Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination

v t e 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter Log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Quick guide Candidates: Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Personal voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Collect OhKayeSierra Guerillero Reaper Eternal Elonka Gerda Arendt Fish and karate MJL 28bytes Atsme Calidum Peacemaker67 Mz7 Ched Ealdgyth SQL Carrite Jehochman SMcCandlish The Lady Catherine de Burgh Tryptofish

Archives

Index Archive 1

Before the scrutineering period begins — when everyone yells at us "what are you doing/how long do I have to wait" — User:-revi/ACE scrutineering.

Personal remarks: Assisting scrutineers with finding socks blocked after their vote cast would be greatly appreciated. — regards, Revi 04:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or those voted twice with their known/declared alt accounts. — regards, Revi 02:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni, Vanamonde93, and Primefac: Last year, in an effort to simplify a few things, I repurposed a central template at {{Arbitration Committee candidate/data}} which contains the elections metadata for the nomination period and the voting period. {{ACEWatchlistNotice}} uses it as does {{ACEMM}}. The former is already transcluded on the Watchlist notices page and will automatically generate the text when the nomination period opens, and when the voting period opens. The only thing the data template needs now is the SecurePoll ID of the vote so the mass message link and watchlist notice link go to the correct voting page. If any delays occur this year for whatever reason, all one needs to do now is simply modify the data template and the remaining templates will update accordingly. For mass messages, all you need to do is literally substitute the ACEMM template in the body of the message.  :-)—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 00:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of us ran into some... issues... when the first candidate put their nomination in the ring, mostly having to do with the templates and process not being fully updated (long story short, and lot of leftover "2018" links instead of "2019"). I'd like to evaluate the "flow chart" per se of the ACE process so that it can be slightly more automated and avoid having to update and/or create a dozen new pages every year (though some will be unavoidable). And, if all else fails, will make the creation process just that much easier next year. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural side (PS)[edit]

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December <year> created (redirect: WP:ACE<year>)
   1. Timing has been semi-automated (PS7 below)
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December <year>/Header created
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December <year>/Candidates created (redirect: WP:ACE<year>/C)
4. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December <year>/Candidates/Discussion created
5. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December <year>/Candidates/Guide created (redirect: Wikipedia:ACE<year>/G)
6. Template:ACE<year> created
7. Template:Arbitration Committee candidate/data updated following RFC
8. ACE<year> discussion created
9. {{Arbitration Committee Elections statement}} updated

Candidate side (CS)[edit]

1. Candidate goes to WP:ACE<year>/C
2. Candidate clicks on the "Click here" button, which preloads this page and loads up {{ACE candidate page}}
   1. Can dates in the template be automated? Currently manually updated every year, but only to do year++
3. {{ACE candidate page}} gives preloads for:
   1. Statement subpage, which loads {{Arbitration Committee Elections statement}}
      1. Currently manually updated - can this be changed?
   2. Questions subpage, which includes {{ACE Question}}
   3. Discussion subpage, which includes {{ACE2019 discussion}}
      1. Currently manually updated (e.g. from {{ACE2018 discussion}} to {{ACE2019 discussion}}) - can this be changed?
      2. Automatically subst's in the <year> for the discussion template

Discussion[edit]

If I'm missing something feel free to add it in; there are a ton of ACE pages, subpages, and templates, and I feel like I'm missing a few.

I think most of the templates that need to be updated every year can be automated with a subst: call to {{CURRENTYEAR}}. I also think PS2 can be automated in the same manner, and then on each page it's used it can use a |year= parameter. There might be a few other of the subtemplates that can benefit from a centralized template and a |year= param. Thoughts? Primefac (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, I'm not an election volunteer, but I'd be happy to put some time into those templates after the election. All of your suggestions sound reasonable to me. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello election volunteers! Spotted two things that could use attention, one trivial, one less so:

• The more trivial one: On the talk page infoboxen, the links to "notify an election volunteer" point to last year's coordination page (see [[1]] for an example).
• The more serious one: I'm concerned about the appropriateness of WBG's question here, on grounds of it being a pretty blatant personal attack wrapped up in a question. I commend WTT's handling of it, but I'd appreciate some more attention on it. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the first issue, and everything should be pointing to the right place. Will have to look into the second a little deeper when I have time. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creffett, I will appreciate that you have the general courtesy of pinging me while discussing my edits.

If you do feel that describing some actions as representative of mind-boggling arrogance, ivory-tower mentality, and flippant dismissiveness are personal attacks, it won't take me long to find ex-arbs (and I believe, even a few current ones) using these very terms to describe certain behaviors/folks. NPA is not a shield to deflect away criticism and we are not snowflakes. ∯WBG^converse 16:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a shield to deflect criticism, but there is always the question of how necessary are the superlatives. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious, that mileage can vary on the necessity but it's as much obvious that they are not breaches of NPA. If you feel that my choice of superlatives over the very first question has a chance to affect WTT's election prospects unfairly, you have my consent to transpose it to somewhere down the order, though. ∯WBG^converse 16:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, you're absolutely right, it's not a shield to deflect criticism - but one can have criticism without personal attacks. You could have said something like "I believe that you and the rest of ArbCom did not engage with the community during (case links). How do you respond to these concerns, and do you intend to change this behavior if re-elected?" Bam. Criticism without attacks. Also, Or do you find the traits to be desirable in an arb?, while not necessarily a personal attack, was really snide and assuming bad faith - I can't see any way to read that question without a whole lot of sarcasm. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken the last bit. ∯WBG^converse 16:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also: you're correct, I failed to ping you. Apologies, will try not to let it happen again. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grillofrances (talk · contribs) has asked questions to all candidates that I find very inappropriate as they could lead to religious/political discrimination and request the candidates to divulge private beliefs. Could the commissioners please review them? --Rschen7754 04:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Sorry for that. I don't know which type of questions I can ask about because I couldn't find any guide. IMO the personal beliefs are important because ArbCom shouldn't be composed of people having all the same views (in order to stay neutral, there should be in the same time christians, muslims, atheists etc.; people which are pro-Israel and pro-Palestine; left-wing politically affiliated people and right wing as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillofrances (talk • contribs)

• Having reviewed the questions, I think they fall into the category of disruptive use of the question page, and think that it would be within our remit to remove them. @Primefac and Vanamonde93: your thoughts would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I dunno. I was able to come up with some good answers. Although others may disagree. -- llywrch (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, individual candidates may have fun with it, but Which of the following sexual behaviors are normal in your opinion: sex before marriage, anal sex, oral sex, homosexuality, polygamy, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, rape, pedophilia? is just trolling. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, when you're not entirely sure that you're dealing with a troll or a misguided poster, a bit of humor is the best response. Doing this allows you to elicit sufficient information to then act appropriately. (And note that I declined quite clearly to answer some of these questions, such as those about sex.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also made an honest effort to answer them all. Perhaps that was a bit naive of me, but I do think the questions were made in earnest, even if some of them are quite inappropriate. – bradv🍁 17:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with Tony and have removed the unanswered questions (and WTT's with permission); while I understand the sentiment behind the line of questioning, 13 questions of dubious merit is a bit much. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch:@Bradv:@Primefac:@TonyBallioni:@Rschen7754: Could you tell me which among my 13 questions are acceptable to you?

I think I made it clear in my case which questions I felt were acceptable. The others may disagree with me. -- llywrch (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't feel like somebody asking about whether I think raping children and animals is ok is acting in good faith. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally I think any of the first 7 questions could be asked - some are certainly more likely to lead to interesting answers to you than others (for instance I think 6 would be a big disappointment for you). I think posing all 7 is a bit much itself. So if you were to genuinely ask 2 or 3 of those 7 I think you could get some thoughtful answers, from at least some of the candidates. Also please try to remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. It makes it easier for others to understand who wrote something (and is also required for the pings you wrote above to work). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Grillofrances:, maybe this isn't my place to say this, but I'll say it anyway. I really hope you don't go around at work asking people what their religion is or what sexual practices they find acceptable. Doing that is generally frowned upon in most societies. --Rschen7754 01:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I had an answer composed, but Rschen7754 said it better. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I apologise for the delay in responding; I had a whole-day event at work, and haven't been online in 24 hours or so. I agree with my colleagues that the questions were inappropriate. These question pages are for determining the suitability of candidates to be on the arbitration committee. Asking them deeply personal questions about their beliefs that have no clear link to their candidacy is straying beyond the bounds of what is useful here, whether asked in good faith or otherwise. I also agree that asking candidates their opinions about rape is the result of either remarkable naivete, or of editing in bad faith. I prefer to assume the former, but it isn't something that ought to be repeated. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that today Grillofrances has asked a single, perfectly appropriate question to almost all candidates, (e.g. to me), but for Isarra and KrakatoaKatie asked "are you a woman" and for the latter also asked a question about the candidates health. While KrakatoaKatie makes it very clear in their candidate statement they do identify as female, Isarra does not obviously make their gender public (unless "I am an eggplant" is a statement of gender of course). I am not sure if this is appropriate or not, but feel it worth bringing up in the light of their earlier questions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, I honestly have half a mind to block Grillofrances for repeatedly posting, what I perceive to be, disruptive questions. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just spotted that all-but two of their edits since July have been to Candidate question pages, one minor but useful and one not particularly useful at all. It's making me wonder if they are still here? Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, That suggests to me that they're doing drive by editing, and from what I see are crossing from net-positive to net-negative. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: @Cyberpower678: Seriously is asking "are you a woman" inappropriate? I understand that somebody may not want to reveal his gender but IMO it's not aggressive. OK, maybe gender is unimportant in context of Arbcom. However, the health is very important because IMO if somebody is unavailable for many weeks, he shouldn't be a member of Arbcom, such a person could be a great editor or admin but some candidates replied me one of the most important things, they'd like to improve, is timeliness. At the end, I'd like to show that after finding asking these 13 questions inappropriate, I stopped asking about religion or sexuality and I reduced the number of questions so I don't repeat the same mistakes; IMO Wikipedia should value the freedom of expression and seeking a consensus instead of banning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillofrances (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grillofrances, no but the constant probing into the personal lives/conditions of the candidates is not appropriate. If Katie wanted you to know more about her cluster headaches, she would've volunteered that information. You may as well ask her for her address, phone number, email, and social security number. —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States it is illegal to ask anything about health at a job interview, for similar reasons as all of the other questions you asked. --Rschen7754 02:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• With only two days left after a long period of voting and with the vast majority of votes already cast, probably most candidates are no longer bothered about answering new questions anyway. In view of the user's extremely low participation on Wikipedia, I am concerned that they know what the Arbitration Committee is and how the voting system works. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: The voting system allows casting another vote which cancels the previous one which I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillofrances (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Grillofrances, but not many candidates are going to bother answering many new questions at that late stage, and nor will your changing your vote change much. I've made another comment on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just kidding. I just wanted to thank everyone involved in running the election this year. Especially TonyBallioni, Primefac, and Vanamonde93, who constituted our election commission this year and were very responsive to queries. Also a special thanks is due to Xaosflux, who provided much-needed institutional memory for the technical side of the election: the mass message, voter rolls, SecurePoll, etc. And to Fox, the man on the WMF end that set up the polls and also helped with the technical side of things. And of course to the stewards that have volunteered to scrutinize the results: Base, Shanmugamp7, Einsbor. Thanks everyone for the hard work! Naturally, there are always things we could do better for next year, so if anyone has suggestions for how next year's election could be run differently, the best place for that would probably be Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020. Best of luck to the candidates as they wait (anxiously, I'm sure) for the results. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, at least this job ends - not like the poor suckers that actually get elected ;) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 04:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I knew I forgot somebody: thanks to Cyberpower678 for his help on the technical side as well. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7, sheesh, I only produced the voter eligibility list and the mass message list and centralized many of process involving notices and messages.  ;-). Seriously though, glad to help. Now that we have a working script in place it should be significantly easier and quicker to have a list in place next and it should be very flexible with community requirements, so Fox can breath easy next year. —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 23:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are all fantastic folk for doing this. Every year I am impressed at just how much stuff is required to make this happen, and to how well it goes. By my eyes, this was a very smooth year and you should all be commended and thanked. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to that. Your responsiveness during the process itself is also much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ship-shape so far. –xeno^talk 02:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just wanted to add my thanks too. You handled the curly issues I and other editors presented very well, and I thought good decisions were made regarding what questions could be asked, letting comments stand etc. A well-run election I thought. And thanks in advance to the stewards doing the scrutinising. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent work! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding my thanks as well! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Piling on with the thanks and I endorse everything Peacemaker67 says. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Boldly crashing this adminfest to add my thanks to everyone as well. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• +1 and for those impatient with the process, a friendly reminder that ACE2017 was not certified until December 19, as have a number of other elections in the past. Mkdw ^talk 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for scrutineers has a link to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019#Timeline which isn't a section, and the instructions are to complete the results table which doesn't seem to exist on the page. Does this need resolved before the scrutineers finish? Wug·a·po·des​ 05:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, they added their own table, although I suppose we could get it started on our end with a template. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gave a better link, created a blank table for them to fill out. Please note that I simply copied the list of candidates from their order of listing on the candidate statement page. I am also not offended if the scrutineers create their own table. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am telling too much about our work, but our final table will be generated with the highest support % at the top (and thus lowest at the bottom). — regards, Revi 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, and as I said if you've got something that automatically generates a table feel free to replace mine; I wasn't sure if you were manually typing stuff in, in which case all that you'd need to do is rearrange the table according to %. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the ACE2018, I received an HTML-table version of the result before it was published; I don't recall if SecurePoll generated the table in wiki-table -- IIRC it was dynamically generated HTML-table, so your wikitable sounds good for the base.

enwiki ACE data is too big to be consumed via webpage (tally button will time out) so to verify the tally, you have to download the vote data dump, load it on local MW system, and verify the tally there via MW script. I did that, and I have destroyed the dump right away after verifying the tally {I didn't sign the tally onwiki because I was reserve member at that stage and nobody asked me to sign it} (IIRC, it contains UA/IP!) so there is no way to verify the what is what for me. — regards, Revi 17:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@-revi: did a phab ticket get open for the timeout issue? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Well, for the 2018 fawiki ACE, it worked fine because it has less than 100 (or 200) voters, but for enwiki... mere number -- +2000 -- causes the timeout while doing the calculation: it is hitting the server's DB transaction allowances or the web server's connection limit times, or something else I don't correctly recall the terms, which I think... it can't really be fixed unless everybody stops voting and manage to keep the voter number below 200. — regards, Revi 18:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, this is actually working as intended. As scrutineer for the Board elections (which get far more votes than enwiki arbcom), the intention was *always* to download the data and run the tallies that way, because it was more transparent than having it all happen behind the curtain. It is also duplicatable - there's a dump of the votes published for the Board elections, which is (as I recall) the same dump that -revi is talking about. Risker (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the dump generated with Special:SecurePoll. — regards, Revi 09:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019#Scrutineering_update for an update. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]