Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/October 2009 election/Bugzilla

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This page is for reporting bugs and usability issues with SecurePoll, to avoid creating duplicate Bugzilla reports. Please list each issue under a separate heading. Roger Davies talk 00:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

SecurePoll poll list interface

 * Link: Special:SecurePoll

I think this page needs some usability improvements. An interface message at the top would be useful. And the list should display most recent polls at the top, and perhaps use different colours for the open and closed elections.

John Vandenberg (chat) 00:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please add a link to exactly which page you're referring to, John? It seems there are many pages that have similar names, so it's just easier to make sure we are all talking about the same thing.  Risker (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to the one I believe John is referring to.  Roger Davies  talk 03:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup; that is the page I was referring to. Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting list: needs to show stricken votes

 * Link: Special:SecurePoll/list/60

For greater transparency, the voter list needs to show whose votes have been struck by election administrators. These could simply appear on the list with a strike-through through the user name, time-stamped with the date/time of the striking. Roger Davies talk 03:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The default setting shows the 50 people, but why the link is Special:SecurePoll/list/60? --Caspian blue 14:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "60" is the reference number of the poll.  Roger Davies  talk 11:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, other polls using SecurePoll (eg the 2009 Board election) do show struck votes with strikethroughs. I think it's just that the scrutineers haven't actually struck any votes yet!  Happy ‑ melon  11:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Ineligibility Notice
The following is not a matter of great significance, however it is logged here for any who may be interested. Apparently, user accounts that are not eligible to vote in the AUSC elections recieve an incorrect message. It appears that when such ineligible users attempt to vote in the AUSC elections, the software redirects them to a page stating that they "are not eligible to vote in the 2009 WMF board elections" with the associated 2009 board election criteria cited. This is, one would guess, a result of failing to change the notice from the board elections. Again, this is not of great import, but it is a technical inaccuracy that should be noted prior to potential use in the upcoming Committee elections. Best wishes!—Finn Casey * * * 03:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Finn.  Roger Davies  talk 03:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that this was because MediaWiki:Securepoll-not-in-list was not updated. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Logging
We need much better logging of strike actions. They should be available using a normal log; although the name of the scrutineer doing the striking should not be publically-viewable. Scrutineers should be able to see a log filtered by scrutineer, vote, or timestamp. Happy ‑ melon 14:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We also need better logging (that is, we need logging :D) of changes to the election interface. A compromise solution that utilises the MediaWiki namespace while replacing its permissions structure would be preferable. Happy ‑ melon 14:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, you think we should have an 'election strike' log type in Special:Log, and 'election scrutineer' would be a group permitted to view it. similar to log type 'suppress' and group 'oversight' ?  One concern is that the election scrutineers for one election maybe should not be able to see the strike log for a previous election?


 * In regards to the election interface, why cant we just use the MediaWiki namespace?
 * If a sysop changes a message in a way that affects the election results, I would expect that they are immediately desysopped. (speaking of which, I made a change to the UI as noted above; could someone please review that?) John Vandenberg (chat) 02:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, election strikes I would expect to continue to be logged within SecurePoll, although reusing the Log structures in MediaWiki core would be useful. When I get round to writing the election-administration UI, there will need to be a completely public log of actions in that regard (especially changes to election admin lists: SecurePoll administrators will have the theoretical ability to add themselves as election admins to any poll, the only way we can ensure transparency is to demonstrate that it doesn't happen).
 * The more I look at SecurePoll, the more impressed I am with its structure. Not using the MediaWiki namespace works in both directions: election admins do not need to be administrators on the wiki in question, which means that when an election is outsourced, like the Board elections, the election admins do not have the ability to edit things like the site's JS, which could potentially be used for all sorts of interesting things.  Conversely, on a local wiki, administrators have no ability to influence a poll.  Given that all of the sitting ArbCom fall into that latter category, I think it's a good thing.  However, the complete lack of logging is definitely a Bad Thing.  I'll talk to Tim about the best way of dealing with it; maybe a separate namespace with no 'regular' editing access.  Happy ‑ melon  11:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

JS
The striking interface is unusable without JavaScript; I'm not sure if that's a problem or not. Happy ‑ melon 14:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont see this as a significant problem. Voters should be able to vote without JS, however scrutinisers can be expected to enable JS if that is required. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ballot blanking at second vote
I voted on three of the candidates a few days ago and returned to the ballot to vote on a fourth one. I found the ballot blank, rather than with my previous votes registered in the same places. Is this normal? I was expecting the system to record and reproduce the votes I'd already made upon returning to the ballot.--chaser (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is normal. What if it hadn't been you who'd gone to view the page, but someone who'd stolen your session cookies and was trying to see how you'd voted?  Happy ‑ melon  10:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we add a note somewhere to tell voters about this when they first vote, so that they know they need to keep a record of their own votes? John Vandenberg (chat) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I remembered. It just seemed odd.--chaser (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to tell me how easy it would be to get to my session cookie and whether this is a reasonable precaution against such hacking.--chaser (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. My concern was whether this was a glitch, not whether such a precaution should be implemented. Thanks, folks.--chaser (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember WP:BEANS before saying anything folks.--Tznkai (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)