of editors who actually vote (probably about 1000 total by the end of this election, of which about 40% will vote one way or the other on 5 or fewer candidates); in fact, if people are able to garner that many "votes" in advance, the election is something of a denouement. Keep in mind that three of the top-10 candidates have fewer than 250 votes total as I write this; a 50-vote petition is over 20% of their total votes, and would also mean that each election phase starts increasingly early as people work to collect signatures. To be blunt, Arbcom is important, but it isn't so important that it should preoccupy this much of the community's attention and resources. I don't really have a problem with limited-issue candidates, even if they are unlikely to succeed, as their contribution to the discourse is valuable in many cases. Risker (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

fwiw, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is a poll where you can vote for "increasing numbers and reducing term" ;-)

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

non-admin seat

Another reform that we should consider is having a non-admin seat on the committee. There are a lot of good Wikipedians who never become admins for a variety of reasons, and each year we have a number of candidates who are non-admins.

In 2007, Giano II was nearly elected, and this year The Fat Man Who Never Came Back was over the 50% threshold. I voted for the former, but not the latter because there were sufficiently diverse candidates this year, however a non-admin seat would have guaranteed a position for them both, and I think the project would be better off for it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I second the thought behind it (and I voted for both candidates). The committee should reflect WP in its plurality of editors with good judgment, good sense, and constructive dedication toward the encyclopedia, They come with and without the badge.

Are you suggesting

• a required minimum of 1 non-admin seat, or
• a fixed quota of exactly 1 non-admin seat (implying that all the other seats would be held by administrators)?

I might cautiously agree to the former, for one election year perhaps, but the latter is problematic. I don't think we should widen this construct of a trench between administrators and everybody else. One token non-admin seat seems a bit meager anyway. Do we want quotas or should all arbitrators be carrying the strongest community support during election, regardless of the presence of a badge?

Admin votes carry no greater weight than non-admin votes. Whichever way John's proposal goes, I'm optimistic that future elections will endow the committee with more than one non-administrator. The fact that this idea is coming from an arb-elect (and admin) makes me hopeful, and it might open some people's minds. I was quite surprised to see voters explaining their opposes with the knockout criterion not an admin this year. (The laconic reaction of at least one voter who supported per "not an admin", was just that and made me chuckle, of course). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind how many non-admins seats are allocated, however if we are going to have non-admin seats, the number should be pre-determined before the election.

I would prefer that we have one non-admin seat allocated for 2010, so that there is fierce competition which will guarantee one very competent person is elected into that seat, which will reduce concerns, and should result in expansion in the number of non-admin seats in the future.

We can have the best of both worlds by allowing non-admins to run in a ballot for the non-admins seats, and also place them in the general ballot. In that way, the pre-determined non-admin seats will be filled with non-admins, however the community also has the option of appointing more non-admins into the other seats. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The likelihood of a candidate being elected to ArbCom who could not pass RfA is very remote, and I'm not sure that I would want such a candidate on ArbCom. That means that the only people who have any chance of being elected to this seat would be those who choose not to run for adminship. How many of those are likely to choose to run for the much more perilous post of ArbCom? If the week of mudslinging at RfA is too great a hindrance for them, why would they want to sign up for three years of far greater abuse and nitpicking? I would be astonished if we had any candidates for such a seat who had any reasonable chance of winning it. Then there is the point that "non-admin" is not a permanent status: what happens if/when the successful candidate runs for RfA? Remember that, in a three year period, the likelihood of such an occurence is very high; I would say a near-certainty, especially if they acquit themselves as a competent Arbitrator. Should they be barred from RfA? Or should they be required to surrender the "non-admin" seat if they cease to be a non-admin? Or do we, by allowing the candidate to make the natural progression and hold both seats, accept the fact that adminship and ArbCom membership are both markers of the same qualities (trust and respect within the community) and hence that expecting a sensible candidate to have one without the other is not, in fact, realistic? IMO, creating a non-admin seat would be a purely political gesture which would both fail to achieve anything constructive, and which would actively move us further away from the WP:DEAL ethos which we should in fact be fighting to get back to. Happy‑melon 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response to this crazy idea ;-) You have raised a lot of good points.

The candidates who would be suitable for this non-admin seat are the type of person who is committed to not being an admin. Their role would be to provide a non-admin perspective. In my crazy mind, these candidates were expected to continue to not be admins throughout their term on the committee.

As you point out, folk who are non-admins by choice are not likely to want to commit large slabs of time to serving on Arbcom. But, maybe there are a few willing people out there... ? If so, hopefully they will find this discussion thread and raise their hand.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

John, would it not be a major handicap to an arb if he could not read deleted edits?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the general principle here, but I think that the real issue is getting non-admin voices respected on DR and other issues throughout the Wikipedia culture, not trying to shoe horn such respect by electing a non-admin. The technical problems however, are pretty easy to surmount, just ask the Roman Catholic Church. --Tznkai (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)For those missing the reference, in theory the Pope could be any layman, who would then be ordained deacon, then priest, then elevated as a bishop

It would be necessary that arbitrators can see the deleted edits. This can be fixed at a technical level by raising a bug request similar to bugzilla:21044. Non-admin arbs could then be given checkuser, which would give them the ability to read deleted pages. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

John pointed out in the first post of this thread that non-admins usually are not elected, even if it almost happened once. But this information leads imho to another conclusion than creating a special non-admin seat: That the community does not want non-admins on ArbCom or rather has, as happy-melon says above, seen RFA as a necessary pre-judging of the candidate's acceptance in the community. If the community was in favor of non-admin ArbCom members, they surely are free to elect them, are they not? Furthermore, the creation of one or more non-admin-only seats would back up the belief that some hold, i.e. that admins are different from "normal" users or that "normal" users and admins have different views on issues (they might have but not because they are admins or non-admins but rather because everyone has a different view). Such generalizations are not only incorrect, they are dangerously so by potentially increasing the rift between admins and non-admins.

Imagine a political election where a certain number of seats are reserved to, let's say, blondes. Nothing separates blondes from people with other hair color except said color and surely no one would argue that this leads to them having different views. To reserve a seat for a group that per definition has different views is accepted on the other hand (for regional minorities for example - at least here in Germany, for example the South Schleswig Voter Federation). But non-admins are not such a group and as such, it would be incorrect to assume that the status of not being an admin would lead to a ArbCom member having different views, just as the admin status does not in itself leads to having different views. Regards SoWhy 09:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How to simplify and make better the AC elections - proposal

Every other Wikimedia project does fine, and functions fine with Jimmy Wales's "approval". I have yet to see evidence that his "approval" is required, nor even needed, for the AC elections. I have yet to see the value that is added by Wales "approving" members or "approving of" the community election. His two appointments to the AC, Essjay and Jayjg, did not work out well--Essjay lied to and deceived the community, and generated the single most embarrassing even that Wikipedia has yet to see in the mainstream press. Because of Essjay, our contributions and donations actually dropped (a month after the "Essjay Event", contributions did in fact drop). Jayjg, appointed to the AC by Wales, was later defrocked of his Checkuser and Oversight tools for behavior unbecoming. Again... what value does Wales's 'role' in the appointment process add?

What needs to happen next? How do start to ween ourselves off of Jimmy, to have our internal processes begin to stand alone?

AC elections process proposal

• Wales's previous role in the AC elections, as it existed through 2008, is discontinued.
• Selection to the AC is based upon, in 2009 and going forward, the following:

• A minimum 50% support in the elections.
• Willing to disclose their real identity to the WMF.
• The number of open seats in each tranche.
• The highest percentage number (support/oppose) of each candidate.
• The top winners by percentage are appointed to the longest-duration open tranche seat, down to the shortest duration open tranche seat.
• Wales has no approval role. If he feels a candidate is inappropriate for the AC, he may unilaterally veto them, and must provide private justification to the current AC.

• If Jimmy doesn't provide reasoning to the AC within 1 week of the election's close, the veto expires and does not stand.
• The AC, by a public up-and-down voted motion, may overrule any of Wales' vetoes. Departing Arbiters may not vote on these motions. The overrule motion must be ran in public, must occur within 1 week of Jimmy's veto, and the motion vote must last 1 week.

• The next highest candidate by percentage moves up. Wales may exercise the veto process up to three (3) times per election. Afterward, the will of the community stands.

Absurdly simple, and easy. Jimmy is still able to nix people, but the final decision really does here lie in the community--either by election, or by the overrule of Jimmy, via the people we elected.

Thoughts? rootology/equality 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that is intra vires the community. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing isn't. rootology (C)(T) 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is a bit anachronistic that we (the English Wikipedia, as opposed to all other language editions) still have a god-king here who is involved in our decision-making. We should be able to do without. In other words, I endorse your proposal with the exception that I don't think any single user should have a veto right (except, say, Cary Bass or somebody like him who would be the official verifier of identities). However, I would like to add that in the last elections, Jimbo Wales made excellent (and very fair) appointments based on slightly unclear results. The results were a looking a bit unclear because it was not clear to the voters how the winners would be chosen, so without a single final arbiter, we will need clear rules. Yours would probably work. Kusma (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of checks and balances, I'd rather some other group of editors besides the AC fulfill the veto-monitoring role. Self-regulation is a very bad idea. I would prefer to see bureaucrats—by and large a trusted and trustworthy bunch—manage the vote counting and step in wherever judgements are needed to interpret The Will Of The People.  Skomorokh  14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While I find your proposal a bit too complex to gain traction, I like the idea of codifying how the seats are filled, particularly because it avoids the silliness and uncertainty that we have traditionally encountered after the close of voting. It should be clear, while people are voting, how many seats are up for election. People put a lot of thought into these votes, and have a right to know what their votes mean.

Jimbo has, in the past, added extra seats after the close of voting, so that he could appoint people who didn't quite make the cut without technically "vetoing" anyone. While he has of course always done so with good intentions, the Arbitrators he appointed to those seats have been of mixed quality. In Equality's proposal, the number of seats could not change after voting.

For those who are proposing to go farther and cut Jimbo out of the loop entirely, I disagree. I would prefer to maintain the Founder's right to veto people. Someone has to be able to do it, because if the community directly elected the Arbitrators, we would risk fragmenting Wikipedia into factions and political parties. If we form some "vetoing committee", that creates an extra layer of bureaucracy for no obvious gain. As long as it makes sense for one person to have this veto power, there is an obvious choice for who that person should be. rspεεr (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Simplify the process without changing much: no more tranches

By the way, tranches are dumb. They are meant to maintain a cycle of seniority on the ArbCom and a relatively constant number of open seats, but only under the unrealistic assumption that most Arbitrators stay through a three-year term. We could simplify the election greatly without changing much -- we'd just stop diddling with term lengths and expansion seats -- if we replaced the "tranche" terminology with a single rule:

• At each election, the number of seats to be filled is the number that would result in a total of 18 Arbitrators. (This number of Arbitrators can be changed, in advance of the election, if the community forms a consensus to do so.)

Easy. This also goes very well with reducing the term length to two years, if we choose to do that. rspεεr (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Last election, 10 new members were appointed, taking the total in January '09 to 18. A quick look at the WP:ARBCOM page shows that we now have 14 arbcommers, of which 10 are active. What I have been thinking is that, if we want a committee of 18 members, we ought to appointed 20-25 to allow for the inevitable drop-outs throughout the year. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 19:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

18 memebers is meant to be high enough that we can deal with the normal drop off rate.Genisock2 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Has the caseload increased? That's the question. We'd need some committee members, as we run up to the election, to say what size the committee should be to handle the work and from that we can extrapolate how many seats need to be filled. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there should ever be 25 Arbitrators, not even if we expect half of them to drop out. The ArbCom should be more like a Supreme Court than a Senate. rspεεr (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I don't know who's going to be running, but I'm wondering:

• Will FloNight run for re-election?
• Will Coren ron for re-election?
• Will Stephen Bain run for re-election?
• Will the vacancies of Kirill Lokshin, FT2, Sam Blacketer or Jpgordon be filled following this election?

FloNight, Stephen Bain and Coren will have their terms expired at the end of this year. FloNight is longest serving current arbitrator, having served ArbCom since January 2007, two years, and nine months. Stephen Bain was appointed to a one year term in January 2008, but Jimbo Wales extended his/her term to a two year term following the resignation of Paul August. Coren has been part of the Committee since January 2009, and is appointed to a one year term. I wonder if they've decided if they'll be running for re-election. Also, all three are currently on Tranche Gamma. Right now, there are four vacancies, and should FloNight, Coren and Stephen Bain not run for re-election, there will be seven seats for newcomer arbitrators to fill, or if more seats are added to the Committee for this election, there would be more seats to fill. I am wondering what the intentions of the above three are, and whether those vacancies will be filled, but, while we can assume, we won't know until the end of the election. Only time can tell. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there has been discussion to make Arbitrators' terms uniform at two years (almost everyone agrees that three is too long for most, and that the rare case where someone could last longer then requires six years instead of four). Part of that discussion has informally raised the possibility of reorganizing seats in a way that would have my term extended to two years. Provided that gels, and that there is no strong community objection, I would accept — the very high amount of work that standing for election implies would pretty much knock me out of activity on the committee and is probably best avoided if not necessary.

Otherwise, yes, I'll probably run for a new two year term. I think I did a reasonably good job, I don't seem to have attracted undue amounts of hatred, and this committee has done a fairly good job collectively. — Coren ^(talk) 23:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap Elections start in less than 3 weeks

I've updated some of the election pages and templates for 2009, matching closely what was done last year, including General Questions, Candidate Statement template, and so forth. It's almost too late to switch election systems to a secret ballot or some other method, and I haven't seen consensus to do so in any case. So, that said, I'm going to ping the arbcom for their take on the vacant seats for this election, what to do with the proposed non-admin seat (if any), and any additional procedural changes they need. If there's anything we're forgetting, please speak up! Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's strong support for secret and preferential elections – can we ask the people behind the Board elections to help out with implementation?  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread on Jimbo's talkpage is instructive – Jimbo intends "to keep the size of the ArbCom the same". This comment by arbitrator John Vandenberg regarding the consensus for election reform and the Board election committee is also worth reading in full.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those links; that helps clarify things a great deal. I'll note the seats below, then. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We intend to trial SecureVote onwiki for the first time with the AUSC elections that start on October 30. After a lot of careful consideration, we have opted to go with straight support/oppose voting rather than preferential voting, because there is not currently a preferential voting system specifically designed to select multiple "winners", and the Schulze method is counterintuitive for many voters (the idea that not ranking a candidate is the equivalent of an oppose vote is a significant downside). As to the number of vacant seats, there will be a minimum of 7 and perhaps more; I encourage any of my colleagues who are contemplating resignation to make a decision and announce their intentions prior to the start of voting. Risker (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you answered this question earlier on the page - and I replied to you! Sorry for the confusion. I'll note the current seats, expiring and vacant, in a following section, for clarity. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vacancies

Per {{ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent}}, It appears that Tranche Gamma is expiring this year, which means the following arbitrators will be up for re-election, should they so desire:

• Coren (talk · contribs)
• FloNight (talk · contribs)
• Stephen Bain (talk · contribs)

Additionally, the seats vacated by the following are up for election:

• FT2 (talk · contribs) (Alpha Tranche, expiring 2010)
• Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) (Alpha Tranche, expiring 2010)
• Casliber (talk · contribs) (Beta Tranche, expiring 2011)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) (Gamma Tranche, expiring 2009)
• jpgordon (talk · contribs) (Gamma Tranche, expiring 2009)

I'll post this list on the ACE2009 page shortly, once I figure out the formatting. Unless Jimbo indicates otherwise, which seems unlikely, we should proceed with the understanding that all vacant seats will be filled. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure jpgordon's seat is up for grabs? Per {{ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent}} it does not seem to have been filled last year (despite Wikipedia:AC2008 indicating it was open), and adding five extra arbitrators to the current stock would give 18 rather than the 17 of January 1, 2008. If Jimbo wants the number the same as last year, does this not mean 17?  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Deskana resigned following the close of last year's election, and no replacement was appointed. Thus we started 2009 with an empty seat. Technically, John Vandenberg was appointed to a 3 year term, but has stated he will step down at the end of two years, so he was put into the Alpha tranche instead of the Beta one, but I'm not quite sure by whom. This is why the tranches appear to be so imbalanced. Having said that, if people want to move to a two-year system (leaving the present 3 year appointments in place), this might not be a bad time to do so. Risker (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Deskana's seat was specifically listed as planned to be filled in a by-election in Summer 2009 (oops). Since we had no such by-election, I feel comfortable listing that seat here as up for election. John Vandenburg should be under Tranche Beta (per Last Year's Results, with an already-filed retirement date of 31 December 2010 - which we would treat as if he said he was retiring then, rather than up front. Near as I can tell, the vacant 18th seat was actually in Tranche Gamma - Alpha is listed as having 7 (8, then take out John Vandenburg), Beta has 6 (5 plus John Vandenburg), and Gamma has 5. So if we fill FT2's currently-vacant seat with someone to be added to Gamma, then everything balances at 6 per tranche. (I'd update the chart, but it frightens me.) As for 2 year terms; It'd be simplest to split this year's winners between Alpha and Beta, with some getting a 1 year term and others getting two. Then, next year, we'd have 9 open seats to elect and we can proceed with a two-tranche system. There was discussion in the Arbcom RFC, lo these many months ago, about having staggered terms of 2 years, with elections every 6 months. Consensus, as I remember it, was that that would be too much hassle. But it's an idea as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also - Not sure about jpgordon's seat. But if Jimbo wants 17 in total, it doesn't bother me, though it would make the tranches uneven - whicm might not matter. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Risker's Deskana explanation puts Jimbo's desired figure at 18. Your suggestion for the mechanics of a two-years system sounds appealing. I wonder what the arbitrators think of maximum two-year term lengths, and how much discussion would be needed to implement them?  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as Implementation, either A) Jimbo could appoint to two year terms, as he wishes (though he's said he just wants to ceremonially approve the election, as opposed to using his discretion to change the results), B) The committee could issue some sort of ruling, though I'm not 100% sure that it is within their remit, or C) Candidates could individually agree to sit only for two years, reducing the term limit by consensus. The trick here is that they'd essentially be doing as John Vandenburg did - agreeing to serve only for two years of a three year term. There is not currently a process to stop one or more candidates from taking that third year, which would throw everything off. If there's consensus for 2 years, that becomes less of an issue. I do think we should know up front, though - quality candidates who only wish to serve for two years might not run if they'd be asked to serve three. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't venture to speak for my colleagues who are currently in the Beta tranche, except for John Vandenberg who made it clear he only intends to serve two years; however, I did state during my candidacy that would not be opposed to the term being reduced to two years. Do keep in mind that over 80% of arbitrators do not complete their terms, which also seems to favour reduced term length. One thing to be aware of is that there is a strong likelihood that each year more than half of the seats will be filled with new arbitrators; even if the early resignation rate is reduced, there is still the likelihood that one or more arbitrators will step down during a 2-year term as well. While I don't think that's necessarily bad, it will change the dynamics of the committee. And like you, Ultraexactzz, I wouldn't touch that chart with a ten-foot pole. Risker (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If a reduction of term limits to 2 years is considered, we should think about deciding on this at the same time as the elections, although that would mean that we would only have approx. 5 weeks to get to a decision because imho it should be decided before voting begins so that all voters are informed on how long the people they vote for will serve. Regards SoWhy 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to do it ahead of time; a good candidate is a good candidate, and I don't know that the length of the term would impact who votes for whom - but it could have an impact on who runs. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling the question

There appears to be some interest in 2 year terms for Arbcom, as evidenced here, last year's election discussion at WT:ACE2008, and the Arbcom RFC at Arbitration Committee change and reform (and in other sections; several views included a reduction in terms). As I note, term changes could be initiated by Jimbo (who I plan to ping regarding this discussion), by the committee, or by the community. Is 2 weeks and change enough time for a proper RFC calling the question? Would a motion or request for clarification to the committee be more appropriate? Or do we rely on candidates self-limiting to 2 years (or 1, if we stagger terms for a two-tranche system), and let the election results serve as a referendum? In other words, if candidates who explicitly pledge to sit for 2 years are the top vote-getters, would that be a clear indication of the community's desire for 2 year terms? Now that I think about it, that might be simplest, and it would inform Jimbo's decision in December. It would also force him to exercise discretion, which he as stated he doesn't want to do this time around (wanting his picks to be more ceremonial). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But since people don't only vote for those who make such pledges but mainly for those who they think are most able, the amount of votes for such candidates will not really be an helpful indicator, will it? Regards SoWhy 14:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't know until after - that's the rub. Last year, Jimbo read the voting as a mandate for change, and acted accordingly. I don't know how much of that came from the RFC that year, the votes themselves, or just the totals - and it's unclear what form a mandate for shorter terms would take here. I mention it as an alternative to a panicked RFC two weeks and change before nominations. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why 2 weeks? Can't the RFC run until voting starts on December 1st and we simply inform all candidates that a change in term length is possible? Regards SoWhy 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have, by coincidence, just written to Jimbo about exactly this issue on his talk page:

Dear Jimbo

Last week I raised on your talk page the question of whether the current norm of three years for the terms of incoming arbs might be reduced to two years, suggesting that there would be consensus for such a change in the community, and asking whether you might sound out the current arbs on the matter. I know you've been busy and in transit recently, and the section has since been swallowed into the archives.

A colleague and I would be willing to hold an RfC before nominations are called (i.e., starting very soon) to gauge community attitudes to such a proposal, framed as advisory only. What are your thoughts on the matter, and would such an RfC be useful?

Tony

A quick count has revealed the astonishing fact that only six of the 57 arbs ever to have been appointed have served a full three-year term. A three-year term now would not be replaced until 2013, which seems like a long time to take our best and brightest out of circulation. There's the burn-out factor in such a long term, since being an arb is increasingly a challenging, complex and full-on job. There's the apparently quick learning curve of the current new crop of arbs. And there the option of a second term of four not six years.

I'm unsure why the tranches are needed, if elections can be treated as "top ups" of numbers to the desired size (18?) each January. The number of seats to be filled will almost certainly vary from year to year, which shouldn't matter.

I look forward to hearing your opinions on this. Tony (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Finalization

As the elections process for the 2010 ArbCom is just three weeks away, it seems appropriate to request some definite information regarding this election. A confirmation of seats available, arbitrator vacancies, election method, term length and similar information from the current committee would be appreciated. —Finn Casey * * * 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny, we were just discussing that in the thread above. We have 8 vacancies, as shown. There is consensus for a secret ballot, but - according to Risker - the committee wants to use the Audit Subcommittee Election next week as a dry run, which makes sense. Following that election, we would presumably discuss the matter with the community and come to a consensus on whether it would work for a large-scale election such as this. That's not going to happen before November 10, when candidates may self-declare, so I believe we will use the format from last year for this election - Support/Oppose voting, General Questions, etc. Term Length is an open question, as there may be support for a split two year term that folds the current gamma tranche into the Alpha and Beta - discussion is ongoing, above. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I noticed the above discussion, but was not sure how widely publicized the discussion had become. I thought I would attempt to solicit remarks from other editors, and perhaps the current committee, with a view to forming a speedy consensus. As you note, time is running out to implement changes, so it is good to discuss the matter as soon as we can. The committee keeps very busy, and it is possible that matters could be inadvertently forgotten until too late (e.g. the overlooked summer 2009 election for Deskana's seat). Thus, this is just a friendly reminder and agreement with Ultraexactzz's attempts to get the ball rolling. I also posted on WP:ACN in order to perhaps draw additional attention to this important discussion. —Finn Casey * * * 20:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

By my reading, the "consensus" for the secret ballot was a fairly small one, and it's my guess that most members of the community who might be interested in the matter, have no idea it was even discussed. A better way to proceed might be to publicly announce that a secret ballot is planned for the election next year, and then make sure the matter gets a vigorous discussion, perhaps by asking all the candidates about it during the current year's election. --Elonka 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I did much of the mundane setting up of the various pages for last year's election. I think I'll take a back seat for this one. In most respects, however, the format for December 2008 seemed to work quite well (with the exception of "general questions", which, in retrospect, I would say were probably more bother than we needed). Additionally, I'd say: that Finn is quite right that we need to get a move on with setting up the pages; and that Elonka is quite right that a secret ballot for this year's voting would not be wise. AGK 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a supermajority of the entire community to make this kind of change; it's been kicked around quite a bit, with pretty limited concerns expressed. If it works well with the AUSC election, and there are no major technical challenges to using it with ACE2009, then I see no reason to wait. The potential downsides are seemingly minor. Nathan ^T 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a closed/secret ballot is an excellent one. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Springing a secret ballot on the community as a surprise would not be a good idea. For the record, I myself am strongly against the idea of a secret ballot, and was surprised when someone told me that it was even being considered for this year's elections. When I indicated surprise, they told me that there was consensus, and pointed me at the (already closed) RfC. But as I mentioned above, I don't think this RfC was as widely announced as it could have been. There was no Signpost article about it, and many editors who I would have expected to see at such an RfC, were completely absent. To try and push through a "consensus" about a secret ballot with such little community awareness about it, would not be wise, and might cause more chaos than it was intended to prevent. I'm reminded of the situation where there was a "consensus" to rename WP:V, but when the change went through, it caused a community uproar. So, a better option here is to proceed slowly and carefully. Make sure that the idea of a secret ballot is extremely well known, and give everyone time both to discuss their concerns, and also to get used to the idea. --Elonka 23:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a Secret Ballot, if properly implemented with appropriate consensus, and I'll be watching the AUSC election with interest. I'm also a fan because it'd be less work and hassle during the election itself. As Risker notes, though, we really need a broader consensus before we implement. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't agree at all with the assertion that this is being "sprung on the community". This RfC went on for a month and was pretty widely advertised. Going ahead with secret support/oppose voting, unless there are major problems with the AUSC election, makes perfect sense to me. Ultra, I think you misunderstand Risker. I read her comment as meaning that we would need a longer discussion on what the exact secret voting method should be (Schulze or support/oppose) after this years arcom election. — Jake Wartenberg 22:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree that the RfC was "widely advertised". Checking "What links here" shows a very small list.[4] There was one tiny mention, buried in a longer Signpost article, and one link from the Village Pump (policy) board. Plus, looking at the names of the participants who did go to the RfC, I'm seeing very few of the ArbCom regulars, which tells me that most of them had no idea that the RfC was even happening. To be "widely advertised", there should have been announcements on WP:AN, WP:AE, a full Signpost article, and a link on "Centralized Discussions". --Elonka 15:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it could have been advertised more, but it was on the centralized discussion template. See here. You need to look through the history and (not always complete) archive to see what was listed there. Best practice, as I say at Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, is to make a note at the time (on the talk page) of where a discussion was publicised, rather than trying to work it out later. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Term lengths: On the matter of changing to two-year terms, it would be in everyone's interest to avoid the messiness of allowing individual candidates to choose for themselves, something that militates against an orderly process, clarity of purpose, and the appearance of commitment to the job. How would voters react to a declaration either way by a candidate? Hard to tell, which introduces an unnecessary imponderable into the process. There is apparently no significant opposition to two-year terms as a norm—not among current arbs, not by Jimbo, and not in the community. Jimbo has undertaken on his talk page to ask the arbs and take their advice. I advised him that a colleague and I were ready to go with an RfC on the matter, if that was necessary; no one, apparently, does think it's necessary. I believe we should work on the basis that it will be two years. Although it would be a lot of fuss, I am quite prepared to post a note at VP and Centralized Discussion at a moment's notice, asking for anyone who objects to pipe up and state their reasons on a dedicated page.

Seats vacant: Just checking: the election will "top up" the number of arbs to 18? This is as I understand Jimbo's response on his talk page when I put the question a while ago. 18 was the number after the last electoral "top up", including Deskana's seat. Eight "fallow" positions are listed above. There are 13 arbs currently listed. Is my arithmetic correct? How many seats, exactly, will be filled this time? [Later: yep, 13 minus 3 retirements plus 8 equals 18.]

Secret ballot. I thought it had been resolved that this election would be held as a secret ballot, as a matter of fair, clean process. I see no problem in implementing the secret ballot in the period between the close of Audit Subcommittee elections and the start of the ArbCom vote, provided there are no great cock-ups in the AS election. This is an important reform, and if I'd known its implementation for this election was suddenly going to be at issue, I'd have said something long before now. Tony (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I put vacant seats back to "pending". Sorry for this guys, but the number of seats could still change, in the event that a sitting arb is transferred from one tranche to another (this HAS happened in previous years). This would change the number of seats being filled obviously. Arbcom are mighty busy right now, but I am hassling them to get a definitive answer. Manning (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has stated only a few weeks ago on his talk page that he will play a purely "ceremonial" role in this election. This was in answer to my request that we know before the election how many seats will be filled. Changing sitting members from one tranche to another is definitely not ceremonial. As far as I understand it, if a sitting member wants another term, s/he should stand for election. Tony (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The situation is unclear. It could be argued that Arbcom have the right to transfer their members. Or not. It all depends on how you interpret Jimbo's transference of authority. This is why I'm trying to get it clarified ASAP so that the clerks can get the pages into order for the election. Manning (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a formal RFC on the length issue would be good, if only to get an uninvolved party to close the discussion and document it as a best practices method for future changes to voting practices. I think that was done for the secret ballot (or maybe I'm forgetting something). MBisanz ^talk 14:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Manning. I've done some copy-editing of the associated pages. I made no substantive changes except for two. Two, I think, no one will object to: that candidate statements should not exceed 400 words, rather than that they should be less than 400 words (= 399 or less—seemed to be very fussy); and that where a statement does exceed the limit, it will be removed for reduction, not may be removed. It seems only fair to be strict about this, don't you think.

The third substantive change arises from an inconsistency, but will probably need to be OKed higher up. In at least one place, it says that Jimbo will "verify" the results. Yet on the "Voting process" page, it says that "Voting will run for two weeks (exactly fourteen days), and the results will be determined and announced by Jimbo Wales." I changed this to "verified", but please change it back if you think there's a problem. In the end, one term needs to be used in both places, I think. [5] Tony (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Matt, an RfC would need to be launched very soon indeed. I suppose I'm willing to launch it, but can we sort out soon whether this is necessary? Can you ask the arbs? Tony (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can email them (which I've done), but Special:CompelUser isn't working this week :) MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Matt, Tony - I've managed to get in touch with a couple of arbs about these two issues (tranche changes, two-year terms) and a response from ArbCom on both should be forthcoming in the near future. (Bear in mind that some major arb work is underway at present). Nothing stops you from launching an RFC in the interim, but it *may* be moot. (Or it may not, hey what do I know?) Manning (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Manning. I'd rather wait if advice is forthcoming soon, but can launch it promptly if necessary. An RfC on term-lengths alone (not tranches) would be my preference—the simpler it is, the more likely there will be a clear-cut result and minimal risk of bloat.

Of course, consitutionally, Jimbo can simply say "ArbCom advised me that two years would be ideal, and I'm acting on their advice", since term-lengths are mentioned nowhere in policy. That is, in fact, what Jimbo suggested on his talk page. Tony (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, I'm going to post my views here. I'm speaking here as a community member, with current experience of the arbitration committee, and as someone who thinks that ultimately the community should decide issues such as the size of the committee, and the term lengths, and the voting method.

• Term lengths - I think two years is a good term length. It is long enough to effect changes and to get up to speed in the first six months. Three years is too long, and two sets of two-year services (ideally with a break in-between) is better than two lots of three-year services. The problems arise with turnover and the need to keep the committee stable (having more than half its members change each year is not good). If you have elections to fill all vacant seats with 2-year terms, then the number of seats up for election depends on the number of resignations, and the number of departing arbs whose term has ended (though they can, of course, run for re-election). Ideally, you would have staggered terms (i.e. tranches), as this avoids situations where you have (say) eight seats up for election one year, six seats up for election the next year, and twelve the year after that (this is the current situation given the number of arbs on 1-, 2-, and 3-year terms, if all eight seats this year were appointed to 2-year terms). This means that to even things up, you need to have three people running for 1-year terms this year, and five for 2-year terms. Then you go back to 9 seats available each year for 2-year terms (i.e. effectively a 2-tranche system). If you stick with a 3-tranche system (and 3-year terms), you have a tranche of 6 already filled with those serving for one more year, and a tranche of 4 filled with those serving for two more years. Thus you would have elections for 8 seats, 6 being for three years, and 2 for two years. And then elections for 6 seats each year thereafter (plus resignations). The advantage of a three-tranche system is that you don't replace half the committee each year (that can also be a disadvantage), but the disadvantage is that if you have annual elections, you need three-year terms, which are too long for some. The advantage of a two-tranche system is that you only need 2-year terms, but the disadvantage is that you replace half the committee each year and if arbitrators resign the year they were elected, then the following election results in more than half the committee being replaced (i.e. less stability). It's not an easy thing to weigh in the balance.
• Size of committee - I think 18 is a workable size (though at the upper limit). 15 would also be workable (though if you have 2-year terms, you either need an even number of seats, or the theoretical number of seats available for election goes up and down by one each year). I think anything below 12 becomes unworkable when you have arbitrators either resigned, recused, or inactive/burnt out, as you can end up with as few as 5 arbitrators voting on an issue towards the end of the year, which is not good. So anything between 18 and 12 is workable, in my view, with a preference for a number between 15 and 18 to allow for resignations and inactivity/burnout.
• Voting method - I have reservations about secret ballots, but some of the arguments for this have swayed me. My primary concern is that the discussions and "endorsement" pages that will inevitably spring up will get out of hand. There should be vigorous discussions about the candidates, but it should be kept under control. I do think more discussion about the practicalities of a secret ballot are needed (the RfC endorsed the concept, but little was said about how it would work in practice). I would urge those following these discussions to follow the AUSC elections and help point out and correct any bugs or problems that arise.

So overall, 2-year term lengths, 18 on the committee, and secret ballot (for this year at least). With the caveat that three of the eights seats this year need to be for 1-year terms to avoid a pile-up of 12 seats for re-election in December 2011. And repeating here that this is my personal view, and that these issues are, ultimately, for the community to decide. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Only seven arbs at the start of this year were continuing (two of whom left soon after, and another after six months); nine were new. This seemed to work well and occurred under the three-year regime. Half of 18 is nine. I hope ArbCom will focus in the coming year on how to minimise the drop-out and burn-out rates. More delegation, streamlined hearings, structural reform, measures to protect arbs from abuse—these might all help. Given the uneven, unpredictable rates of dropping out during each year, the December elections for ArbCom have become a de-facto "top up" mechanism. Let's be realistic—it can only ever be that, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with different numbers of vacant seats each December; as long as there are at least four or five continuing arbs on each turnaround, plus the supportive infrastructure of continuing clerks and functionaries, the system can be made to run more smoothly with two-year terms than it has done with three-year terms. Tony (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created a shell of an RFC regarding term lengths and the number of seats: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2.
Before we get the RFC ball rolling, I think that we need to consider how to have an effective and quick RFC, due to time constraints, because I believe it is critical that this decision is made before the election commences. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have kicked off the RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting organised

OK, with elections just around the corner there is a need to get organised. I have some suggestions:

It would be good to organise a team of volunteers to keep election matters running smoothly. This team can coordinate on a user page somewhere (as these discussion pages will soon be full of election related discussion). Knowing what needs to be done and who else is available to help is a good thing. I'd nominate a subpage at User:Ultraexactzz as he/she seems to have already taken a leadership role in this year's election. (I haven't raised this with Ultraexactzz by the way, it's just my idea).

Also a few Arbcom clerks will be around to help. It should be noted that clerks have NO special responsibility/authority in elections, (they are run by the community and not by Arbcom). We can however be useful for getting in touch with Arbcom quickly if ever needed.

We also need to start to properly publicise the election.

Feel free to add comments or additional ideas. Manning (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to give some time as an assistant. Tony (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am prepared to do the required donkey work. How about using a subpage of the Election page (i.e. here) for co-ordination? User subpages are harder to find and less enticing to contribute to for editors reticent to "trespass", and for posterity's sake it would be bad to have the lost to history as might happen if it were not attached to the election page.  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Coordination. I've added both your names to the list there as well. Manning (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, everything should be in one place, and we should keep in the WP space (mainly, so we can find it next year). I'll add myself momentarily. Publicizing the election usually takes care of itself; within the week we'll be asking the community for General Questions to ask all candidates, and the nomination process usually sparks a great deal of interest. Perhaps we should ping the Signpost as well? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Re the Signpost, I had actually already sent an email to phoebe before I went to bed last night. I also put some preliminary notices at the Admin noticeboard and at VPM. Manning (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions Pages

Whatever sort of voting we do, we'll still be asking questions of the candidates. Last year, we accepted general questions for all candidates (here) from 3 November until 17 November. We then locked the page and transcluded these questions to each of the nominees at that time. Since nominations went from 10 November to 24 November, there was a week where new nominees got the questions right away - and there was a week where the candidates did not actually have general questions. Some candidates copied individual questions over, others prepared answers and waited for the 17th to post them.

One of the biggest headaches was making sure that candidates who answered some questions early ended up getting all of the questions. We couldn't just transclude, or risk losing the answers they had posted already. So here's my question - would there be an objection to moving Questions up a week? That means we'd close the General questions on 10 November, and all nominees would have all of the questions from day one. The downside is that this would mean we need to ask for questions Tomorrow, if we want to give two weeks for them as we did last year. I don't think this would be a problem, and the proper pages are already set up. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Questions/General adds questions to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Questions/General/List, which is later locked and transclude/substituted onto each candidate's question page, which uses Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Questions header as a base. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr version - It'd be simpler to ask for questions for candidates starting tomorrow, if consensus exists to do so. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed schedule would be an improvement. However, we urgently need acknowledgement from the current committee. —Finn Casey * * * 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's working on it, as is Risker and others. The issues they're looking at, though - the secret ballot thing and two year terms - wouldn't be affected by moving questions to tomorrow (or 3 hours from now, omw). nor do I think a watchlist notice is necessary; posts at AN, BN, ARBCOM (or ARBCOM/N), and VP - and CENT - would probably be sufficient to announce that questions are open for submissions. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I cant think of any reason to wait. In late October 2008 we had a number of "probable" candidates already answering some basic familiarisation questions developed by MBisanz. See the 27 October 2008 revision of his ACE2008 page, and the revisions for each candidate guide page as of the same day: CHL, Coren, Jehochman, Rlevse, Sam Korn, and Wizardman. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I posted notices to the Village Pump, AN, BN, and WT:ARBCOM. I'll add it to CENT monemtarily. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'm concerned to read comments above such as "Canvassing is unfortunately inevitable" and "the disgusting canvassing in favor of one candidate". Canvassing, like socking, is impossible to stamp out completely, but it wouldn't hurt to remind people that this electoral process takes it seriously, would it? Something like this?

All candidates and voters are reminded that Wikipedia's WP:CANVASSING policy will be strictly applied in the election process.

It could go ... let me see ... underneath "Reminder to candidates regarding their statements"? Tony (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well for arbcom elections we do tolerate things we don't in other processes, such as userboxes indicating a person supports a particular candidate. Also, the scale of arbcom elections generally render canvassing impossible and just lead to long chases down foxholes. MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, will go with your advice. I was just concerned it might be a disruptive element, and that the election not be unnecessarily politicised. Tony (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Be afraid! ;-)

There were a lot of useful ideas in that discussion; many should be revisited before we finalise the election rules for this upcoming election.

In that discussion almost everyone agreed there isn't much that can, or should, be done about canvassing. I suspect it will become more of an issue with a secret ballot because it will go unnoticed, but at the same time a secret ballot means that votes need not be affected by pressure from a group. People who are canvassed will be able to secretly break rank without fear of reprisals from those who are doing the canvassing.

Block voting will still go unnoticed where the bonds within the group are strong, however without the ability to say whatever they like publicly when they register their vote, they cant affect other voters unless they go to the talk page and express their concerns in a convincing manner.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

John, you said "it will become more of an issue with a secret ballot because it will go unnoticed, but at the same time a secret ballot means that votes need not be affected by pressure from a group". I can't see how either assumption is correct. Correct me if I'm wrong: the idea of the secret ballot is that the votes are made public after the close of voting. Therefore, rewards and reprisals are possible for those who did or did not vote according to the wishes of a lobbyist (however, the entire vote is open to auditing afterwards, which is good).

Like sockpuppetry, which often cannot be proved, I see no reason why canvassing should be tolerated just because it can still be organised in secret. The least we can do is to post a strong reminder in at least one prominent place on the election pages. Heck, you have to be very careful even neutrally advising people that an RfC is being held on WP. As User:ChrisO said at your link above, "I'd think WP:CANVASS would apply in this as in all other community discussions.... I would say that [emailed lobbying for or against a candidate] undermines the integrity of ArbCom votes - they're not supposed to be proxies for fighting ethnic or cultural conflicts." Indeed. Tony (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a secret ballot if the individual votes are published at the end. The WMF Board election votes are not released at the end; I see no reason why these election votes would be released at the end. I'll scream bloody murder if they are, because that was not what was discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArbCom secret ballot.

A lovely note discouraging canvassing is nice, however there is no point in saying that canvassing isnt permitted unless we know what happens when someone does it. And they will do it. And they will swear black and blue that they didnt do it, despite the obviousness of it.

Are we going to deny people their voting right because they received a canvassing email? What about if they send an email?

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why the votes should not be public afterwards. Point taken, and see SV's comment above. Tony (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

SecurePoll ballots cannot be publicised. There is a public list of who has voted, and a list of what votes were recorded for each candidate, but there is no list, and no way to create a list, that combines both data. Fortunately. Happy‑melon 23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall, from voting in Foundation Board elections, that voters get a "receipt" of sorts where they can save their vote (in encrypted form) on their own computer. Am I misremembering that? I always thought that was designed so people could cross-reference their votes and make sure their votes were recorded correctly. If that is the case (and I'm likely talking through my hat here), then if every voter published their receipt, you could reconstruct the vote. But that is unlikely to happen, obviously. One question I did have is whether candidates can vote for themselves? This is normal in real elections, but traditionally hasn't been done in our open elections. Candidates who vote would appear on the list of those who voted, but it wouldn't be known who they voted for (you would have to believe what they said if they chose to disclose that). In the past, the issue of candidates voting for each other (and sitting arbitrators voting) has proved contentious, in that people who oppose each other in a public vote may end up having to work together. I suppose now the issue gets sublimated somewhat, if not completely resolved (the only way to avoid that completely is not to vote at all, and just be professional about who you end up working with, and to not be silly enough to ask your colleagues if they voted for you or not if they voted). Carcharoth (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the encrypted-ballot feature of SecurePoll, which is designed to ensure that not even the server administrators can alter the votes cast; as you say, it is so that if the voters suspect that the host has committed fraud, the election can conceivably be reconstructed (although only with the agreement of all the voters). In these elections, the encryped-ballot system will not be used, as we have no reason not to trust the host (WMF) implicitly.

There is no restriction on candidates voting for themselves or each other, except that the fact that they have voted will be public knowledge. Happy‑melon 11:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom election is so widely attended, a single candidate may have 300-500 people commenting, that I am not all that concerned about canvassing. The canvassing problem is real on AFD debates with low attendance, and where recruiting 10 supporters might disrupt the discussion, but I don't see that having such an impact on the ArbCom elections. For very large scale polls like this, I think it is best to be liberal in accepting that people will have their opinions on whom the best candidates are, and that many will try to influence others to think the same way. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Most canvassing is negative, so 20 will make a big deal. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:SecurePoll monitors

Any idea who will be monitoring the votes at Special:SecurePoll to strike sockpuppet votes, double votes, etc? It has to be someone identified to the Foundation and ideally should be a disinterested party. I know I had mentioned the Meta crats and de.wiki arbs, but given that the de.wiki arbs have resigned en masse in the interim, I think the fr.wiki and nl.wiki arbcoms are the next most active. MBisanz ^talk 13:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The extension has built-in mechanisms to prevent double voting, and to enforce eligibility restrictions. Not sure how the sockpuppetry issue is managed, or if its a significant problem - presumably if there is a relatively strict eligibility requirement (as there has been in the past) the risk of socks affecting the outcome will be pretty small. Nathan ^T 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm nearly certain any bot operator would get at least two votes without anyone noticing (assuming they were ok being unethical), same goes for anyone with a public account or who has changed usernames by abandoning an old account. MBisanz ^talk 16:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifying in the rules that accounts with the Bot flag are ineligible would solve one issue, and would be simple to check. Public accounts aren't an issue, so long as their votes do not overlap with the main account for that user (and so long as they have suffrage); that's something else that usually gets checked after the election. The other issue will be accounts blocked for sockpuppetry during the election - Sockmaster votes, then the sock gets caught double voting. Monitors would need to remove those votes from the count, as well. An aside - who is monitoring the AUSC election? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there aren't "formal" monitors since the last 3 elections were all on public pages and before that Jimbo/Arbcom appointed the monitors for the 2 previous securepoll elections. MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So, as a technical point, then - how does it work? Someone will have to go through the votes and verify suffrage, non-bot status, non-blocked status, non-sock status, etc. Who holds the bag? If we invite NL.Wiki's Arbcom to do it, for example, would one or more of us sit in with them as an english wiki liason? Can we set up our own secure poll, or does a dev need to do it for us? Have we made the request, to make sure it's feasible? I see a note at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll that the extension does not scale well with tens of thousands of users; we had 7200 votes two years ago, will we break securepoll? The board elections, by example, failed to breach 4000 votes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If we do end up going with securepoll, I'm hoping Jimbo will appoint canvassers/monitors by fiat as a modification of his normal role, possibly drawing from AUSC and CU.--Tznkai (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be very uncomfortable with English Wikipedia functionaries monitoring secret ballots. Surely other responsible wikimedians or external monitors would be preferable to (with all due respect) ArbCom-appointed members of the cabal-that-is-not?  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? That means more identification, more spread of private data (in general) and decreased familiarity with whats going on. We regularly have AC clerks doing a lot the work. In the real world, election monitors are often partisans, elected officials with sufficient checks and balances, or they are from other jurisdictions in the area and thus still have an interest. I understand the general principle of disinterested parties, but there are perfectly good ways to do it without them. The problem with disinterested parties is they tend not to care enough to volunteer.--Tznkai (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is pretty important that whoever administers the elections not be involved with this project too heavily, and certainly not with anything to do with arbcom. These are secret elections; if functionaries, some of the most powerful people here, know who you voted for that almost defeats the point. — Jake Wartenberg 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jake. The whole point of a secret ballot is that people will feel free to support and oppose without fear of backlash. If there's a suspicion that those overseeing the election are interested parties who might use the information about voters' choices, it defeats the purpose, and we may as well not bother. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a few points:

• The list of users who have voted is publicly viewable, although of course the way they voted is not indicated.
• No wiki user has the ability to see who voted for whom in a SecurePoll ballot. Votes are cast, and the list of who has voted is available. Election administrators can strike votes in this state, but they do not know which way the vote was cast. Once the striking process is complete, the software releases the final vote count: that is, the list of how many votes were cast each way. There is no ability to determine who cast each vote. "Election admin" is not synonymous with "has all data on the election".
• The SecurePoll for the AUSC elections is already configured and ready to go, you'll be seeing it in action in less than 26 hours time. Currently elections can only be configured by sysadmins; there is work in the pipeline to provide an on-wiki interface for creating polls, which will hopefully be finished before the ArbCom elections. If it is not, a sysadmin will configure the ACE2009 election manually as well.
• There is no danger of these elections placing undue strain on SecurePoll. The problems that were noticed during the licence update survey were caused by having large numbers (tens of thousands, as indicated) of votes cast, in a vote that used SecurePoll's encryption mechanism to provide triple-blind security to the poll (essentially, the collaboration of two of the three parties involved in the poll (WMF, the voter, and SPI who hosted the vote) was required to identify any vote); the large numbers of votes took too long to decrypt at the end of the poll, timing out the web interface that is normally used to tally results. As the encryption mechanism will not be used in these elections (redundant as the 'host' and 'scrutineers' are the same people), this is a non-issue. Also note that documentation at mw.org is often hopelessly out of date.

Happy‑melon 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always believed the fear that people have has nothing to do with the "powerful users" but everything to do with what their friends will think of them. It certainly shapes editing patterns.--Tznkai (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Single" general question

With virtually no publicity there are already a number of general questions - see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Questions/General. However there are a number of cases where the "single" question rule has been ignored. In a few cases there are six or seven questions. I'm not sure of the accepted procedure here. Manning (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually completely missed that prohibition, to my embarrassment. My notion would be to let the process run its course a bit longer, and then consolidate the repeat questions.--Tznkai (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am rather confused on what exactly this means. Does it mean one question per person, or one specific question to be asked just once (i.e. no duplicate questions). I first thought the former but if that was the case it was ignored last year too. Some clarification would be helpful, and if necessary the instructions should be updated to be more clear. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a deadline for these questions? I'd like to submit a question, but don't want to influence an arb case that is currently open. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think, if I've understood the above, that the idea is for all questions to be in by the time candidates submit themselves as nominees. If so, the questions need to be in before November 10th. I doubt it'll influence the case if you want to ask, but then I'm not entirely sure which case you're referring to! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fritzpoll. I do think it could influence the case, and I'm not sure the case will close before Nov 10 :( Perhaps one of the arbs following this page could advise me on how to proceed, or if I can submit a late question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The plan, I think, is to lock the General Questions page on 10 November. At that point, the list of questions can be posted on each candidate's questions page as soon as they nominate, and every nominee gets the same questions. You'll still be able to ask questions, but you'd have to ask each candidate individually. If you don't mind copying and pasting, that's your best option. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; the top part of this page (the bottom is from last year still) is my solution. Hope this works, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as the original issue - here's a possible solution.

• (a) notify the question writers now alerting them to the fact they can ultimately ask only one question.
• (b) let all questions stand for now until we get a sense of whether there are possible duplicates
• (c) On Nov 8 start a vigorous consolidation effort so as to get it all sorted by Nov 10.

Manning (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Manning, to me it looks as though there are four issues already: (1) the sheer size of the body of questions, given that each candidate is expected to provide good responses and the voters to digest it all; (2) similarities/dupication; (3) a scattering of themes, such as desysopping; and (4) highly technical questions in which non-expert voters will have little hope of grasping the issue by reading either question or response (without expending considerable time and effort in reading link-targets). I am keen that the question/answer process be user-friendly for all parties. I'm less keen on a blanket restriction of one question per user, since some users have asked two good questions, and others have asked one that appears to be opaque. If the questions are to be recast with any semblance of thematic order, for easier digestion, I suggest that the headings be thematic and questioners' names be inserted in parentheses after the question. From a practical point of view, November 8 is too late to start rationalising, since back-and-forth communication with questioners might be necessary. Someone might be prepared to come up with a draft sooner than that, aiming for fairness and neutrality (BTW, I'm about to confer with LessHeard vanU on whether our two questions might be conflated). Tony (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All very valid points Tony. I'm open to anything that works, frankly. With 43 questions (at my last count) we probably need to do something to make the process manageable, and soon. The "draft list of general questions" idea sounds very good, although it is a change of procedure. Are we also bold enough to suggest a cap on the total number of questions? Manning (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What say I try a quick and dirty thematic presentation by cutting and pasting on a sandbox; then the similarities between the questions and the redundancies might be clearer, and we'd know whether/how to approach questioners with proposals for rationalisation. Further questions/themes could then be added to the sandbox.

It may turn out to be viable; it may not. Probably worth trying. Tony (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The default questions was a problem for me last year. I had a major work project on at the time, and I found that a lot of the questions were duplicates, were not applicable to me, or were already answered in the mini-biog that was on my userpage. I tried to only answer questions which were directed at me[6], and I divided these questions into themes: about me, my candidature, my approach to Wikipedia editing practises and policies, my approach to Wikipedia administration, issues relating to the role of the committee, questions about specific arbcom cases, and "other". I gave up trying to add structure to the questions, and ended up trying to answer all of the general questions because people were opposing due to the fact I hadnt answered their question.

We should collaborate to build a single comprehensive questionnaire containing questions which everyone wants answered, and less emphasis on the person who posed the question. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've taken the first step by "coding" the questions into themes, here: now at least we know this is quite possible—in fact, it wasn't hard at all. The second task is to sift through the questions to identify savings, redundancies, the less important, the inappropriate. I'd have thought reducing it by half might be an aim; what do other people think? At the same time, the themes might change a little. Feedback would be appreciated on the thematic organisation. The themes are not yet in any particular order. Is it useful? Tony (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is an excellent idea. Tony did a great job on the classification page. We definitely want to make the time-consuming process easier on candidates by eliminating duplicate questions! At the same time, we have to be sensitive to avoiding the appearance of inappropriately eliminating beneficial questions. A good balance in this matter is necessary, and I'm sure it will be achieved. —Finn Casey * * * 02:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

SecurePoll and approval voting

The past electoral method for ArbCom elections has been to give two options for each voter with regards to each candidate: support and oppose. However, the method of the AUSC SecurePoll which has been identified as a dry run adds a neutral option. Is neutral intended to be an option in the ArbCom election and if so what are the implications for determining the outcome?  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the SecurePoll process requires a response beside the name of each candidate. The "default" vote is neutral, and voters actively determine whether to support or oppose a specific candidate. If they choose to do neither, then they leave the "vote" at neutral and it does not affect the outcome. Risker (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We might consider changing it to "No Vote". Also, can one vote for a few candidates, then come back and vote for others? Say I'm not sure about one of them, and want to see answers to my questions, or whatever - can I change my "No Vote" to something else? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

People are allowed to revise their votes. If you look at the list of voters for AUSC you will see greyed-out votes where people have submitted a subsequent vote; the system discounts the earlier ones and only counts the most recent. As well, each "ballot" lists the candidates in a different random order. The change of wording from "Neutral" to "No vote" sounds like a good idea. Risker (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Skomorokh's original post, all voters had the "no vote" option as well in previous elections; literally meaning that they did not vote on the candidate's support/oppose page. With a ballot form to fill out, this just needs to be made explicit rather than implicit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Risker is exactly right WRT the reason behind the third column. Perhaps "Abstain" would be better than "No Vote"?? Happy‑melon 07:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote for "Abstain". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the responses. There is I think significant difference between a neutral and an abstain/no vote option, and voters choosing "neutral" might well expect this preference to be represented in the outcome, when in fact if I understand correctly, neutral votes are not incorporated in the final tally (supports/opposes as a %). So I would agree with Happy-melon and John that "abstain" would be a much better wording. Another suggestion I would make for the same reason is to move neutral/abstain to the third position rather than its current place between support and oppose.  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I should emphasise that these alterations are not possible now that the ballot has opened (otherwise what's to stop me changing "support" to "oppose" and "oppose" to "support"?), but they can easily be changed for ACE2009. Happy‑melon 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, ACE was my concern. I think most people who are addicted interested enough in the workings of the project to participate in the AUSC election will know the value of neutral when it comes to voting here. It would be great if we could put the rename on the agenda for whoever is handling the technical side of ACE2009/liasing with meta/MediaWiki (any volunteers?).  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting method

On a project that frequently demands openness and honesty as an integral part of how things are run, I am struggling to see how secret ballots fit in with this. Personally, I am proud of my votes and I have nothing to hide in who I voted for. Why can't we keep what was not broken, instead of being all secretive about things? Majorly talk 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with Majorly that one of the core tenets of our project is openness, so secret ballots don't seem to fit in with that at all. I like public voting. I like seeing how other people vote, I like seeing their rationales, I like looking to see who is supporting whom. Especially when I don't have time to research a particular candidate in detail, I often scan for the votes of people I respect, to see how they are voting, and this helps me form an opinion of the candidate. It doesn't mean I'm going to vote the same way as my friends, but it absolutely helps me to gauge which candidates I want to do more research on, before proceeding with my own vote. With secret ballots I'm worried that we're going to degenerate to more of a system of, "I'm voting for this person because I like the way their name sounds" or "I'm not voting for this person because I've personally never heard of them." Secret voting provides LESS information about a candidate. And sure, public voting also has its problems, with canvassing and voting blocks, but I think the benefits of open voting far outweigh the negatives. --Elonka 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Majorly: I seem to remember people complaining that ArbCom wasn't transparent enough...changing the elections so that they're secret contradicts that and actually makes ArbCom seem less transparent. The old method worked fine, and things like canvassing, voting blocks, vengeance votes, etc. will still occur, except this time we won't be able to catch it like in the open elections. How is this a benefit? Acalamari 18:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is now a section on this at the new RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2#Public v. Secret Voting, so that's probably the best place to move this discussion. --Elonka 18:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than expand that poll to the limits of usefulness, why not continue the discussion here? My point to all three of those who have stated their opinions here is that all the things you want to do can still be done under a secret ballot system. Majorly, you are free to state who you have voted for and why. You are free to start and engage in discussions of individual candidates and ask them questions. Acalamari, transparency of ArbCom elections has nothing to do with transparency of the internal operations of ArbCom - those are separate issues. Elonka, if enough people publish their opinions and votes, you can see how others are voting and discussing things, and adjust your vote accordingly (one advantage of this system is that people can change their votes without affecting a visible running total - previously, the ability to do this led to lots of tactical voting). People can still see who has changed their votes, but they don't know how the result is being affected. i.e. What is removed is the aspect where those going to vote get a partial result presented to them as they vote. There may well be endorsement pages, exit polls and the like, springing up in these elections. But like all exit polls and suchlike, they may not be an accurate representation of the result. Some differences between this sort of secret ballot and real-world secret ballots is that the electorate (technically only those logged in) can see at any time who has voted (but not how they have voted), and how many people have voted. In real-world elections you only have electoral registers and post-election data on numbers voting. The practicalities of using SecurePoll on the ACE2009 elections do need to be discussed, though (by the community, I hasten to add, not in any way shape or form by ArbCom). I would suggest that the timetable include setting up an informal panel of people to oversee the on-wiki election, trusted technical people to keep the technical aspects running smoothly, appointing independent election observers, a period for public checking of the list of those who voted, a date for publication of the results, and co-ordinating the timetable from that point on with Jimbo. For examples of this in operation, see the AUSC elections (currently in progress). Carcharoth (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who's wobbly about secure voting might consider going to their personal voting page for the Audit Subcommittee (I'm not suggesting you actually vote, but merely that you view the design and simplicity of the set-up). This takes voting from the 19th century straight to the 21st century: simple, clear button-clicking, visually attractive, links to and from candidate statements. Whoever designed it should be congratulated. I think the link is on the watchlist banner. Tony (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost article

Ok I've been in contact with Phoebe from the Signpost and so I'll be drafting the first "election report" starting in about 24 hours (it needs to be finished in approx 48 hours). Here's what I plan to cover:

1. General election news - timeline, number of candidates vacancies (see note below)
2. ArbCom RFC2 - the four issues on the current RFC are the biggest election news of the week
3. General questions drafting. Will discuss the more streamlined and consolidated method (ie. Tony's subpage)

If I've missed anything important (and crucial to this report) let me know. I'll post my draft for your comments/input as soon as it is done.

As regards the "number of candidates vacancies" I'm going to say eight, but just briefly acknowledge the Jimbo reassignment possibility.

Manning (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say you can count on at least 20 candidates, rather than 8. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect he meant eight vacancies :) —Finn Casey * * * 00:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Late night typing. :) Manning (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Draft version up

The draft version is up here. Feel free to improve. Manning (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

For info: AUSC October 2009 elections

The election, using SecurePoll, for Audit Subcommittee appointments has now started. You may:

• Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
• Review the candidate's statements: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua • MBisanz • Tznkai;
• Or go straight to your personal voting page: here to cast your votes.

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Link for potential candidates

Because I've been fielding questions from a few people contemplating candidacy in this upcoming election, I've decided to put something together that might be useful for other potential candidates. You can find it at User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates. I have no doubt that other members of the Arbitration Committee will be very happy to answer questions as well. Risker (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, very enjoyable reading. I've since mentioned/linked this in the Signpost report. Manning (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm also happy to answer any questions people may have. Either by e-mail or on my talk page. I had hoped to have a personal summary of my arbitration activity this year ready by now (and still hope to have it ready in a week or two), to give people an idea of what is involved, but different arbs take different approaches, so it is best to get a range of views anyway. It should also be noted that this year was one of transition in many ways, so it shouldn't be assumed that the workload will be the same next year (though you can never predict what cases will come along). And I fully endorse what Risker has said on her page - an excellent summary of some of the things to consider. Carcharoth (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Carch - please write it and I'll feature it in next week's Signpost article (due to the timeline of events there won't be very much of substance to talk about next week anyway). If any of the arbs want to do a "mini-interview" that might be interesting as well. Manning (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

I recommend that there should be a watchlist notice about the upcoming elections as soon as possible. The reason: The "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009" page currently refers to this RfC on important details for the upcoming elections. It would be problematic for a fruitful discussion at that RfC when many users were pointed to that RfC just short before the end of the voting period for that RfC. A Horse called Man 11:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there was a request in late October that never went anywhere. I filed the notice requests for nominations and voting, and have no objection to the RFC notice. But it might be late in the game for one. The RFC was posted at CENT, in the signpost, and at a dozen noticeboards, is there anywhere else we should publicize it? Even with high exposure, participation is lighter than I expected. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There were numerous complaints that the original RFC of July about secret/public voting was under-publicised. As a result a couple of us (Tony1, Ultraexactzz, myself to name just some) went ballistic in advertising the new RFC everywhere that we could think of. Short of getting the RFC bulletined as a page header (which would be completely unprecedented), I can't see what else we could have done. I also have no explanation why participation was light. Manning (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent! Last call for votes: AUSC October 2009 elections

There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:

• Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
• Review the candidate's statements: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua •

MBisanz • Tznkai;

• Or go straight to your personal voting page:

here.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost article Nov 9

I've posted the latest Signpost article. It was largely a rephrase of last week's article as there was little new to say. There was more emphasis on how to become a candidate as that seemed the most relevant topic for the week.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-09/Election_report.

Manning (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate eligibility

Do we have a candidate eligibility description anywhere? Without explaining why I am asking such a dumb question (I have reasons, sadly), is there a page anywhere that explicitly says "Do not nominate yourself if you have less than 150 edits and/or will be under 18 on Jan 1, 2010"? Manning (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is not strict requirement, but no one with that few edits will be taken seriously. Steal from last year or if there isn't something, you could crib something from RFA, "Successful candidates are likely to be..." Thatcher 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that if one is not eligible to vote, they would understand that they are not eligible to run. And per Thatcher, it appears to be more of a common sense matter. Newer users who are so bold as to nominate themselves for Committee candidacy are unlikely to be given any serious notice. That's not intended to put down the contributions of newer users - I myself just began getting actively involved in Wikipedia processes three months ago :) —Finn Casey * * * 05:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The only formal requirements are that one identifies (or be willing to identify) to the foundation, and the age requirement (a legal issue, I think). Agree that no one with too few edits to vote would be taken seriously, and they can always be asked to withdraw. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

One issue that may be relevant is that, using SecurePoll, the list of candidates cannot be modified once the election has begun: that is, candidates cannot be 'withdrawn' from the election once it has started (equally, new candidates cannot be added). A point for discussion, perhaps? Happy‑melon 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding wasn't that it couldn't be done, but that it needed a manual intervention to do. Perhaps I misunderstood? — Coren ^(talk) 23:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing the list of candidates in any way, at any time, currently requires sysadmin intervention. Even when that ceases to be the case, it still won't be possible to change the list after the election has begun. Removing candidates would leave phantom, uncountable votes, which would break the current tallying system. I guess a system for 'locking' candidates could be implemented, where they would still be on the ballot list but greyed out so they couldn't be voted for, but even that might be problematic. Happy‑melon 11:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the main purposes in withdrawing during the voting is to prevent the embarassment of a 6 support, 100 oppose result. That wouldn't matter here, since results would not be available during the election (presumably). Other candidates have withdrawn due to the timesink of the election (lack of time to be a proper candidate, realization that arbcom will take too much of their time, etc). If they can, they can - if not, I don't think it's a major issue. We did have one candidate exercise their right to vanish during the election, though - and their name was redacted from everything. That would prove difficult here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The names on the ballot form can be changed (so an RTV candidate could be renamed to "vanished user"). Happy‑melon 11:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The chances of a repeat RTV candidate are vanishingly small (see what I did there), but the fact that names can be changed on the ballot is good information to have. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It was prompted by a bit of Wikilawyering I ran into from a minor. I know there is a statement from Jimbo somewhere that says he will not appoint anyone who doesn't meet foundation rules for CU/OS, which implicitly means you have to be over 18.

For reference's sake, The 2007 election states that eligibility required being over 18 and 1000 mainspace edits.I was travelling during the 08 elections so completely missed them, so I don't know why those conditions were dropped (not that it really matters). Manning (talk)

I think we caught the 1000 edit minimum last year, as well - but after nominations opened. It would be hinky to change the candidate requirements after candidates had already submitted, so we let it go. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and add that back in today. We link to Jimbo's statement on eligibility somewhere, I'll have to track that down. The age restriction is listed (here, on the nomination page), as is the requirement to identify to the foundation (per a arbcom ruling in November 2007, discussed here). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since it came up in 2006, 2008, and again this year, and since it was in place in 2007, I've added the 1,000 mainspace edit requirement to the nominations page. Hopefully we'll remember it next time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Category

I created a category for this year's candidates, populated by {{Arbitration Committee Elections statement}}. The catch? Some of last year's candidates did not substitute the template when formatting their candidate statements, so the edits we've made to the template not only add their candidate statements from 2008 to this year's category, but they also break last year's ballot. So, if you see last year's candidates under Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Candidates 2009, that's why. And, if anyone wants to clear the 2008 statements, feel free - or I'll tackle it tomorrow. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed last year's transclusions and the category is in fine shape now. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Update on bringing the General Questions under control

Dear colleagues

The number of questions is down to 36 42, from a high of about 44. There was talk above that around November 8, there might be a more concentrated attempt to make the General Questions manageable and digestible for both voters and candidates. I produced a themed presentation early in the piece, and if people think it will help, I could update it closer to time for perusal and discussion here.

Polite requests have been made at the talk pages of most of the users who have contributed questions. A few people are not thrilled about asking a single question. Without wanting to pre-empt what the outcome will be, I'm providing a quick summary of the state of play.

• Ultraexactzz – 1 question
• LessHeard vanU – 1 question
• Tony1 – 1 question
• Davewild – 3 questions (message on his talk page from Stifle) November 2, subsequent message from me, November 6; may agree to remove his Question 2.)
• NuclearWarfare – 6 questions added November 7, but added invitation to merge with others. Tony (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sam Blacketer – 3 questions (message from me October 31; query about the meaning of "group think" by Manning on Question talk page, which I now can't locate).
• Jake Wartenberg – 3 questions (message on his talk page from Stifle) November 2, subsequent message from me, November 6)
• Juliancolton – 1 question (down from 3 in response to request)
• User:Kotniski – 1 question (down from 5 in response to request)
• Tznkai – 2 questions (message from me, November 6)
• Camaron – 3 questions, down from 4 after request, 31 October
• Daniel – 7 questions (instructions tweaked in response to message, November 2; I've asked for further clarification, fearing a gigantic task for candidates who think they should read seven ArbCom cases)
• MBisanz – 1 question
• Finn Casey – 1 question
• Heimstern – 3 questions (request here, but points to his query here about the one-question rule)
• Offliner – 1 question
• Majorly – 4 questions (requested November 4; may agree to reduce)

One arb told me they felt obliged to write something like 60,000 words in responses last year. I'd like to remind users that there's the potential for the "first have a look at what the other candidates have written" factor for general questions, and that in some cases this can be minimised by using different angles in questions to the individual candidates whose worthiness you want to weigh up. Tony (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Note also that there were 106 Questions for all candidates last year, not counting individual questions - so I'd say we're well ahead of the game. Just as with RFA, the best questions here are the ones that cannot be answered with a copy-paste from policy, and I think we have a good set of those. Do you see any obvious merge candidates? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Earlier, I was making gentle suggestions about merging to pairs of contributors; but I gave up when not one suggestion was taken up (except by LessHeard van U). Maybe my suggestions were unsuitable; maybe people don't want to co-author. That is why it appears that enforcing the one-question-per-user rule is the only way. Next year, I think editors should be forewarned of the need for the GQs to be trim and focused, and that they may be asked to negotiate with one or two other editors who have asked a question on a similar theme. Risker suggested 20 questions; that is still unfortunately large, in my view (12–15, I think, plus statement and individual questions). Tony (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly not seeing any benefit in general questions if they are just going to get trimmed/merged. Next time, I'll just ask every candidate individually to save the hassle. Majorly talk 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined towards the same view as Majorly, as I said on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Questions/General. The current rule is also really easily gameable as anyone could ask a couple of wikifriends to ask a quesion each for them. Perhaps the rule could be changed that any general questions need to get at least 2 editors supporting the question in order for them to be included and that they are grouped by topic with the questioners names removed or at least stressed less - any other questions can and will be asked as individual quesions. This really needs to be discussed and consensus reached on what should be done, not just a new rule imposed that has not been enforced before or given a good discussion by the community. (P.S. Can this discussion be held on one page or the other and not on both as it is causing duplication) Davewild (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The above proposals, while well-intentioned, seem to be overly officious. If the candidates don't wish to answer a question, they don't have to - making up detailed rules regarding which questions are allowable is getting into instruction creep territory methinks. —Finn Casey * * * 02:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Finn, the one-question rule doesn't seem to be detailed—and it already exists, clear as day. One could frame a body of questions requiring more than a thousand responses as instruction creep, too, don't you think? While we're at it, why not remove the 400-word limit on candidate statements? Perhaps the resulting "arms race" between some candidates to deliver huge discursive essays would be worth it to avoid the creep of a "400-word limit". Tony (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've updated the sandbox in which the questions are organised under themes. Tony (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks really good, Tony1. Manning (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No BLP section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to avoid creating a whole theme for just a single question. Do you think it would improve the page? Tony (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I raised it because it's the only thing I came to review on questions last year, and I know it remains concern. Ask others who might have broader/different experience than me ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the categorized list of questions from Tony1's sandbox, and coded them into {{ACEQuestions}}. When candidates submit, they'll be asked to transclude that template onto their redlinked questions page. This will preformat the header (with instructions), the general questions, and then provide a space for individual questions, which can be asked as soon as the candidate becomes a candidate. If I'm not around, could someone make sure any new questions are moved over to that template before 00:00 tonight? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added NYB's two questions and re-numbered throughout. There are now 42 GQs. Daniel is may re-examine his seven questions before the deadline, which is midnight UTC today.

Two queries:

• • GQ41: "Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from?" Is it OK for candidates to be expected to provide IP addresses? It seems like an impossible task, since IP addresses rotate for many ISP accounts.
  • GQ7: "Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you read? How much of that traffic will you actually read?" This will be extremely difficult to answer for any candidate who is not already an arb or a clerk, or very close to the process. There has been talk above of a non-admin on the Committee; will this question make them look unworthy? Tony (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One candidate (Kurt Weber) has already begun answering the questions, so it's imperative we get them consolidates asap. Tony, you have my confidence to do whatever needs to be done, and my help if you need any.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've just fixed the numbering at the bottom, and as far I can see, it's ready to go. NYB has OKed the fixes I made to his; Jake Wartenberg and Majorly have tweaked theirs. Daniel has reduced and clarified. Tony (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Been watching this evolve over the past few weeks - am I good to go to copy the questions over and start the mammoth task of answering them? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fritz, please. They're ready, well and truly. Tony (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of arbs and terms: consensus

Could I remind editors that RfCs were held to establish community opinion for the current election. Otherwise, they'd probably have been postponed until next year. It seems as clear to me that 18 seats and two-year terms win hands down; it is particularly telling that the preferences for these outcomes were each one of four choices, which is likely to spread voting more evenly. Community opinion, as of today, is:

Number of seats

• 12 seats: 5 supports (4.9%)
• 15 seats: 27 supports (26.5%)
• 18 seats: 63 supports (61.8%)
• "Flexible" (let Jimbo decide): 7 supports (6.9%)

Term lengths

• 6 months: 2 supports (1.8%)
• 12 months: 13 supports (12.7%)
• 18 months: 9 supports (8.8%)
• Two years: 78 supports (69.6%)
• Three years: 10 supports (8.9%)
• "Flexible" (let Jimbo decide): 1 support (0.9%)

I've raised the matter at at the RfC talk page, too. I believe it would be appropriate to ask an uninvolved crat or admin to officially close at least these two RfCs from the set. The page has been running for more than two weeks. Tony (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and per this cross-post, believe it would be a good idea to encourage said uninvolved crat or admin to confirm the voting methodology, perhaps on 24th Nov 00:00UTC (suggested at RfC talk) Privatemusings (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ps. so if we go for 18 on the committee, am I correct in thinking that we're about to elect 9 new arb.s? Privatemusings (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

maybe it's 8 - I can't work it out! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See #Vacancies and #Finalization above.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As per PrivateMusings comment above about closing the RFC, I'm very curious as to how a crat will close the "public/private" debate. IMO the result of the current poll is guaranteed to be "no consensus". So... do we stick with "public" (the status quo) or go with "private" (the verdict of the previous RFC, which some will argue was controversial). I'm very glad I'm not going to be making that call :) Manning (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI I've just posted a comment about this thread at the 'crat noticeboard. (see here) Manning (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It does seem rather clear to me that a definite no consensus finding must allow the continuation of current public voting program. However, I voted for the transparent option... so I am likely partial. Ultimately, I believe Coren indicated (somewhere... not sure where right now) that Mr. Wales will make the final determinaton. Also, the Bureaucrats (well, one of them) has indicated a disinclination to close the RfC. —Finn Casey * * * 07:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Privatemusings: it would be 18 minus the number of current arbs whose terms are not expiring. Please see my post here. On the closing of the "secure voting" poll, if it's going to hold things up, I think the arb terms and number of arbs polls should be closed as soon as possible by an independent crat or admin, since the results are plain. Tony (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Two year terms is a big mistake-- an area where the community might not know best. Maybe Jimbo will exercise authority and overrule the community, because the shortened terms could be so damaging, considering the learning curve and institutional memory needed on ArbCom. At any rate, even though I voted against them, I also read the RFC as applying to new members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, Jimbo has stated that he intends to perform only a ceremonial role in this election. Only four pre-existing arbs served past the first few months of this year; I don't see a lack of "institutional memory" in the current Committee. Tony (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suprised if some of those coming off 1 year terms will successfully be reelected as well.--Tznkai (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also despite the fact that there are no official prerequisites to ArbCom candidature (except age and 1000 edits), in reality most newly elected members have a background as a clerk, crat or similar role. While that isn't the same experience as being on ArbCom itself, it certainly implies a solid knowledge of Wikipedia processes and history. Manning (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not actually true, Manning. Of the 10 appointees last year, only 3 were former Arbitration Committee clerks, one of whom was also a bureaucrat and checkuser, and another former Arbcom clerk held checkuser on another project. The remaining 7 included one person who was a mediator, and a MilHist coordinator. The rest of us had varied activities but no specifically defined roles. I'd hate to see good potential candidates walk away because they feel they don't meet some unspoken prerequisite. Risker (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy to be corrected, but I think you missed the actual point of my comment. I was saying that I don't think that the 2 year term concept guarantees a lack of "institutional memory". Even if my numbers were wrong, the people elected certainly still had a good enough knowledge of Wikipedia processes to be able to serve effectively. Manning (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "institutional memory" in this context refers to knowledge of ArbCom internal processes and previous users who came before ArbCom in earlier years (i.e. don't waste time on this one because we discussed it before - see here), not to general Wikipedia experience. The only arb still standing from three years ago is FloNight, though we were able to draw on Kirill Lokshin's experience for much of the year as well. Next year (unless arbs standing down run and get re-elected), the most experienced arbs will be Newyorkbrad and FayssalF. Most of the longer-term institutional memory now resides on the functionaries mailing list (in the person of arbs from even further back), where said memory is sometimes called upon and is often very helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ACEQuestions template

Apologies in advance for my technical ignorance of how templates work, but it looks to me like anyone who attempts to answer the general questions will end up editing the ACEQuestions template directly. Aren't we supposed to do a "subst" or something like that? Manning (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup - the template should be substituted, above any existing individual questions. ...Why, did someone not do that? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean I correctly identified a problem? I was actually expecting to be vigorously corrected in regards to my deficient technical knowledge, so I am delighted. Manning (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Secure Poll and banned/blocked users

Is there a way to prevent banned/blocked users from voting using secure poll? Deserted Cities (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

yes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A list of eligible voters is prepared in advance of the election; that is how we eliminated accounts with fewer than 150 mainspace edits. Blocks are trickier; once the list is run, nobody can be added to it, so users who get unblocked between the time the voter list is prepared and the end of the election would be disenfranchised. In fact, there is now a page for a debrief on the use of SecurePoll for the AUSC election, with a workshop section to discuss some of these fine points, located at the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Risker (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering because I checked my eligibility with the tool given. Then I checked a now blocked user I had some run-ins with, out of curiosity. It said he was still eligible, and I figured this could create an issue. Deserted Cities (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the election one blocked user voted and their vote was struck by the scrutineers. MBisanz ^talk 06:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) There's a SecretPoll module that checks whether a user is blocked when they go to cast their vote. If they are, they are redirected to a page telling them they can't vote while blocked. What SecurePoll doesn't (yet?) do is to check the electoral roll before tallying the vote to see whether someone was blocked after voting. This needs to be done manually and is important in order to strike votes of subsequently discvered socks. In the recent AUSC election, the scrutineers ran through the list of voters for subsequently blocked editors before certifying the results. I did it also: it was trivially easy because an alphabetical list of voters was available. I was astounded that there was so little comment about individual voters.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the justification for disfranchising banned/blocked users? I could understand disfranchising permbanned users, but what about somebody who was just banned for few weeks (or even days)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Recruitment and retention

The hurdles to surmount for ArbCom are probably (i) recruiting well-qualified candidates and (ii) stopping them burning out when appointed. It seems to me that far too much of the election agenda is set by people with various axes to grind about ArbCom and who are using the election as a way of grinding them. This is probably reducing the pool of candidates prepared to stand. At a similar stage last year, we had around twenty candidates, this year we have four so far. How can we encourage people to stand for ArbCom? And how do we ease the pain of running? Demanding that candidates spend two hundred hours answering questions, and writing the equivalent of a novel in replies, and then running a gauntlet of very public (and often very personal) comment, does not strike me as an ideal way to attract the best people. Thoughts?  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As a clerk who sits back and watches what goes on, in my opinion one of the big reasons to not be on ArbCom is the fact that an arbitrator is given no real support or protection by the community. If someone assaulted an elected parliamentary representative on the street they would be arrested and imprisoned. However abusing the arbitrators seems so routine here that somepeople take umbrage at the very suggestion that arbs should be provided any protection. "Well they shouldn't have volunteered if they couldn't handle it" is an appalling justification for this lack of support.

I have numerous ideas for how to fix this general issue, but this is not the time or place for this discussion. Getting back to Roger's very valid point - there are good editors who would make fine arbitrators that are not running, because no matter how much they love this project, it's just not worth the grief and misery of being an Arbitrator. Manning (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Manning that being an arb is tough. This is yet more reason to avoid making the electoral process such an extended hurdle; I'm disappointed to see a large number of individual questions thus far, on top of the already-hefty number of general questions. If we can't judge a candidate's skill-base and trustworthiness with less drama, something is very wrong; a trimmed down questioning process needs to be debated and instituted next year as a priority. This would make a huge difference.

However, I want to emphasise the positives and to encourage our best and brightest to take the step and nominate. The past year has seen unprecedented reform of ArbCom, bit by bit; much of this has resulted from the work of the Committee itself, but the community has played a significant role, too. There is still much to be done, and successful candidates will have the satisfaction of playing a role in a period of dynamic change. There are reasons for optimism that a full 18 arbs can and will arrange their business, allocate their human resources, to moderate the workload of individual arbs so they can continue to contribute their editorial and administrative expertise to the project. I believe the community can and will develop better ways of supporting and protecting members in the normal discharge of their duties.

I'd like to remind potential candidates who may be wavering that being an arb carries significant prestige and the chance to make a difference to the world's most important information-based website. Please put yourself forward if you believe you have the right skill-base; even if you are not elected, you'll have shown that you care. Tony (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you run Tony? Majorly talk 17:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to say that, Majorly, but I decided some time ago not to run for any office on WP, for a number of reasons. Tony (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly encourage qualified candidates to run for this important position. I have found serving as an arbitrator to be overall a very positive experience, despite any venting I may have done about some of the drawbacks to the job, especially recently. Potential candidates with questions about the committee or what is involved in arbitrating are welcome to contact me either on my talkpage or via e-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just adding what's probably an obvious observation, but I think one of the reasons that many are reluctant or point-blank unwilling to run for ArbCom is the time-commitment involved. I think the sheer amount of time Arbs spend "Arbing" (this is the cool, hip term all of the kids are using) is obviously quite significant, particularly when you factor e-mail list traffic and all of the other unseen work committee members are doing. I think more and more editors today understand just how much work goes into being an Arb (speaking for myself, this is something I've only come to fully appreciate this year as I've noted several Arbs discussing the absurdly high number of daily e-mails, for example) and are unwilling or unable to volunteer that much of their time. Most editors who might make good ArbCom candidates would presumably consider very carefully before running whether they can really commit to the amount of reading and writing that is required, and if they have doubts about that they probably would not run simply because they would not think themselves up to the requirements of the job.

I'm certain there are other reasons for a lack of candidates (at least so far, maybe that will change), but I think perceived workload is a huge factor, and unfortunately there might not be an easy fix for that problem. If there is still a candidate shortage going forward perhaps some current Arbs can offer comments about how the Arbs manage the workload and what is being/has been done to try to keep the amount of time spent Arbing at least somewhat within the realm of sanity. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invariably, too, the commitment to ArbCom will override time spent actually building the encyclopedia; that's one of the reasons several users including myself opposed Casliber's bid last year, because we thought he was too valuable to lose to ArbCom tasks. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely the same works for adminship too? You just can't win can you when it comes to getting the right balance. Too much article work and you're opposed because you're "too valuable". Not enough and you get opposed for not being good enough. Majorly talk 23:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Committee, overall, wants to move towards a more personally and professionally manageable environment for arbs. We should support them in that aim. Tony (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about Kirill Lokshin

The page states: "The terms of four arbitrators (... Kirill Lokshin ...) are due to expire on 31 December 2009, and three more (...) have stepped down before finishing their terms" But Kirill is not listed as an arbitrator at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. If he has stepped down, shouldn't his name be moved to the latter section? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was in that section originally, but someone objected on the grounds that it is better to be clear that the three who have stepped down could conceivably unretire (as Rlevse) has done) and finish out their terms, whereas were Kirill to do so, he would still need to be replaced, as Deskana should have been last year. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a moot point. The seat he was elected to in December 2006 would be up this year whether he were still arbitrating or not. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Instructions for candidate statements

I know one of my hobby-horses is minimising invitations for bloat, so I'm sorry if eyes are rolling already; bloat is the enemy of wikis. Four hundred words for each candidate is pretty generous, and I'm a little concerned about the "you are free to link to a longer statement if you wish" bit—voter fatigue and a possible arms race between candidates' texts are in my mind. And let's remember that candidates will write more in response to the general and individual questions.

I see that we're also sacrificing the opportunity to point candidates in the right direction as to what we want to know of them. We certainly don't want broad policy statements about where they want to see WP go, etc, do we? Arbs are entrusted with the management of behavioural issues, a difficult and skilled job. They are not members of Congress or Parliament who deal in broad policy matters or governance.

Perhaps candidates might be asked to do something like this:

"Please provide a statement summarizing your skill and experience relevant to the role of an arbitrator, and why voters should choose you. The summary should be up to 400 words in display mode, and may contain up to five diffs or links to examples of your work or your interactions with other editors."

I don't think it's too late to add something like this. Your thoughts?

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements Tony (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I like your revised wording VERY much. I would actually slim it down even more to get this:

"Please provide a statement summarizing your skills and experience relevant to the role of an arbitrator, and why voters should choose you. The summary should be no more than 400 words, and may contain links to examples of your work or your interactions with other editors."

Manning (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not too late to add, but somewhat creepy I fear. In general, guidelines like this are similar to at RfA in that if you have to read the instructions to strike the right chord, you're probably not cut out for the job. These are the people who will be entrusted to write principles, findings of fact and remedies that can have quite significant effects and often set the philosophical tone for the project on a given issue (whether they ought to or not), and the candidate statement offers an excellent place to exhibit how prospective arbitrators will construct something like this. As such, I don't think limitations on diffs for example will be productive. On the issue of longer linked statements, a longer, denser or more strident statement will not necessarily be a more popular one, and candidates whose extended statements drift off-topic or trigger voter fatigue will be naturally punished. I would agree with the encouragement to summarize skills, experience and virtue though.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I like Manning's version better than mine. Skomorokh, limitations on diffs and links was a problem in my proposal, yes. But you say, "candidates whose extended statements drift off-topic or trigger voter fatigue will be naturally punished"? I'm rather uncertain of that. I think voters are punished by having to divert to and read "longer" statements, even if they get the gist early in the piece and return to a candidate page. Arbs need to write succinctly; Audit Subcommittee candidates have been allowed only 250 words with no links to "longer" statements, and while the role of arbs is broader, 400 words alone I'd have thought would be sufficient recognition of that. Tony (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can thrash something mutually acceptable out. I'd re-iterate that voters are less likely to vote for a candidate who fails to engage them, and I don't think voters feel a compulsion to read the longer statements. Furthermore, discouraging extended statements unnecessarily constrains candidates who might make fine arbitrators but who best express themselves at length – Newyorkbrad for example. That said, in defense of the spirit of your proposal, I concur that we can through standardised instructions to both voters and candidates encourage best practices. So for a link to longer statements (which there is no enforceable way to prohibit, I'd posit), we might have a boilerplate that emphasises the supplementary and optional nature of the extended statement:

If you are interested in reading more about this candidate's views, they have provided an extended statement here

I'd be inclined to drop the last section of Manning's version, so that it reads something like

Please provide here a succinct statement outlining why voters should support you. It should be no more than 400 words, and cover the skills and experience you have that are relevant to the role of an arbitrator.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems to get to the core of it. The 400 word limit is a practical one, as all candidate statements are transcluded onto one page (Nominations, I think). In many cases, candidates look to the previous year for guidance when deciding how to nominate themselves, so we don't want to go too far afield - but focusing the candidate on the details is important, as well. Functionally, since we permit diffs in the statement, there is nothing that would stop a candidate from posting an extended statement elsewhere and linking, but this line would no longer encourage that. Note, also, that the candidate statement can become fodder for individual questions, so we don't want to trim it too badly. This is the candidate's lone chance to speak on their own merits, without the framework of a question or talk page debate - and that's important, too. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, "summarizing your skill and experience relevant to the role of an arbitrator" was the whole point. But I won't press it. Tony (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, what about:

Please provide here a succinct statement outlining why voters should support you. It should be no more than 400 words, and should summarize the skills and experience you have that are relevant to the role of an arbitrator.

Would that work as a middle ground? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a more concise version:

Please outline (i) why voters should support you and (ii) what skills and experience you would bring as an arbitrator. (400 words maximum, please.)

Thoughts?  Roger Davies ^talk 16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Or if you really want concise, I think "Place statement here. 400 word maximum, please." works just as well. Candidates will no doubt already know the purpose of the statement. Nathan ^T 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nathan, "Candidates will no doubt already know the purpose of the statement"—it's to set the scene for both candidates and voters; to focus people's minds explicitly on the skills and experience at issue. Roger's version is fine, or Ultraexact's "middle ground", which I slightly prefer for its explicit "external" framing of "skills and experience ... that are [already established as] relevant to the role of an arbitrator [, however you see them]". I guess both that version (and Skomorokh's version, which, I didn't even pick out before my last post, sorry) and Roger's version all ask essentially the same things of candidates: that they say, by implication or directly, what they think those skills and experience should be, and state directly how they measure up. I think this amount of direction would be welcomed by candidates. Tony (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should we be telling candidates what they can and cannot say in their statement? It's an election, they might have different reasons for standing than just skills and experience. They should say why they want to be elected, and I'm sure all of them can do that without guidance. Limiting length makes sense; proscribing the actual content of the statements does not. Nathan ^T 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nathan, do we really want to know why candidates want to stand? Isn't it what candidates have to offer the community via their role as an arb that matters? Roger's proposal above starts with: "Please outline (i) why voters should support you,". Yup. Tony (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be judging them based on their own abilities and initiative, i.e. their own sense of what the statement should say, rather than trying to craft their statements ahead of time to reflect what we would like to read? In what elections in the real world are the content of candidate statements managed? If someone posts a statement that doesn't address their skill and experience, or doesn't specifically state "You should support me for arbitrator because..." what shall we do? Remove the statement until they rewrite one that has been approved by the statement police? Nathan ^T 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We've had lots of different candidate statements in years past, including one that read in its entirety "Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed.". The instructions should give candidates a starting point, and should set the tone for voters reading the statements - a "This is the sort of thing you could reasonably expect to find as you go through these statements" caveat, so to speak. But, unless the statement greatly exceeds guidelines for size (which are there due to transclusion, not so much for brevity), or unless they include personal attacks, statements should not be refactored or removed in any way. If a candidate's statement leaves something unclear, you can be assured that voters will question it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and that candidate rightly failed (although he got more votes than I expected). It looks like the page went live without statement guidance, although it does counsel against joke or frivolous candidacies. Works for me - folks should write what they want, and if they ignore the instructions and post what are effectively joke candidacies, we should continue to let them as we have in the past. Nathan ^T 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Does this discussion have a point? If so, I suggest integrating UltraExactZZ's version into the preloader here.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility

I would like to know whether I am free to engage in the candidacy of Jehochman as an Administrator. I am presently subject to sanctions from an action he engaged in. The eligibility software claims I do not exist. Brews ohare (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're rather late to participate in the debate about Jechoman being an administrator. If you're want to know if you're eligible to vote in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, then it looks as if you had made more than 150 mainspace edits on this wiki before November 1, 2009, which would mean that you are eligible to vote in general. Whether or not doing so in certain ways will result in Arbitration Enforcement against you is something you need to discuss with the Arbitration Committee or at Arbitration Enforcement. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you meant by "to engage in the candidacy of Jehochman as an Administrator". You are under some specific conduct remedies, one of which reads "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.". As long as you observe the terms of this restriction, I see nothing that prevents you from participating in this election and discussing the candidacy of Jehochman for ArbCom. Manning (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Collectively, we have generally abided by the principle that short of a complete ban from WP space, or indef block, you maintain suffrage and full voice in the elections so long as you reach the barest of minimum thresholds of behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also on Eligibility

A new editor with no edits outside of user space presented a nomination statement on the Candidate Statement page here. Since they did not (obviously) have 1000 mainspace edits, I reverted here and left a helpful notice on their user talk page. I am noting this action for the record. —Finn Casey * 06:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No dispute on that obviously. I'm going to delete the candidate page, although there is no obvious CSD choice. So I'm going to delete it as an "Other" - if someone thinks this is unjustified by all means let me know. Manning (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Test Page would work, in my mind. Good removal, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret ballot or not ? debate and endorsements

All seems confused, the election documentation subpages assume we go by public ballot, yet we had a RFC leaning towards a secret ballot, and the discussion above is not particularly decisive. Well, we need to sort this out.

In case we go by secret ballot; I think we should allow, actually encourage, discussion/debate on-wiki on the candidate. So in my opinion, we should deploy debate subpages - not just say go to the talk page, so with the system Wikipedia:ACE09/Candidate name/Debate or Wikipedia:ACE09/Debate/Candidate name.

Someone mentioned endorsements above, we could also have endorsement subpages, although they could arguably be merged in the debate subpages. I had also thought of dividing the election in two phases; debate/questions, then secret voting. Cenarium (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the matter needs to be decided forthwith. I suspect a decision either way will surprise a significant portion of the community, and it is thus beneficial to make the final decision quickly. —Finn Casey * * * 02:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I started preparing election pages on the basis of an open election, using last year's pages as a template, based on comments above that the AUSC election would be a test run for a Secret Ballot, and that - once complete - the experience from that election would be used to inform a community decision on whether that process is the way to go for ACE2010. I took this from Risker's analysis, above (here), though I may have read too much into that comment. There was an RFC on secret ballots, and the most supported option there was to use a secret ballot - though many comments also assumed a Schluze-style selection method, whereas the committee has recommended Support/Oppose voting (per Risker, here). There has been concern that the community did not have adequate input in the Secret Ballot RFC, or that it was inadequately publicized - which I can't speak to, as I was on wikibreak. We have this new RFC being put together, should a Yea/Nay Secret Ballot question be added to it? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think we should go with secret ballots based on the previous discussions that concluded with support for the idea. I think the counting method is less crucial, and can be handled by a smaller discussion and consensus than an RfC. Since the RfC was pretty prominently advertised, and there was general approval for the idea, I'd rather not see implementation delayed for redundant approval. Nathan ^T 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this resolved somewhere? I see multiple discussions but I can't find a decision. Mackan79 (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. I myself am unsure how the final decision will be made, perhaps by Mr. Wales. —Finn Casey * * * 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do in my opinion would be to declare "no consensus" and run the election the same way that we did last year. I don't think that the smaller RfC from a few months ago should be used, since it wasn't very widely advertised, and it seems pretty clear from this current RfC, that when such a question is widely advertised, there is no obvious consensus to change the system. Discussion can of course continue about secret ballots for future elections, but for this one, I think it would be unwise to switch to a secret ballot, because it would risk invalidating the entire process. --Elonka 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think secret ballots are both reasonable and necessary, to be honest - so I feel that the reasonable thing to do is to make sure we use Secure Poll for this election. I don't think there's any risk of invalidating the entire process (!) - in fact, I think using Secure Poll will prove to be a really good thing, and considerably improve the entire process :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Elonka is concerned that enacting the secret voting proposal without clear community consensus would risk invalidating the process. —Finn Casey * 22:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. This page is becoming a bit cluttered. Any objections to archiving inactive discussions?

yes, I think you're right, but it doesn't really make sense, does it? - I think not using a secret ballot runs a greater risk of undermining / invalidating the process - re : the archiving, I think that would be a great start, though we made need some further help to try and resolve some of this stuff! Privatemusings (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick (I'd missed the whole RFC, actually). Out of curiosity, has anyone suggested to prohibit any comments while voting, if it does remain open? Or maybe there are rules on this already. Mackan79 (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of public voting, is allowing voters to provide brief comments to explain their rationale. Longer comments, of course, should go to the talkpage. --Elonka 03:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Question page question

Hi, a user has attempted to start a lengthy threaded discussion at my questions page. I moved their statements in response to my answers (not questions, by statements) to the talk page. They reverted me. Please check this and the preceding edits and inform us of the correct procedure. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Flip side of same concern - faced with concerns and questions, the candidate posted a response alleging bad faith, and removed the clarification of the questions to the talk page.

While it's the candidate's choice to answer or not, it's not their choice to remove clarification or note their response is perceived as misleading or incorrect.

At Arbcom Election 2008 a range of questions had short threaded discussion as further clarifications were asked (example). This is normal. Long discussion removal is also normal. But calling one on-topic response a "lengthy threaded discussion", is inaccurate. Hence I trust it can be reinstated and properly answered in due course. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FT2 appears intent on edit warring to enforce his view. He's posted the same disputed content three times, even though I asked him to wait for a decision here. I respectfully request that he not be allowed to disrupt my question page by initiating a lengthy discussion there. Questions - fine. I'll answer them. If he wants to discuss my answers or refute them, that belongs on the talk page. This same standard should be applied to all questions page, not just mine. We need to allow everybody to ask questions, and we should not let users hijack questions pages for other purposes. Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Opposed to unilateral removal. Placing them in a collapse box with a link to the talk page (pending review by the election monitors) is fine and hasn't been disputed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. Users can read the content and make up their own minds what they think. Jehochman ^Talk 04:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I favour moving any responses by questioners to the talkpage, with a link to the response after the candidate's answer. Candidates shouldn't be removing editors' comments however; flag a volunteer from WP:COORD9 if there's such maintenance or cleanup to be done.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I need maintenance on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Jehochman/Questions for the candidate in the FT2 section. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for input from others on my suggestions before implementing them, provided that there's no emergency.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No rush. I think it is a good idea to exercise discipline to prevent question pages from deteriorating. In 2008 we had open voting. We switched to secret balloting in part to reduce the drama and poisoning the well type activities. The community supports a better approach to these elections. We should carry that spirit to the rest of the election pages. Jehochman ^Talk 03:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rendered moot by agreement between me and FT2. Jehochman ^Talk 04:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's the point. As a candidate, you don't yourself remove questions or comments, however "negative" they seem. I too was asked poisonous and loaded questions at Arbcom Election when I stood, as are some other candidates, they were extremely objectionable to the point of defamation or (seeming) attack, yet I removed none of them. Any user can ask anything related to wiki activities at Arbcom election. Everything's on the table. That's the deal.

Election monitors, not election candidates, make the calls on moving or removing objectionable posts in the election, for transparency. If that was a point of confusion, then a handshake on it and hope you understand it now. Let's leave it to the monitors. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[Shakes hands.] Jehochman ^Talk 04:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of opposition to the ideas of restricting threaded discussion to the talkpage and discouraging candidates from managing question pages, as well as the above agreement, I'm going to go ahead and enforce these measures.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

New section to the Arbcom RFC - minimum criteria for appointment

I've added a section to the current Arbcom RFC suggesting mimimum criteria for appointment, independent of the minimum criteria for candidacy. Others may wish to express their opinions there. Risker (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. However, 60% would be better than 50%. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the candidates

Out of concern at the lack of discussion of candidates in Wikipedia elections, I have whipped up a crude landing page collecting the individual candidate discussions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Discussion.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason we don't tend to have much in the way of discussion is that our discussion methods tend to break down once the number of people involved reaches a certian size. Asside from increaseing the chance the negative campaining will be more centeralised there it is unlikely that the page will provide much of a benifit.©Geni 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The highest number of participants on an individual candidate discussion page is three; I find it hard to believe that that is beyond the point where discussion breaks down.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The number of voter which gives us an idea of the number of people involved is generaly over 100.©Geni 21:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating the number of voters with the number of dicussers; there are likely to be hundreds of the former, and very few of the latter, which is why I am trying this method of attracting more of the latter.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• The centralized discussion page seems to be a good idea. However, I strongly urge consolidation of the two discussion pages. The old discussion page at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Vote/"Candidate" for each individual candidate should be redirected to the new central discussion page. Having two areas for discussion will only lead to duplication and confusion. Thoughts? —Finn Casey * 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the voting page. Unless we are switching to SecurePoll, that will need to be kept separate from threaded discussion.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oi. I'm not a huge fan of the organizational scheme, but its too late for that for now.--Tznkai (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The above listed pages are the talk pages of the voting pages. My concern was that candidates may be discussed at that venue and at the new centralized discussion page created by Skomorokh. If we added a #Redirect from the talk pages described above, piping them to the new cent-disc. page, that might be less confusing than two discussion pages. But if that would be counterproductive, then its not really that big of a deal. Whatever works :) —Finn Casey * 00:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The new discussion page is transcluding the relevant talk pages actually.--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry Finn, I didn't notice the "_talk" part. Tznkai is right (though I'm not sure what the "Oi" comment relates to); the central discussion is just the transclusion of the individual talkpages. Incidentally, if anyone knows how to make the individual talkpages directly editable from the central page using internal headings rather than the horrific level 1s, please implement it/let me know.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Took a crack at the formatting. Will require manual patrolling from time to time to adjust headers, or changing all headers one level up.--Tznkai (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent. Thanks for the clarification! —Finn Casey * 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Idea

In the interests of centralizing candidate discussions, what about Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/"Candidate"/Questions_for_the_candidate ? Is it necessary to have a discussion page with regards to the questions, or could that be directed to the general candidate discussion page? For example, Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Jehochman/Questions_for_the_candidate has a lengthy discussion regarding the candidate's actions that may be better noticed at the main discussion page. Just a thought. —Finn Casey * 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

While the individual /Vote talkpages are about the candidate, and have traditionally been linked to as "Discuss this candidate", the individual /Questions talkpages are about the adjacent page. So, the point of the centralized discussion page is "this is what people think of candidate A; this is what people think of candidate B...", a centralized question talkpage would look like "this is a point I have to make about candidate A's answer to the question asked of her by user X; this is a clarification I have about candidate B's question 17". Whereas the former benefits from consolidation, I'm not sure the latter does. For instance, it's useful to have Moreschi's thoughts on ArbCom clerks as candidates on the same page, but not to have FT2's issues with Jehochman on the same page syndicated with unrelated comments on questions. The central discussion of candidates page does not need any other page tin order for a reader to make sense of it; a central question talk page would be unintelligible without being flicking back and forth between individual candidate question pages. Note though, that we have Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Questions/General for general independent discussion of questions.  Skomorokh, barbarian 

Chutznik - eligibility

Just an alert: I am unable so far to verify that Chutznik has the required 1000 mainspace edits for candidacy (See here). I have left a question on his candidacy page looking to source the names of his previous accounts. Manning (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

He links to the accounts in his statement; there may be more, bu I've redirected those to his current userpage after a cordial discussion with the editor on his talkpage. There's no question that he meets the number of edits threshold. There might be an issue with block evasion, but I'm not sure on what terms he vanished.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that. Manning (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Desirable criteria for Arbcom members

I don't quite know where to post this, but Tony has drafted alist of desirable criteria for members of Arbcom for discussion, and I think it deserves wider airing/discussion. I'm sure he won't mind me letting everyone in on this little secret at User:Tony1/Arb skill-base. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

audio chats

WikiVoicesArb09

A conversation with Jehochman

noicon

I'm trying to encourage as many people as possible to join me in hopping on skype (or your preferred bit of kit) and recording an audio conversation with a candidate - this is a wiki-style grassroots 'let's give it a go and see if it's useful' sort of effort - and having just finished the first one, I've popped it onto the 'candidate statements' page because I think it's a good fit there - see here for the example - it basically adds the funky box on the right hand side of the screen (if I've done it right!)

Thoughts and feedback most welcome :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on the medium only, not the candidate: Excellent idea; I hope all of the interviewers are as good as PM, who has a good voice and an effective line of questioning. PM can do them all, in my view. He knows when to interrupt and steer (no less than that, please), and when to press the point and to probe what might appear at first to be inconsistencies (yes please). But, I think 19 minutes is way too long. Could it have been edited down to 10 minutes? I'd be inclined to have removed the question/answer on BLP (it's a community matter, and arbcom deals only with behaviour), and the one about kids using/editing WP, which didn't seem to go anywhere. And more. Good work. Tony (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC) PS Moderate level of noise on interviewer's line, alternating with seemingly no noise on interviewee's line. Tony (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the broadly good review :-) - the noise thing is horrible - I think caused by terminally crappy setup my end, though I gather chatting through the laptop sounds far clearer, so I'll try and make sure that's in the office as much as poss. - I agree that 19 minutes is way too long, I was thinking of 15, but rambled on a bit (the kids thing is something else I'm interested in, but this really wasn't a great venue for it, it just popped into my head!) - the advantages of being able to publish pretty much immediately without more than 10mins. extra time after finishing the conversation are huge though, the wiki voices project has experienced some serious problems with editing, and publishing, so I am (for now) going to stick to a 'live' recording - as I said to Jhoch after we finished, I expect I, and any other volunteers listening who may find the time to record an interview or two, will get better as we go, and the feedback really helps :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea as Tony said, and also agree that trying to keep it to 10-15 minutes is pretty desirable. Well done by Privatemusings on the whole, though I would add a bit of constructive criticism and mention that there were times were you perhaps skirted too much into debate mode ("Okay, but don't you think da da da da dah...?") rather than keeping it more at the level of an interview. Not that I think the interviewer should just lob softball questions and not followup (here in the States I think we could do with a little less Charlie Rose and a little more Jeremy Paxman, as it were), but perhaps some of your replies and comments went a little off track. That's a rather minor quibble though. Thanks for putting this together and making it available to other editors—hopefully other candidates will also choose to participate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Guinea pig

I am willing to volunteer for any other experiments, trials, or shakedowns where people need a live candidate. Nothing too painful, please. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious about the audio thing, but I'd be happy to do a MSN chat or even a candidate forum there or in a chatroom.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to be grilled, by skype or otherwise. Unomi (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

Who inserted the pic of the turkey in the template for withdrawn candidates at the bottom? That's really funny!!!! Tony (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The state of the elections

So, we are four days into the nominations phase, approaching a healthy minimum number of serious candidates. General questions have been finalized and are being posted and responded to, and individual questions seem to be being posted effectively also. Nominations remain open until November 24, which is when Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is due to close. Some questions at this stage:

• Is there sufficient monitoring of election activity by volunteers/co-ordinators? Have we missed anything?
• Do we have all the appropriate pages and election material up and running? Is anything lacking?
• Are we sufficiently prepared for the outcome of the RfC and possible required changes to the election that will need to be implemented before the voting phase?

Feedback, questions and suggestions welcome.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

re : the rfc closing - closing on the 24th does indeed seem to be the sensible schedule (I mentioned this here - may have been discussed elsewhere too?) - and I'd like to see the volunteers currently acting as monitors (yourself, ultra, others?) clearly identifying themselves, and in effect preparing for said close. I don't really like the thought that any individual admin, with her or his own idea of whether or not she or he is 'involved' popping in and closing this one. It's going to be hard to make the call about secure poll, for example (and I already note some assumptions flying round a bit) - so I reckon a 'team effort' on the closing of the RfC would be a good idea - maybe a very large and clear banner at the top of the RfC indicating the closing plans would be a good idea? Privatemusings (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a banner specifying the closing time. Ultraexactzz has indicated willingness to close; I personally have participated in the discussion and won't be involved in the closing – if there's a need for the other monitors to be, it would be best to let them know now.  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Ultraexact is an appropriate user to close the RfCs. This all sounds good. Tony (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I also concur that UE would be a good man to close the thing. MBisanz ^talk 08:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest the closing time is specified as 00:01 on 24 Nov, it's less ambiguous than 00:00 (which some people might read as midnight on 24 Nov)?  Roger Davies ^talk 08:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well not to be prescriptivist, they would be clearly wrong, no? We are using 00:00 UTC for the other dates (threshold for candidate eligibility, beginning of voting period), though 23:59 UTC for voter eligibility; adding 00:01 to the mix would be confusing, I think.  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not really; they should all really be changed :) You see, 00:00 doesn't exist as an official time. Airlines, railways bus companies, the military etc all use either 00:01 or 23:59.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure I agree with that. Our own article also seems to disagree - 24-hour_clock#Midnight_00:00_and_24:00. Manning (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough the only statement in that section that's referenced is the one talking about using 00:01 or 23:59 to avoid misunderstandings :)  Roger Davies ^talk 12:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL - right you are. I didn't even notice that :) Manning (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-individual individual questions

It seems that many editors are using the individual questions area to post the same questions to multiple candidates (e.g. User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions). This would seem to dash any hopes of getting the questions under control, and make the attempt to rationalise the general questions futile. Should we be asking serial questioners to refactor or remove, or just give up and let the candidates decide how to handle the flood?  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The second. The alternative is shunting them to user talk pages, e-mail, Wikipedia review, what not. We're in a town-hall meeting writ-large. If we're going to regulate it, we'll need to do it next year, I get the strong feeling that doing it this year would cause havoc.--Tznkai (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The large amount of questions is a good simulation of what it's like to be an arbitrator. Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman: (1) There is bloat and burn-out in the task of being an arbitrator. This is not something to accept without question, but to address so that arbs are less likely to resign early and can continue to contribute to the project in other ways. Gigantic question pages are not a good start. (2) Are you taking into consideration the task voters face in reading the responses? There is something very wrong if we can't weigh up the suitability of candidates in a more efficient way.

Tznkai, I don't entirely agree. Users were given the perfect opportunity to ask general questions. Those who decided not to, yet ask stock "individual" questions of every candidate, are gaming the system, in my view, or missed the boat, which is too bad. Either that or we're still operating "medieval square" democracy where the loudest voice wins. I am quite prepared for a notice to be posted at the start of the "Individual questions" section (bottom of the ACE template) to the effect that "Individual questions differ from the general questions above in that they are not asked of all candidates, and are applicable to a particular candidate. Users are asked to constrain the amount of text voters have to read and to respect the structure of this page by not duplicating questions." Tony (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, some of the cut and paste questions tend to overlap the general questions. I agree with you that any general questions should be properly labeled and shouldn't be mixed with the specific questions. Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"by not duplicating questions"—I meant by not asking the same question of many candidates. I've added text to the template. Tony (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That too. They are replicating questions from one candidate to the next, and some of their questions duplicate questions already asked, because they are asking without reading first. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff. Does it do the trick? I think we should zero in on the very next duplication. If I did that on the user's talk page, I'd need back-up. Tony (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am all for encouraging people to be economical with questions, I'm just unwilling to actually make it an enforceable issue at this point. I can, however be convinced.--Tznkai (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that general questions are no longer being accepted, and that submissions for general questions were closed long before most people were thinking about this year's ArbCom election. Heck, we still don't know who all the candidates are. If you want people to post their non-individual questions as general questions, then general questions will have to be reopened. rspεεr (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding here, Rspeer. Why are general questions relevant to knowing "who all the candidates are"? General questions are asked irrespective of particular candidates. There was plenty of time for asking them, and if people objected to a deadline, I wonder why it has never been raised, in this or previous elections. The period was well advertised. Sneaking individual questions in as cut-and-paste jobs for every candidate seems to destroy the boundary between general and individual questions. We may as well not have general questions. Tony (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there was plenty of time in the past to ask general questions, that time does not include now, so the only option left is to ask them in the "individual questions" section. That is the very simple reason why people are asking general questions as individual questions -- because they want to ask general questions and they cannot travel through time. Nobody objects because nobody has tried to censor non-individual questions before, which it sounds like you're proposing to do, and "they missed the boat, too bad" is the worst justification I can imagine for taking such an action. rspεεr (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you've expunged the new text from the template, defining it as "instruction creep" and "a pet peeve" (the ideal WP fallback when you don't like something); I presume you have sufficient support for thatmove. Now let me get this right: editors will be able to demand that their vote count after December 14 if they didn't notice the election until after that date? Tony (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. Nice slippery-slope argument you've got there. rspεεr (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just testing whether the principle is valid. Apparently not. However, your edit summary stated "Wikipedians cannot travel through time". Now, either we should take measures to emphasise the distinction between general and individual questions, or we should announce that the distinction is merely for convenience, a technical artifact that saves editors from the drudgery of cutting and pasting to every candidate. We should make it clear that any editor may cut and paste so-called individual questions to every candidate. It should be done here and probably at the village pump. We can't have it both ways. Tony (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see my questions mentioned at the top of this thread. What's this all about, then? I'm asking more or less the same questions I did last year (modified to suit changing circumstance). Last years candidates managed OK, I think. I expect I'll be asking more or less the same questions next year as well (unless there's a big change in how things go around here, which would be nice, but I shan't be holding my breath). I received considerable input last year that my questions were prety good, written as I wrote them. I chose not to put my questions up early this year, although I did last year, because the homogenization (that some of the rest of you seem to think is goodness) would have diminished their effectiveness. In general, don't think it's appropriate to restrict what questions are asked. Certainly any candidate is free to answer, or not answer, any question they choose. And voters are free to take that into account. That's sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that allowing the questions to bloat, as is currently occurring, is either useful for voters or gets us better arbs. Yes, next year I intend to start earlier in gaining agreement for a saner system of asking questions; I will be asking that questions be seconded before posting, and that a proper distinction be made between general and individual questions. At the moment, there is absolutely no distinction: it is dysfunctional. I still think the mass carpeting candidates' individual question pages with the same pasted questions should be at least discouraged, if not banned. Otherwise, why bother with the fiction of this distinction? Tony (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. To resolve the differences here, I propose three sets of questions:

1. General questions for all candidates, collaboratively compiled in a similar format to what Tony has achieved this year.
2. Optional sets of questions suitable for all candidates, collated on a global page and must be seconded. It should be up to the candidates to select which ones they wish to answer.
3. Individual questions placed directly on the Q&A page, but must be seconded.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the system for next year is a fine goal. Tony, though you may not want to hear this suggestion from me, I really believe that the deadline for general questions should be later (requiring a second is a good way to cut down on the number of questions). It should perhaps coincide with the start of voting, not the start of nominations. Although it is true that you don't need to know who the candidates are to write a general question, an election that has no candidates in it yet is not an election that most people are interested in. rspεεr (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I just got this notice on my talk page. It doesn't quite seem to go with the comments I read above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This just got sent out to Lar: [7] (who is already aware of this as I see he's participated in the discussion above). --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've answered there. As I explained there, I don't think that request is at all reasonable, either specifically to my questions or in general. I'll have to make sure to try to figure out where this gets discussed next year to make sure I speak out against such generic restrictions, although I am OK with John Vandenberg's suggestions... I can't imagine my questions not getting a second. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only would your questions be seconded, I suspect any serious candidate would opt to answer them, as a lot of voters take into account the answers.

OTOH, there are other sets of questions which are long and the answers are only likely to have a bearing on one persons vote - candidates shouldn't have these sets cluttering up their Q&A page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The vast volume of Q+A is obviously unworkable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Last year, I removed a bunch of "individual" questions that clearly had no relevancy to my candidacy and served no purpose other than to demonstrate that the respective questioners did not bother to read my candidate statement; had they done so, they would have realized that their questions made no sense in the context of my candidacy. It caused a shitstorm. I'm getting the same types of questions again this year; should I take this discussion to mean that no one would care if I removed those types of questions from the page this time around? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea to remove the questions; but you are quite welcome to disregard them, or to write "n/a" or "see Qx". You're not obliged to answer all of the questions. Tony (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That goes without saying; but then they're still there, cluttering up the page. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Then draw out the "individual" questions you're answering and leave those you're not answering under their own section with an explanatory note, such as "I thank all editors who have asked questions; I believe my responses above provide voters with the appropriate information to judge me as a candidate." Fine; the voters will thank you because there's a mountain of text to read, or not read. Tony (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The technical side of things

In the event that we stick with public on-wiki voting rather than SecurePoll, we will need volunteers monitoring for duplicate and ineligible votes and collating live data. I understand User:ST47 handled a lot of this last year but is currently inactive. Are we sufficiently prepared on this front?  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we need a bot that updates vote tallies? I've got some experience with MediaWiki bots, though I've never run one on Wikipedia itself. I could make that bot. rspεεr (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to detect bloc voting and the like, yes. See from last year User:ST47/ACE 2008, File:ACE2008.jpg, User:ST47/ACEraw, User:ST47/ACE, User:ST47/ACE Data. Thanks for the interest,  Skomorokh, barbarian  04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not have a bot, but I will be monitoring for ineligible votes by hand, and will see about putting a standby team of checkusers as well.--Tznkai (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

SecurePoll provides a central list of who has voted. If we don't use it, it would be good to have a similar list somewhere.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are RFA tracking bots who parse RFAs for things like duplicate votes and whatnot - we use a similar format (Counting with "#") for open voting, so a bot that can parse voters (and then add them to a list) should be simple. I also remember a bot that announced each vote in an IRC channel, for live monitoring - might be an option as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Close of RfC imminent, last call for candidates

A reminder to all watching that the Request for Comment on the Arbitration Committee (covering term lengths, number of seats, election methods, ballot transparency, the tranche system, threshold for successful candidacies and voter eligibility) is scheduled to close by November 24, at which time the conditions for the elections and the Committee in 2010 will be established. If you want to participate in the discussion on any of these issues, you have less than a day to have your voice heard.

Secondly, if you have been considering running as a candidate in this year's election to the Committee, now is the time to make the decision. It's worth noting that there are twenty-two candidates at the time of writing, six fewer than last year, and so with eight seats available the field is not as competitive as might have been expected. Nominations will close on November 24, in fewer than 23 hours. For the coordinators,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently it is written "through 24 November 2009", which means that nominations will close a day later. Ruslik_Zero 09:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the main election page reads "Candidate statements will be accepted from 00:00 UTC on 10 November 2009 through 23:59 UTC on 24 November 2009...". So, end of business tomorrow. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Intervention needed?

I think the first of [redacted] is way, way beyond acceptability. It would not be appropriate for me to act directly but I really think this needs to go now. — Coren ^(talk) 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Tznkai (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to indef the user. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai beat me to it. I've told, or rather asked, the user not to replace it. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this concerned questions posed to a candidate that focused on sensitive personal information. I was made aware of it by another coordinator, judged it inappropriate under WP:PRIVACY, and deleted it. It was subsequently twice reposted by the original editor, both occasions deleted by me also.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the editor been blocked for such disruptive behaviour? Majorly talk 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeffed after a repeat performance, yes.--Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC closed

Seeing as it was supposed to close 3 and a half hours ago, I was bold and did it myself. Good luck to whomever is asked to sort it out. Deserted Cities (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See above, "Close of RfC imminent, last call for candidates". UltraExact is meant to be closing it, and at the end of the day, not the start. I'll revert the closure now, pending advice from others. Tony (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Tony. A closing time is a threshold, not a target.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

UltraE. said above "So, end of business tomorrow." Does that mean the notice saying "Please do not modify it" should be removed until the end of today, UTC? Tony (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's ambiguous, and not terribly important. Whether or not further comments are welcomed between now, 03:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC), and the minute after 23:59 November 24, 2009 (UTC), the important thing is that Ultra should be doing the closing and that it should be done by Nov 25th. I'm fine with it being re-opened in the meantime.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed the idea was for the discussion to stop at midnight UTC, then Ultra would declare the consensus. Feel free to revert me. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ultra's statement is about closing for nominations, not the RFC. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Leaving it up to your judgment. As Skomorokh says, it's not important, since the data are unlikely to change meaningfully. Tony (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That might be my bad, I had the closing of nominations and the RFC set for the same time. The RFC did say 00:00 24 November, so good close. I'm going to get hopping on it now. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks greatly for the close, Ultraexactzz; I think it reflects accurately the Will of the People and gives us good mix of stability and innovation in process, and certainty and latitude in results.  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm outta here!

Clerks, please withdraw my candidacy. Thanks for your continued efforts, and good luck to everyone else. Chutznik (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done thank you for your consideration.  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Gigantic "individual" questions directed at every candidate

Lar is pasting in what amounts to 29 separate questions, a total of 1460 words; they include "What is your favorite color?", presumably a joke. I estimate that if candidates make serious responses to all of these questions, the combined question/response text will be about 4000 words per candidate. If we end up with 20 candidates, voters will face the task of reading 80,000 words just for Lar's "individual" questions.

Rschen7754 is pasting in no fewer than 12 questions, of which several are framed vaguely or inappropriately in relation to a body charged with ruling on behavioural matters; one implies that non-native speakers of English are not intelligent enough to edit WP (this is possibly inadvertent, but I believe it should be withdrawn or reworded).

I have written to Lar and Rschen asking them to reduce the size and number of their questions. Tony (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. As long as I'm not asking something breaking policy, I can ask what I want. --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rschen7754 is correct - he actually CAN ask whatever he wants. This is why we need to reexamine the whole approach to question asking, as people can arbitrarily load candidates with absurd numbers of questions. Manning (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The slurring of non-native speakers is a clear breach of WP:CIVILITY. Tony (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

!? Even if that is true (!?), that's (a specific subset of) non-native speakers who don't understand enough English to write at a semi-comprehensible level and who decide that it would be a good idea for them to add broken English to articles and who cannot communicate with other editors and thus get angry. --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I find it particularly amusing that the question about the inability to understand English contains a grammatical error. I also note that some of these questions have been recycled since at least 2007. Regardless, perhaps an easier approach is to simply notify candidates that they are not obligated to answer these sorts of mass questions which are clearly not individualised in nature. Manning (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FTR, only one of the questions I currently use was used in 2007; this year I redid a lot of the questions. --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As I did on my talk, I refer you all to this discussion, a thread with over 100 replies(!!). That thread consists of detailed analysis and discussion of each candidate's answers to my questions. Merely measuring the word count misses the point... my questions were apparently well written enough to engender significant notice (and praise) at external criticism sites, and my questions were cited by a number of voters last year. I intend to carefully read and analyze the responses each candidate gives, and use it in my own assessment of the candidates, which I will post at User:Lar/ACE2009, as I did on a similar page last year. Your proposed restrictions throw babies out more than bathwater, I think. ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I counter that against the fact that this excess of questions is definitely costing us in terms of potential candidates. I personally know of four editors who are refusing to be candidates because of this excess of questions and there may well be more. Evaluating who is best suited to become an arb should not be based on an endurance contest. Manning (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that the actual reason, or is it merely a suitable pretext? I know that I received calls to stand. Any candidate unwilling to answer thoughtful questions, regardless of how many there are, is unsuitable for the office, in my view. It's not the questions that cost us candidates. Rather it's the answers to some of them. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming Manning's good faith, I am concerned too about the turn-off factor of this trial we seem to want to put the candidates through. Perhaps it's self-fulfilling that being an arbitrator should be such an unnecessarily overwhelming task too, cutting arbs off from community involvement. We do not want to impose endurance trials on candidates, and while many of your questions are useful, that is not the point. These are the points:

1. Voters do not need to read an encyclopedia on each candidate to weigh up who is most suitable, and nor do they have the time or want to put that kind of effort into voting. As well as turning off candidates, this level of bloat turns off voters.
2. This many general and individual questions makes it harder to extract the necessary information from the noise.
3. A minimal number of responses should reveal whether a candidate has the right skill-base. It is quite unnecessary for us to pursue a comprehensive cross-questioning model; rather, highly selective questioning will let the good ones shine through and the not so good expose their weaknesses. A mountainous task will reward those with time on their hands to complete the ordeal, but we want arbs who are already busy on- and off-wiki.

I believe Manning's suggestion that candidates be advised they are not required to answer "mass questions which are clearly not individualised" should be acted on soon, and I seek support here for this move. It's unfortunate that one or two candidates have heave-hoed their way through the forest already; the voters and the viability of the whole election should be of greater concern at this stage, as well as the good faith shown by users who asked, for the most part, trimmed down general questions, not expecting their succinctness to be subsequently undermined by users who treat the individual questions as general questions without restraint. Tony (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have heave hoed my way already. It wasn't that bad. There is a point to be made that editors need to be respectful and give others a chance to ask questions too. I personally don't mind Lar's questions because they are highly relevant and they can be answered quickly. What is more irksome to me is the way some questioners want to engage in argumentum ad nauseum on the talk page. It might be a good idea for the election monitors to patrol and use common sense to remind editors not to demand more than their fair share of attention. Candidates only have so much time to respond. Excessive questioning or pestering could turn into election disruption. That needs to be dealt with firmly. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That much agreed, but the voters are my prime concern. Tony (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Every voter should have a chance to ask their question(s). We should not allow insiders to monopolize the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been that bad. But if I was short on time, I'd answer the questions from voters who are only asking one or two first.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidates are under no obligation to answer these questions nor voters to read the responses, so I don't see a significant problem here. There's a massive amount of data on each candidate - not just 10000 words of Q&A but tens of thousands of edits worth of contribution history - and clearly each voter will not process this independently. I presume that any outstanding points will come out in discussion about the candidate, or in the questioner's analysis, or on external sites, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think candidates are in a position to object. If we object to this, the obvious rejoinder is "Well, if this is a problem, how are you going to handle the massive workload of ArbCom?" I've found a few of the questions problematical, but in general they are OK. I just wish that those posting would check to see if their questions have already been asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's widespread agreement that answering all the questions is an unreasonable workload I don't see why candidates wouldn't be in a good position to simply not answer questions. Obviously the questioner might be unhappy but others presumably won't care. The obvious re-rejoinder is that choosing which questions to accept or decline is the very first task a new arbitrator will confront on their first case. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion is over what "individual" means here. Some have taken it to mean questions asked of each individual candidate, as opposed to adding question to a general list. The aim here is to be able to compare the answers across candidates. The other definition of "individual" is questions that only apply to an individual (i.e. the question would be meaningless if posed to other candidates). This is more "general" versus "specific" questions. Some general questions can be phrased to produce specific answers, other general questions would be expected to get roughly the same answer from all candidates. I would suggest really planning and advertising the "general" questions list next year, and having a strictly limited general list, worked on by all the community (all candidates would be expected to answer all questions on that list), then a more extensive general list left open for additions throughout the election (candidates could pick and choose what to answer here), and finally specific questions that are specific to individual candidates only. I would also, in fact, be more in favour of candidates having the latitude to arrange things the way they want - it is their campaign after all, and creativity and ingenuity in presenting, arranging and reordering answers should be encouraged. If people want to compare across candidates, tables can be set up elsewhere to aid that (I see voter guides have been springing up already, not all of which are included on the template). The key, to avoid voter fatigue, is to have a relatively short page first, then successively larger pages that voters can chose to read or not, depending on the time they have available and how well the candidate presents things and draws people in to reading what they have to say. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC) And from memory, Lar's questions were the longest to answer from last year, though others came close.

Tony has got the thrust of the issue correct. The questions are long, they're exhausting for candidates, and far worse for voters to read through. I am not interested at this moment however, of - as an election monitor - grading the quality of questions. Instead, we can simply take the large bundled questions and push them off to a userpage with a link on the question page. Those interested in reading them shall, and those who care won't have to wade through the load times.--Tznkai (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns expressed here in terms of sheer number of questions, and Carcharoth has some good thoughts about that for next year. This would be less of an issue if questioners would simply use a little discretion. Yes, technically anyone "can ask what they want", as one editor put it above, but surely there are limits. If anyone asked a thousand questions (or even a hundred) they'd be slapped with a trout, and it's very much debatable whether 30 questions or even 12 questions by one individual are appropriate. No matter how crucial they deem their queries to be, editors ought not arrogate to themselves the right to ask whatever questions they want, because in so doing they: 1) Somewhat monopolize the question process, as it's a simple fact that many other editors will not want to add additional questions once a hundred or so have already been asked; 2) Perhaps overburden current candidates and discourage other ones, as they make an already annoying process even more annoying; 3) Actually make it more difficult for voters to get information about a candidate's views simply because there is too much information (and I would distinguish reading questions from looking at a candidates contribs list—many voters will be somewhat familiar with these candidates' contributions but might know little or nothing about their views on the arbitration process, so relevant questions are particularly important). In the absence of changes to the process like those suggested by Carcharoth, it would be nice if would-be interrogators of candidates could simply bear in mind that too many questions might well be more of a burden and distraction than an aid to voters in making their decisions. If a question is not likely to be relevant to many other editors other than the person asking it, then it almost certainly should not be asked (the number of voters and other interested parties is far too large to allow all editors their own personal tête-à-tête with each candidate). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the process should be renamed the Arbitration Committee Interrogations December 2009... WJBscribe (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Time needed to answer all questions?

I would be interested to know at the end of the process how long each candidate ended up spending on the answering of questions. It seems that we have now introduced a requirement of running for ArbCom successfully that only indirectly relates to how much time they would have to dedicate to the tast of being an Arbitrator over a two year period - do they also have X hours at the end of Nov/start of Dec to spend answering this volume of questions. It seems at the moment that those who find themselves very busy off-wiki at the end of the year need not apply... WJBscribe (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed: another reason the bloat needs to be streamlined for all. I expect there will be solid discussion of this before the next election. Tony (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Risker, it took her around 200 hours last year. Given that this time period coincides with 1L exams, that was a strong factor to my non-candidacy this year. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

200 hours! Most of the biggest London commercial law firms set their associates a target of 140 billable hours a month and remunerate them accordingly. So that's quite a commitment we're asking for from volunteers... WJBscribe (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's going to take me the whole weekend to answer these questions. While some of them are rather easy to answer, others you need alot of thought, especially in which you are a candidate in which the answers of the questions will make or break you, like myself. Secret ^account 00:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is now Closed

I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:

• The Arbitration Committee shall consist of 18 Members elected to 2 Year Terms.
• Arbitrators will be elected by Secret Ballot using the Securepoll extension.
• Ballots will invite editors to Support or Oppose candidates.
• Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo)

Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for placing yourself in the line of fire to close this, Ultra. A few points, if you don't mind (disclaimer, I am standing in that election):

• It's probably important to note the feedback from the AUSC elections, which had pointed out a number of desirable minor usability improvements to SecretPoll. We probably want to poke Happy-melon soon.
• I would expect it would be a very important thing to solicit feedback from the community about the voting process once it concludes; it will allow examination of whether it was an improvement or not and whether fixes need to be put in place (or whether we should scrap the whole thing).
• We also want to hold a long discussion about the voting system itself during the next year; it's obvious that the community is divided on the best way to move forward, and a patient examination of the alternatives without the pressure of a looming election would be considerably more enlightening.

Again, thank you for taking the time and effort to close this. — Coren ^(talk) 16:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• This close has been disputed - see the comments at the RfC's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remember

While there is a certain amount of "hands-off" attitude during elections in the interests of full discussion and in deference to the community's need to have as much information as possible, as well as the importance of seeing how the Arbitration Committee candidates react to different stresses, the arbitration elections are not to be abused as a vehicle for your own personal likes, dislikes, and conflicts. If such nonsense continues to creep in, coordinator and admin intervention will have to escalate as well. That would be unfortunate. I will be discussing the details with the other coordinators, but they may also wish to say something here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fred Bauder

Regarding the above threads: In his candidate statement Fred Bauder does say "As I have in the past, I will use my legal training and experience..." I think it needs to be clarified if that subject is off limits regarding questioning; otherwise, some other unfortunate is going to fall into the same hole as RDH. If that is the case, perhaps Fred should be asked to remove references to real life, especially those he finds sensitive. I think it important to rmember that the "deleted" questions by RDH are based on information long widely known on Wikipedia, and in the public domain. Fred first raised the subject of his legal career, not RDH.  Giano  21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I am not the first divorce lawyer to be falsely accused of an ethics violation. As the accusation was fabricated, no explanation or apology is due. I have found Wikipedia a good opportunity to use my legal skills productively. Fred Talk 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All I asked Fred was why you did not defend yourself more vigorously(or at all) against these false accusations. I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition! Anyone with a legal background or a sense of justice realizes that you must fight all the more when you feel a charge is false. Get your evidence and arguments out there! Defend your good name and reputation! You were a lawyer for 2 decades man! Surely you had the means and motive to fight such slander! Since the accusation was obviously fabricated, as you say, people may start to speculate on other reasons. You need to clear the air about this, or it will continue to haunt you for the remainder of your days and, believe me, as a ghost, I know about hauntings.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is where experience comes in. When a matter has been considered by the final court of appeal there is no sense in continuing to struggle. At that point you need to deal with the consequences. What I did was turn to other activities, both enjoyable and productive. Fred Talk 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My problem with RDH's questions were less the questions themselves, but their tone and context. I would go as far as to say that they were not questions at all, but outright attacks. I did not block RDH until he repeated these questions despite being told by repeated parties that it was out of bounds. As for the issue per se, I'm not sure if there is a way to rephrase the question that would solve the problems, but there could be. There is no clear bright line rule regarding tension between our meatball:meatspace lives and our Wikipedia activities, nor real consensus on the matter.--Tznkai (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I raised the original objection to the "question" is exactly because it wasn't a question. Suffixing a blatant unrelated smear with something to the tune of "how does that make you a bad arb?" does not a legitimate question make because it ends with a question mark.

On the substantive front, it's difficult to argue that the events described - no matter how true they may have been - have any relation to being an arbitrator; though I agree with Giano that Fred arguably opens the door to a proper question on the topic by raising his legal training himself. There was certainly no justification to linking to an outright attack editorial, or to going into that much detail (I mean, really. The amount of a fine affect one's qualifications as an Arb?) — Coren ^(talk) 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So were an individual to say to him "is there anything you've done as a lawyer that we should know about?" or words to that effect, would that be OK?  Giano  21:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a very informative or enlightening question, but I'm sure it'd be okay. I'm quite certain it's possible to construct a proper question that can raise concerns one can have about how germane using his qualifications as a lawyer are given past sanctions without needing to relate the entire story as a detailed narrative; but like I said I'm unconvinced that this is relevant to his candidacy — especially given that all of this occurred years before Wikipedia even existed. I mean, what could raising an event that ended a decade ago in his private live do except poison the well? If it affects his ability to be an arbitrator, then his previous tenure in the seat should suffice to demonstrate it. — Coren ^(talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My construction of a workable, relevant, question was: What is your personal standard for arbitrators' responsive communications and ethical behavior? MBisanz ^talk 23:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it was Fred who brought the subject of his long abandoned career up, but I expect you are right. I'm not having much to do with the elections anyway. It all seems very lack lustre this year, it's hard to get very exited one way or the other - the candidates all seem rather beige - don't they?  Giano  23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I think I'm more of a dignified ecru. — Coren ^(talk) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Taupe. I'm definitely taupe. Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Taupe? I may have to reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, Mack. Then I will have the chance to ask you about this as well. That's a rather large fingerprint you left...and right at the top too.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All one has to do is a simple Google search of People v. Fred Bauder and they can find out everything and more. All I did was link to one of these sources and summarize the case. Also, word to the wise-It is not a good idea to be too promiscuous with one's real name on the interwebs.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa

I'm not familiar with the context and haven't the time to investigate now, but these questions from HarryAlffa seem rather pointed. I'd appreciate if another coordinator had a look.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

They are also unclear as to what they're saying.--Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is slightly redundant now (since it was already covered on ANI), but Tan39 blocked him, then SarekOfVulcan and I (independently) removed the questions. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per this statement by Fritzpoll, should we remove this question by HarryAlffa from his question page? Hans Adler 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked NW to do it, since I had messed it up before: fixed now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

JzG

Just to note that JzG has refactored this question on request from me, out of a concern over questions that seem to mostly be concerned with putting forward a critique of version of events rather than learning the candidates thoughts/intentions. Review welcome.  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's a fair point but the questions are motivated by genuine concern. Arbitrators are supposed to weigh the evidence and be studiously neutral, in this case I saw Cla68 run with a wild accusation, WP:ABF and reject out of hand any assurance or statement form those who had inside knowledge - including Jimbo and then-sitting arbitrators. That makes me extremely uncomfortable. Worse, to take the dispute to a journalist with a known agenda against Wikipedia looked very underhand to me. So it's not about refighting the battle (Durova's work since then nails for ever the idea that she is evil, and despite prior disputes I would back her as a resolver of disputes any day), it's about confidence in the candidate's ability to assess the evidence and not colour it with their own opinions of the people presenting it. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Critical review of the candidates is most welcome, this is just a question of keeping the questions for the candidate pages free of what might be seen as soapboxing. I have a suggestion that might resolve the tension; you could post your critique of the candidate's handling of the events in question on their discussion page, and then refer to that when putting forward your questions, i.e. "I'm concerned with how you handled the Foo case, particularly on the basis of [traits that an arbitrator should have]. Here my impression: [link to discussion page]. I would like to know [questions]". Would you be amenable to that?  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

diffs .. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

In the "to do" template at the top, it says the watchlist notice for the actual election is "on hold". Does this mean it's going to happen at short notice, but the wording is still to be confirmed? Tony (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For one thing, we need to wait until we have a SecurePoll election number assigned so that we have a ballot to link voters to. The notice will need to be at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, and the code change will look something like this. I imagine the wording will be something like "[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/80|Voting]] is now open in the [[WP:ACE2009|2009 Arbitration Committee elections]]". Any suggestions?  Skomorokh  01:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly this, which is barely different from your suggestion, Skomorokh:

"[[link to the SecurePoll|Voting]] is now open to elect new members of the [[WP:ACE2009|Arbitration Committee]]"

I posted a proposal based on last year's notice to Mediawiki talk:Watchlist-details - but I sort of like this proposal better. Either version works, so long as the bold link goes to the voting interface, or to a page where how to vote is obvious. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, let's run with Tony's suggestion.  Skomorokh  22:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Things that need to be done today

Before midnight (UTC)

Add items here; strike when done.  Skomorokh  09:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Check, finalise and substitute all instances of {{ACE votepage}}.
• Check [by copying on wiki and testing the links] and finalise the ballot information.
• Finalize the election scrutineers and administrators

At midnight (UTC)

Add items here; strike when done.  Skomorokh  09:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Announce the opening of voting at the following venues: WP:AC/N (via clerk proxy), WP:VPM, WP:AN. Where else?
• Update the Watchlist notice
• Update Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Menu, {{ACE candidate}} and {{ACE guides}}.

/Vote pages

I have a few concerns/thoughts on the use of the /Vote pages:

• I'm a little concerned about potential voter confusion with using the /vote pages. (I mean, who reads the instructions these days). If we are going to have these pages, at the very least we'll have to put a big obnoxious edit notice on each of the pages.  Done
• I think we should also spam reminders about the necessity of using SecurePoll on user talk pages periodically (do a batch every 8 hours lets say). I think this will be relatively easy to semi-automate.
• Last year, we had a no comment policy in the voting section, and sometimes some extended remarks in the comment sections. I think this year it would be good to have short comments remain on the main /Vote page, but all threaded discussion moved to the talk page.
• We're going to have people labeling themselves as Support, Oppose, and Neutral, which is inevitable, and probably somewhat helpful. I think we should avoid dividing them up by section however.

I'll try to throw some boilerplate messages together later today. --Tznkai (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the same concern about confusion regarding /Vote pages. I was thinking of moving them to /Comments but am afraid of breaking something; the editnotice is a good idea also. I concur about not dividing comments into sections based on stance and about the use of the talkpage for longer comments.  Skomorokh  21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it may be confusing... Perhaps we could have some way of comparing who's commenting, with seeing who's voted so far, and have a bot ping the individual's talkpage to remind them that a comment alone is not enough? --Elonka 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good idea actually. Let me fix the name of the pages, then submit a WP:BOTREQ.  Skomorokh  22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, good idea. KnightLago (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved all the /Vote pages to /Comments e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Unomi. The attached talkpages (the "discussion" pages) have been moved accordingly. I will create a manual list of accounts that have voted on-wiki, then file a bot request to implement Elonka's suggestion above.  Skomorokh  22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

URGENT -- Please subst the templates on the Comments pages or else the comments will end up in the template! Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Chill out man, it's on the list of things to do before midnight – there's still 34 minutes ;)  Skomorokh  23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice done.--Tznkai (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great; have you got a direct link?  Skomorokh  00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note on number of seats: CHL is not resigning

I was earlier uncertain, but at this time I am not resigning from ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good indeed.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Voter log

I've set up a voter log on-wiki at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Voter log, based on the one Roger had for the AUSC election. It will be useful for making note of disenfranschisements (false positives and false negatives), checking for sock- and meatpuppets and whatnot. I will need to be manually updated based on Special:SecurePoll/list/80; hopefully we can get a bot to do this. Review/comments/suggestions welcome.  Skomorokh  23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't really see why it is needed. I didn't understand the reason for the AUSC page either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's easier to work with and, unlike the realtime log, can be commented on and annotated.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

But it wasn't annotated or commented on. We could just create a talk page if people want to talk. But a manually updated page seems pointless to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it did. It had a struck vote. I expect there'll be a few of those here too.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Still think it's pointless. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How does an editor vote:?

Are there directions somewhere on how to vote? I cannot find a means of voting. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The directions and interface are Special:SecurePoll/vote/80. Please let us know if they need improving. Regards,  Skomorokh  00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (I never would have guessed. Good thing I asked!) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say how many seats to vote for? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote for as many as you wish. The main landing page has a summary of how many seats are open.--Tznkai (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What is considered the "main landing page" as the number open is not on Special:SecurePoll/vote/80 as far as I can tell? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009--Tznkai (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we add {{ACE 2009 guides}} to the voting page? Right now if people click on the "Vote" link on their watchlist, there really isn't much info on what's going on. --Elonka 00:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Last year we did not place the voter guides all over the official pages. I dislike that we are doing so this year. That template tends to give a select few members of the community a platform to advertise their views. Voters may be confused because the template does not include any disclaimer that these are unofficial guides and solely represent the opinions of their authors. Normally advertising is not allowed at the poling place, at least in real world elections. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's putting way too much weight on the opinions of the handful of editors who have written guides. A general preamble, explaining what's being voted for, would be great though.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with this statement, as those who have written guides have done so for a reason. The guides are not "public service" announcements. —mattisse (Talk) 00:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been strong about putting the voter guides prominently on-wiki, as it's especially important to have an informed electorate in a secret ballot, but putting them on the voting interface itself would be too much akin to an official endorsement.  Skomorokh  00:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "guides" have received quite a bit of air play. Even I know about them. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm more interested in avoiding confusion, than in getting my personal guide out there. How about adding an "FAQ" link that covers some of these questions that are coming in? We're definitely using a different system than last year, and most of the voters shouldn't have to wade through the RfC to be able to figure out what's going on. --Elonka 02:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It could easily be dealt with in a brief preamble, repeating what's on the ACE2009 front page. You know the sort of thing ... "This election is to appoint eight new members of the Arbitration Committee, to serve a two-year term from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. etc etc"  Roger Davies ^talk 02:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of avoiding confusion. Some context would be helpful, as Roger Davies suggests. If a user relatively unfamiliar with ArbCom hits one of these pages, can they figure out what's going on within a few seconds? An FAQ sounds like a great idea. Jehochman ^Talk 02:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Election administrators

According to Risker, these are myself Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) and Happy-melon (talk · contribs). Should we be doing something? Mr.Z-man 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps watch the logs for any irregularities and answer questions on the various election-related talk pages. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See #Finalized above. Expect to hear from the coordinators by email in the next day or so.  Skomorokh  02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Urgent: suggested edits to Special:SecurePoll/translate/80/en

The main problem is that it doesn't mention the fact that if you return to change your vote, you're faced with the whole thing again, as though you never voted in the first place. This involves both people who might want to register their choices in more than one sitting, and those who might want to return to change their vote.

I think this will cause a cascade of inquiries unless we're quite clear about it. One other point: it seems unnecessary to link voters to two different pages, one for discussion of candidates and one for leaving a comment. I've removed the discussion page link, assuming that's for pre-election discussion.

Here's my suggested edit to inform voters of the "change vote" sitation, and that single sittings are required. With less than 10 hours to go, please leave feedback soon. I'm alerting Skomorokh immediately. Tony (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

EXISTING:

Links: Election main page • Report problems or issues

Please use the radio buttons below to indicate which candidates you Support or Oppose. The default option (Neutral) does not affect the outcome in any way. You can verify that your vote has been accepted by checking the real-time voting log.

You are encouraged to discuss the candidates, and to leave a comment explaining your vote for each candidate if you so wish, though these are by no means mandatory. You may change your votes at any time before the close of the vote at 23:59 (UTC) 14 December 2009.

SUGGESTED NEW:

Election main page • Report problems or issues

Instructions

• Radio buttons. Please use the radio buttons below to indicate which candidates you "Support" or "Oppose" (the default option of "Neutral" does not affect the outcome in any way).
• Single sitting. Voting should be done in a single sitting; you can verify that your vote has been accepted by checking the real-time voting log.
• Changing your vote. After your entire vote has been accepted, you may make changes at any time before the close of voting. However, a fresh default ballot page will be displayed and you will need to complete the process again from scratch (for this reason, you are welcome to keep a private record of your vote). Your new ballot page will erase the previous one. You may verify the new, later time of acceptance at the real-time voting log.
• Discussion and comments. You may leave a comment on a candidate here.

Looks good. KnightLago (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that's fine. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I can't edit the page. Tony (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text looks good to me too. Though I'm curious about the secret nature of the votes... Is there going to be a way after the election, to see how everyone voted? If so, that should probably be mentioned up front as well. --Elonka 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, votes will remain secret indefinitely. Technically, Tim (or any other sysadmin) could find them out by working directly in the database but they are not intended to be disclosed nor can they be viewed by accident, and I expect he would (rightly) refuse flatly to do so if asked. — Coren ^(talk) 16:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

I've updated using Tony's proposed new version, with the last line ("Discussion and comments") changed somewhat:

Election main page • Report problems or issues

Instructions

• Radio buttons. Please use the radio buttons below to indicate which candidates you "Support" or "Oppose" (the default option of "Neutral" does not affect the outcome in any way).
• Single sitting. Voting should be done in a single sitting; you can verify that your vote has been accepted by checking the real-time voting log.
• Changing your vote. After your entire vote has been accepted, you may make changes at any time before the close of voting. However, a fresh default ballot page will be displayed and you will need to complete the process again from scratch (for this reason, you are welcome to keep a private record of your vote). Your new ballot page will erase the previous one. You may verify the new, later time of acceptance at the real-time voting log.
• Discussion and comments. You may leave brief comments on the candidates here and engage in extended discussion here.

Further suggestions welcome.  Skomorokh  22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What does "new, later time of acceptance" mean? --Elonka 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The system logs each time your vote is accepted. So for example AGK in the AUSC 2009 elections voted three times in the first half hour (see log); first at 00:19, secondly at 00:20 and finally at 00:30. 00:20 and 00:30 would be new, later times of acceptance in this case.  Skomorokh  22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that part, thanks for explaining. --Elonka 23:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries.  Skomorokh  23:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems a bit convoluted to me. Would something like this be clearer?

• Radio buttons. Please use the radio buttons below to indicate which candidates you "Support" or "Oppose" (the default option of "Neutral" does not affect the outcome in any way).
• Single sitting. You should cast your votes for all candidates in a single ballot; you can verify that your votes have been accepted by checking the real-time voting log.
• Changing your vote. After your ballot has been accepted, you may update it at any time before the close of voting. You must submit a new ballot, which will completely replace the old one; you may wish to keep a private record of your votes to remind you of how you previously voted. For security reasons, your previous ballot will not be shown to you once it is submitted. You may verify that your updated ballot has been recorded at the real-time voting log.
• Discussion and comments. You may leave brief comments on the candidates here and engage in extended discussion here.

Using "ballot" and "vote" to distinguish between the whole collection of opinions on all the candidates, from the opinions on individual candidates, respectively. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

explanations, running total?

• Where's the explanations of how someone wins, how votes are dealt with etc.? Is it meaningful to vote Oppose on everyone except the ones you want to see in? Is there a minimum vote percentage required for success of the nom? is there a real-time tally of current vote totals? etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no running vote total, no consensus on the threshold for a successful candidacy (although Jimbo has said no one under 50% would be appointed, and the closest to consensus was a 60% threshold), the net support method applies here as at RfA (for 8 seats, highest support appointed in descending order). Hope that helps. Nathan ^T 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The page overleaf and the voting ballot contain the entirety of the instructions currently. Technically, this is an advisory election, and Jimbo picks the winners out of his hat; in practice, the candidates with the highest support/oppose ratios "win". I'm not sure what you mean by "meaningful"; I don't think the method you describe is optimal for the rational voter. There was some support for the idea of a minimum percentage in the RfC, but not enough for consensus. There are no real-time tallies. Most of these issues have been discussed on this page previously. Do you have suggestions on altering/expanding the instructions?  Skomorokh  01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• (ec x 2) The RFC that led to the current setup contains most of the answers you seek.

  The short: the eight candidates with the highest support/oppose ratio will be appointed to the committee by Jimbo, provided they have at least 50% support.

  On opposing everyone, it has an effect but may not be optimal insofar as it may help candidates you like less overtaking candidates you would prefer. The intent is that you should vote to support every candidate you feel would be a good fit on the committee, oppose those you feel should not be, and possibly remain neutral/abstain on those for whom you have no strong feeling either way.

  The nature of a secret ballot means to tally until the end, although you may see a list of who has voted here (but not whom they have voted for). — Coren ^(talk) 01:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also a summary on the project page (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009). Generally, I am opposed to giving out voting advice other this: go vote!--Tznkai (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I presume Coren meant "but not whom they voted for". The 50% minimum has been the subject of controversy: as Skomorokh said above, let's "wait and see". Tony (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You presume correctly. — Coren ^(talk) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to change the sorting order of the real-time voting log, so that the most recent voters are at the top, similar to how watchlists work? --Elonka 02:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it would be easy (and is probably a Good Thing) though whether Tim has the time to do it is another matter.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Actually, the list is sortable the usual way, i.e. just click on the column you want to sort with until it flips in the direction you want.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 02:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Secret ballot - finally. But why no real-time tally of current vote totals? I recall it from past elections, and it seemed useful (or at least, interesting). I see. I don't necessarily agree, but it's a minor issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

This is really a mess. At the voting page, there is a "Discussion" link that takes you to the "Discuss the candidate" page. But in the election infobox, someone has now added a "Comment on the candidate" link that opens to an entirely new page.

Can someone please decide which page is the page for comments, so that discussion can be appropriately centralized and not scattered over two different pages? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

the comment page is for brief comments. The discuss link is the talk page for the comment page. I do see your point however.--Tznkai (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I already left my "comment on the candidate" at the discussion page. I am obviously not the only one to do so. I would like to see this issue resolved, although I'm not sure how to do so, because I think people are entitled to expect that such comments will be confined to a single page and not distributed between different pages. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to come up with a solution tomorrow morning.--Tznkai (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The recent RfC had a large minority of editors in favour of public voting; the comments pages, open for the duration of the voting only, are for those editors and others of that disposition to leave short vote-like rationales. The discussion pages differ in three respects: 1) they are open for the whole election period 2) there are no brevity restrictions and 3) discussion between editors (and candidates) is encouraged. Perhaps having the /Discussion meta-page is more confusing than helpful, and maybe the titles need to be more distinct, but the individual "/Comments" and "/Comments talk" pages serve two different functions and cannot be combined without losing functionality. See for example Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Fred Bauder and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Fred Bauder.  Skomorokh  07:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. Having had a think about this, I suggest that obvious "comments on the candidate" which have already been placed on discussion pages are copied to the "comment" pages, and some sort of message left at the top of each "Discuss" page to direct users to leave new comments at the comment page. It's not an ideal solution, but it's the only one I can think that will preserve the integrity of existing discussion on discussion pages and also centralize comments on the one page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. What do others think?  Skomorokh  07:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an excellent idea and should be implemented forthwith. Perhaps the "Discuss" pages should then redirect to the individual "comments" pages. The voting page will need a bit of tweaking but that's no big deal.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, maybe we should leave it up to individual editors to decide whether or not to move their existing comments to the "Comment" page - unless there's an agreement that this can be done uncontroversially. I do think a clear message at the top of the "Discussion" page directing users to leave their comments at the comment page would be helpful though. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bots

I've submitted a bot request to help with the elections here. If anyone could help getting these up and running as soon as possible, it would be greatly appreciated. Comments/suggestions welcome,  Skomorokh  03:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot request for approval filed.  Skomorokh  20:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling amateur detectives

The annotateable voter log is up (hopefully to be automated soon). If people with the requisite skillset could keep an eye on it and dig around, it might help unearth sockpuppetry or other suspicious voting patterns.  Skomorokh  21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If its going to be automated anyway, maybe it should be a single row per record, with each row perhaps including time between last edit and vote and total number of edits in the previous year? That, plus using the raw log to see closely timed edits, gives some good data that could sniff out suspicious activity. Nathan ^T 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ideas; I'm just happy to have the basics there as finding volunteers for this is hard enough as is, but please do pose these suggestions at the bot request for approval. Cheers,  Skomorokh  21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One week until voting begins

Alright everyone, following a long an extensive WP:ARBCOMRFC2, the conditions for the election are set, and we need to get moving on implementation.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Implementing SecurePoll

According to the results of the RfC, traditional Support/Oppose voting will need to be implemented along with secret ballots using SecurePoll. There has been extensive feedback on the use of a similar set up in the recent Audit Subcommittee elections. Are we clear on what needs to be done? Is it technically feasible? Have we got the volunteers needed to pull it off?  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Need to alert User:Tim Starling immediately. I believe he was invaluable in the setting up of the AUSC election SecurePoll. Tony (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tim needs to be on board a.s.a.p. There are various minor things arising out of the AUSC Workshop that probably need implementing. He also has to create the poll itself, hardwire in the lists of (i) candidates, (ii) election admins (as opposed to election coordinators) and (iii) scrutineers. I've listed the main action stuff requiring coder action in response to your request, Skomorokh, at the AUSC workshop talk page, which is copied here for ease of reference:

• Order of radio buttons: Support/Neutral/Oppose (currently implemented as Oppose/Neutral/Support). Some editors commented on the absence of an abstain button (which could I suppose be added as another option) but as both both neutral and abstain are regarded as null votes it's difficult to see how this has any impact on the outcome.
• Voting page memory: when returning to their individual voting pages ([Special:SecurePoll/vote/nn]), editors should be shown the last selection they made (it currently defaults to a blank page, requiring all selections to be entered again).
• Blocked user module: SecurePoll has a standard realtime module which checks whether someone is blocked at the time of voting. Once the block expires, they may return to vote. If they're indeffed, obviously it nevers expires so they can't vote. This needs implementing to prevent blocked socks voting (we forgot to ask for this at the AUSC election and only implemented it a few days into the poll: the list was subsequently swept for blocked editors and one was struck by the scrutineers).
• The coders need lists of (i) candidates, (ii) election administrators (see below) and (iii) scrutineers (see below) a day or two before the election starts as the usernames are hardwired into the software.

By way of explanation of the above, also copied from the AUSC workshop talk page:

• You'll need to appoint a couple or three election administrators to look after the behind the scenes stuff (sorting out links on the voting pages - via [Special:SecurePoll/translate/nn/en] to candidate statements, dealing with any wrinkles etc). As they will have access to IP addresses and other sensitive data, these should probably be checkusers (you have some already acting as election coordinators). For AUSC, the election administrators did not strike votes: this was a scrutineer role.
• The scrutineers were all stewards: Erwin, Mardetanha, Mike.lifeguard, and Thogo. If you need a fifth (not a bad idea given the size of the election), Millosh has already volunteered.
• I did the alphabetical voting list manually last time. It would be easier if a bot did this, picking up the data from [Special:SecurePoll/list/nn].
• There are some notes at: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/October 2009 election#Voting and appointment, which could probably be usefully turned in for the ArbCom Elections as most of it is the same.
• The pre-amble on the voting page needs to mention that editors can check that their vote has registered at looking at the chronological log (for AUSC this is at Special:SecurePoll/list/60).

I hope this helps. It is posted in my capacity as a human being rather than an arbitrator.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are names going to rotate or change position on each individual ballot? KnightLago (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. SP does that automatically.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ball is now rolling

Looks like nobody had queried Tim yet to set things up; I have requested he configure the SecurePoll extension for the election with Tony1, Skomorokh, Ultraexactzz and Tznkai as election admins so you guys can start working on the messages (the page intro, the candidate links, etc). The actual election admins will need to be changed to the scrutineers before the election starts, though.

It's a little iffy that I involve myself in the setup, but we (ArbCom) already have some experience with the process given the AUSC election, and it was simple for me to talk to Tim. I'll finish to get the ball rolling and hand everything to you guys as soon as you are ready to. The list of candidate needs to be configured by Tim (or another sysadmin) so you need to tell him if someone withdraws before the vote starts.

Once the messages are written (it's sorta-like Mediawiki: space, only in the Special:SecurePoll part), you can hand it over the volunteers you found amongst CU and stewards who will then be able to monitor the election proper. I'll be glad to give you technical help for the setup, and act as technical liaison if nobody object.

I've requested that Tim try to implement the default vote bit, but he's doubtful it can be done in time. He'll try though. — Coren ^(talk) 03:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

To get you started, this is what the interface for setting the messages up look like (that is the AUSC election page); that should give you an idea what to expect and allow you to start working on them while Tim sets tings up). — Coren ^(talk) 03:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Another data point: once the election opens, it is not technically possible to remove a candidate from the ballot (though it remains possible to change the associated message to something like "Candidate (withdrawn)"); you may want to add verbiage to this effect to the appropriate places. — Coren ^(talk) 03:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Coren, very pleased to have your help. I think no one has a problem with your role in assisting as a WP editor. Tony (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Following up on what Coren has written, I have contacted the stewards asking for volunteer scrutineers (asking them to respond on the coordination page, or by email to Skomorokh). Mr.Z-man has volunteered to act as the election administrator to manage any MediaWiki tweaks that are needed, and I am hoping Happy-Melon will be able to work alongside him. I am in the process of writing an email to Tim Starling outlining the parameters that have already been decided on this page, and will post a copy of the email on the talk page of the coordination page. Although I am happy to assist on request with any other task throughout the election, I have a lot of faith in the volunteers who are coordinating this, and will step back so as to allow you as representatives of the community to do what needs to be done. Thanks to all of you. Risker (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

←Thank you, Risker. I've had a close look at the situation (probably beyond my technical knowledge), and the following things are sticking out:

1. The election administrators must be CUs, since—although they will not have a big job—they will need to have signed up to the privacy policy (they will have access to all the private information!). This appears to be essential. Why don't we ask Matt Bisantz and jpgordon, both CUs and both signed up as election volunteers? Two might well be sufficient. oops, Matt is not a CU Tony (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2. The election administrators are going to have to be programmed into the software (by Tim, I hope), and cannot change once this happens. We cannot have them acting in two roles.
3. I'd be very happy if the same stewards who acted as scrutineers for the AUSC election were asked again for the ArbCom election: this would be the safest and easiest option.
4. Can you apprise Tim of three significant things that need to be done (they're listed above, anyway):

1. (a) The order of the buttons needs to be changed from (what I think was) "oppose, abstain, and support", to "support, abstain, oppose". This should be easy, I think.
2. (b) We do not want voters to return to their vote page mid-way and be told "no votes cast" (as in AUSC). It is important that, for example, after a voter has voted for/against 10 candidates, they see how they've voted already. I realise this might be a heave for Tim at short notice, so a simpler option such as just removing the "no votes cast" might do, but this would need discussion. Can you ask Tim whether it's doable in time to have a user's "already-voted" data displayed during their vote?
3. (c) Tim needs to implement the standard "blocked user module" (as described above), which looks easy to do.

Done in a rush, since RL work is heavy today. Tony (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PS The stewards need to have no direct connection with the en.WP; this much has emerged from various recent threads on talk pages about the matter. It would be unwise to do anything else, and it's a good thing that we're creating high-profile linkages with meta, frankly. We also don't want to stretch the friendship by involving stewards in tasks such as setting up the voting page, etc, which our CUs can ddo; that is why two distinct groups of officials—administrators and scrutineers—are required for the smooth running of the election and the avoidance of controversy. Tony (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, email sent to Tim Starling, copy here. A few points:

• The election administrators don't need to be checkusers but do need to be identified to the WMF and have been approved on English Wikipedia for roles that include access to private information, as well as having at least some understanding of the MediaWiki interfaces. Mr.Z-man is an oversighter and meets all the criteria; Happy-Melon is included due to the prior AUSC experience. I've been advised another functionary is willing to volunteer, but will confirm with him personally before adding the name.
• I have also arranged for an email to be sent to the Stewards mailing list (copied to Skomorokh for information), and anticipate a positive response. Lar, a steward whose home wiki is considered English Wikipedia, has also reinforced the importance of the volunteers being from other projects.
• Tim has already started to run the list of eligible voters.

At this point, I'll step back and let you, the coordinators, keep the ball rolling; however, if there is anything else I can do to assist, please feel free to ask. Risker (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Risker, thank you so much for doing this. Tony (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I had requested the "random" list of admins under the full expectation that it would be replaced before the election started by identified people, but Risker's was even more diligent by actually finding them swiftly.  :-) Looks like everything's on the way and I'll accompany Risker back on the sidelines now. — Coren ^(talk) 11:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks greatly to Coren, Roger and Risker for all the effort you've put into this; it looks like we have a concrete idea of what would like implemented. I'm in direct contact with Tim now, and hopefully we can work things out between the coordinators and the developers without further need for involvement by interested, helpful parties. Please keep you antennae up though, as there may yet be wrinkles ahead that will need straightening. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  00:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note I'm not completely sure that the scrutineers are locked and loaded, but I may be wrong. A number of stewards have volunteered, they were directed to contact Risker (oops :) ) or you. Erwin at one point said if he wasn't needed he would demur, and Mike.lifeguard also said he had some committments. Do you have all the scrutineers you need identified and committed? If not please LMK and I'll post to stewards-l again. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Lar, thanks for your interest. See #Election_monitors.2Fscrutineers below; I have three confirmed, and an email from another indicating interest. There were four for the AUSC elections; whether or not more are needed here I do not know.  Skomorokh  04:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, given that there are likely to be more than a thousand voters, I'd say more than the four AUSC scrutineers are necessary: at least six, at a guess, and if more if they can be found—even up to eight—healthier numbers both for the volume of the throughput and the need to be seen to be efficient in dealing with fraud. Tony (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help if needed, although I confess unfamiliarity with what would be required. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just stopping in quickly, have not got time for WP this evening. Regarding the updates from Tim; I'm happy with the setup even if it has less bells and whistles that we might have wanted (some of which as Roger points out can be handled ourselves). If someone wants to hunt down a few more scrutineers at this point that's fine, but I'm happy with the four we have. My main concern for the next few days is getting enough election administrators/checkusers, as I've had little response on that front. Cheers,  Skomorokh  20:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Facilitating discussion

As this year's elections will be using secret ballots and there are many editors who would rather comment publicly (as Carcharoth notes), how will we facilitate this? Should there be a dedicated page for comments on each candidate (is the /Vote talkpage good enough for this purpose), or for each voter, or one central candidate-sectioned page for everything?  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets axe the /vote talk page entirely and centralize all per candidate discussion to the /questions talk page with redirects, and continue using the existing discussion landing page.--Tznkai (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, given that there won't be a /Vote page to post procedural or extended comments on (as one might do for an RfX) anyway.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the centralised candidate discussion page? Tony (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You could have a comment button next to each candidate's name link on the voting page. That's easiest and would publicise it considerably.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's straightforward enough. — Coren ^(talk) 11:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I am going to implement Tznkai's suggestion. I have also asked Tim whether or not Roger's suggestion is feasible.  Skomorokh  00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You can put arbitrary wikitext for each candidate; look at the last six rows of [8]. — Coren ^(talk) 00:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The single page will not work, as it would be >70kb even without further comments. I'm going to go with /Vote pages to leave comments, with /Vote talk for extended/threaded discussion, and /Discussion as a summary of the latter. See {{ACE votepage}} for the /Vote page set-up; alterations welcome.  Skomorokh  07:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring voters

How will we manage monitoring voters? How will bloc voting and sockpuppeting be detected? Will there be a public centralized list? Do we need Checkusers to be involved from the start? Bots?  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I can do some of the lower-level stuff, if necessary, that doesn't require special access/tools. Tony (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The software has various safety features built-in which I will not go into for WP:BEANS reasons, including IP data. The realtime blocked user module needs to be implemented to stop any blocked editor voting during the currency of the block. It is handy to have an alphabetic list of people voting somewhere as this makes it trivially easy to check up on their contribs etc. At the end of the election, the voter list needs checking to pick up any socks blocked after they voted. The scrutineers did this at the AUSC election and struck one editor's votes. It's not difficult and in reality for the AUSC elections (with 370 voters) probably took less than an hour. All four scrutineers were asked to sign off the results, prior to publication, which they did.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Election monitors/scrutineers

Are there qualified and trustworthy outsiders lined up to keep SecurePoll honest? If not, how should we go about organizing this?  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of re-using the monitors from the AUSC election. They did a great job. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We can use the existing coordinator team to police commentary as need be, but actual vote counting can be done by the previous scrutineers if they're willing.--Tznkai (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two behind the scenes roles (though they could in theory be consolidated into one). The first is someone (or someones) to do the donkey work (set up the voting pages text; set up links, keep an eye on things etc). These need to be checkusers as they'll have access to IP data. The second is certifying the results: this was done by four scrutineers last time, all stewards. They were: Erwin, Mardetanha, Mike.lifeguard, and Thogo. If you need a fifth (not a bad idea given the size of the election), Millosh has volunteered. At the AUSC elections, the election admins did not strike votes: this was left to the scrutineers.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on this; I've emailed the checkusers, and the ball is rolling on the scrutineer front also.  Skomorokh, barbarian 02:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen indications that stewards Mardetanha (talk · contribs), Thogo (talk · contribs), Effeietsanders‎ (talk · contribs) and Laaknor (talk · contribs) are willing to act as scrutineers, and have posted requests for confirmation to their talkpages. Have not heard back on the election administrators front.  Skomorokh  15:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎ and Laaknor confirmed on-wiki, awaiting response from Thogo.  Skomorokh  00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Have any of the others from the AUSC elections been directly approached yet?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll email them: they may not log on here very often, unless there's a specific reason too.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please always send mails only (or use Meta), my talk page here is largely unattended. ;) I put that confirmation on my talk page. --Thogo (Talk) 12:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience Thogo, it's just that without official WMF email addresses, it is unwise to give scrutineer access to anyone representing themselves as stewards without on-wiki verification.  Skomorokh  01:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If I am still needed, please, let me know. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note saying "yes please" at Millosh's talk page. I will leave quick notes with all scrutineers thanking them and advising that further information will be sent within a day. Tony (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you still need help I also offer mine. Otherwise I'd rather other people do it. --Erwin (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm already identified and we seem to be running short on personnel, so I'll be an election admin.--Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mardetanha and Erwin have agreed. Mike-lifeguard says he's too busy. Tony (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, I'll be glad to provide checkuser help if needs be. User:Jpgordon has also thrown his name into the hat - Allie ^❤ 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Alison, good to have you on board. Hopefully we can get the on-wiki voter log up and running for you to work off; if not Special:SecurePoll/list/80 will have to do.  Skomorokh  02:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Finalized

After discussion with Tim Starling and the recruitment efforts above, these are our volunteers who have been granted access:

• Scrutineers: Mardetanha, Effeietsanders‎, Laaknor, Thogo, Millosh and Erwin.
• Election administrators: Mr.Z-man, Happy-melon, Tznkai

We (the coordinators) should be emailing these editors to let them know what is expected of them in the coming days.  Skomorokh  02:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hope to do this within 10 hours. Tony (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you sent the information yet? --Erwin (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential interpretation issues

We need to be forewarned of any unforeseen difficulties arising from trying to reconcile the different wishes of the community with respect to the circumstances under which arbitrators are appointed. There has already been some concern about a potential conflict between the number of arbitrators to be appointed and the minimum requirements for doing so. It appears as if Jimbo is prepared to deal with this, but there is a general sentiment that his role ought to be ceremonial, and it would be best to pre-empt any unpleasant surprises.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has answered this one to a few people's satisfaction. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it's linked above, but I'm not sure that is to most people's satisfaction, or that all the possible problems have been identified.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looked as if it was when I posted that. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Placing on notice here that I will rally opposition to any moves to have Jimbo step back from his pledge to play only a ceremonial role in this election. This includes fiddling with current arbs' terms, and appointing on any basis apart from the strength of the vote. The community voted against such "flexibility" in the RfCs, so overwhelmingly it hardly bares speaking about. The community has supported Jimbo's earlier declaration by voting overwhelmingly against a substantive role for him in determining the number of arbs (1 Support out of 117), and term lengths (8 Supports, among them SandyGeorgia, out of 115). This is not an anti-Jimbo rant: it's a constitutional matter, and the fact that the community voted in the RfCs in the knowledge of Jimbo's pledge. Tony (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Tony, we tend to see eye-to-eye in most matters but I think you're heading in the right direction right now, but at the wrong pace. Much of what is going on are improvements, but complete constitutional overhaul is likely to take a while longer. Until we have had at least one election with the new criteria so we actually have data like how support/oppose will affect percentages during a secret ballot, the effect of tactical voting, and participation levels, it's likely there could be unforseen and undesirable consequences and keeping a bit of flexibility is a reasonable safety valve. In my opinion, the right time to start cementing this down if it works is a couple of weeks after the election so that we are (a) not pressed for time and (b) have data from an actual election to examine and analyze.

That Jimbo has stated clearly that he'll aim for the 18 seats, agrees with two years, but will preserve the 50% minimum support (which is status quo) is not unreasonable. Can you not rally to the banner of "let's make this work first tweak after"? — Coren ^(talk) 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I can rally to that banner, but it seems like more than a "tweak"—it just seems like a step back to where we were, at the last minute, and in contradiction to the environment in which people voted at the RfCs. Tony (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo himself stated on his talk page that he'd first discuss between the alternatives, and would rely on them only if we didn't manage to fill the seats the "normal" way (i.e.: fewer than 8 candidates reached 50%). I agree with the principle, mind you, but you also have to take into account that historically, he never picked anyone but the highest ranking candidates. There's no reason to think he'll suddenly go batshit insane at the last minute!  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 03:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Coren, if people think I'm overreacting, I'll back off. Tony (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Only user:Collect did not want either a minimum of 50% or 60%. It is safe to assume that those wanting a 60% threshold will also want a 50% threshold. As a result I think it is clear that a threshold is desirable. But that is just my reading of it. I think Jimmy should be asked to state:

• whether he will again be using a threshold, even if it means there are less seats filled, and
• what that threshold will be.

I don't mind what he decides given that the community has not made a clear decision about this - I do mind if the goal posts are changed after the election once again. If we are going to establish a threshold, there also needs to be some thought put into what happens when only a few candidates pass the threshold. "How many candidates must be above the threshold for the election to be considered valid?" My opinion is that if there are fewer than five candidates who are above the threshold, I think the implemented voting scheme should be deemed flawed, and another election held in March.

The time to make these decisions is before the election, especially because the voters will not be able to see where the candidates lie in regards to the threshold, and wont be able to vote accordingly. Secret elections depend on the voters knowing the parameters of the election. If there is a threshold, voters may think twice about opposing. If there is no announcement regarding a threshold, the overwhelming community decision to appoint 18 should rule the day.

Another approach, which may be a bit crazy, is for us to discuss implementation possibilities after the election results are released, and for Jimmy to use that as a guide to make his decision. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Jimmy has said on his talkpage that he won't appoint anyone with under 50% and will sort out any vacant seats that result following community discussion about what to do. In general, I think it is essential to sort out systems of election before elections take place. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, there is a small chance that the existing 50% minimum support rule and the community's decision that the number of arbs be topped up to 18 may not be compatible (i.e., if fewer than the eight required candidates reach the 50% level). In this scenario, Jimbo has undertaken to consult with the community. In future years, let us hope that the electoral arrangements will leave no doubt as to workability in all cases. For the record, Jimbo stated yesterday:

Let's move forward as per the outcome of this RfC, and I'll appoint accordingly. And I will also be flexible in case something strange happens, like if only 2 candidates achieve 50%,... we'll have a conversation about what happens next in that case.

I note that there appears to be a conflict between Jimbo's statement yesterday that "Traditionally, I have the right to appoint anyone with 50% approval or more, but I have normally followed the order of the vote, with the exception of a few expansion seats which were used to maintain continuity on the committee." and his statement in October that "I want my 'appoint' role to be purely ceremonial this time around". This will need to be sorted out. Tony (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are conflicting so much as discussing different aspects. His "Traditionally" message reflects history, and the October statement reflects intent.

Chances are, we'll get at 8 candidates with >50%, Jimbo with appoint the top 8 as a matter of simple rubberstamp, and every statement will reflect reality. If something goes wrong that prevents him from just following the results of the RfC verbatim, Jimbo said he'll use the flexibility of his traditional role to tweak things after consultation so that we don't end up with a limping committee. He also reiterated his desire that his role ends up entirely ceremonial — which simply means we have to fix bugs or inconsistencies in our electoral process that can lead to results where tweaking is useful or needed at all. Having an actual election result to work will help there.

I guess this whole thing is just a reminder about how important sitting down to talk about the process after the election is — and soon rather than wait a few weeks before the next!  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Tony (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we are adapting a wait-and-see approach here; is everyone satisfied with that?  Skomorokh  02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Live updates

click "show" to see discussion

In previous years there have been live updates as to the standings of the candidates. With the implementation of secret ballots, will this still be possible?  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's impossible to have live updates of secret votes without destroying quite a bit of secrecy, so I doubt that's something that anyone plans to implement. The live updates would have to be for the public votes only. rspεεr (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I expect by "quite a bit" you mean "all of it".  :-) Not having live updates was part of the point, to prevent pile-ons and reduce the capacity for strategical bloc voting ("Oh no, candidate X I like a little is pulling ahead of candidate Y I like a lot; quick, let's rally to vote him down.") — Coren ^(talk) 02:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So long as we stick with this neanderthal support/oppose system, we need to offer voters a way to effectively express their preferences for who actually ends up on the Committee rather than who they like. If a voter approves of five candidates and disapproves of three, with no opinion on the others, a lack of updates of the standings will disenfranchise them from making effective use of their right to vote.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What? How? (I agree about the poor voting system, incidentally). If you approve of five, disapprove of three, then support the five and oppose the three. The point is to pick the candidates with the best approval, if you strategically oppose candidates you don't really oppose for the sake of propping up others, you are artificially lowering their real support ratios and disenfranchising the other voters. No running tally might be less gratifying, but it's much more fair specifically because it prevents the sort of tactical voting you describe. — Coren ^(talk) 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this line of reasoning entirely bizarre. The point of secret voting was to supposed to protect voters; this here is an entirely different (and forgive me, not entirely coherent) agenda, one for which I see no consensus to implement in the RfC (nor did the closer, evidently).  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, protection from strategic voting has been mentioned by many who commented; it's one of the numerous uses of secret ballots and part of the reason they are used in the real world. As it is, it's a side effect of the secrecy and comes for "free" if you maintain it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would secrecy not be preserved with RfA-like updates, where every few hours support/oppose levels of candidates are reported without mentioning individual votes/voters?  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, in low activity periods (the middle days tend to have many) simple timestamp examination and comparing tallies would suffice to breach it. And, honestly, if we're going to have the disadvantages of a secret ballot as opposed to an raised hand vote, we want all of the advantages. It does mean the candidates (that includes me) will suffer a bit of anxiety during voting— but I'm quite certain we'll have plenty of voter guides, running commentary and exit polls to keep us occupied.  :-) The difference with exit polls (which could be tallied) is that one is not obligated to participate. If you want your votes known, you are free to do so. — Coren ^(talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What about doing a daily update of the votes? That would probably fuzz things up enough to prevent anybody from decoding particular votes. Otherwise we end up with the exit polling dilemma, and a chance for discord if the official results vary widely from the exit polls. Daily updates would pretty much eliminate the incentive for exit polling. Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I kind of like the idea of skipping the horse race entirely.--Tznkai (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In support of your view, keeping the totals private until the end would encourage people to use their own judgment rather than piling on. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I support keeping the tally secret until the voting closes. I'm aware that it could be interesting to watch the voting progress under the old, public system, but this new system is more fair, and actually more suspenseful. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly agree that the tally should be secret to the end (despite my having followed it closely in previous years). This was a major part of why I supported secret voting. Davewild (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of a tally is not the entertainment value but keeping voters informed both about the standings of the candidates and about possible manipulation thereof.  Skomorokh  22:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is secret voting even presumed to be a good thing in the first place? This is a community project; everything needs to be done out in the open for everyone to see--it's the only way to prevent any dishonest shenanigans. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We've already discussed that and decided to go with secret voting. Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On a wiki, no decision is ever final until the events concerned are already over and done with. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While that may be somewhat true, the time to bring up objections to this particular point has passed. With the elections starting in one week, it's a bit late to change how they'll run now. If you're concerned about "dishonest shenanigans", then look at the results of the Audit Subcommittee elections - there was a banned user who tried to vote, and that vote was discounted. The votes were verified by four separate users, at least one of whom is a all of whom are stewards (whoops). I think that's quite enough, and probably as much as we'd be able to do for the open elections anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that there's nothing wrong with banned individuals voting, how do we know that they didn't simply lie about who tried to vote, or about discounting the vote? How do we know they're not just going to conspire to lie about the results? This should be a major concern for every Wikipedian; secret voting is antithetical to the idea of a wiki. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman states: "we... decided to go with secret voting". This is not true, at all. There was never any consensus to change from the status quo, which worked perfectly well for years. Majorly talk 18:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, only 57% voted to go to secret voting, which isn't a majority or anything. Deserted Cities (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what he actually said. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

... because the log of voters (and of stricken votes) is publicly viewable at all times? That makes such lying rather difficult. (Well, strictly speaking, it doesn't make lying difficult but it makes getting away with it impossible). — Coren ^(talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't make it impossible for them to lie about the final outcome. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, how do we know that the software itself is trustworthy? Sure, "open-source" and all that--but how do we know what was actually installed is the same as what is available for public examination? No matter how you look at it, secret voting is absolutely unacceptable and is a breeding ground for corruption. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're making the unwarranted presumptions that the scrutineers (a) care one whit about who gets elected, (b) would care enough to construct a vast conspiracy that not only includes all of them but also the WMF sysadmins (who are the only ones with any access to the underlying database) to not only defraud the voters by altering the results, but to do so in a way where the result remains plausible enough to be undetected, and (c) that such a conspiracy would manage to continue the deception undetected indefinitely. This is more paranoia than I (or most people) are capable of. — Coren ^(talk) 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but removing updates is part of the inevitable professionalisation of this electoral process. Apart from reducing some of the drama in the voting process, which can only be a good thing unless we want it to resemble the Tour de France, a key reason for not providing updates is because they give additional information to later voters over what is available for early voters. This is another of the distortive aspects of public voting, where the later you vote, the more you can judge what effect the allocation of your votes will have on the outcome. Not a good thing. Let's resist the temptation to make this a live sporting telecast and all vote on the basis of equal, not cumulatively greater, access to data. Tony (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is giving people as much information as possible, so they can make the most rational decision to achieve their desired ends, a bad thing? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Voters should be making a choice based on their opinion, and not who everyone else is voting for. Deserted Cities (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And what if their opinion is simply "to minimize the possible bad?" In that case, the most rational decision can only be made with full information as to how the vote is going at the moment. And for those who simply want to support or oppose a candidate, period, they're free to do so and simply ignore the current tallies. Secret voting only accomodates the latter group; open voting accomodates both groups. Therefore, open voting is clearly the superior alternative. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this. Private voting won out. One of the arguments for private voting was to keep users from simply voting the way prior voters had. That's that. 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, on a wiki, no discussion is ever over and no decision is ever final until the events in question are concluded. The election hasn't finished yet, so how to hold the election is still a matter that's open for discussion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've collapsed this, as there is neither the time, the volunteers nor the political will to get this up and running effectively for the elections, and we need to focus on the remaining tasks.  Skomorokh  00:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with voter false negatives

Last year there were a number of editors disenfranchised because their edits were split between different accounts, or they recently started a new account that did not qualify. As I recall, we had a bot disallow such votes, which led to anger from those eligible editors voting with ineligible accounts. So, a question and a proposal. Will the election administrators be able to manually alter the list of eligible voters to permit accounts the system would reject? I propose that when denying an editor from voting, the system gives a link to this page (or another set up for this purpose) so that they can complain, explain their alternate account situation, and be granted the franchise if appropriate. Thoughts?  Skomorokh  20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's very late in the day to fiddle with the software because, as far as I know, there is no way to add names to the electoral roll other than at developer level. This is probably something that also needs community input before implementation.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless you see consensus in the RfC for shifting the franchise from editors to accounts, it is the impending implementation which is an unheralded change to the traditional model (as in the updates situation above). From your message, and expecting no last minute software changes, I understand the situation as follows: There is a list of accounts, determined algorithmically according to the eligibility criteria, that once entered into the system will be final such that no accounts not on the list at that point will be able to vote. Is this accurate?

If so, this has some implications: the franchise will be for accounts rather than editors, as so editors who might expect to be eligible will not be able to vote with their new accounts, and some editors will have multiple eligible accounts. In previous years we could manually rectify false negatives (i.e. eligible editors denied), as was the case with User:Naerii last year iirc. It will need to made clear in the announcements that voting with multiple accounts is expressly forbidden, and that some otherwise-eligible editors will be disenfranchised if they no longer have access to their eligible accounts due to technical limitations.  Skomorokh  01:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we implement a sort of postal vote, where their vote is provided via another means and added at the end? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Email to a scrutineer might work. It's not as private, but still reasonably so and better than the alternative (not being able to vote because of a technical limitation). — Coren ^(talk) 11:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any way we can wrangle a sysadmin into shoehorning them onto the voter list. We'll have to put a cut off on when you can be added on (not the last day), but I'd definitely like to avoid disenfranchisement if possible.--Tznkai (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there an update on the process that should be employed in this case? jæs (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Other matters

Any other matters arising.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Implementing "discuss buttons" on the voting page. What I had in mind when I suggested it above was an html "button", tacked onto the links to the candidate's user page and statement, thus:

• AGK • Candidate statement •  Comment 

It can be done easily by the election admins at Special:SecurePoll/translate/80/en and doesn't need Tim's intervention. The special page lets you "translate" the basic text (which is by default just the candidate's name) into an html markup by completing the adjacent column. Here's how it worked for the AUSC election: Special:SecurePoll/translate/60/en.

 Roger Davies ^talk 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks very workable, thanks Roger. We just need to sort out the on-wiki pages (/Vote, /Vote talk, Discussion) so that we have one central place to link to; I expect to have this done tomorrow.  Skomorokh  01:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as one of the temporary (I hope) election administrators I have implemented the ballot as follows:

Current version: AGK • Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Discussion of the candidate •  Comment 

Condensed, it would look like so:

Alternate version: AGK • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment 

Is the alternate better? Should links be added/removed? Please comment or suggest alterations.  Skomorokh  08:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the alternative version, as it consumes less real-estate. With the monobook skin, the current version consumes most of the screen at 1024x768, and it wraps at 800x600 for typical length usernames (i.e not "AGK"). And then there is the voting options which need to fit into the same width. I doubt we can avoid wrapping on lower resolutions, but hopefully we can avoid it looking ugly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As expected, it is wrapping on 800x600 for Kirill Lokshin, Mailer diablo and William M. Connolley. I think this could be avoided by trimming a little bit of whitespace from the sides of the voting columns. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the Alt. version. Short and to the point. Well done,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt version is full of win. Incidentally, the /intro message probably needs to be edited to— that's the "top part" of the ballot and could (should?) include instructions and guidance. The AUSC election is a good example. — Coren ^(talk) 11:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the timely feedback. I've implemented the alt version for each of the candidates by hand; I can only hope there are no dropped brackets or copy/paste errors. Is there a way of previewing this without copying the text on-wiki?

I've also edited the intro as Coren suggested based on the AUSC wording:

Links: Election main page • Report problems or issues

Please use the radio buttons below to indicate which candidates you Support or Oppose. The default option (Neutral) does not affect the outcome in any way. You can verify that your vote has been accepted by checking the real-time voting log.

You are encouraged to discuss the candidates, and to leave a comment explaining your vote for each candidate if you so wish, though these are by no means mandatory. You may change your votes at any time before the close of the vote at 23:59 (UTC) 14 December 2009.

Further suggestions very welcome. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  12:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks good and clear. We should double-check the end time, though - I agree that it should be 23:59 14 December, and the election typically lets voting go 14 days, but the voting interface I'm seeing at Special:SecurePoll shows 00:00 14 December, which is a day earlier. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Crap, that's probably my fault. I was under the mistaken impression that the 13th was the last day of voting and requested that Tim set things up accordingly in my original email. Incidentally, you want 00:00 on the 15th and not 23:59 on the 14th otherwise people will not be able to vote during the last minute (I checked the SecurePoll code, and it will let you vote until the end time is reached). — Coren ^(talk) 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do things with 00:00 as a time (either 00:01 or 23:59 is clearer). It causes significant confusion.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: remving questions from those not eligible to ask?

I've removed some questions [9]. I believe this is correct - in particular, under the rules, anons can't ask questions. It would be good to have someone confirm (or deny) this, however William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question period is actually closed outright. I'll protect the page upon request--Tznkai (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that is a good point too. Hold off for now, and thanks for the offer William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, someone please confirm or deny this. can anons ask questions? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, only eligible voters I'm afraid. I can't find a closing date on the election pages, but the Signpost gives 23:39 UTC today (i.e. forty minutes time) as the cut-off.  Skomorokh  23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

so it is about eligibility and not anonymity/registration. thank you. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell you what the motivation is (it's probably carried over from previous years) but I imagine it is to prevent registered editors from logging out to post questions they would not want associated with their username, rather than prejudice against IP contributors per se. I'm sure if you had worthy questions you could have an eligible voter proxy them for you.  Skomorokh  23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The question period is closed outright period, but could the candidates still answer the unanswered questions? Thanks Secret ^account 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The other co-ordinators might have more informed opinions on this, but I can't find anything precluding that and am not going to go reverting you if you do so. Regards,  Skomorokh  01:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok thanks, will answer the rest by tommorrow, been busy lately Secret ^account 21:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Late answers don't seem to be against the rules; but the time has passed for further questions. Tony (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

24 hours down

A rough count: there were over 250 voters in the first 24 hours, compared with about 170 on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Casliber. The total voter turnout in the first 24 hours of 2008 was higher than 170, as people may have voted for another candidate and not voted on Casliber in the first 24 hours.

The highest total voter turnout in 2008 was on my vote page, with 437 voters. We are already over half way there this year. See User:John_Vandenberg/ACE2008_pageviews for more stats from last year, for the appointed candidates only. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that the running tally of votes is no longer available, I'd expect fewer people to wait on the sidelines to "see how each candidate is faring" before making their vote. The curve should naturally shift towards an earlier part of the two-week period. Tony (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder why two weeks are needed for the vote in any case. It seems to me that a week is long enough. I would have thought the election would have been decided at that point in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone who is too busy until the final two days of the vote to perform a proper analysis of the candidates, please add me to the list of people who fully support a two-week election period. Happy‑melon 09:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also far less discussion than last year (though a surfeit of redundant or otherwise unhelpful questions for the candidates). I looked at all of the "comments" pages where people can give rationales for their votes. Most were completely empty; one had a perfunctory comment by the candidate himself; and only a few had any outside comments at all. Whether this is a good or bad thing I will leave for others to decide. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If people don't use the comments pages, we can do away with them next year. They're mostly there to provide a bridge between public and secret voting, so that the transition has less friction and voters who don't understand what they're supposed to be doing can be identified and assisted. If you have any ideas on how to facilitate discussion, please don't be shy. I'm somewhat concerned.  Skomorokh  03:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to removal of the comments pages. I think part of the problem this year is that the system is new and nobody has really understood how it would operate. A "Comments" page was not even added until the same day voting started. I think the "Comments" page needs to be put up much earlier, and its function made clear so that people understand what it's there for. There's also clearly been considerable confusion over whether people should leave their comments at the Discussion page or the Comments page, and I think that sort of issue needs to be resolved well before the election next time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

/Comments is just /Vote renamed so as not to have it confused with the ballot; it's been with us for years. Next year, my proposed set up is to have a single page for each candidate, which would have their statement and questions; the attached talkpage would be used for all discussion on that individual candidate.  Skomorokh  07:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I would just suggest dividing the talk page up into a "Discussions" section and a "Comments" section, with the latter having "Support", "Oppose" and "Neutral" subheaders to make it clear what it's for, along with a message to say that it's not an actual vote, just a comment. If nobody bothers to add any comments in that section, I think at that point we can safely say the section is redundant and leave it out altogether next time around. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Now the preparation is complete and we've settled into the voting period, could I suggest that we create a page specifically for people to leave notes about possible improvements, organisation, for next year's election? I'm keen that we not lose the momentum while it's fresh in everyone's minds. The issues could range from mere technicalities (like standardised information to the CUs and stewards) to whether SecurePoll can be tweaked so that developers can be spared the task of uploading names, to matters that will need wider community discussion. Perhaps WP:ArbCom/Feedback and discussion for the 2010 ArbCom election? Tony (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. On the location issue, why not emulate last year? Alternatively, I'd prefer WP:ACE2009/Feedback or even WP:ACE2010/Feedback to moving it over to an Arbcom subpage.  Skomorokh  06:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to "file" it with other ACE documents rather than with Arbitration Committee pages, mostly because it's not something specific to the Committee, but to the election process. Great idea to collect people's thoughts contemporaneously. There are no doubt some excellent ideas that will come forward from the community. Good work, incidentally - it seems to be progressing very smoothly; last year there were about 950 total voters (including those who only voted on the pages of one or two candidates), so I think the turnout is very good so far. Risker (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to redirect people to the feedback page as soon as they hit "submit" on their ballot? Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cla, I think that would require programming at this stage, and Tim has already gone beyond the call of duty by preparing the software at very short notice. Also, this is a page better visited after administrative reflection, as it were, rather than funnelling every voter to it. Let's think about how this might be advertised instead? Tony (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after I wrote that I realized that a better approach might be to just add a statement on the voting or election page saying something like, "Please leave us your feedback on the voting process!" with a link to the feedback page. Cla68 (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of making visible the hidden comment on all the "Comments" pages, as I suspect some users may not understand what it is they are being invited to contribute. Gatoclass (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There are now more than 450 voters, matching last year's turnout. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Boycott

Following the series of events that have led to the forced resignation of an administrator, WMF censure and suppression of an Arbitration Committee finding, and associated use of oversight tools by the WMF to interfere with an individual projects function, I see no alternative but to protest by Boycotting the elections. --Barberio (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea, but you would never pursuade enough people to agree in order to hit hard. Secondly, Jimbo would simply appoint an Arbcom of his choice - the view is always taken on high that the editors are disposable assetts - so we would be back to the regime we had a couple a years or so ago, with Fred Bauder recomending instant lifetime bans for every minor trangression, and David Gerard checkusering at whim (ass he has to me at least twice to my certain knowledge). Trouble is there are only 2 candidiates worth voting for anyway and God knows how many places for Jimbo to fill - so be alarmed anyway.  Giano  08:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There are eight (maybe nine now) spots open and I heartily encourage everyone to review the candidates carefully and vote, if only to avoid any awkward outlier situations that would look kindly upon a level of discretion in appointment that could down a dark road. MBisanz ^talk 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you rephrase that MBisanz, I can't understand you, and my English is not that bad - is it?  Giano  08:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If a large number of people do not vote, there is an increased change of something "weird" happening statistically, like a person with very few supporters beating someone with several times as many supporters because they also had few opposers. Or so few reasonable people vote that there are not 8 people passing the minimum 50% and Jimbo has to invent something. Or so few people vote that two people end up tying for the last spot and Jimbo has to break the tie. All of those are things that are less likely to happen if more people vote. MBisanz ^talk 15:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Who'd want to be on Arbcom with what's going on. They're hamstrung three ways. They can't address calls for openness and fairness from the general editors without upsetting 'established administrators'. They get pelted by the 'established administrators' for even thinking about considering a case that might reduce admin privilege. And now they have the foundation censoring and suppressing embarrassing arbitration findings about Wikimedia members using threat of 'members of the Arbcom might be taken to court for libel'. And they don't even get paid for all this hassle.

I won't be surprised if there's even less worthwhile people standing next year. --Barberio (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing to have lived in a cave, can I ask what this is about? Rami R 10:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Barberio, if you wish to propose a structure by which the community, via ArbCom, manages complaints against administrator actions better than the current processes, you are welcome to do so. January would probably be a good time to do this. Tony (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing my vote

Given the latest drama - can those of us who voted before the latest incident, change our vote now? And should new voters be advised that another resignation has taken place...Modernist (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Modernist, yes, the instructions at the top of the ballot page state that votes can be changed; the only catch, as it warns, is that you have to start again from scratch, voting for each candidate you wish to vote for/against. Your new ballot will wipe the previous one, and you can verify its acceptance at the vote-log page. It is not necessary to formally advise new voters that a resignation from ArbCom has occurred; the statement that "8" seats are on offer has been removed from the Election page overleaf. Tony (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that this whole process is new, we should give broader notice that people are able to change their votes. I've seen quite a few people ask this question. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What resignation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, see this. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So, this means possibly nine appointments ? Yikes, too many changes at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rev., where are people asking this question? I'll be in there to explain to them. The ballot papers make it very clear, though. Tony (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The ballot page makes it clear. (Assuming people fully read the instructions, which we know they always do...) But I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else. Why not mention it elsewhere since there seems to be confusion? If an experienced and active editor like User:Modernist isn't aware of how the process works, we have a problem. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We could probably add some text to MediaWiki:Securepoll-thanks that indicates you can go back and change your vote before the end of the election. Anyone want to think up some wording? MBisanz ^talk 15:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How about something very brief, like "You may replace this vote with a new one by returning to the voting page any time before the close of voting." It should be in a new paragraph after the "thank you" one. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Threw something up there.--Tznkai (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was aware that I could change my vote - although I was a little confused after the drama, however I created this post because I figured there will be questions as I had especially after John's resignation and it is helpful to others to clearly underscore the process, thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mechanics at the close of the election

I'm trying to think through what need to happen after the polling has closed. Can someone tell me whether it's like this?

Soon after the poll has closed:

1. Identification/striking of problem votes. The scrutineers cross-check lists of eligible voters with the vote-log to identify problem votes. The scrutineers identify/strike problem postal votes and tally them. [If postal voting is implemented.]
2. Certification and announcement. The scrutineers certify and publish the result; specifically, (i) the tally for each candidate, (ii) their ranking in terms of the others, and (iii) any comments they wish to make about the running of the election and the results (at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009#Results). The administrators may then any publish any comments they wish to make about the running of the election (at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009#Results). The scrutineers formally write to Jimbo informing him of the results and comments.
3. Appointments or discussion. Jimbo either makes the requisite two-year appointments based on voting strength or initiates a conversation with the community about what to do in the event that the 50% rule makes it impossible to appoint nine candidates. Tony (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The current expectation is that the scrutineers will publish and certify the result, and do so on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009#Results. There is no particular reason why the result needs to be passed through the election administrators when the scrutineers will need to publicly sign off on it anyway. Other than that, the list seems entirely correct. (also)Happy‑melon 16:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that if we do implement a "postal vote" system (as suggested in #Eligibility to vote above) and it gets used, there will be some extra steps between 1 and 2. Mr.Z-man 17:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, both these points now inserted above. Tony (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Challenging a sock puppet's vote

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This page is not WP:SPI. Please get a checkuser or community decision before coming here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

• Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• God Save the South (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Confederate till Death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Die4Dixie appears to be an obvious sock of User:God Save the South and User:Confederate till Death. Die4Dixie was community banned after voting. The prior accounts were indefinitely blocked long before the election started. See this comment by an uninvolved administrator and this discussion for insight. Could we get a determination, please. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Supposing that these accounts are all controlled by a single user, has that user used sockpuppetry for the purpose of manipulating the election result? That is, has the user attempted to vote multiple times, or vote when not elegible to do so? (also)Happy‑melon 19:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie was used to evade an indefinite block on the prior accounts; therefore Die4Dixie was not eligible to vote. We should also have a Checkuser see Die4Dixie is related to any other accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And the impact is marginal, and no one seems to care much, except you. Personally I find your determination to disqualify someone who probably opposed you troubling.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not the approach to be taking. Look after the pennies, and all that. I agree that Jehochman's CoI is... distracting... but the issue raised is perfectly legitimate. If Die4Dixie is not elegible to vote in the election, then its vote should be struck; that dichotomy is independent of who raised the issue or why. (also)Happy‑melon 20:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be striking votes on the basis of sockpuppetry unless its confirmed by CU. In this case, that's impossible - the accounts are stale. I don't know how obvious the connection is between the accounts, given that it hasn't been raised in the year and a half since the first was indefinitely blocked. In any case, the limited impact here argues against making a decision based on marginal evidence. Nathan ^T 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have my concerns addressed on the merits.  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. The rules don't say only CU confirmed socks. Any sock of any blocked user is to have its vote stricken. Many times I've helped other users who were harassed or attacked by socks. (I just took care of one not a few minutes ago.)[10] Could somebody experienced in sock puppetry investigations please look at these accounts and make a determination? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And the impact is marginal, and no one seems to care much is an appalling disregard for the integrity of the voting process William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth pointing out the last AUSC election was determined by 1/7th of a vote, so margins can matter. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my comment included anything that could be reasonably described as "dismissive snark." I realize that checkuser is not magic, I do have some experience in sockpuppet investigations, and I still believe that we should hesitate to strike votes based on a sock allegation without checkuser confirmation. Perhaps its reasonable to consider striking votes from ArbCom or community banned editors; this was discussed above, I think. I can see the logic in those striking votes - voting is open to all members of the en.wp editing community who meet the edit count threshold, but a case can be made that banned editors are no longer "members of the editing community" and should, as a result, lose suffrage. Nathan ^T 23:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: God Save the South (talk · contribs) was created one day after Confederate till Death (talk · contribs)'s last edit. I don't see any overlap between those two accounts and Die4Dixie. Triplestop x3 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is not WP:SPI. Please get a checkuser or community decision before coming here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your close, John, as you're not an election official. But I will file an WP:SPI report since you've requested it. Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Y'know this type of behaviour is just why I opposed you for arbcom. He may not be an election official (since when did we judge the rightness of an action of someone's rank on officialdom?), but your activities have the appearance of being self-serving and obsessive. No one seems to care about this alleged sock-puppetry and the need to strike the vote except you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-closed this. Sockpuppet investigations are not within the domain of the election process, and one does not to be an "election official" to close threads here (this page is intended to be governed by a cluocracy). If it is established that proven sockpuppeteers have voted, we will take it up with the election administrators and scrutineers. Until then, eligible voters are presumed innocent.  Skomorokh  01:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Skomorokh, but WP:AGF definitely does not apply to community banned users like User:Die4Dixie. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Die4Dixie. Jehochman ^Talk 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The presumption of innocence from sockpuppeting is not waived because an editor is blocked for unrelated reason. The investigation is open, and with more than a week left before the close of the election, there is no need for further haste or speculative discussion here. Let's pursue more productive avenues of contributing while we wait to get reliable information.  Skomorokh  01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Order

I there any reason the list is not in alphabetical order so we can reference our personal notes on the candidates (which are likely to be in the same order)? Thank you. This is a suggestion for the next time around, if people have recorded their votes in case they come back to change, it will be too confusing.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To avoid candidates being favored or disfavored by their placement on the list. It's a known fact that attention wanes as one goes down the list, and that opinions can be affected simply by the ordering. Best polling practices state that — when technically possible — options should be presented to people in random order. — Coren ^(talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick (and logical) explanation.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

... the reason why the order is random is so that those effects cancel out on average between all voters, but if my previous explanation made sense to you I suppose you already understood that. :-) — Coren ^(talk)

Question problem

Could one of the election people move the last argument from Everyking on my Q&A to the talk page? I don't mind answering loaded questions, even if they are posted late, but his response to my answer is just advocacy and doesn't even pose as a question. — Coren ^(talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. See here for related discussion.  Skomorokh  15:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction

{{editprotected}} The page should not say ...which candidates you "Support" or "Oppose" Please remove these incorrect quotation marks. I support the candidate or I oppose the candidate, not "support" or "oppose" him. Reywas92^Talk 17:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a double reference; it tells you both "[...] you support or oppose" while making clear what the actual buttons are labeled as. I don't mind either way, though. — Coren ^(talk) 17:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the sentence should be rewritten to signify that those are the column names. As it currently is they are wrong. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Feedback page

A page for users to provide feedback on the election has been launched, inviting comment and discussion of ways to improve the 2010 ArbCom election. The topics thus far include "election personnel", "the SecurePoll system", "Improving instructions to voters, and voting rules", "Supplementary voting", and "Questions to candidates". Tony (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw

It's clear I don't have the support (nor the time) for this election, so I will withdraw. I want to find out what's my final tally though. Doubt I reached 50% but I'm curious. Thanks Secret ^account 13:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone withdraw my candidatcy from the voting page and give me my result if possible. Thanks Secret ^account 13:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a technical limitation in SecurePoll (I would expect that if requested, that could be tweaked by next election) that makes it impossible to remove a candidate once polling starts, though your name on the ballot could be stricken, grayed out, or somesuch to make it clear you are no longer in the running.

As far as I can tell, however, your vote totals can't be extracted out until voting closes, though. — Coren ^(talk) 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Could it be stricken then. Thanks Secret ^account 14:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your name from the upcoming Election report at The Signpost. Tony (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've stricken Secret's name on the ballot, and added a diff to his withdrawal notice. Mr.Z-man 02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoice interviews

User:Dtobias recorded several interviews with candidates in which he inserted his own views excessively. He then added prominent links to those interviews to the candidate statement pages. I have removed those links because they are largely his opinions. He is welcome to express his opinions on Wikivoice, but those should not automatically be added to candidate statements. The candidates are of course welcome to restore them or links to any other opinion pieces that they choose.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. Granted the interviews would have been more useful if Dan hadn't continually interjected his own views at length, but removing them altogether is going a bit far IMO. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I havn't listened to them, but the risk of any interview is the opinions of the interviewer. At any rate, it seems that this could be easily solved by placing them on the /Comment pages, or their talk pages.--Tznkai (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've received many emails from voters who appreciate having a chance to hear my voice. Please let each candidate decide if they want to record an interview, and where to place it on their own pages. Jehochman ^Talk 22:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your option as well.--Tznkai (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman - candidates are welcome to do what they like on their statement pages. Other editors should not add opinion pieces to those pages. The interviews are all available at the WP:Wikivoices page, as usual.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(I should note that the interview with Jehochman was conducted by user:Privatemusings and is quite different from the interviews conducted by user:Cla68 user:Dtobias.)   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Dtobias, not Cla68. Steve Smith (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake.   Will Beback  talk  08:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Were all the candidates offered interviews? —mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that they were not. Wikipedia:Wikivoices#Candidates Approached so far   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that is ok that only some candidates were approached apparently? —mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Combined with the conduct of some interviews, I don't think the Wikivoice interviews were handled in a fair and neutral manner. If Wikivoices is a project of a few editors with strong views then that's fine so far as it goes, but it shouldn't be made to appear official.   Will Beback  talk  23:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps his interviews could all be put on the same page and linked as a personal guide in the infobox? Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which infobox you mean, but I don't think they should be treated differently from a candidate statement or an editor's personal essays. They should not be presented as neutral or as part of the election process, since only six of them were done. Otherwise it gives undue weight (positive or negative) to those who've been interviewed. The interviews are all on the Wikivoices page. 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all that, which is why I suggested putting them into a personal guide in Template:ACE 2009 guides as a way around the problem. I know it's not really the responsibility of election officials to do this, but I thought perhaps live interviews might be of interest to many voters and might warrant a higher profile as long as they weren't presented in such a way as to indicate some sort of official endorsement. But really it's up to the individual concerned how he wants to present his interviews, provided it's done in an appropriate way of course. Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice if Will Beback had notified me of the removal, I did not become aware of its removal until today. Unomi (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Users banned during election

How are the votes of users, such as Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) going to be handled? This user was community banned yesterday. I believe that any user banned before the polls close should have their vote stricken. Conversely, any user who becomes unbanned or unblocked before the polls close is allowed to vote. Jehochman ^Talk 14:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, blocked users don't get to vote during their block. Blocks mean you don't get to participate in wikipedia in any way. However, if people voted before their block, or after it, fine. If a user is actually permanently banned - and the ban has been properly considered and upheld - then and only then should a vote be stricken.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, should Die4Dixie's vote be stricken? They were blocked, and then temporarily unblocked. The unblock was appealed, resulting in a community discussion that lead to an indefinite permanent community ban.[11] During the short period they were unblocked, they voted. The original blocking admin (me) and the unblocking admin (Wehwalt) are both candidates in this election.Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Scott here. The only block reason that could have any impact on whether or not an account's vote should be counted is the abuse of multiple accounts; even then, their votes should be discounted only if they have voted using multiple accounts, in which case all identified socks should have their votes stricken. Risker (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying something completely different from Scott. Can you clarify? Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not, Jehochman. If someone casts a vote at a time when they are not blocked, the vote should count. The only exception is if the block is directly related to abuse of multiple accounts, and only the votes of the identified socks should be stricken. I wouldn't even strike the vote of the main account. Blocks and bans that are completed before voting or instituted after voting should not result in a vote being stricken. Risker (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Scott above says If a user is actually permanently banned - and the ban has been properly considered and upheld - then and only then should a vote be stricken.[12] Below Scott says Probably[13] when I ask if this vote should be stricken. What you are saying and what he is saying do not mean the same thing to me. I think there is a contradiction between your positions. Could somebody provide a straight answer to my question? Is Die4Dixie's vote to be counted? Yes or No? Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(e.c. with Jehochman) Agree with Risker and Scott. So I guess for the scrutineers, this could be expressed in two guidelines:

(1) voting is not permitted for the duration of a block; and

(2) a vote cast using a multiple account to evade a block should be nullified.

Is this correct? If so, we should consider including this somewhere in the electoral rules. Tony (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, Tony1. Additionally, what if somebody is community banned, or ArbCom banned (WP:EEML may close soon.), during the election? I believe only users in good standing are allowed to have their votes counted. If somebody has behaved so badly that they get a long term ban (not merely blocked) during the election, I would think those votes would not be counted. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Given he probably opposed you as blocking admin, I fear you may have a COI here?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I disclosed the situation precisely because I have an interest in the outcome. Uninvolved parties have the facts necessary to make a proper decision. I blocked the guy for one week. He could have returned Dec 9 and voted. Instead, he made several anti-semitic attacks against me (and others). An uninvolved admin, Protonk, upped the block to indefinite. Wehwalt stepped in and unblocked against consensus. Wehwalt and I worked together to try to convince the user to retract those attacks, but the user was reticent. A community ban discussion proceeded, and the user was banned. One might assume the user voted against me and for Wehwalt, but none of us know for sure. Should those votes be counted? Above Scott said, If a user is actually permanently banned - and the ban has been properly considered and upheld - then and only then should a vote be stricken. Is that the case? Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but I have not looked over the facts. However, I feel that you pushing for his vote to be stricken is somewhat inappropriate. It may be to raise for you to the question, but after your initial post you should have recused from this discussion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am entitled to ask follow up questions because the original responses did not clearly answer my original question. As a candidate I am entitled to know how the rules work, and to raise issues if I think invalid votes have been cast. Scott, if not for me raising this issue, how would the scrutineers know about it? Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, the software prevents people from voting *while* blocked. Voting while not blocked is a non-issue. Being banned days after voting for something completely unrelated should not invalidate the vote. There will be thousands of blocks issued during the course of this election, and a handful of bans. It's unlikely that any of them will have anything to do with the election. Risker (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• (e.c.) I think we should go for simplicity: either you're banned or you're not banned; i.e., if you think you might be blocked or banned soon, you'd better vote before it happens. If you vote with a sock, it will be nullified and you'll almost certainly be banned. Frankly, I regard double voting as a wiki-crime. I guess it would require something like this wording:

1. Voting is not permitted for the duration of a block or a ban.
2. The use of a multiple account to cast more than one vote or to evade a block or a ban by voting will result in the voiding of all votes by the user in that election. Tony (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is very clear, and I can accept it. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to the view that only users in good standing should be eligible to vote. If they get themselves community banned while a vote is taking place, and before the vote has been counted, then it seems a simple matter of common sense to me that their vote should be struck. Gatoclass (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if this has already been clarified, but do the counters check the userpage or blocklog of every voter to ensure that it isn't a blocked sockpuppet, or banned, or that it didn't vote with one account while another was blocked? If so, I would think the moment of truth should be when the votes are tallied (what if a now banned user wants to change their vote?). Admittedly I don't know how the final verification of eligibility is supposed to happen, or if that is part of the process. Mackan79 (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The software checks realtime whether someone is blocked before letting them vote. If they've had a short block they can return after it expires as when they go to vote the software will see that they are not blocked. For the AUSC election, the scrutineers checked the final list of voters for editors who had subsequently been blocked for sockpuppetry (there were none).  Roger Davies ^talk 08:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Roger, it seems ideal that the software does it for us; thanks for pointing this out.

Gatoclass, I think it is inappropriate to assume that someone who is blocked for part or all of the election period is not "in good standing". People are blocked for all sorts of reasons—losing their temper, acting unwisely because they feel passionate about something—and we should not introduce moral judgements as part of the electoral process. However, it seems reasonable that during a block, a user may do nothing but post on their own talk page (unless that is blocked, too), and therefore be not able to vote. We do not want complicated system of judgements and appeals during the election: please keep it simple. Tony (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can agree with that. My comment was only in regards to users who have managed to get themselves either community banned or indef blocked during the election. To put it plainly, I don't see why the vote of such users should count the same as yours or mine or that of any other user in good standing. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case the user was indef blocked for making anti-semitic slurs against me before they voted. They were then improperly unblocked, immediately voted, and then the unblock was overturned by the community, resulting in a community ban. It seems contrary to common sense and common fairness for the editor to profit from an improper unblock performed by one of the candidates. No set of mechanical rules can account for every possible situation. If we want to follow the wiki-way, this vote will be excluded, because it never should have happened in the first place. In the general case, I agree with Tony's two simple rules above. We might add 3. Votes resulting from an improper unblock may be excluded. This would help prevent gaming of the rules. Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's getting a little too complicated for my taste, because then you'd also have to add a caveat banning candidates from blocking voters during the election as well, which might be seen as objectionable. IMO, best just to leave it at striking the votes of users who get themselves community banned during the election. Gatoclass (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with disfranchising banned users (with the exceptions of those under indef). I cannot make my point more eloquently than by comparing the situation with parts of the United States which disfranchise prisoners from voting; see this article in The Economist for an argument why this is morally and logically wrong. I'd also put forward a hypothesis that most other non-en wikis would not consider preventing banned editors from voting, but due to high % of US editors on en wiki, the culture of incarceration support is affecting how we do things around here. PS. Please, before replying to my post, do read the article I linked. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Write-in: MBisanz

I am hereby writing in MBisanz (talk · contribs) to be elected to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Consider this a supplement to the ballot I have already cast (on which Mr. Bisanz did not appear). @harej 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So as I understand our electoral system, assuming you're the only person to write him in, Mr. Bisanz will top the field with 100% support. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm appointing SandyGeorgia as arb. Harej, will Matt be on a one- or two-year term? Tony (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Using my unconflicted coordinator powers, I am appointing myself as the 19th arbitrator for a term lasting one picosecond on February 30, 2010. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, that sounds like a one-year term, early resignation. Tony (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you'll presumably be completely outside the space-time continuum for that one picosecond on February 30th, which probably means that that precious moment will last for an infinite amount of time in your little relativistic universe (I say all of this with a great deal of confidence as I know virtually nothing about physics), I would recommend Matt that you use that time and your super-terrific Arbitrator powers to sit back and catch up on all the television you've missed over the years. It's pretty much all crap, but what else are you gonna do? Also congratulations. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very late questions?

Are very late questions permitted? Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee Elections_December_2009/Candidate statements/William_M._Connolley/Questions_for the_candidate#Questions from_GoRight? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a wiki, so anybody can ask questions. Whether a candidate should answer questions at any stage is a matter of judgement. --TS 09:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The questions period is technically closed, though we've given candidates leeway to answer if they so wish. Speaking for myself only, I'd have no objection with you removing such questions from your questions page.  Skomorokh  09:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC has removed the questions, and I see no justification for such removal here. Skomorokh explicitly stated they are speaking for themselves. WMC may choose not to answer, or may indicate that he believes the questions are invalid, but removing them is whitewashing and is not appropriate, IMO. ATren (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) ^{edited for gender neutrality, sorry Skomorokh :-)}

I'll defer if consensus or another coordinator takes a different view to mine, but if the candidate is not inclined to answer I think it is really quite unproductive to revert-war to get the question back on the page. Feel free by all means to state your opinion of William M. Connolley on his voter comment page, or raise the issue on his discussion page. If you wouldn't mind, I'd also appreciate if you wouldn't use gender-specific terms where they are unwarranted. Respectfully,  Skomorokh  14:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted twice, but I will not revert again. I have done what you suggested, posted a comment on his discussion page. Re: gender pronouns, please accept my apologies - the lack of gender-neutral singular pronouns is the thing I hate worst about the English language. I have adjusted my comment. ATren (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Atren, questions are closed. You are frequently in disputes with WMC. I suggest you not readd these questions and instead petition the monitors. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps going to dispute resolution would be better in this case, since clearly there is an underlying interpersonal dispute. --TS 15:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Point of order. I read the top of the page in question and it did not list any deadline for asking the questions, so I felt justified in adding them. I did note that the candidate was asked to respond before December 1 which suggested that there might be a deadline, so I indicated in my post that if I was being inappropriate the section should be removed. Can someone please point me to where the deadline for asking questions is documented? If I have, in deed, missed a documented deadline I have no objection to the removal of the questions. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the main page for the elections? Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't. Thanks. I see that I have missed what could be construed to be a deadline so I have no objection to removing the questions. Perhaps the fact that there is such a deadline should be more prominently displayed in the instructions at the top of each page? --GoRight (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Advertising and promotion

This is not getting a great deal of publicity and the more voters the merrier! There's a list somewhere of where this was announced for the initial burst; the same venues should probably be visited again this weekend with a second round of announcements ("One week left to decide"?). A final round, say next Friday ("Urgent! Only two days to go"?), would probably not go amiss.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Forgive the unashamedly popularist tone.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is true; I announced the opening of the voting stage only on WP:AN, WP:VPM and WP:AC/N, and it was declared in the watchlist notice. Ideas for further venues welcome.  Skomorokh  13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Swap out the fundraising banner for a notice about the election? :P Cirt (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

On the talk pages of major wikiprojects? Milhist, biography, etc? They have a lot of exposure and it might encourage participation from content contributors. It should be easy to make a list of the most hit/watchlisted pages (perhaps ask here?) and run announcements on them.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Really??? It's at the top of everyone's watchlist, for a start. And it's not urgent that people vote, either. I expect a lot of people, like myself, have chosen not to vote because of the shameful secret process which this election is using. Please don't spam it anywhere else. It was bad enough during the AUSC election; Wikiproject talk page are absolutely not the place to post messages begging people to vote, especially when they are probably already aware. Majorly talk 15:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously sugesting that the tens of thousands of editors who have not voted in past elections are deliberately boycotting this one? In fact, voting seems to be up on last year but let's encourage everyone to participate.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think posting at Wikiprojects would invite controversy. Why did you post at that project, but not this one? Are you trying to give those voters more clout? You're best to stay out of that quagmire. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I'm not sure how large a fraction of editors participate actively in Wikiprojects anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's already in the best place of all: the watchlist notice. Well, second best after the Main Page. (I don't quite understand why it is in the "Watchlist options" frame, though, at leat in the "Modern" skin). But maybe we should move the election to a time when there are no fundraisers competing for attention. — Kusma ^talk 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be at the top of watchlists like it was last year. I don't know what others are seeing, maybe I am misunderstanding, but I just looked and just the ugly donation banner is on mine, hidden of course but read. :) I don't think editors are boycotting this year. I think though that a lot are learning about some of the editors running this year. I for one don't know quite a few of them. But I will be voting. May I ask, if an editor is blocked now but will be unblocked just before the expiration of this election do they get to vote? I remember a discussion here about this and thought that if an editor was blocked prior to election they were ineligible. Just curious, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with reminders at critical high-traffic places; but not yet—we're only at Day 5 of 14. It's surprising but true that many people do not see watchlist notices—I've even received complaints from people who said they were not told about an RfC that was notified at the top of watchlists. Tony (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon is called banner blindness. rspεεr (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so. Too much crappola is advertised on the watchlist notices. I've turned mine off to eliminate the clutter. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting a notice at Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board is another option. -- œ^™ 21:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We should post there, indeed. Cenarium (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Added there and to cent. Cenarium (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• It may be useful to have a template displayed on all main wikiproject pages, and on all main talk wikiproject pages. It could display announcements. Of course, it'll be easier to advertize when we'll have talknotices. Cenarium (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've posted a reminder at WP:VPM, WP:AN, and WP:ANI.  Skomorokh  09:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• I've just done the rounds of the major WikiProjects, FAC, FLC, MoS, etc. Tony (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, really? I honestly think the admin noticeboards/village pump are enough. Wikiproject talk pages and the talk page of bureaucrats? Really? And it's still not going to make me want to vote any more. Majorly talk 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We should throw out a final reminder with 48 hours to go.  Skomorokh  10:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation

There doesn't seem to be any way to confirm that you voted the way you intended after casting your vote. Any chance this could be fixed for upcoming elections? Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a question for the developers. A proposal to be able to revisit your ballot after voting and see the choices you made was rejected this year on the grounds of time constraints.  Skomorokh  07:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to add to Skomorokh's response, you may wish to raise this at the Feedback page, where improvements for the 2010 election are being proposed and discussed. Tony (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful to know. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility to vote

There was a discussion above regarding how to handle situations in which an editor who would otherwise be eligible to vote is prevented from doing so based on how technical eligibility is determined (per account). It appears to have been resolved above that there should be a process to handle these situations, but I'm not sure where (or if) such a process has been detailed. Should editors, under these circumstances, contact one of the scrutineers directly? Thanks in advance. jæs (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Put a note here and someone will get in contact with you (if this is an actual issue and not just hypothetical). MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, that question has not been settled yet. For the time being, we are operating on the assumption that it is technically impossible for an eligible account to vote using the SecurePoll mechanism. The scrutineers should ideally have as little contact as possible with the electorate so as not to compromise their independence and impartiality. I expect that if an editor can demonstrate convincingly why they ought to be able to vote with an ineligible account, and willing to have their vote publicly known, it will be easy to add their votes on to the final tally (the "postal vote" idea proposed by John Vandenberg above). This could be done by appending them to the on-wik voter log. If the voter wants more privacy (in terms of their accounts and/or in terms of their vote), it will be more complicated. I suggest the election administrators, who have been cleared to handle private data, be the ones to deal with these editors. Note that these comments are speculative, not authoritative.  Skomorokh  02:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that all votes should remain private. How's this for a process.

We pull together a few folk and call them postal vote officers.

During the election:

1. Postal voters send their ballot via emailspecial:emailuser to any one of the postal vote officers.
2. The postal voter notes on a public page that they have submitted a postal vote, and to whom.
3. The postal vote officer then either accepts or rejects it publicly, including the Message Id and date (with the tz stripped).

At the end of the election:

1. The postal vote officer sends each postal vote to the scrutineers individually with the postal voter cc'd.
2. The postal voter then notes publicly that their vote has been received by the scrutineers in the original form.
3. The scrutineers check that the message id is the same as is publicly listed.

If the voter wants to amend their vote, the same process is followed, with the public message id and date amended. This process does not prevent the ballot being amended after the election closes if voter and postal vote officer collude together, but ... to what end? The postal vote collection ends before the results are known.

If a voter doesnt like the officers available, the scrutineers can ask for a few more to sign up. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am in a position in which I (as an editor) am qualified to vote (although my account does not meet the technical criteria). For what I imagine are somewhat obvious reasons, I would prefer to not disclose the details further here, but would privately provide the appropriate details to a scrutineer, an election administrator, or a (as proposed) postal vote officer once it's determined which of those three groups of individuals I ought to contact. jæs (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The thrust of John's scheme is good; I'll grant the desirability of keeping postal and Securepoll votes equally private. I wonder how the officers are supposed to authenticate the claims of identity though, given the absence of WP email accounts. Secondly, there has been justified mutterings about the different and opaque hats we have going already – scrutineer, election administrator, coordinator – so it would be best if the postal vote officer was folded into one of the existing roles. Given that coordinators are not necessarily foundation-cleared for private info, and scrutineers have another job to do, I suggest the election administrators take on the task (we can appoint more if the workload gets too heavy).  Skomorokh  05:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point about identity, however step 2 helps to ensure that the postal vote is authentic. However to be sure to be sure, the emails should be sent via special:emailuser. I've amended the proposal above.

The ballot is "self-disclosed" information, so I dont think clearance for "private" information is strictly necessary, but I'll leave that decision to the good folk running the show. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suggest that the voter log be used to file the on-wiki paperwork as detailed in steps 2, 3 and 2 (again).  Skomorokh  05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Among the coordinators, it is probably worth noting that Tznaki, myself, Jpgordon, and Alison are all cleared with the Foundation for private information per m:Identification noticeboard and additionally Tiptoety is cleared with the Foundation for OTRS-level information. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you spell it that way, I sound delicious. I'm also got an extra hat on as one of the three election administrators. The other two are Mr.Z-man, Happy-melon, both also Oversighters.--Tznkai (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems as if we have the volunteers and the process to pull this off. Shall we implement it? That would involve adding formal instructions somewhere official, notifying the election officials, and possibly amending some SecurePoll text.  Skomorokh  05:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The "postal vote officer" role will be assumed by the existing group of election administrators? jæs (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to sort this out soon. Does anyone know whether it's going to happen? I've just posted a query on the talk page of Election Administrator Mr.Z-man, since he raised the matter in the "Mechanics" section below. Tony (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to call this as closed unless we see movement on it today; matters like this should really be settled before the election.  Skomorokh  10:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify? The process seems to be simple enough, unless I have misunderstood the discussion here. I have been waiting on some update here so that I could (hopefully) vote. Is there some technical barrier to the postal voter procedure as it is described above (and as it was integrated into the overall process in the "mechanics" discussion that has apparently since been archived)? Put more simply, is there some reason this cannot be done, beyond the lack of further response here? jæs (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not being implemented because there is neither the demand, the consensus nor the volunteers to make it happen. Please do join the discussion on the feedback page though.  Skomorokh  16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we really electing people for two year terms?

Jimbo Wales has stated that he intends to appoint some people to 2-year terms and some people to 1-year terms. I believe that this contradicts not only what is said on the voting page, but also community consensus. It certainly means that Jimbo's role is not "purely ceremonial". I don't believe he should be making this decision, so I won't change what is said on the election page, but I am no longer sure that the election page correctly describes the process. Some more discussion is at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 100#ArbCom elections. — Kusma ^talk 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's clear that the term length decided at the RfC is two years; but whether that means that people are elected into unfinished terms (i.e., two-year tranches that expire the next year) to keep the elections balanced, or everyone gets two years regardless of the current composition of the committee is considerably less clear: very few people opined on the topic, and most people unarguably didn't consider that aspect of things when selecting term length. I does mean (if he goes through with this) that the committee election next year will be (more) balanced and we get a whole year to work it out. — Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The community's opinion was robust for two-year terms. There was nothing about unfinished terms or transitions, or dividing candidates into one-year and two-year tranches. Two years looks like two years, to me. And the 2.1% vote for the "Jimbo decides" is conclusive. The graph below show percentages along its y-axis. [Forgot to sign yesterday Tony (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)]

Haven't previously been involved, but I'm intruiged by the lack of an option in that graph for term length (1,2, or 3 years) to be scaled by support levels, per last years announcement. It seems to make sense that if someone gets (say) 90% support, it would be good for the project if they don't have to worry about campaigning again for longer. Likewise, it is good if someone who can only garner (say) 60% support gets a review (via an election) after a single year. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after a bit of reading, the listed options conflated 'Jimbo decides' with 'flexible duration' - without separating those two unrelated aspects from the outset, (or someone coming along and suggesting it before many 'votes' were cast, the idea of rule-based scaling of duration was never going to get support. For next year, when the question on duration is posed, I hope rule-driven-scaled-duration terms of 1,2,3 years is offered as an option. Given their being no 'electorates' or 'wards' involved, there should be no issue with needing to mesh to existing terms. Seats just come up as terms expire or whatever. It might be necessary to, rather than just set percentages, set a maximum number to be elected for 3 years, just incase too many break through (say) 90%.

I'm dumping this now 'cos not sure I'll be around next year. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be around next year :P

I hope that we do have another RFC, and that it is improved due to both the previous RFC and the outcome of this election.

We live and learn. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

←As Carcharoth has pointed out, baseline oscillation is inevitable from first-year attrition. I have come to accept Jimbo's observation that two tranches will be necessary for this election to minimise future baseline oscillation. Unless tranches are used, we will have an ongoing 13–5–13–5 oscillation. To this end, Jimbo has proposed that of the nine successful candidates in this election, 4 should take up one-year terms and 5 should take up two-year terms. This would produce a baseline oscillation of 9–9–9–9 (i.e., provided there are no early departures)-.

To take what John Vandenberg has said, yes, inevitably we need to officially write into the process the simple arithmetic that Jimbo has done on the back of an envelope. It's striking that the oscillation, and how it needs to be smoothed out, featured in neither the RfC we had on two-year terms nor the late-starting question on tranches. Unless the community decides it doesn't mind huge swings in vacancies from year to year, every election will need to manage the oscillation arising from first-year departures of arbs. All we need to do is work out the formula and express it.

Jimbo has, in effect, asked at least three fundamental questions to determine the electoral outcome:

1. "How many arbs do I want on the Committee?"
2. "How many candidates do I appoint to each tranche to minimise the future baseline oscillations?", and
3. "Whom do I appoint to which tranche?"

The first question has now been settled in favour of continuing the 18-strong membership Jimbo decided on last year. The second question is largely unchanged, except that we need to express the arithmetic officially, and for only one- and two-year tranches, not one-, two- and three-year tranches. WRT the third question, Jimbo's practice (last year totally, I think, except for Stephen Bain?) has been to appoint those with the strongest vote to the longer-term tranch(es); I recall he has recently said this will be the intention for the current election.

So, here are the three magic rules I believe Jimbo is using for the current election, which we need to write into the new ArbCom policy so they work automatically:

The three rules

1. The number of seats vacant at each election will be that required to bring the number of members to 18.
2. These vacancies will be divided into two tranches: two-year seats and one-year seats. The number of one-year seats will be equal to the number of members whose terms expire at the end of the following year and who have departed from the Committee since the previous election.
3. The candidates with the strongest votes will be allocated to the two-year tranche; the candidates with the next strongest votes will be allocated to the one-year tranche.

Rule 2 will operate for this election thus: four one-year seats are required to balance the departure of four arbs whose terms were to expire at the end of 2010: Deskana, FT2, Sam Blacketer and John Vandenberg. Casliber's departure does not need to be balanced by a one-year arb term, since his term—on the old three-year system—went to the end of 2011 and can be taken up by a two-year arb. This is the only "transitional" element of the tranches. I have updated the chart of arb terms by inserting a blank row for Deskana this and next year (the 18th arb last year, who resigned almost immediately), moving John Vandenberg up to Tranche Alpha, where he should have been placed originally, and adding the two new tranches (grey colour).

Beyond this, there is a possibility that Jimbo will invoke his 50% minimum support–oppose ranking to either appoint fewer than nine candidates—thus going against the community's decision that there be 18 arbs, or to partially go against the election result by making appointments of people who did not stand in this election. These scenarios are likely to be deeply controversial, and I remind users that the form of the election is determined by the community, as a matter of policy. Tony (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, Jimbo stated that if he doesn't have enough candidates over 50% to plug all the holes, he'll consult with the community so that we can all figure out what to do next. For all we know, the result could be that the 50% is scrapped once we see what the actual effects of secret ballots was, that we hold another election, that we "make due" with a slightly smaller committee, or that we find some other way to fill the seats.

I would also expect the answer is likely to be different depending on how close we are to filling all the seats — obviously one empty seat does not have the same impact as ten and would not be dealt in the same way. — Coren ^(talk) 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see some year-on-year variation as particularly troubling. If candidates are appointed for terms based on levels-of-consent (rather than fixed numbers for fixed durations), then any occilation will work itself out. Capping the number of 3-year terms, and setting a reasonable consent-threshold for a two-year term, will ensure there are at least some seats up for election each year. What does it really matter if the number wobbles around a bit? ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Some wobbling is inevitable, if only because of attrition. What worries some people is the possibility that 15 out of 18 seats end up open during one election because of that effect; which is downright likely unless some effort is made to rebalance at interval. — Coren ^(talk) 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would that be such a bad thing? If there is a 'continuity concern' then that should be shared by the community, and will cause an increased number of votes to go to sitting members. If elections cannot generate enough candidates getting (say) 50% support, because the candidates are so unelectable, then a new elections to fill the empty seats with a more public call for candidates is rightly in order. If 15 seats come up, (because very few achieved the 2-year confidence threshold last time, or only 3 seats came up last time, and 3-yearers are expiring) and 15 candidates meet the 1Y+ threshold, where's the problem. One could also argue that a better chance of success will encourage more candidates to run. Realistically, no matter what the algorithm, a mass-resignation is probably the more likely cause of such a situation arising, especially if there is scope for a capped number of pre-determined 3-year terms for any highly-approved (say 85%+) candidates. (NB: please excuse that I haven't been following ArbCom ellection stuff previously, so likely somewhat ignorant) ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad thing because of the enormous amount of time it takes for an arbitrator to get up to speed on all ongoing cases, clarifications, restrictions, amendments; many of which will return in the few months after they were passed. It takes time too for members to learn to communicate effectively with each other and forge consensus efficiently. These are practical human issues rather than anything else.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[Multiple edit conflicts] Yes; Coren and Roger took the words out of my mouth. Without one- and two-year tranches in this election we'll end up with 5 vacancies next year and 13 the year after. If two arbs whose terms expire in 2012 leave during 2011, there would indeed be 15 vacancies. That's a little shaky: you'd rely on the standing and re-election of a few expiring members, and three experienced mentors in the three continuing members.

Jaymax, what you refer to as "50% support" is not written into policy and has never received community consensus. Because SecurePoll makes it easy for people to cast votes for all candidates, it is likely to significantly increase the incidence of "oppose" votes. Opposes increase the value of a voter's Supports by reducing the relative scores of the other candidates. Because many voters can see this, the ease and privacy with which they can click on the oppose buttons will suppress the support–oppose scores compared with those in other elections. As an artefact of the voting mechanism—not an undesirable one, in my view—we should be prepared for much lower scores. They will not necessarily mean voters are disenchanted with the overall candidacy this year, and I will be putting the case that the nine candidates with the highest percentage scores should be considered elected by default. Establishing boundaries, whether 50% or otherwise, would assume that the notion of community support could be extracted from a single figure. But that figure will, in reality, be the product of support and artefacts of the voting-system; the real notion of "support" cannot be ascertained by comparing numbers with arbitrary benchmarks. The election is simply competitive on the numbers, not a series of qualitative judgements against an arbitrary benchmark. Tony (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes for Secret

Are votes for the withdrawn candidate Secret still recorded? Hiding T 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• By which I mean, are votes cast after Secret's withdrawal still recorded? Hiding T 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • From what I read at another place (probably a few sections up), it's impossible to remove a candidate from the SecretPoll extension, so I'd speculate that it's likely that the votes are still recorded since you can still vote for him. It would be strange if the recording could be turned off but the candidate itself not... Regards SoWhy 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The votes are still recorded, if someone ignores the strike through his name. It seems not to matter, though. The votes for Secret will probably not be included in the announcement. Tony (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Secret has recorded a desire to know the votes, so what would the position be regarding that? Will they be released publicly, will the information be known only to: the administrators; the administrators and the scrutineers; the administrators and whoever they see fit to share it with, for example the candidate? Disclosure: I'm asking in capacity as a Signpost editor. Hiding T 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Just an opinion, but once the withdrawl, I'd think the votes for that candidate are now skewed beyond any real usefulness. Do people oppose the struck out candidate? Do people who would have opposed abstain on the struck name, while wikifriends vote moral support? Not sure on ballance which way it would swing, but you have to say it's a major change in the voting pattern. No real opinion on if the numbers should be released for the curious, but I don't think any meaning can accurately be determined from them.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree the votes saved after a withdrawal are meaningless. But the vote admins/scrutineers can check the votes at the time of withdrawal and publish or inform Secret about them if desired. Cenarium (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
            • The results are inaccessible until the election ends. Mr.Z-man 19:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
              • But is it not possible to check the votes at a certain time after the elections ? Cenarium (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
                • I don't believe so, if it were, one might be able to use that to determine how users voted. Mr.Z-man 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
                  • Concur with Mr.Z-man: I regret that it would be quite inappropriate to go releasing any tallies before the scrutineers do their job after 14 December. Tony (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Just for clarification purposes, this is my understanding of how this is going to work: After the election closes the scrutineers are going to scrutinize the results. After they are done the tallies are going to be released, and then Jimbo will make an official announcement. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That is my understanding also. This is the tally from last year, this is what the announcement of tallies for the Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (dear God we have created a monster) October 2009 elections (the first English Wikipedia elections in which SecurePoll was used) looked like. Jimbo's announcement from last year.  Skomorokh  14:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

election turnout

Following up from the discussion #24 hours down (archived), I have compiled a list of voters in the 2008 election, and some stats on ballot usage. According to my log there were 984 voters, and a staggering 224 voters (23%) only voted for or against one candidate. (e.g. 19 voters only appear on the Kmweber vote page.) All of the 2008 candidates received a "neutral" vote from at least half of the voters.

As I write this, there are 757 voters in the 2009 election (3/4 of the number of voters in 2008). Due to the use of private ballots this year, we can't see whether these voters are making effective use of their ballot. We will have a better idea when we learn how many "neutral" votes each candidate has. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting figures, John. That 224 single vote figure suggests that for many people elections are entirely personality driven.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The one-person pattern is extraordinary. It may be indicative of a personal motive among some users, but I suggest that the sheer size of the task of "scroll down and vote" under the old manual system was also at play.

I predict the following for the 2009 election:

1. Casting votes for the entire field will be the norm (or at least a vote for most candidates). "Neutral" will be more likely to be a deliberate choice than a result of voter fatigue, although that will, of course, be beyond analysis).
2. There will be a significant increase in the average proportion of opposes, and thus in the so-called "support percentages". This will be because:

(a) voters are now free to oppose in private, whereas under the old system it was pscyhologically and socially easier not to enter a vote for candidates one did not significantly object to; and

(b) the "click the buttom" system now makes it relatively easy to enter votes for all candidates—many voters probably realised all along that their support votes are more powerful if they actively oppose all candidates they didn't support, but up until last year's poll couldn't face the arduous task of registering opposes to implement such a strategy.

In my view, the privacy and convenience of SecurePoll will deliver a more accurate reflection of community opinion than was ever possible under the manual system. On the matter of the plus–minus calculation of voting strength for each candidate (erroneously referred to as "support %" and better termed "support–oppose score"), we should prepare ourselves for much lower scores and stop treating them like the percentages delivered by other voting systems, notably those used for real-world elections. There is nothing magical about a support–oppose score of 50, or 60 for that matter. Perhaps we should seriously consider dispensing once and for all with the notion of minimum required scores if the support–oppose voting system is retained next year. Tony (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We won't know any of this until after the current vote ends. I am aware that in this election there are people who have voted for or against one candidate and against or for all others to maximize the effect of their vote. One can argue that the present method makes it easier to cast "bullet" votes like this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we've got quite a mess on our hands (particularly since the desired higher turnout hasn't been realized as of yet). Securepoll means voters don't necessarily read other voters reasons for opposing or supporting, so the candidates might not be getting full scrutiny; discussion of candidates on discussion pages is certainly way down. Add to that the number of new variables introduced all at once, and we could end up with a large (18) unwieldy arbcom comprised of marginal candidates. Add to that some of the issues we already see on arbcom this year, where the committee seems to have a hard time deciding simple cases, and next year doesn't look promising. We may regret having made so many changes at once, and I'd not want to be in Jimbo's shoes, having to sort the results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So with 4+ days left of voting, we have as many voters as last year (if one discounts users who only voted on one candidate last year). Seems to disprove the idea of a mass protest against private balloting. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 14:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC) yes, I acknowledge the fact that you can look at the same numbers and say there is such a protest, but I discount single-candidate voters last year, as they only dropped by to support a friend or oppose someone they've clashed with. We won't actually know if people this year only voted to support or oppose one candidate til we break down votes after, but for now I'm sticking with my point

Sandy, we have a long wiki-friendship, but I couldn't disagree with you more, on all counts.

First, it is important to discourage the kind of herd voting I myself have had to resist when short of time, say, at RfA. I don't want to be able to look down a list and see how people I know (and trust) have voted; I want to be forced to make my own decisions.

Second, there is ample opportunity (almost an embarrassment of riches) for voters to make comments. We have fallen over backwards to make it easy to view discussions in relation to each voter, and comments on the vote pages were banned last year anyway, weren't they?

Third, there are so many questions and responses, it's a big task to read them all. I do think they could be more targeted and succinct, but we can hardly complain that there's a paucity of information.

Fourth, I find the disparagement of the candidates as a whole ("marginal") to be unhelpful. I was surprised to find it relatively easy to identify at least nine candidates who were worth supporting. You have a perfect right to emphasise their track-record in content writing, but I do not agree that it should be the sole criterion, or even the most important one. (I find that some people with a "strong" record in content writing, FAs, GAs etc, do not write all that well, and have little idea of how to write judicial text. Yes, it's important that arbs have experience of engagement with article writing, but that is just one matter.)

Fifth, I am optimistic that ArbCom will continue to push through reforms in its process that will make poor judgements, long-winded bloat on hearings pages, obscenely long delays, and other unfortunate occurrences less likely. Please give them a chance: it is a very difficult job being an arb, and we don't hear the half of it.

Sixth, eighteen arbs spread around ArbCom's diverse responsibilities and allowing for time off does not seem to be too many. Perhaps I'll be proved wrong. Tony (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys (and gals) - it is too late to discuss this year's mechanisms, and premature to analyse their results and the implications for the future. Can I suggest dropping it until we get the outcome announced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Even if the turnout ends up being lower this year, there would be no way to say it was because of the voting system. There are other differences between last year and this, e.g. lower overall interest in the election. Last year there was high interest in the election starting early in the fall, with much speculation about who was running, even a page with possible candidates that was updated as people announced they were planning to run or not planning to run, long before the nominations opened. This high level of interest continued throughout the nomination and voting period. This year I've been struck by the relative apathy surrounding the election both before and during, in the community as a whole and even in the seeming lack of eagerness on the part of candidates to show up and run. I think it would be a great mistake to attribute any change in voter turnout to the election system, when this year's election differs in other aspects as well. Woonpton (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apathy is a good point. It's the best compliment possible for the current Arbcom. I hope this is not a pork cycle. Hans Adler 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the last couple of comments. I don't think I even remembered to vote in last year's elections, but I know there definitely was a lot of dissatisfaction with ArbCom, so high interest in the election would not have been surprising. While certainly one can (and many do) complain about the 2009 ArbCom, overall I think it has been viewed more positively by a higher percentage of active editors who follow such things. Also it's worth pointing out that overall participation on the site is arguably down of late (including, I believe, in places like RfA and the administrator noticeboards, both of which see participation from the kind of editors most likely to vote in elections), so if turnout in this election is not all that some hoped for it will be difficult to ascribe it to any one factor, be it electoral mechanics or anything else. But as Scott noted it's somewhat moot to discuss any of these issues while the vote is ongoing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

By my count, Ysangkok (talk · contribs) is the 984th voter, with two hours to go. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I should have acted earlier, but having taken the time to consider my votes and having pressed the vote button with a minute to spare, it was more than a little galling to have the processing take ages and SecurePoll ultimately respond with "you can no longer vote, the election is now closed" (or some such). If SecurePoll gets backlogged or slow, wouldn't sensible planning dictate closing the election at 00:01 on 15 December - exactly 14 days after voting opened - rather than two minutes earlier? EdChem (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, honestly, it's not that different from having gotten an e/c in the old format pushing your timestamp past the finish line. I'm sure it's frustrating, but it's dubious that anything can be done about it. — Coren ^(talk) 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think more trouble would have come from ending at 0001 on the 15th. We'd have people straggle in all day on the 15th asking why they can't vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get that confusion. There is a whole minute between the end of 23:59 and the start of 00:01 on the next day, that minute is labeled 00:00 and is the first of the day. A period of time that includes an entire day ends as the minute rolls from 23:59 to 00:00. — Coren ^(talk) 01:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A few points to consider in response to the above comments...

1. Starting an election at 00:01 day 1 and finishing it at 23:59 day 14 makes it less than 14 days long - either starting at 23:59 day 0 or ending at 00:01 day 15 is necessary for a 14 day election period. This inconsistency should be corrected for future elections. It might seem to be a technical point, but had the 00:01 times been used consistently I would not have been disenfranchised by the inadequacy / backlog built into SecurePoll.
2. Under the old system, an edit conflict could have interfered with voting on a single candidate only rather than on every candidate - so following Coren's analogy, the new system is twenty-something times worse.
3. The fact that the old system had flaws is in no way a reason for not fixing flaws in the new system.
4. The flaw in this case is akin to someone arriving at a polling station whilst the election is ongoing, receiving his or her ballot paper, filling it out, and then (on going to place her or his ballot into the ballot box) being told the polling station has closed and s/he may not place their ballot into the ballot box. Alternatively, with electronic voting, it is akin to entering the booth and filling in his or her vote on the voting machine, pressing "Save Vote" and the machine responding "Too Late, Bad Luck, Your Vote Won't be Saved / Counted". Can anyone seriously suggest that disenfranchising people inside polling stations who have completed but not lodged their ballots would be acceptable in any genuine democracy?
5. Surely the consequent logic is that the time cut-off should apply to being able to access the voting page rather than completing a vote from that page? This should be addressed for all future elections. The recent AUSC election showed the difference that one vote can make in determining the outcome. Software lags / faults / programming errors should not under any circumstances be allowed to disenfranchise voters.

EdChem (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The template on most election-related pages said: "Voting is open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009."[14] I don't recall seeing anything that said it'd be open until 0:01 UTC on 15 December 2009.   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, there are two issues here. The first is that the election was supposed to be open for 14 days, which 00:01 day 1 to 23:59 day 14 is not. The mathematics of this point are undeniable, and I have already noted two possible fixes. One of those should be adopted for all future elections. Your point about the template raises the second of the issues, and the more serious in that it is the systemic fault that led to my disenfranchisement. I was logged on, had entered my vote in SecurePoll, and had press the vote button all before the voting period ended. My vote was not counted because a lag in the software meant that it took an interminable time for processing, resulting in the software deeming the election closed before the processing was complete. The backlog / software lag / processing problem / programming error / whatever it was was beyond my control - it was akin to removing the ballot box as the paper ballot had left the electors hand and was moving under gravity through the slot. If a voter can be disenfranchised in this way then the message template was factually inaccurate, and should have read something to the effect that "Voting is open for all ballots completely processed by the software by 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009; since software lags, backlogs, etc, are unpredictable, this means you have until sometime near that time (likely a few minutes before that time, though precisely how close to it cannot be predicted) to lodge your ballot." I don't recall any notification that votes lodged by the deadline but not processed by the software would be rejected, and such should not have occurred and most emphatically should not be allowed to recur in any future election. EdChem (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if the cut-off time is based on when the user opens the page, there still needs to be some reasonable time limit on submitting it. We shouldn't let people hold up the election by keeping their browser open to the ballot for a day after the election ends because they waited until the last second to even review the candidates. To continue with the physical polling place analogy though, if you know that voting ends at a 8 PM and it takes you 10 minutes to get there, you should leave before 7:50:00 in case there's some sort of slight delay in getting there. I would disagree that you were really disfranchised. You were not prevented from voting during the 20158 minutes the election was open, you chose not to vote during that time. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man, I agree that some time limit would be needed on completing the vote after begining the voting process. I assure you that I did lodge my vote - before the voting period closed - within any reasonable time limit from begining the voting process. As regards the physical polling place analogy, I am not talking about arriving at the polling place after it had closed, which would indeed be a valid basis for refusing to issue a ballot paper. I am not even talking about being in a queue at the polling station at the closing of the polls, a situation where polling stations are routinely ordered to stay open in governmental elections. No, my situation is akin to arriving, having obtained and completed one's ballot, and being in the process of lodging that vote when the ballot box is summarily removed. Though I cannot prove it with any log, I assure you that the election was still open (though in its dying stages) when I pessed the "Vote" button. I was indeed disenfranchised, my vote was chewed up and destroyed by the software - either as a consequence of a lag, processing error, programming fault, or some other cause. I did vote during the however many minutes were available, albeit very late in the process, and my vote should have been incuded and counted. EdChem (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to go is in future years have the actual time of the close of the vote be a minute or two later than the announced time. There's no perfect solution. But that might avoid incident like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt - that is another practical alternative that would address the problem going forward. EdChem (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In my case, I came to the voting form, then progressively worked down the list, spending probably 5-10 minutes on average on each candidate, then clicking my option, etc. So I was 'inside the polling booth' a full couple of hours before 'inserting my ballot'. I would suggest a hard cut-off, a script timer to assist where browsers support it on the last day, and active voting buttons, rather than radio-buttons + submit, so any click registers immediatly right up to the cutoff time.

Also, taling in whole minutes here is misleading - when someone says 23:59, do they mean 23:59:00.0, or 23:59:59.9 ?

‒ Jaymax✍ 10:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

NB:which is just a more precise version of the 14th, 15th 'which end of the day did you mean?' issue. I would argue that by the time you're down to a tenth of a second, it doesn't matter if the poll closes at 14th 23:59:59.9, and it's given as 15th 00:00 in publicity. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My point wasn't that you started voting after the election closed, my point was that you made a conscious decision to wait to until almost the last possible minute without regard to the possibility that you might be delayed slightly. If the server had slowed down before that ballot loaded, would you still be complaining? What if your internet disconnected or your power went out? To be disenfranchised means that you were deprived of your right to vote. This was not the case. No one or nothing except yourself prevented you from voting during the rest of the election. If there's a 1 hour time limit for someone to submit their ballot after opening it, then its not much different from just extending the election for an hour, except that people can't start voting during that time. If you have any time limit on submitting the ballot, you run the risk of someone not submitting it in time. Mr.Z-man 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

when will it end

According to Special:SecurePoll this election ends at "2009-12-14T00:00:00", however Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Menu says it finishes at the end of the 14th ("23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009"). Something looks wrong. My apologies if this has been raised already and it isn't actually a problem. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to avoid 00:00 times and straighten out the software wrinkles next year, yeah. Let's say for safety's sake that it ends at the time it ended last year, which would seem to be just after December 14th rather than right before.  Skomorokh  11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts this might be a problem if Securepoll actually rejects votes after Dec 13th.  Skomorokh  11:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The community was informed that voting would be open for 14 days. If it started at midnight beginning of 1 December, I guess it should close midnight (or 23:59) end of 14 December. Does this mean Tim will need to be pressed into service? I'd hoped to minimise our further call on him, but it may be necessary. Tony (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most likely. I've left messages for Mr.Z-man and Tznkai (election administrators) asking if they can change it themselves, but I doubt they can.  Skomorokh  12:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is something that Tim would need to change. Mr.Z-man 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've pinged him on IRC though he is away right now. Will email later if no response is forthcoming.  Skomorokh  09:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim deserves a picture of chocolates/flowers at the end of this. He really is very good at making things work, and we are lucky to have him. Tony (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No word yet. I am going to post the announcement with midnight tonight as the provisional close of voting.  Skomorokh  12:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The infobox on the project page here could do with an update, even if just to "Voting is open until 00:00 14 December 2009" to avoid too many more people thinking they've got more time that they actually might. ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Already seen to. Officially, we are still closing on 14 Dec; will update with an exact time once I have one.  Skomorokh  13:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so long as the exact time is quickly forthcoming. 'Officially', if I read "Voting is open until 14 December 2009.", I would officially assume it officially meant I could vote on the 14th at times other than 00:00:00.0  :-) ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That, amigo would be a conclusion underdetermined by its premises. Nor is the exact time is likely to be quickly forthcoming; but it's better to be vague than outright speculative. Thankfully we are neither a bureaucracy nor a democracy, so if some johnny-come-lately's turn up and can't get a ballot, we work with what we have, chalk the rest up to bad planning, and prepare to do better next year.  Skomorokh  14:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for the mixup everyone. Tim set things pretty much exactly as I had requested them and I interpreted "until 14 December" as meaning "voting stops once we reach that date" and I gave the ending time accordingly. — Coren ^(talk) 15:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Crisis averted

I am glad to report that Happy-melon and MZMcBride have managed to track down on IRC another sysadmin (Roan Kattouw), who has amended the closing time to 23:59 UTC as initially planned.  Skomorokh  20:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Participation

Could someone do a last-minute push for voter participation, including a mention that people can change their votes? I've never seen an arbcom election with less discussion or apparent interest from the community. No big essays, just a short and to-the-point reminder. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

See above; I'm planning on making a last round of announcements, but we have to wait until the time that voting is scheduled to close is clarified. Do you have any suggestions where to post?  Skomorokh  14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your job. ;-) Seriously, though, that's a tough question. People have learned to ignore banners and only a minority follow the village pump, etc. Maybe scatter it around a few highly visible places like WP:ACN, the dramaboards, etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, please see my contribs list for 8 December, when I posted the last message; but you might be a little more selective this time—up to you, of course. Tony (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like contaminating the exopedians with politics, so have restricted postings to non-content fora: Wikipedia talk:Elections, the administrator and arbitrator dramaboards, all four village pumps, talkpages for the help and reference desks, and the mother of all flytraps for opinionated metapedes, WT:RFA. The announcement includes the ambiguity of the end date and a promise to update as soon as the situation is settled, so if I am not around later and word comes from Tim Starling, it would greatly alleviate uncertainty if someone would amend the announcement with the solid info. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  13:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 135 potential voters here. They all voted on at least six candidates in the 2008 election. I've been waiting for clarity on the end of the election before bugging them, but it is probably more important to bug them given the election might end sooner than previously announced. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way the end date falls, time is running out, especially if as I suspect most of those potential voters are at reduced activity. Are you ok to notify them yourself or do you need a bot/AWB to lend a hand? While we are on the topic, my bot request to check the editors of this year's vote comments pages against the voter log was not picked up, but I've noticed a few commenters not on the log, so there are few more there if you're up to the task.  Skomorokh  14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, notification would be very very good, John. Please do it if you can manage. If the worst comes to the worst, we still have almost 10 hours. Tony (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Tim Starling will be asleep by now, but probably up well before the deadline. Tony (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sk. I'd have preferred you include a mention that people can change their votes as many seem unaware of this. But anything that increases turnout is good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I included that in the last announcement, but have been trying to cut them down so that I'm not telling the same people the same thing four times, training them to ignore the message. There's been a small, but noticeable increase in voters since though.  Skomorokh  16:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Skomorokh, and any other users who involved themselves in helping with the changes to the watchlist banner, and in the last minute announcement (without both, some of my last-minute votes would not have been revised in time). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've copied Skomorokh's message with a brief addition about changing your vote to 4 places I participate in on occasion specifically Wikipedia talk:In the news, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia and Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board signing it under my own name of course. A bit late but there's still time and I may have already got one vote. Anyone who's a participant in an area where they feel the message would be welcome but it isn't already present may want to do likewise particularly if they aren't a part of the coordination team Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving?

I archived all the requests for participation that I posted mentioned above and also the one posted by Skomorokh to WT:RD where I'm a regular participant. It occured to me that it may be best to do likewise in the other places it was posted particularly if there's no ongoing discussion since the message is obviously now of no use but I'll leave that up to other people Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sort order on the ballot

Hello! I understand the reasoning for not using alphabetical order on the ballot, but it would be nice if the table had cute sort arrows for those who do want to sort themselves. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We're sorry sir, but all your developer free talk time minutes have expired for this year. Please leave a message and we'll get back to you say, November. Seriously though, you're likely to have more luck on MediaWiki/bugzilla; ACE is the customer, not the product.  Skomorokh  16:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reporting ineligible votes

Where are ineligible votes reported? I believe User:Mr. Hicks The III is one, as a now-blocked sock of User:NoCal100 who had already been banned. Mackan79 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, but since it was a secret ballot, how do you know they voted? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Voter log. Steve Smith (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is ban evasion, and I have made a note to that effect in the log.  Skomorokh  05:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple votes listed where?

According to instructions, later votes will supersede earlier ones. I voted early in the election on the candidates I already had an opinion on, and augmented my vote after further research late in the vote. However, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Voter log only shows the time of my first vote. Is this effect known, expected, explainable and harmless? How do I know that my second vote was recorded? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the voter log; the list of votes is at Special:SecurePoll/list/80, which lists your last vote at 20:48, December 13, 2009.  Skomorokh  09:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a useful answer. I seriously suggest we simplify and clarify the system for the next election (if we stay with it). It's quite non-trivial to find all relevant pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, both logs are linked to in the (brief) instructions of the process overleaf. That said, any and all constructive comments and suggestions for next year are very welcome at the feedback page. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  10:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Results?

Moved from WP:ANI. –xeno^talk 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

*sings "I like to move it, move it ..."* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ok why aren't the results published already? i thought the process was automated.  Dr. Loosmark  13:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe they are submitted to the GodKing for his blessing. –xeno^talk 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Automated or not, you still peform validity checks, and what xeno said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "validity checks"?  Dr. Loosmark  14:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Checking that all votes came through, that no bug in the software caused someone to vote twice (or even several times), that there as many different votes as voters, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I was not elected, Cla68 (talk · contribs) finished ninth, and Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) finished somewhere above him. (Source: A dream I had last night) Steve Smith (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, in my dream they released the results and all the vandals fled in fear and all disruptive editors were awestruck into re-reading WP:RULES and following them to the letter, especially WP:CIVILITY. After having 2 months with nothing on the agenda the new arbitration committee declared success and dissolved itself. All was peaceful in the land of wiki. Then I woke up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In my dream, it became embarrassingly obvious I didn't vote for myself because no one else did. I finished next to last, ahead of Kurt but Secret kicked my butt.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The raw, unverified numbers ought to be published immediately. This will help prevent the appearance of back channel dealing or manipulation. Subsequent verification may result in disallowance of invalid votes. We should be given both the raw numbers and a list of disallowed votes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that you release raw numbers right away - this isn't voting for the president, and it's much harder to "fix" errors later when online voting is used. Research shows that the chances of problems are actually increased in an online system, so ensuring that the voting process was not compromised is vital before the release of anything. I'd give you raw numbers too, but for crying out loud, relax - don't insist on things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

???

By that I mean, just take the output from SecurePoll and publish it as "preliminary, unverified results". This information need not be kept secret while the checking is done. If there has been some sort of voting problem, it can be explained, and the results can be adjusted. It's not the presidency; why all the cloakery-and-daggery? Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's all a consipracy against you :-P We all know that Jimbo is given access to the numbers first. You want that changed, then wake him up. Process, Mr. Hochman; process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the Fix isn't in yet. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What relax? The community wants to know what is going on with the votes, who is "fixing the errors" and what processes are used to do so.  Dr. Loosmark  14:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And we're impatient, and bored. If there are no results to gossip about, we'll have to do real work. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For "community" read "drama addicts"--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For "Scott MacDonald" read, "administrator who thinks WP:CIVIL applies to everybody except himself." :-P Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the best venue for such commentary. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When we used SecurePoll for the licensing update, it was impossible to release raw data. The system was set up so that no one could look at the content of the votes until after the final voter list was approved, not even the people running the vote. In other words, any sockpuppets had to be identified and removed prior to opening the ballots to find out who won. No possibility for pre-review data or for after the fact revisions. I don't know whether SecurePoll is being run the same way now, but I do think that approach makes sense. Dragons flight (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. If there are technical limitations, so be it. Thank you for explaining. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Those don't sound like limitations to me, but features. The usual method of faking an election centrally relies on knowing the provisional tally--that way you can add or subtract votes as necessary without the results looking foolish. As a humorous example, take Lyndon Johnson's 1941 senate election: both sides waited until the last possible minutes to release the "votes" from their respective strongholds. The side which waited longer won because they could adjust their tallies knowing the final roll. Johnson (notably) released his "votes" first allowing Pappy O'Daniel to adjust his numbers upward enough to win. A technical method that prevents scrutineers from seeing provisional results until votes are validated is a beneficial feature. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If the results are published now, and then adjusted later, and that adjustment causes a fall in the rankings of a candidate that makes a difference to their election, then all hell will break loose, and there will be assumptions of conspiracy and manipulation. Plus, the drama of someone's hopes set up and then dashed. Better that the results are scrutinised first by uninvolved people, and then released officially. The unscrutinised results, if of any worth, can be released at the same time. I really can't understand the impatience here, other than the feeling we don't want to wait for the next episode of the soap opera.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

who are these "uninvolved people" and what exactly are they doing?  Dr. Loosmark  14:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's only a billion articles on the issues with online voting, and the processes - how good are you at finding WP:RS's ?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume folks want the results released right away as some kind of bulwark against another fiasco. –xeno^talk 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the rush? Just wait until the info is released. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the discussion. To quickly clarify a few points:

• The tallies have not been released because the scrutineers (listed overleaf) are checking and verifying the votes.
• The tallies will be first announced here.
• Neither Wales nor anyone else other than the scrutineers will have privileged access to unreleased results.
• Things have done in this way because no-one started a discussion on this page to do them otherwise, and the coordinators improvised (see the email sent to the scrutineers yesterday).

Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) It's good to see the excitement, but it's the role of the non-en.WP as scrutineers to monitor the integrity of the election and to certify and announce the results. I believe the announcement will set out the data in tabular form here. We just need to be patient. Tony (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're absolutely dying for up-to-the-minute news, there is an IRC channel for the elections at #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode, with a membership that currently includes candidates, coordinators and a scrutineer.  Skomorokh  14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Skomorokh, you and the other supervisors have done an outstanding job with the election, and you have my full support and gratitude. Will you release the raw results, and a list of the disallowed votes? Since you are improvising, if you will eventually release the raw results, would you consider releasing them now? This would provide an opportunity for members of the community to look for improper voting and notify the scrutineers of any concerns before the final result is certified. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with Happy-Melon below) Thanks for the kind words, but I have no more role to play here than anyone else at this point, and certainly not as gate-keeper. Only the scrutineers have access to the votes; the coordinators see only what you see. Laaknor has mentioned in the IRC channel that they are getting through them, but that it would take a while given that there were over a thousand votes. Community input on potentially dodgy votes has been openly solicited on the voter log; I will remind the scrutineers of that page so that they can take it into account. If there's anything else I can clarify, just ask and I'll try. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Again I thought the whole process was automated, what exactly does it mean they "monitor the integrity of the election"? Like usual it seems that the community is denied the info of what is going on behind the scenes. [15].  Dr. Loosmark  14:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, reading your comments above you don't seem to have read either the election page or this talkpage before jumping to your conclusions, so I'll take the Godwinian comparisons with a grain of salt. You could find few Wikipedians less likely to be part of some old school insider's cabal than the two coordinators who have been doing most of the work to find and communicate with the scrutineers – me and Tony1.  Skomorokh  15:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Loosmark, disinterested human input is needed to ensure integrity, including the validity of all votes. Please be patient, since there are a lot of votes and great attention to detail is required of the scrutineers (see HM's post below); they have RL commitments like us, and we are lucky to have them. I'd not be surprised if the results took another 12–24 hours. Nothing is gained by putting pressure on the system in this case. Tony (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mostly it is about reviewing the voter list for evidence of sockpuppetry. SecurePoll collects technical evidence at the time a vote is cast similar to CheckUser, but it is still a judgment call to decide whether two accounts with the same or similar IPs (etc.) are really the same person. You can't really automate that without being certain of making mistakes. Dragons flight (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if this is a serious concern, next year publish a has of the raw result as soon as the polls close, then publish the raw results when the official results are published. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming that "raw results" exists, which may be erroneous. SecurePoll can be configured so that no results are available to anyone - including the vote runners - until after the voter list has been approved and locked. Dragons flight (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and I would not favour such a release, anyway, since it would put undue pressure on the scrutineers; they need to prepare the data in a totally disinterested space. Sorry, it's a case of leave 'em to it, in their own best time. Tony (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Stalin would never have run a vote on open-source software.

The current task of the scrutineers is to check each vote for validity - principally, that it was not cast by a sockpuppet in a manner so as to be invalid. The community can assist with this by reviewing the voter log and posting comments, as I said below. Once this stage is concluded, the scrutineers will quickly verify that there are no obvious flaws in the resulting tally which would indicate a problem in the software; obviously none are expected, but is it reassuring to have six pairs of eyes double-check. The results will then be published. The exact wording of the two relevant emails that were sent to the scrutineers is here; this information should probably be written up into a WP: namespace page at some point.

The interim results will not be published, for two important reasons. Firstly it results in conclusions being drawn that may be invalidated as illegitimate votes are identified and discarded, as indicated by Scott Mac above. Secondly, if the interim results are published, and subsequently a small number of votes are discarded, the differences between the interim and final results will reveal information about the direction in which those struck votes were cast, which is unacceptable. The results will not be released until the scrutinisation phase is complete. Happy‑melon 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My vote was one of the ones that was scrutinized. My session must have timed out while I was working on my ballot, because I had to log back in during the process. Apparently that created an anomaly that was visible in the record. I was contacted privately, and politely asked if I had cast a vote at that time, because there was an indication that someone might have tried to use my ID to vote without my knowledge. I confirmed that I had cast my vote at that time, and explained what happened. This was done before the vote was even closed. Everything was handled very professionally and politely, and I was pleasantly surprised to see how much care was being taken to protect the integrity of my vote. Having seen it in action, I completely support this process. EastTN (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I too was contacted to check my ballot was valid, and I entirely endorse everything EastTN says about Happy-melon's professionalism, politeness and the care that is being taken. - Pointillist (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope this process will be documented for the future. It is always a good idea to set expectations so people know what's going to happen. Thank you for the update. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Do preliminary results exist? As I mentioned above, the process in the licensing update poll was designed so that preliminary results could not even be created by the vote admins. I thought that taking that approach was a sensible decision so I'd be a little disappointed if we've backed away from that. Dragons flight (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For this election, yes they do. Implementing the triple-blind vote-encryption system, where the tally is also inaccessible until after the scrutineering phase, is exceedingly complicated, requires a fourth party to hold the encryption keys, and presupposes a lack of trust in the scrutineers that I don't think is a serious concern here. What is lacking is proper logging of when tallies are generated; along with logging for several other key areas. That's something I will look to address in the code as we develop SecurePoll for on-wiki elections. A public Special:Log/securepoll which marks changes to configuration, polls opening and closing, changes to messages, strikes and unstrikes, and generation of tallies, would be a significant increase in transparency. Happy‑melon 15:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a good reminder for next time. The more the process is explained ahead of time, the better. The proceess seems fine, but eliminating that knowledge gap between "Jimbo has the raw data" to the real answer would be a good thing.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There won't be a gap between those two stages. The results of the election will be published overleaf, and an email will be sent to Jimbo to inform him that they have been published. The gap between the election results being published and Jimbo announcing the appointments is not something we can really affect. Jimbo does not have access to the raw data. Happy‑melon 16:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My appologies for being unclear. The gap I was refering to was the time lapse between the begining of this thread that suggested Jimbo was going to review the data first, and the post about 45 minutes later by Skomorokh which clarified what the current process was. I meant that next election, by having it in writing ahead of time would mean that if the question was asked, it could be answered correctly immediately without a half page of guesswork.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ok this is exactly what i meant when i said that there is a lack of transparency, now Happy-melon informed us that we can help the hunt for socks, why weren't we informed of this possibility before? And where exactly is this vote log where we can help identifying suspicious voting patterns?  Dr. Loosmark  15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See the thread immediately below at #Vote auditing. –xeno^talk 15:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It was announced on this very page last month and repeated on December 2nd.  Skomorokh  16:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I be a Scrutineer?

I have lots of free time.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you'd never pass the physical. Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And you're not identified to the Foundation to handle non-public information. And you're not a Steward. And you're not not an enwiki editor. And you voted in the election. Sorry. :D Happy‑melon 22:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What, voting disqualifies you? This is the worst kind of discrimination: the kind against me! SoWhy 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have this vision of the scrutineers off in some room, carefully holding each ballot lest the little chads fall out. Darn that butterfly ballot.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And who came up with that name? I have this vision a really dour version of the Mickey Mouse Club. Dragons flight (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I like Jerochman's reasoning better. Seriously, if you want to be a Scrutineer next year or more realistically in two years you can probably do that, if you establish your wiki-cred and meet all the formal requirements well ahead of the election. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not actually the case. The scrutineers this year were stewards who do not edit the English Wikipedia. Even if Fat Man is successfully elected a steward before the next election, he is definitely an English Wikipedia editor. Nathan ^T 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How about if he stayed away from enwiki for the next two years but did his duty elsewhere? For example, a stint at fi.wikipedia.org would practically guarantee the mental and physical soundness so essential in a Steward. Hands up anyone who would like to contribute bundles of birch twigs?^Charge! - Pointillist (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Määäää. Orderinchaos 23:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shocked by Kurt's election

Bet this gets a lot of panicked people pressing for the last diff ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good one. You got me. Cla68 (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Grr.... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote auditing

A reminder that the community is encouraged to proactively identify suspicious voting patterns in the now-concluded ACE2009 voting logs, in the same manner as former ArbCom elections. Any suspicious votes should be identified to the scrutineers by noting in the voter log. Inelegible votes come principally from sockpuppets of already-banned users, or instances where a user has vote-stacked by voting from multiple accounts. Final discretion on whether to strike a vote rests with the scrutineers. Happy‑melon 14:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion regarding vanished users voting? I've spotted a few. What about seemingly inactive accounts voting? Should these be marked as suspicious? Rami R 15:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about users who've officially invoked RTV, however in the RFC requirements for a level of current activity were suggested, but did not receive enough discussion or consensus to change the eligibility requirements. So for regular inactive accounts, I don't see any cause to remove their votes.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to remove their votes, I'm just suggesting to mark them suspicious in the voter log, so that the scrutineers will pay special attention to them. How many genuinely inactive accounts return to vote? Rami R 16:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? Probably all of them. I think we overstate the risk and impact of "compromised accounts" in terms of vote fraud. Comparatively, a number of "vanished" accounts return to wikipedia within weeks or months (for one reason or another). Protonk (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the logs are here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Voter log. --Elonka 01:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't done a full survey, but I am surprised to see several voters which have very little activity in the past year. It appears that some folks return just to vote in this one election.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If we use active editors the last 30 days, and let's say 10% are regular contributors versus 90% casual, that still only gives us a 6.4% voter turnout. Regardless, less than 1,000 voters across all of WP is (having participated for the first time myself) alarming—expanding community involvement needs to be a priority.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently last year we had 984 voters, this year we had 994 and some may be struck as sockpuppets. MBisanz ^talk 05:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I gues I would have been voter 995, then, if SecurePoll hadn't discarded my vote. Software lags should never again be allowed to disenfranchise voters whose ballots are submitted just before the end of the voting period. EdChem (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the voting period 14 days? Protonk (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed, so you left it until the software-lag time to vote? Tony (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, it was supposed to be 14 days. Depending on the timings used, it was actually one, two, or three minutes shorter than that. EdChem (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you have missed the point - if a vote is submitted before the deadline, the software processing time should not result in it being tossed out. If you don't think this needs fixing for next time then I guess we disagree. EdChem (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have compiled a list of all voters who havent edited since the end of October 2009, and sent it to WP:functionaries-en. There are only 26 accounts involved. Some do look quite odd, but the functionaries should be able to vouch for a few of them, and maybe raise questions about the others. The scrutineers and checkusers can investigate them as they see fit, or post the list publicly if they want more eyes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It would also be interesting to check those accounts who don't have much more than 150 edits. don't know if it's possible to do that.  Dr. Loosmark  12:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly would be. If you need me to change the link template that's used to display the talk/contribs/etc links for the users, just say the word. Happy‑melon 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, am I glad that vote auditing is being treated so seriously. This gives me confidence in the system. Thank you, Scrutineers and election admins. Tony (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have explained Punk Boi 8's vote in the election directly to John Vandenberg, however I did not double vote. My reasons for voting as Punk Boi (and not Sk8er5000) have been sent to John, and I wish not to discuss these in public. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The list is available at User:John Vandenberg/ACE2009 voting analysis.

Note that these accounts are not automatically suspects of wiki-crimes, and nobody needs to be concerned just because there username is listed there. There are some old-timers listed there, and they shouldnt be hassled about their vote. Last year we had a few people return to vote after being away for a year. Unless we change suffrage, they have just as much right to vote as anyone else.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's nice to know... I guess? Ripberger (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the official results

They aren't posted yet. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You made me rush here when I saw this on my watchlist just to find this??? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You troll, you. Pah.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

troll mmmmmm....? Privatemusings (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gah. Wizardman 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to privatemusings, the results were posted off wiki.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Direct link to the results. I think the Audit Comittee should look into how this was leaked to WR. Hipocrite (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or is that not solely a poll conducted on WR of WR-member's opinions on ACE2009? I parsed that merely as an opinon poll. Did I overlook something? (Or just miss sarcasm?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the percentage of sarcasm present in this thread, but for the record, the results posted in that forum are not real, and nothing got leaked. This becomes more apparent if you read through the subsequent posts. And no part of this comment is sarcasm. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:33, 16 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just caught that. wanders off to calibrate dry-humor-o-meter -- Bfigura ^(talk) 22:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think some people have been had by what is clearly an in-joke. Orderinchaos 23:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If Jehochman is elected, I'm starting an immediate RfC for his removal as Arbs should not have a sense of humor. He's overqualified--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is plenty of on the job training to eliminate that shortcoming. Protonk (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we maybe have a progress report?

Does anyone (or rather, anyone in a position to know) have a time-frame during which we can expect election results to be announced? I'm not asking for "we will announce the results Friday at 10:00 AM UTC"--I'm looking for "within the next (hour, day, two days, week), assuming a lack of catastrophe". Anyone???GJC 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not be alarmed. The scrutineers are performing a thorough examination of every vote. This takes time, and may involve some minor discomfort. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) Sorry Gladys, I know it's frustrating, but I'm sure the scrutineers are working hard. Please let's not put them under more pressure. High standards of auditing are required, so please be patient. I'd give it another day at least, based on pure guesswork – but we might be lucky. Tony (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(cut to scenes of scrutineers wildly partying at WMF-provided hotel rooms, piles of ballots soaked by spilled beer, and a fire in a wastebasket).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that our priority lies with monitoring and ensuring the integrity of the election. We do try to announce the results as soon as possible so please be patient. --Erwin (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. We do appreciate it, in spite of the various earnest and non-earnest comments. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (p.s. do you accept PayPal?)

No pressure intended; I was simply not born patient, is all, and anyone who thinks THIS is bad should probably take a moment of silence in memory of Christmas mornings past, and what my poor parents had to endure. (For instance: did any of you know that 4 AM is technically "morning"? Yeah, neither did they.) Seriously, though--just wondering where we were in the process, is all. We're not going to be delayed by hanging chad, I'm hoping...GJC 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am not looking to pressure anyone, as in demanding that it be done faster or whatnot; Nevertheless it would still be nice to be given some information on what's going on. Are you guys manually counting votes to double-check the software tally? Confirming that everyone who voted was actually eligible? Is there some sort of problem? We're all sorta curious what you guys are doing back there, and I might even have the chutzpah to dare say we perhaps have a right to know... (cowers in corner now, waiting for people to accuse me of acting oppressed...) Seriously though. Tell us something besides "please stand by". Please. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:55, 16 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone remember using older generation windows products, or maybe dial up AOL, and you'd set up a file move, or install a program, or start download, and you'd just stare at this progress bar, that damned progress bar. It'd say 95% and "1 minute remaining" for twelve hours. Remember that?

That is approximately how useful progress reports would be.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Older generation" Windows products? They still DO that!!!!!! I install the damn things every day and they still sit at "0:01 remaining" long enough to go eat lunch. Or else they open a whole new progress bar.GJC 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's about where we're at now though, being stuck at 95% and not knowing why. I don't see it as entirely unreasonable that we be informed of the situation. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:12, 16 Dec 2009 (UTC)

My point was that progress reports would be unreliable and useless, and would fuel the frustration more than they would quench it.--Tznkai (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not frustrated, except by the mocking of this request by certain individuals. I'm not asking for a timeframe for completion, which I agree would be unreliable. I'd just like to know what's going on, what they're doing, what exactly we're waiting on the completion of. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:31, 16 Dec 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that the votes are currently being scrutinized. How far they are on looking through them I don't know. Wizardman 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on past experience, I'd suggest that it probably takes about a day of work to go through 1000 votes. With the need for collaboration and cross-checking, you probably add a day or two of overhead as well, so I would guess the whole thing would take 2 or 3 days. Of course that could vary depending on how dedicated (or distracted) people are and how thorough they want to be about every voter. Dragons flight (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Progress report

 Not done Wizardman 21:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well. I feel put in my place. Well done. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:17, 16 Dec 2009 (UTC)

We are 95% done

32.1 MB of unknown (?? % complete)
Speed: unknown

With about one minute remaining..... Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 21:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Six hours, four minutes later... A Chorus of Crickets (*chirp*) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What I usually do when that kinda thing happens is hit "restart".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[16] :-) ATren (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Doggone it, ATren, that was the comic I was thinking of!! Well done! (It hangs in my cube at work--pity I didn't realize I hadn't trimmed the URL after printing it, or I would have beaten you to it.)GJC 15:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another request for a progress report

"Daddy's trying to concentrate on the driving, dear"

The delay is becoming unfunny. It is time for the scrutineers to pause, put down the ink-stained ballot papers and spend 15 minutes letting us know where they have got to. Have they... (a) counted all the ballots, got a result, and submitted it to Jimbo for approval? (b) still not decided if all the ballots are legal? (c) Or what? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As of 22:00 UTC last night (aka scrutineer bedtime), they had a list of suspicious votes and had been discussing which ought to be checkusered. I highly doubt Jimbo will be seeing any results before us.  Skomorokh  09:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I would much rather that those 15 minutes be spent getting closer to completing the scrutineering phase. What tangible benefit would knowing "we have scrutinised 4,328 out of 8,483 votes" be to you? Those could be the easy votes, or the hard ones. The 300-member sockfarm could have been discovered, or could still be awaiting discovery. As the very good-humoured posts about the windows file dialogue below highlights, a "progress statement" is only of any value if you have a tangible idea of how long the entire process is going to take. It will be done when it is done, and not a moment sooner or later... but will be done fifteen minutes later if your wish is acceded to. Doesn't get my vote. :P Happy‑melon 09:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If it takes one fifteen minutes to post a brief progress report, then sockpuppets on an internet encyclopedia election are the least of their worries. Badger Drink (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this will be a concern for next year, and perhaps at some point after finishing their work (for which I thank them), the scrutineers could give us the benefit of their thoughts on how the process could be improved for next year. For example, could some of this work be done during the course of the election? Of the voters, roughly half seem to have voted in the first two or three days. Could they have been, er, scrutinized, during the course of the election? Were they? Thanks again to the scrutineers and other election officials for their work.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a formal list-of-steps that the scrutineers work from? (eg: ... , ... , identify users to check , run checkuser for reqd users, remove disallowed votes , release to Jimbo)? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that we need to have a 'percent-complete' progress report. Some idea of the tasks being worked on (or, for that matter, the tasks completed to this point) might be useful feedback, however. How many specific complaints do you have left to investigate? How many votes were flagged by the software as potentially suspicious? What fraction of the voters have been checkusered? Roughly? It's been two and a half days — at this point, yes, we would like you take a 15-minute break to let us know how it's going. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to checkuser, it should be made clear that 100% of votes record IP and browser information at the time of voting, and that's immediately available to the reviewers with no further action. So, some degree of checkuser-like information is always available. A secondary checkuser investigation might look at all IPs a particular user may have had in the past, or all usernames that may have come from a particular IP, but I would assume that such a secondary invetigation would only occur if there was already evidence of malfeasance. Dragons flight (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A conversation with the plumber.

"Who long will it take?"

"An hour."

"So if I help it'll only take 30 minutes."

"No, if you help it'll take two hours."

Or something to that effect...   Will Beback  talk  11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As best I can tell, scrutineers check voters, not votes. The up-to-date list of voters is available in real-time throughout the election. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Some aspects of the scrutineering involve comparing votes against each other; naturally that requires the complete set. Other aspects, such as checking the votes that the software flags as possibly being the result of (a variety of) web scripting attacks, can be checked 'on the fly'; as noted above, we did begin to make those checks a few days before the close of voting. Happy‑melon 12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very uncomfortable with the notion that the way someone votes should ever be used as evidence against the legitimacy of their vote. It is really an assault upon free and open democracy, not to mention the whole point of secret balloting. In addition you quickly run into practical problems since you can never really know whether two ballots are the same because of a) coincidence, b) sockpuppetry, or c) open advocacy (e.g. someone posting recommendations about how to vote, and other people following it). The SecurePoll software, as implemented in the past, was literally designed so that vote content was not available to people doing voter reviews. If that has been changed and people are now looking through individual votes, then I would consider that a very bad change. Dragons flight (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the fundamental principle of SecurePoll, and secret ballots in general, is that the way a vote was cast should have no bearing on its legitimacy. Perhaps my previous wording was unclear: the scrutineers compare the characteristics of the voter who cast the vote (IP, UA, editcount, etc etc) not the characteristics of the vote itself. No one has access to the latter information. Happy‑melon 16:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad we agree. Your repeated use of the term "votes" rather than "voters" above really did suggest something untoward to me. Nice to know that everything is okay. Dragons flight (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's because the voter characteristics are tied to votes, and rightly so, since voters can vote multiple times. If User:Example cast a vote with an IP geolocating to New York, and then a few days later cast a second vote with an IP from Tajikistan, that would obviously be something that would be looked into (by checkusering Example to see where he normally edits from); but it's an issue that is noticed by comparing two votes against each other. Hence the wording; I can't see a better way of phrasing it, although I see how it could be misinterpreted. Of course, it's when the checkuser reveals that Example actually edits from Australia, but using the same IP as the vote from User:Foo, that things start to get really messy... :D Happy‑melon 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may help with wording, it is the vote meta-data not its content, that is compared. The actual content of the vote cannot be reviewed by anyone. Risker (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, once we get to the evaluation stage, this would be a good thing to consider for next year--without crossing over into WP:BEANS, is there a way that the list of tasks that the scrutineers complete could be publicized beforehand? Obviously we don't need or want a detailed explanation of how the tasks are done--just what those tasks are, so we have a sense of how much work this requires, and so that people like me can use that information to remind ourselves exactly how hard you guys actually work, while my sluglike form languishes at my computer playing PathWords for untold hours. (All of which, besides a request for more info next time, should coalesce into "Hey, your work really is appreciated, and probably not something I could do--please feel free to ignore/scoff at my impatience, as I am, in fact, a sluggard to the utmost degree.")GJC 15:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy-melon has already made available the text of the instructions to the scrutineers, who will be asked for their feedback shortly after they deliver the tally. Next year's instructions are likely to be set out with greater emphasis on the sequence of tasks, now that we've gone through it once. The feedback page will play an important role in getting this established. Tony (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall... ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Take one down, pass it around, ninety-eight bottles of beer on the wall... Dragons flight (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop the car, I need to visit the loo

If I'd known it was going to be such a long trip, I wouldn't have had those three diet Cokes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, those mushrooms look tasty, where are we going in this thing, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are all those kids over there watching us and grinning?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (a.k.a. Schrodinger's cat)

MOMMMMMM!!!! Jehochman is making faces at me again!!! Make him STOOOOOOOOP! GJC 15:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Santa is going to put you two on the naughty list if you two keep fighting back there... --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 12:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does the shoulder keep getting under the car?

It looks like we're in need of some coffee to keep us going on this long journey. *Pours a cup* --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 12:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

After the election

After all this is over, when the invalid votes have been determined, the results certified, etc., are the actual votes going to be deleted? (Or erased, purged, or whatever the technical term is.) I realize that the process requires that the record of how each person voted has to be kept so that a person can change their vote and so that invalid votes can be thrown out, but after the process is completed, checked, verified and so on, there wouldn't seem to be a need to keep them around. Neutron (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting question. I can see good arguments both way, but this needs to be discussed. — Coren ^(talk) 16:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting this question now at the feedback page. Tony (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought of posting my question at the feedback page originally, but I thought that page was for improvements to be considered for next year's election, and my question deals with this year's as well. So, when I actually get a chance to write my rationale for deleting the votes, should I post it here or there? Neutron (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider posting there: I've already asked for advantages and disadvantags of destroying the data. Tony (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I will do so, when I have the time. I think we are at least a few days away from this being an issue for this election anyway, because I would not advocate deleting the information until after the process is totally, completely finished, and that would not be until after the Chairman Emeritus announces who is on the committee, and even then I would wait at least another week for any potential "drama" to appear and disappear. My issue is really with the information sitting around for more than a "short term basis", and we aren't even into the short term yet. Neutron (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If socking is discovered after the fact wouldn't it be useful to be able to go back and see how they voted? I realize the Arbs were all gung ho for this secret voting nonsense, but now now we're going to oversight the records we can't see too? Yikes. I think a checkuser should go through the whole election after the results are announced to see how many bad votes were missed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Who the sockpuppets voted for is mere trivia once the votes are struck. Furthermore, the records are already obscured, as part of the technical process. If I had to guess, I'd say we've probably had at least one sockpuppet vote in every election. Systems are imperfect, and deception is a part of life as it is part of Wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, deception is even essential to sexual reproduction; the very essence of deception lies in courtship behaviour, you'll be horrified to know. That is why we have social codes and civil and criminal laws, and why on WP we have measures to counter identity fraud (i.e., socking). Tony (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "deception" is the issue here. I just think once the election is over, it should be over and not subject to second-guessing. The time to strike invalid votes is now. In a "real" election, at least where I vote, the opportunity to strike the votes of ineligible voters is lost when the person votes; as soon as the button is pushed on the voting machine, the vote just becomes part of a count for the chosen candidates, and no connection remains between the name of the voter and those who have been voted for. (There are special provisions for people whose eligibility to vote is not clear on the spot; basically, those people do not vote electronically, and their ballots are not scanned into the computer system until and unless they are determined to be eligible voters.) Here the connection remains, but it only has value while the election process is still underway. Once the election process is completely over, the individual voters' ballots have no value to the process. The only value they have is to someone who wants to know, for their own reasons, how people voted. I am sure there is good security protecting the votes, but no security is perfect. That's why I think they should be deleted. Neutron (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

hmmm

it'll never boil..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Especially since the gas isn't on.--Tznkai (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) ...not to mention there's no water in it. Jonathunder (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Since when were Wiki editors, given X-ray vision? --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Check your secret decoder ring! I can't say more here! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Coffee, it's in Special:Preferences. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If this were a high-drama election, the gas would be burning in the ultraviolet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it another 24 hours or so. Based on some of the discussion above, I'd say ultraviolet is only a couple of nanometers away anyway. Neutron (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a better analogy might be waiting for white smoke to appear. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 22:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rub harder! Oh great genie, I wish for election results! Jehochman ^Talk 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is quite the suspenseful moment! —Beneficence 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a kettle, Jehochman, not a magic lamp. Be careful rubbing it!

Seriously, let's get the results so I can find out if my vote was discarded or not. Maybe I'll know how the Afghans felt after their last election? ;) Ripberger (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw, as I'm convinced the the incumbent Coren ArbCom has rigged the results in his favour. Steve Smith (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to clarify whether the above is a joke. It is. Steve Smith (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If it turns out there is a bug in the vote-tally software that invalidates the vote, will we get black smoke, or just smoke coming out of the ears of nearly 1000 editors? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Only 1000 people voted? stmrlbs|talk 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't vote because it takes time to get to know the candidates well enough to be anything but neutral. I had a short list of candidates I planned on opposing or supporting, but for each one, the more I researched the more neutral I became until they were all neutral. Well over half of the candidates I didn't even know well enough to have a starting point. All in all, it's far better for me not to vote than to make an uniformed vote. I considered "voting" a blank ballot just for the record but I figured that, unlike a real election where measuring how many people are "interested enough to get out and vote" is an end in and of itself, there was no point in blank-ballot-voting here. So, in the end, my vote was: Big number of candidates: abstain/didn't have time to research, a small number of candidates: truly neutral. No, I won't say who is in which category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty well sums it up. Between the lack of community discussion and the surfeit of dumb and/or redundant questions that drowned out whatever useful nuggets might have been buried in there, I really felt like I was flying blind in this one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Do you infer that the lower community engagement and diminished rigorous discussion resulted from the secret election format? I recall many of the proponents suggesting that the secret ballot would result in a much higher voter turnout... yet the numbers seem to be remarkably flat. Just something to ponder. —Beneficence 06:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That was a casual inference suggested by the proponents. there was no obvious reason to believe it to be true, even without the evidence from this year. Rather, I suggest that voter turnout is not affected by the change in mechanism but the perceived importance of the election. Or, we may be in a swiss situation, where the shift to a more private voting system detaches the act of voting from social engagement, causing people who would otherwise feel pressured to show up at canton meetings to fail to fill out postal votes. Protonk (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Scrutineers?

Forgive my ignorance, but who exactly are they? Is there a list somewhere? Equazcion ^(talk) 15:32, 18 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Yep, on the first paragraph of ACE. They're all Stewards who don't edit here IIRC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gah, how'd I miss that. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:38, 18 Dec 2009 (UTC)

On "good enough" vs. "Perfect"

If the margin of error between the lest-supported winning candidate and the most-supported non-winning candidate is less than the potential margin of fraud by votes still under scrutiny, then it makes sense to not release the results yet, as the actual outcome hasn't been confirmed yet.

If, on the other hand, if the remaining unresolved fraud would not change who would be seated, then releasing the names of the winners can be done safely, with either a further delay in the actual numbers until scrutiny is done OR a statement saying "these numbers have not been fully scrutinized, but we have scrutinized them enough to determine who will and will not be seated. Don't assume the rankings and tallies would not have changed if we had finished the scrutinization process."

In any case, a statement saying "we think we are about halfway done" or "give us a few more days" or even "we greatly underestimated the time this would take, we hope to be ready before New Years" would be helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the scrutineers were chosen with the specific requirement that they not be English Wikipedia editors. There is every chance that they won't read the various requests on this page unless it is brought to their attention. Nathan ^T 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We could set up a SecurePoll to determine who makes that request... Equazcion ^(talk) 17:34, 18 Dec 2009 (UTC)

How does this compare with the amount of time needed after the Audit Subcommittee elections? Obviously many more votes here, but it might give us some basis of comparison.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Near as I can tell: Voting for the audit subcommittee ended on 8 November at 23:59 [17] and members were appointed on 10 November at 21:38 [18]. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:22, 18 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Musing

If, say, we haven't heard anything in another 24 hours, and if enough people agree that it's reasonable, could we call on the election administrators (Mr.Z-man, Happy-melon, and Tznkai) to request some status information from the scrutineers and report it here? Equazcion ^(talk) 17:48, 18 Dec 2009 (UTC)

No need to be impatient IMO. Then again, I'm not waiting on the results to see if I won... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am, but it is not a big deal with me. However, I agree it would be nice to have a little advance warning if I am going to be called on to serve as an Arb. Plus there has been wide speculation that 9 candidates may not reach 50 percent, and so Jimbo would have to appoint outside the field. It might not be a bad idea to have some discussion regarding them, though there would be an inevitable drama fest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Impatience exists in a variety of situations where there's no need for it :) Per david's comment above, though, it would be helpful to have some idea of what's going on, even if that's to say it'll take another two weeks. If they aren't even halfway done, it would help people to know not to even bother checking in the next few days. This total open-endedness is driving people mad. Mad, I say. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:03, 18 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Make me less poor

I didn't think to ask before, but is there a book running on this? I've got $50 on someone saying the election was rigged within 24 hours of the results emerging! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That may have happened already, depending on how one interprets this. Neutron (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking good-natured only wagers on Jehochman's percentage - see his talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What concerns me is that apparently 1,000 Wikidollars was bet against me after the close of the election by someone named M.E. Tasteward. Though they only stand to win fifty wikicents ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck proving it was, or wasn't rigged. WP:AGF. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not looking for proof of a rigged election. I'm betting on someone saying it is rigged within 24 hours. I'll bet another $10 that someone claims ACORN rigged it by employing voter fraud! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Results are up!

Somebody who's good at math want to tell me if I'm in the top nine? Steve Smith (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The numbers that are up now appear wrong; some of the negative signs are missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the math isn't right. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In the process of fixing the derived values. --Tznkai (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Assumed you were, but results were a bit shocking on the first pass, with negatives missing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry! The fix is in! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you are in top 7 (possibly 6), by %. My condolences. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The percentages are being posted right now. The chart is still incomplete. Neutron (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just completed. Neutron (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So, is it 8 seats that are being filled, or 9? If I am reading this correctly, the 8th and 9th place candidates are 0.21 percent apart (as in, one-fifth of a percentage point.) It looks like the "50 percent" issue will not come up, as the top 14 candidates received more than 50 percent, and that is more than the number of seats being filled. Neutron (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo said during the election that he'd post five to two year terms and four to one year terms. I can't imagine that the closeness of the 8th and 9th place finishers will incline him back towards appointing only eight. Steve Smith (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nine nominations are expected to be made. That 0.21% is twelve swing votes, which is a comfortable margin. You also note that the top 9 candidates by percentage are also the top 9 candidates by net, which means a common problem with support/oppose voting will not be an issue here. I don't think that this will be a difficult decision for Jimbo to make. Happy‑melon 23:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In terms of 'least opposed', the nine successful candidates are all in the ten-least-opposed slots - which is nice. Unsuccessful User:MBK004 stands out, being the 8th-least-opposed, but also only the 19th-most-supported. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still amazed that there were so few voters. Perhaps many Wikipedians are unaware of the importance of ArbCom? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they are precisely aware of the importance of arbcom.--Tznkai (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Zing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the number of voters would be considered low. Wasn't it approximately the same number as last year? Wasn't it almost 1,000 voters? How do you measure high vs. low in this situation? Neutron (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated low votership doesn't make it good, just normal. Look at the US, which has shite voter participation, usually around 55% (and that only for presidential elections - midterms are 10-15% lower). 1000 voters out of.. how many eligible? 5000? Imagine if voting was restricted to Rollbackers, we'd be under 1/3 participation. 1000 is probably enough to say it's fair, but not necessarily enough to be proud of. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Presidential or other national elections aren't the right benchmarks. A better comparison might be association or board elections for relatively large groups (e.g. the American Economic Association). "Turnout", or percentage of members who fill out and return valid ballots are traditionally very low. 1000 out of ~10,000 "active" editors (using a reasonable but loose definition for active) isn't terrible when compared with like scenarios. Protonk (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The good news is that we have nine candidates who attained more than 60% support; now Tony1 can publicly flog me for fretting :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I fretted to, if it makes you feel better.--Tznkai (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been positively consumed with statistics in an effort to pretend like I am not fretting. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• My apologies for my awful arithmetic and transcribing skills; was working quickly so as to avoid any possible edit conflicts. Everything should be good now. NW (Talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• The 1/2 year line between 5th 6th place should is interesting - #5 SirFozzie (S)364/(N)435/(O)197/(net)167/64.88% vs. #6 Steve Smith (S)338/(N)481/(O)177/(net)161/65.63%. Given the community support for both flipping a coin or having a good-natured ceremonial cage match like a mini-WikiCup running from now until New Years Day sounds like a good way to decide this virtual tie for the 2-year seat. Making them both 1- or 2-year seats is also an option. After all, come January they will be too busy to do a lot of writing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• While I'd be more than happy to give that second year to Foz (though probably nowhere near as happy to do so as I'll be in a year), my anal retentativeness compels me to point out that 65.63% > 64.88%. Steve Smith (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps Davidwr was going by the net votes. Using the net was suggested, but I'm fairly sure we settled on percentages. --Tango (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  I wasn't sure what was decided, so I was pointing out that the two systems yeilded different orderings. It also gave me a good excuse to propose a cage match contest where these two could spend their last days of freedom before taking office doing some serious editing, while they still have time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The discrepancy.

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Clarification of a discrepancy in the results, in terms of rankings, my spreadsheet suggests it could lead to a reversal of positions 6-7, 8-9 and 15-16 under 'worst case' scenarios. ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's possibly the case, but given that (under all reasonable expectations) positions 1 to 5 will get seated in the two year slots and 6 to 9 to the one year slots, even the possibility that all three double votes were exactly right to affect relative rankings they could not change the actual appointments. I think that keeping their privacy wins in this case since the result cannot be affected materially. — Coren ^(talk) 02:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(To clarify, only reversals of 5-6 or 9-10 could affect the seating arrangements, since those are not possible I think that's a non-issue) — Coren ^(talk) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You should have seen the para I wrote when I was mistakenly looking at spreadsheet row numbers rather than official ranks (8-9 was 9-10) - fortunately as a major issue, I triple checked and corrected myself before hitting save. I concur that the issue is minor, if regrettable, and the info above is just in the spirit of sharing the analysis. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Clock watching

This is getting just a teeny bit ridiculous. Are we into the realm of the hanging chad now? Will we need a Supreme Court intervention or something? I want to know who the starting pitcher will be! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect is the enemy of good. We ought to set aside a fixed amount of time for scrutinizing. Do your best with the time and resources available, and then publish the results. There's always more that can be done, but there are diminishing returns from effort.

If you have found some sort of massive vote fraud, and need an exceptional amount of time to clean up, please say so. Otherwise, let's draw this process to a close and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand these posts asking for a hurried decision; we had an RFC that wasn't well formulated and postulated too many changes at once, and it will certainly take time for Jimbo to figure out how to sort the resulting mess, considering so many changes at once. I wouldn't like to be the person trying to sort what to make of so many changes at once. Relax everyone! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't relax. I'm so excited, I'm about ready to burst. OMG I've had so much coffee. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't share your excitement :) Considering too many changes at once, I'm not looking forward to the outcome and the coming year, whatever the outcome may be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I knew I shouldn't have given you a cup... --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 15:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I recall reading the results would be posted on the 16th, we're now the 18th. Setting the right expectations should be a priority for next year. –xeno^talk 14:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the priority should be getting the best outcome, and factoring in how to sort a malformed RFC, a new balloting method, decreased feedback on candidates, and multiple changes at once to the Committee. If that takes time, as long as we make it before January 1, that should be fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not a candidate and haven't been stressed by this for the last month. Some of us would like it to be over already. I don't think we're pushing for Jimbo to make a quick decision. We want to see the vote tallies already. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I said "a priority", not "the" priority. If this year tells us that scrutineers take "X" days to scrutinize 1000 votes, then next year we should say the results will be available X+1 days after the voting closes, assuming similar participation. If the participation is higher, the X value should be increased proportionally. Why the +1? Better to be early than late. –xeno^talk 14:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you suggest setting a goal, how much time would you allocate for review next year then? Dragons flight (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the scrutineers are doing. My expectation was that results would be available a few hours after the polls closed. Votes can be checked on the fly to see if accounts are sock puppets. At the outside limit, 24 hours for scrutiny would be a good target. If the scrunteers have valid reasons for needing more time, let's have an explanation and discuss it. In principal I can accept whatever time is needed if an expectation is set, and reasons are given. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes cannot be comprehensively "checked on the fly", that fundamentally misunderstands what checking for sockpuppetry is all about. One of the scrutineers has, as I understand it, spent an entire day working on one checkuser investigation. CheckUser is a capricious and ephemeral tool that requires both great skill, and significant amounts of time, to use properly. To suggest that a thousand votes can be rigorously checked for sockpuppetry within 24 hours is totally misguided. Happy‑melon 14:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock accounts exhibit certain characteristics that can be spotted fairly quickly. To take an entire day to check one vote sounds like a misapplication of resources. Our goal is to reduce the noise to an acceptable level, and extract the signal. Perfection is not obtainable. A clever sockpuppeteer can elude checkuser. Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I do hope we aren't fishing though. Yes, it can take time, but a whole day actually sounds like an awfully long time to spend before deciding the validity of a voter. A majority of ballots, I would assume, are in no way suspicious and wouldn't be subject to any significant follow-up beyond bulk checks looking for things like repeated IPs and users who voted despite not being active editors. Dragons flight (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm not sure Jimbo will have that much to "figure out"; rather, it is the community that is charged with running the election, as a matter of policy. There is no point in continuing to harp on about "so many changes at once"—the community determined that these changes were necessary, even if you personally disagreed with some aspects of the consensus. Just why should those decisions be connected with the need to wait for a few days for the proper scrutineering of the votes? As HM points out, this election is no more tardy than those of previous years. Yes, it is a matter of unwisely predicting that scrutiny would take just one day ("15 December") and posting this assumption on the election page. I am willing to share some of the blame for raising people's expectations of swift verification. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if we heard nothing until Monday, although I have no more information on which to base that feeling than anyone else here. Tony (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If I'm "harping", it's because I think the community should be prepared for any contoversy that may ensue as a result of so many changes at once, which may yield contradictory results that can't conform to the RFC. Anyone who is "stressed" by waiting for the results might consider the greater stress of serving on ArbCom. It's not possible to adequately plan a timetable when so many changes were implemented at once; we'll just have to wait to see how it shakes out, and hope for the best. And hope I'm wrong :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What permutations are you concerned about? Happy‑melon 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Licom took 13 days post-close to go through 18000+ ballots during that vote. Like I said higher up the page, I think 1000 ballots could be done in a day if people are quite dedicated. However, as a matter of practical reality, coordinating multiple reviewers who have a variety of different scheduling limitations probably makes something like 3 days a more realistic goal. It would have been nice if the delay were mentioned up front, but most of the people involved seem to be touching this system for the first time, and so might not have known what was coming. Dragons flight (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It would have been good to set these expectations. We're on the fourth day now. Are we going to get results today? Jehochman ^Talk 15:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. As you've said above, "perfect is the enemy of good" and I'm beginning to worry that the scrutineers are trying too hard to do a perfect job. I wish we knew just a little bit of what their progress was and what they are trying to accomplish: it may well be that they have a very good reason beyond simple coordination woes for the delay and that we'd all be very pleased to know that they are taking the time to do it right. — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comment here. The 'overrun' from the timetable reflects a hopeless optimism on the part of whoever wrote the timetable, not a problem with the process itself. The average time between election close and Jimbo's appointments is eight days; we are still well ahead of that schedule. I agree that the timetable should be more realistic next year. Happy‑melon 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that when ArbCom has been (wrongly, I feel) under fire for certain actions and events, and Wikipedia as a whole has been (again, I feel unfairly) accused of bias and stuff, having a situation where these fairly significant election results are delayed while votes are scrutinized (and potentially discarded) is sending the wrong sort of signal. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. ArbCom was under fire recently for rushing into decisions that didn't need to be rushed. There's no real urgency for ArbCom elections as long as its all wrapped up by the end of the year. Taking the time to make sure its as correct as possible seems like the right signal to me. Mr.Z-man 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so much concerned about the urgency issue as the reason for the delay (scrutineering, discarding of votes, etc.) that could give the appearance of a little bit of "jiggery pokery" for the conspiracy theorists to latch on to. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, you are all beginning to sound like my impatient kids, sitting in the back of the car, screaming "are we nearly there yet" every five minutes. You will get the results when you get the results - screaming will not get us there any faster. Now, sit back and be quiet.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Relax folks, take a deep breath. Look outside, consider going outside. Take a long walk down a forest path. We are waiting for election results, not the second coming. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to become the voice of reason when one isn't as emotionally invested as the others for whatever reason. I recognize that some people are, and understand the frustration. Myself, I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I think the lack of communication more than anything else is what's making people frustrated. It might not make things go any faster, but there's something to be said for easing the tension of the situation by letting people know what's going on and how much more still needs to be done. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:53, 18 Dec 2009 (UTC)

And over at Wikigamble, you can get pretty good odds on the second coming coming before the election results!;)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is calling for a hurried decision, just for some kind of indication of how much longer the wait will be. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • According to the December 14 Signpost article, the results probably won't be announced until Monday, December 21. --Elonka 20:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • ...Which, in theory, would mean that the Monday Signpost will be where the announcement is made. Coincidence? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • That seems to be the scheduled date appointments will be announced by Jimbo. We have been told that the results will be published here prior to Jimbo's ceremonial announcement. Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
        • (ec)Elonka, what the Signpost actually says is, "The appointments will be formally announced by Jimbo Wales by 21 December (expected date), after community consultation if necessary." There is a difference between the "results" and the "appointments." The "results" people are awaiting here are the number of support and oppose votes obtained by each candidate. Jimbo then acts on those "results" and makes "appointments." Further clarification of this is also found on the same Signpost page. Under "Timeline", it says "14 December – Voting ends; scrutineers soon after certify and announce the results on the ACE talk page, and formally communicate them to Jimbo Wales" and then "By 21 December – results announced by Jimbo Wales (expected date), after community consultation if necessary." (In the latter sentence it should probably say that Jimbo announces the "appointments", not the "results", to be consistent with what it says higher up on the page.) So we are currently in the stage of "scrutineers soon after certify and announce the results on the ACE talk page", with "soon after" meaning soon after December 14, and presumably in enough time before December 21 for Jimbo to receive and consider the "results", possibly have "community consultation" and then announce the "results" (meaning the appointments) "by December 21." I think the reason the heat is starting to rise on this page is that most people interpreted "soon after December 14" to mean sooner than now, and in any event the passage of time is starting to make it look unlikely that the next step in the process (the announcement of appointments) will occur by the scheduled date either. Neutron (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, I see the distinction now, thanks. And I agree that it would be nice to see the numerical results, even if it's understood that these might not be the final results, and there still might be some tweaking in the numbers as scrutinizing continues. The secret part of the voting is done, there's really no reason to withhold the raw data of the numbers at this point, is there? --Elonka 22:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
            • We really can't presume to know all the factors involved, since so many changes could have introduced unforeseen issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• A hypothetical: I generate a tally and post it. Exactly one vote between now and end of scrutineering 1 vote is struck. Whose vote was struck will be revealed to at least 9 people. Depending on how insightful a persn is and how well various actions are logged, a whole lot more people could find out as well. Then you expand from the definite to mere probability, and you get the idea.
• Another hypothetical:We post results, and scrutineering ends and who ends up in the ninth slot changes. What do you imagine the reaction would be?--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think that most people who are interested in the results, would be cognizant of the fact that those candidates in borderline cases might or might not get appointed. After all, that's kind of what we had in previous years, isn't it? Everyone saw the numbers, but everyone was also aware that those numbers could change. In neither case do we have a whining-free zone, but I think it's better to opt in the direction of transparency, rather than withholding numbers out of fears that "the people can't handle the truth". --Elonka 22:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So we don't have all this pointless waiting, next year we should go back to the proper way of doing the election - openly and publicly, as is the wiki way. There was no demonstratable improvement in keeping everything a secret (but it did make things worse by delaying results and counting illegitimate votes, amongst other things). All the nonsense about people being afraid to vote has been completely proven wrong. Majorly talk 00:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As it turns out, the waiting really was not that bad. It took less than four full days. Perhaps that can be shortened for the next time, perhaps not. I think the real "problem" (if there was one) was that people just didn't know how long they were going to be waiting. Next time people will know to expect a three or four day wait, unless it is announced that a system has been put in place to begin verifying the voters before the election ends, in which case the wait may be shorter. The benefits of a secret ballot much more than outweigh any delay in getting the results. Neutron (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)