Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Archive 1

For the enjoyment of complaining
I have no idea what's going on here. Luckily I don't care about the arbitration committee, so it doesn't matter that much -- but I'm a pretty smart guy and don't think I could make heads or tails of this page without intense study, which could say something about what other uninitiateds are seeing. Of course, there's also the possibility that I'm simply not as smart as I thought I was, in which case you may want to disregard this. Contributors may nevertheless want to take the approach that stuff like this should be written with dumb people in mind. Pretend your audience has not one iota of a flippin' clue what a "tranche" is, for instance. Also the timeline graphic is made more confusing by its 8-bit kerning (what the hell is a cardidate?). equazcion  →  08:46, 10 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "tranche" is a word that someone decided, long ago (before my time), should be the word that Wikipedia uses instead of the more common "class" or "group" to refer to the, er, classes of arbitrators whose terms expire in different years. Personally I think the vast majority of readers can figure out what it means from the context.  As far as I know, nobody has ever bothered to try to change it, though when I am writing about the subject in the annual election RfC's, I usually say "tranches or classes" because the word "tranche" does seem awkward to me.  (Someone else in the RfC this year pointed out that, outside Wikipedia, the term only seems to be used in the context of a certain type of financing transaction, and I have never seen it used outside the financing context either.)  But as I said, it is one of those things people seem to just live with.  Neutron (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be changed. I have three college degrees and I still had to look up "tranche" in the dictionary. I'm guessing it comes out of Wales' work in finance. And also, in previous iterations, there were different tranches for different lengths of time (one year, two year, three year) and each tranche had a different name. As it is now, it should simply say that 8 Arbitrators are elected each year for terms of two years and if there are vacancies from the previous year's class/cohort, there will be X openings for a one year term.
 * Maybe the Election Committee could make this change? I think it is confusing language for people who've never participated in an Arbitration Committee Election before. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think this is a big issue, but I am adding the parenthetical term "(groups)" after "tranches", so if anybody really can't tell what "tranches" means from the context (or from the new link to Wiktionary), it might be clearer to them. I would not remove the word "tranche" because, whether we like it or not, that is the word that Wikipedia editors have been seeing in this context for years - perhaps as long as the committee has existed.  This way everybody will be happy.  (Just kidding, I know nobody is ever happy.)  Neutron (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Voter guide on banned user's talk page?
Since is currently under an indefinite ban (see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds), I seriously question whether he should be maintaining an ACE2013 voter guide on his talk page (see User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz). What do others think? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were a static complaint I'd leave it alone, but a banned user using userspace to actively maintain a project should probably be gone. I think are are maybe 3 people watching this page, so you should post this at ANI. equazcion   →  22:07, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay 13 people. Still, though. equazcion   →  22:07, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) He wrote a good guide in 2012 (and was polite enough to say that mine was better). Does being banned change his ability to observe? The position at the receiving end of sanctions might add a different viewpoint, I can tell you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Banning Policy says that a site-banned editor "is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia", with the single exception that editors may appeal their ban via their talk page. This particular editor was indefinitely banned, by the Arbitration Committee, and must wait until at least next August before he is allowed to ask ArbCom to end his ban.  The prohibition on site-banned editors using their own talk pages is frequently not enforced in practice — but in this case the user is (IMO) actively attempting to engage the community, not only by putting together recommendations for voting in the upcoming election, but also by tagging his "voter guide" with a category tag that may presumably cause his material to be included in the list of voter guides.


 * Since I am standing in this election, and Kiefer's comments are highly critical of my candidacy, I realize some people may see a conflict of interest in my bringing up the issue. That's why I chose to discuss it here and see what other people think, rather than taking it straight to WP:ANI or some other enforcement forum.  I also realize that since the prohibition on site-banned editors soapboxing on their talk pages is not consistently enforced, the consensus might be that it's OK for Kiefer to say whatever he wants on his talk page, but not OK for him to try to get his "voter guide" listed amongst the officially recognized guides.  If people think Kiefer has crossed the line and ought to have his talk page access blocked, I think it might be better if someone else (other than I) were to bring the issue to ANI.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted this. equazcion   →  23:21, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

I am posting a link to this discussion (and the one that Equazcion started at ANI) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Coordination, which seems to be the right place to get the attention of the people running the election. At least, that is where you go when you click on "Contact the coordinators" on the election template. It seems that nobody has actually signed up to be a "coordinator" yet, but we do have three appointed Election Commissioners, and I would say this is an issue for them. (And I would also say the real issue is not that the user in question is posting about the election on his talk page, but that his talk page is listed in the Voter Guide section of the "official" election template.) Neutron (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is now being discussed in multiple fora and should be centralized. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like his Talk Page access has been revoked. I understand why but I found his guide interesting to read. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Better chart?
Since I complained about the timeline's readability, I thought I might do something about it. The timeline coding is pretty limited, and normal-sized text just comes out all stupid looking, but I managed to mangle it into something that I think is more readable: Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent/sandbox. If anyone thinks that version is better they can feel free to replace the current one, or let me know and I'll do it. equazcion  →  23:38, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I thought about doing that when I saw your post above, and actually went into edit mode on the template - and immediately realized it was nothing that I should be touching with a ten-foot pole.  I figured that a technical-type person like you would come along and fix what I would probably only break more.  It is definitely more readable without the distracting spacing issues (and doesn't smash letters together, so no more "Cardidate".)  The only thing I would point out is that the phrase in the introduction, "on one screen without scrolling", may no longer be accurate depending on one's browser settings.  I had to shrink everything down two levels, but I guess I usually have my browser set on can't-see-very-well-even-with-glasses.  And actually at that size it is now much more readable than it was before, so I would say, please post it.  Since it is still possible to see it on one screen (even though someone might have to change browser settings), I guess the description can remain as is.  Neutron (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I view Wikipedia at 125 per cent magnification (running Vector skin on Chrome) and the sandbox version has about a quarter of the chart out of sight to the right. If I scroll over to the point where the tool bar on the left disappears, it fits on the screen very nicely. It looks good in mobile view. Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart shows the whole works on one screen, but is too tiny and blurry for me to to read. Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent is also quite blurry on my set-up. My preference would be the sandbox version -- Diannaa (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem :) I tried to keep the size down, but it seems the timeline coding is so limited that there's not much to be done about it -- it's either small enough to cause the text issues or large enough to bleed into scrolling territory for some users. I think the latter is the lesser of the two evils though. I will post it but I'll remove the message, since most users are likely to leave it at the default browser size and scroll to view it, if their screen resolution calls for it. Thanks for the feedback :) equazcion   →  00:50, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, the "Recent" chart is only supposed to show enough years to include the beginning of each currently sitting arbitrator's term; so we can actually knock two years off the start, which would make it more compact. Happy‑melon 11:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the decision and shorten it so it is more readable, Happy‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b>, but do you know where I could find data about previous years ARBCOM compositions from previous years? I would love to see some actual election results but it appears in early years, the "winners" were just announced without knowing how they ranked or what their approval percentage was. I've gone to previous election pages but I was wondering if this data was elsewhere. Thanks! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found the original at Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart that shows the history of ARBCOM elections (although some names are unreadable. If you knew where I could find election totals (numbers), I'd really appreciate it. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can follow the link to each election at Arbitration Committee elections. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brad, I've already gone through the categories and pages. It's just that sometimes I find information has actually been posted to a different location (like to Signpost or Jimmy Wales' talk page. For example, I've found some data on Wikipedia on an editor's subpages and the user isn't active any longer. It was a complete accident that I stumbled upon it. And being a regular Editor, I have no idea what information is on pages which have been deleted.
 * I thought someone familiar with older elections (before 2007) might remember if this was the case here. I'm going through a discussion now about deleting old administration pages and putting my pitch in for keeping them for archival purposes. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I cut down the chart as Happy-melon suggested. equazcion   →  12:50, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * Q. Why does the chart state "Dec 2013 top 8 Candidates" and "Dec 2013 9th place"?
 * I could probably explain this better if I understood it fully myself, but according to my reading of the vacant seats section, the top 8 candidates get 2-year terms, while the 9th place candidate gets a 1-year term. equazcion   →  14:20, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, 9 candidates will be elected. The one of those who comes in last (the one with the least votes out of those nine?) only gets a one-year term. The other eight all get two-year terms. But I'll let someone who actually knows what they're talking about confirm this. equazcion   →  14:24, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * The 8 in the bottom section were elected in Dec 2011 and have sat for 2 years so they are out of a job (unless re-elected) when the new AC takes over. So the chart reference (appreciate not made by you) to "Dec 2013" is misleading. I agree with your sentiments way up top. The whole thing is as clear as mud and shrouded in oblique language. Leaky  Caldron  14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're saying it's unclear that the arbs elected in 2011 are now up for re-election, yeah, I'd have to agree. If I understood this whole thing better I'd give the whole page a rewrite with simpler language. I'm not sure what could be done about the timeline though -- I'm not sure if a timeline is the best way to illustrate what's happening here, not to mention the timeline extension's dilapidated workings. equazcion   →  14:38, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Lowest turnout for candidates ever?
Perhaps I haven't paid as much attention to arbcom elections as others, but unless I'm mistaken, so far we have the lowest turnout for candidacies for arbcom since it was founded. I can think of a dozen excellent candidates but I doubt they would be interested.--MONGO15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We are behind 1 from this point last year, so it is too soon to say. Often, candidates wait until the later half of the nominating period before announcing. Monty  845  17:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just going to pose this question, for those who are familiar with previous elections, Monty, if this was an unusually low number of candidates. Are there typically a lot of Editors filing statements on the last day? Also, it seems like in previous elections, the nomination period was longer (two weeks?) but I can't recall when that changed. Having such a short nominating period means that you'll mainly get candidates who've been thinking about running for a long time along with candidates who are acting more impulsively (nothing wrong with that if they are a strong candidate!). There is less time to go lobby Editors who you'd think would be good candidates, to persuade them to run.
 * Also, MONGO, I know of at least two (could be three) candidates who have already withdrawn. I think the level of experience and tenure on Wikipedia from the candidates who are still running in the election is pretty high. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any hard figures, but as a rule of thumb, candidacies are announced disproportionately very early or very late, with few in the middle period. Hence, I suppose, the belief that the length of the nomination period is not overly important, since a longer period just produces a larger 'middle' section... <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 21:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b>...there is so much regarding the way things work at Wikipedia that isn't written down anywhere. It's part of the "collective memory" that is probably buried in talk page comments. This turnout led me to wonder if there might not even be nine candidates running! I guess in this case, Wales would appoint some people. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Without delving into past history and past dramas, I doubt that Jimbo would appoint people to the committee who were not elected. I remember reading something about the idea that, if the Arbitration Committee believed that it had been left with an insufficient number of members, Jimbo would consider calling a special election.  More generally, I suspect that if it turns out that there are fewer than nine candidates, there will be a great deal of discussion about a large number of possibilities, ranging from... well, let's not even go there unless and until we have to.  Let's just say that if it does happen, the resulting controversy will be the Next Big Thing on Wikipedia.  But there is still a week to go before the deadline for nominations.  I am hoping there will be at least 18 candidates.  Neutron (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note also that last year 13/21 candidates passed the 50% cutoff. While it is certainly better to have an abundance of acceptable candidates, that we can seat those with the highest supports, based on last year's numbers, we would need only 15 candidates to fill the 9 seats. If it looks like it may be close, perhaps voters could be encouraged to oppose sparingly, but I agree we should see what the field looks like at the close of nominations before worrying too much. Monty  845  01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are 9 or fewer candidates then there is no reason for those who oppose for tactical reasons to do so and very little with only 10. My gut feeling is that those who vocally vote tactically are a greater proportion of all vocal voters than those who silently vote tactically are of all silent voters, but I obviously have no way of knowing whether that is true. Certainly if I am wrong then a small electoral field is more likely to demonstrate this than a large field. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There would still be a reason for voting tactically - to try to stop people you don't like getting 50% -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (No, forget that, I'm misusing "tactical" there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC))
 * Maybe you were misusing "tactical", but that is what a lot of people on Wikipedia seem to think it means. Personally, I don't worry about whether voting is "tactical" or not, because there is nothing wrong with "tactical" voting.  All voting is designed to achieve some objective, and it is the voter's business what the objective is.  Neutron (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - nothing wrong with it at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is nothing wrong with tactical voting. My point simply was that if there is no tactical voting then in theory there should be fewer oppose votes. The reason being that there are two reasons to oppose - (1) because you think the candidate would not be suitable for arbcom, and (2) because you think a different candidate would be better suited. If every candidate with >=50% support is guaranteed a seat then there is no reason to oppose for reason 2. Indeed, if people only support their favourite N candidates there is a greater chance of any individual candidate being in that N. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As there are still only 9 candidates, I've taken the liberty of dropping reminders that the nomination period is almost up at WP:AN WP:VPM WT:ARB/N and WT:ARB, mentioning the current nu,ber of candidates. Monty 845  18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's quite unfortunate; those are the last people we want nominating themselves for the position of Arbitrator. :) Wer900 • talk 02:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Extra link
I want to link a userpage essay that I want to create (as nobody bothered to ask any questions) explaining my liberal position of the administrative job, and the risk of me "resigning" during my term, which given my history in the project, I feel I need to give a long explanation and its a major concern from voters. Is it still possible to link it to my candidate statement once I write it. Thanks Secret account 02:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, as long as you tacked it onto the end and noted you added it later. I'm not a coordinator though, so take that with a grain of salt. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will discuss this with the other commissioners. GiantSnowman 12:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * - what is your actual concern here i.e. what policy/guideline are you afraid you might violate? GiantSnowman 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Should ACE2013 guides make "ratings" of other guides with personal comments or charges about the authors thereof?
Is it proper to "rate" other guides on the basis of personal comments about the person who has not yet even written any ratings of any candidates? I am affronted by one user whose guide says to ignore my unwritten ratings on the basis that I was added to a case after the workshop and evidence phases were completed -- thus (apparently?) making any ratings I offer to be anathema. I suggest that each guide should stick to issues about candidates, and not make personal comments about other editors who are not candidates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , please can you be more specific so we can look into this further? Feel free to e-mail us. GiantSnowman 12:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * shows the diff in question from, of all people, an ArbCom clerk trainee!. It calls my POV "extreme" and says I was a "party" to Lord Voldemort  (I was warned in no uncertain terms to even avoid mentioning the "case" by the way) and that this "greatly affects my guide" which is interesting as I have not yet written a single rating of any candidate whatsoever!  I suggest, in fact, that his own utility as a clerk is now moot.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see the issue with this, as I believe that I had issues with your 2012 guide. But I have removed the section anyway. My role as a clerk has nothing to do with this; clerks have written guides, and are writing guides. --Rschen7754 20:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet you referred specifically to a recent case as being the problem -- and that my views are "extreme" -- I ask you to note that this is still a problem from my point of view, as I find the possibility that a clerk would have such prejudice about any editor to be exceedingly distasteful, just as I would find any ArbCom candidate showing such prejudice about any editor to be, frankly, unqualified for any position of trust.  And you did not remove the claim that some ACE2013 essays are "extreme" and so your "redaction" is actually pretty much wertlos. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Clerks always have the option to recuse from a case, and if you are concerned about this in a future proceeding you are involved in, you can always ask for it. As I recall, the TPM case was before my time as a clerk. In addition to this, the userbox at the top of your page is what I was basing my concerns on; I don't think that was improper. But I'm not going to fight this. --Rschen7754 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement from the WMF
The WMF wishes to make the following statement, in response to questions raised on my talk page.

- The Wikimedia Foundation has been asked to clarify and/or expand on a previous decision of the legal team, specifically that the Foundation would not allow users to have Checkuser or Oversight rights added to the user account of a user who had not passed a request for adminship or an equally rigorous community selection process. Our legal and community advocacy team has been asked whether running for (and winning) a seat on the Arbitration Committee would meet the "rigorous community selection process" test, and therefore qualify an elected ArbCom member for Checkuser/Oversight rights. We believe that being elected to ArbCom is an involved process that strongly demonstrates community trust, and that there is a reasonable expectation that Arbitration Committee members on the English Wikipedia's Arbcom will hold those tools, except in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, we will not object to the assignment of checkuser/oversight tools to any user who runs for, wins, and is seated on the Arbitration Committee.

Respectfully,

Philippe Beaudette

Director, Community Advocacy -

I am, of course, open to clarification, though I'm traveling tomorrow, so it may be a couple of days. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A better matter for a statement might be: does the WMF have the individual members of ArbCom's back, legally speaking, in the event of the inevitable frivolous lawsuit(s)? Carrite (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. See Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to note: By saying yes, I believe Philippe means that the WMF will consider supporting some or all legal fees for those members based on the linked policy, not that WMF lawyers will "have the individual members of ArbCom's back."--v/r - TP 18:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. Sorry if I was too pithy.  I thought it was implied through the link to the policy, but I can see the room for misunderstanding.  Thanks, TParis.  :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk)`

Yeah, I'm glad to read this, to hear that non-Admins can run for ARBCOM, too. It doesn't happen often that a regular Editor runs (and wins) but ACE shouldn't be considered an election only for those with admin rights. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It does represent a lower standard. You only need 50% approval to get elected to ArbCom. Such an RfA would not succeed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree that its a lower standard in the sense that it only requires a 50% approval. I also think however that due to the position the majority of the voters are going to be very seasoned and experienced and would likely not elect someone to Arbcom without having some experience being an admin first. This is even more dubious if the editor has multiple RFA failures. I for one am glad and agree with the WMF statement/decision but I don't think the community will accept it. I hope I am wrong though because IMO it will be of benefit to have both admins and nonadmins on the committee. A good followup question is will said individual be allowed to keep said rights once they are done being a member of the committee or have them revoked. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The pass rates in the two different kinds of election are not directly comparable, and a 50% pass rate in ArbCom is not necessarily lower standard than the RfA pass rate - a single-candidate support/oppose is completely different from a multi-candidate election with a limited number of seats. See here for further explanation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is a "lower standard" in light of the fact that in an ArbCom election there are opponents and a limited number of seats. At most, nine of the 25 (or so) candidates in this election will be elected, regardless of what percentages they get.  It is good to see that this has been clarified in favor of allowing non-admins to run.  Neutron (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This sounds like you are not just talking about voting margins but also believe that Admins are of a higher standard than regular Editors who haven't been through an RfA. I disagree. There are capable, experienced, knowledgeable, even-tempered Editors who do not have the desire to become an Admin. I'd also argue that the skills that would make a user a good Arbitrator are different from the skills that make one a good Admin. An arbitrator needs to know policy, precedent and sifts through a mountain of evidence and diffs. This is quite different from fighting vandalism, deleting pages and active AN/I debates although both require an understanding of WP policy and guidelines. Admins work swiftly, Arbitrators need to be more deliberate. I think a background in mediation would be more valuable quality for future Arbitrators than having a record number of blocks imposed or articles deleted. One doesn't need to be an Admin to have this experience. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Redlink where instructions about questions should be
This is a redlink where it is supposed to have instructions about individual questions, is there some way that could be fixed?
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Questions

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Surprised nobody else has noticed this. I . The navbox and an earlier link to the Questions has the correct link. Things changed last year and the Questions page was created without "/Candidates/" in the path. This change continued to this year. Some of the links were fixed, but not that one. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, most appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete implementation of WP:ACERFC
Earlier this month, the community decided to use,  , and   as the three types of vote available to voters. This was a change from previous years, when  was used instead of. However, it looks like the SecurePoll interface is configured to use the older style of language (see 'question(332)/column0'). Is this an error? AGK [•] 13:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to,  , and  . GiantSnowman 13:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 'election(331)/intro' still reads  Should this be modified as well? Altamel (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be. Neutron (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * About 1.5 hours left until voting starts. If the instructions are to be modified, it had better be soon. @User:GiantSnowman. Altamel (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now changed - apologies for not being online at 10:30pm (my time) on a Sunday night. Did you attempt to contact the others? GiantSnowman 09:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That probably would have been a good idea, since I only noticed your name on the thread. No harm done. Voting had to be restarted anyway. Altamel (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn candidate appearing in vote options
Is anyone else seeing a candidate named "(Withdrawn before voting began)" as an option in the SecurePoll? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am seeing that option -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My guess is that Secret withdrew too late to be removed from the ballot completely. --Rschen7754 00:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up question: if the withdrawn candidate is elected, can the community appoint someone at random? :D – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fairly obviously, only candidates can be elected <tT>:P</tt> <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 10:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It also seems to be putting random people underneath it that haven't actually withdrawn (that I know of). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The order of candidates is random; the "withdrawn candidate" may appear at the bottom, top or (most likely) somewhere in the middle. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 10:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It gives the impression that all those below the "Withdrawn" have withdrawn. I think people won't tend to bother researching anybody below the line it appears. I thought it was a header at first. The text should have been changed to "(name of withdrawn) has withdrawn." or something specific. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  09:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If possible, something like " Name of candidate (candidate has withdrawn) " would be best I think. An explicit consensus about how it should be shown would be useful for next year's RFA I think. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason we have a withdrawn candidate is because before the names are inputted, an XML file gets imported into SecurePoll that basically sets up placeholders. 23 placeholders were set up, but with Secret's withdrawl, that leaves 22 candidates. We cannot remove that 23rd placeholder, and so all we can do is mark it as withdrawn.--v/r - TP 01:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is extremely confusing. I read all the names below "withdrawn before voting began" as being withdrawn. And I'm sure no small number of other people do as well. Which means we don't pick anything for those below. That needs to be clarified as indicating its own line and not everything below it. Bastique ☎ call me! 23:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can vote "support" on "withdrawn" as I did, simply because it amused me to, or you can oppose, or you can skip that question. Makes no difference in any case. Does that help? 00:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I bother to vote anything on those names if I think all the names beneath "Withdrawn before voting began" have been withdrawn? It's painful enough to have to read through the questions and statements of those I did look for. Clearer language that indicates that the withdrawn candidate refers to that line only is in order. Bastique ☎ call me! 00:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying Bastique; it's not optimal. It cannot be fixed now, though. Doing so would mean crashing the current SecurePoll and creating an entirely new one for the second time in 24 hours. Risker (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've implemented User:Thryduulf's solution above so hopefully it becomes more clear. Bastique, you are allowed to revote.  We'll simply discount all but your latest vote.--v/r - TP 00:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Logging in from different domains?
I note at Special:SecurePoll/list/331 that there are users who seem to be voting from multiple other domains. It is my understanding that SecurePoll is supposed to be logging the domain from which the vote originated, not the "home wiki" of the voter. How is this happening? Risker (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At a guess (and it is only a guess), it's the wiki on which the user most recently logged in (ie where their SUL login session is propagating from). I don't think it's an issue as long as they are not able to vote multiple times (as happened a few years ago, I think 2009).  Are you aware of anyone who has voted multiple times from different domains? <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 10:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Did some more researching on this; it turns out that it is indeed listing the home wiki of the user, rather than the wiki on which the vote was made. While this shouldn't be too problematic for this one specific election (although I suggest that the election commission create a list of the non-enwiki votes so that users can verify eligibility on this project, just as a precaution), it does mess up the data. The effect would be very concerning on a multi-wiki election, as it would inaccurately reflect voting patterns and would make tracking down problem votes much more difficult, and I've suggested that a bugzilla be filed to fix this in SecurePoll. It's not clear to me what's happened since May (when voter lists were run for the WMF Board/FDC elections) that would have resulted in SecurePoll using "home wiki" instead of "project where vote occurred" for the applicable domain, but it is one more reason that SecurePoll has to be rewritten and its documentation improved.  Risker (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a bug to look into this would be good. I'm not sure what happened since it's clear that this was not an issue for past arbcom/functionary elections but it's possible that the bug existed before the board election (the only cause I can think of right now is changes to centralauth/loginwiki but I don't know why it would be ). The board election passed voter wiki somewhat manually since it went to an central vote wiki and so it's possible it skipped around this bug and we didn't notice it. Jalexander--WMF 23:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement from the Election Committee
It has recently been brought to the Election Committee's attention that the SecurePoll was improperly configured. We apologise for this oversight, but can confirm that WMF are working on fixing it as we speak. As a consequence, voting is currently suspended and all votes already made will be struck and will have to be re-cast. Again, apologies to all. On behalf of the Election Committee, GiantSnowman 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman is going to be unavailable for the next few hours, but I'll be here to answer questions if someone pings me.--v/r - TP 20:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is Monday night, 9:15pm in the UK. I should be back online properly in under 12 hours to answer any queries. Please bear with me/us for a while. GiantSnowman 21:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , can you please turn off the watchlist notice during the interim, until the situation is resolved? Thanks.  Risker (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--v/r - TP 21:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Are individuals going to be contacted about voting again? If not, at least the resumption Mediawiki message will have to indicate that the previous vote was voided. Leaky  Caldron  21:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are in the process of contacting everybody who has already voted. GiantSnowman 21:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've revised Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Header, but if someone thinks this is some kind of conflict of interest, feel free to revert and then resave. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I have added a link to this discussion from the header. GiantSnowman 21:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am working on calculating the new start and end times. I've started working on a template to notify individuals User:TParis/SecurePoll and I've got a list on my computer of everyone who has voted so far.--v/r - TP 21:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good notice, TParis; however, please include a link to exactly where they can contact the election commission. In fact, there should be a link to the page that identifies the election commission and how to contact it on the main election page, but that can wait. If I may suggest, I'd recommend both a talk page notice, and an email-this-user wherever possible, to ensure that the communication is received.  Just speaking from past experience as an election admin for the WMF Board/FDC elections earlier this year: Once you have received confirmation that the configuration is fixed, you will need to test it with a few votes, and then strike all the original votes including the tests. Good luck!  Risker (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They are actually going to set up a brand new poll for us. We'll do some test votes as you suggest.--v/r - TP 21:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget you can use Special:MassMessage now to notify large groups of editors. I don't know whether you already planned to use it, but if not, it should save you some time. Thanks for all your hard work in this matter. Regards, AGK  [•] 22:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, do they have one of those for emails?--v/r - TP 23:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a publicly-available one, but I'm almost certain the Foundation has an in-house method of mass-notifying people by email. AGK  [•] 08:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is the fact that something is screwed up and we have to have a complete do-over unsurprising and the suggestion that WMF is on the case with a prospective fix unreassuring? Carrite (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Are there plans to extend the voting period? (I know you have bigger fish to fry right now, but it should probably be addressed by the EC at some point). - MrX 21:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Since all previous votes will be lost, we are going to start the voting period with the full 14 days.  The new timeframe will be 00:01, 26 November to 23:59, 9 December.--v/r - TP 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to notify those who had voted per the log.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I intend to.--v/r - TP 23:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Timeline section on the main election page needs updating with the new closing time. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Voting has resumed for 14 days from this point.--v/r - TP 00:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could someone remind me on or about 7 December to compare the list of voters from the now halted poll to the new poll to ensure all those who voted in the earlier one manage to also vote in the new one?--v/r - TP 00:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll remember! GiantSnowman 08:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ GiantSnowman 11:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize space in the site notice must be limited; however, I suggest that "(Important note: Votes made prior to 00:01 26 November 2013 were discarded due to a configuration error)" be changed to something more positive such as "((Important note: Votes made prior to 00:01 26 November 2013 were discarded due to a configuration error. If you voted prior to that time, please re-cast your ballot.)" or some such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's necessary. I've been keeping track, and over 70% of those who voted in the initial poll (i.e., the one with the discarded votes) have already recast their ballots. After a few more days, doing individual follow-up would likely be the most successful method of bringing these users back for a second vote.  Risker (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't find myself in the voting log and I did not receive one of these spiffy messages. What's up? Am I missing something?  Volunteer Marek  18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's evidently related to the fact that you've redirected your user page to User:Volunteer Marek/ArbComEl tentativepositions. The MediaWiki message delivery system left you the spiffy message at User talk:Volunteer Marek/ArbComEl tentativepositions. I'm guessing if the system is provided with a list of user pages, it goes to those pages first, and then goes to their talk page.  For you, it got redirected before step 2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (more) You're not in the current voting log, but you're in the old obsolete voting log: Special:SecurePoll/list/331. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm also on TPs list of people who were supposed to get the message. Makes sense with the redirect, though the message didn't pop up at /ArbComEl tentativepositions either. Someone might wanna manually double check the lists/messages.  Volunteer Marek   18:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It popped up at User talk:Volunteer Marek/ArbComEl tentativepositions not User:Volunteer Marek/ArbComEl tentativepositions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at Special:Contributions/MediaWiki message delivery, it appears VM is the only person that this happened to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: Based on my records, 24 hours after the election was restarted, 127 of 165 voters whose initial votes were discarded have now revoted; that is 77% of the total. I'll be sending my spreadsheet to the election admins to take over the monitoring.  Risker (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no incentive to read the questions to candidates prior to voting
One may choose to read them or not, but there is no incentive to do so. My strong suspicion is that they are ignored and the entire ballot is based upon a mixture of prior popularity (The "swimsuit round") and candidate's statement (The "I want to work with old people and children round").

While there is no opportunity to alter the process for this election, serious consideration should be given to this for subsequent elections.

The contra issue to this is that the nomination and voting process is already unwieldy. Fiddle  Faddle  10:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What changes would you suggest to improve this? Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is hard indeed to see how one might improve matters since people always have the option not to do the correct thing. Nonetheless we need some sort of workflow (I hated that word while I was in the IT industry, and I hate it now) to induce people to read all parts of the candidate's submissions. In part this may be to do with the placement of text in better locations.
 * As you probably know from experience and as I certainly know from experience, it is far easier to identify something that does not quite work than to fix that thing. I'm not an expert in this field. We have, however, excellent experts here, people who can analyse the problem and the correct pathway
 * I do not dispute that we have the absolute right to vote as if it were a beauty contest (Uk general elections, US presidential elections etc), but I hope to encourage people to see the entire picture. ArbCom is considered important, and the procedure to elect to it must be both simple and effective. It is currently simple, but I question whether, despite the hard work by candidates, we will not necessarily see a result that reflects that work (factored by their suitability, naturally). Fiddle   Faddle  11:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me as if you're seeking a way to force the electorate to view a select aspect of "the picture"—or view it from a select angle. The questions and answers exist and links to them are made readily available throughout the election pages and on the voting form itself. The incentive to use these links would be an electors own desire to be informed. Getting overly concerned about the quality of the electorate and trying to actively compensate for it seems to be a slippery slope to me. The sort of thing that leads to private cabals vetting candidates in advance limiting the electorate to what choices 'their betters' are willing to allow to them. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a huge disconnect in your conclusion that cabals might arrive. I am seeking a way to ensure that the electorate is better aware of the questions, the answers and that they really ought to look at them if they decide to vote at all. I have been clear throughout that this may be voted on as a beauty contest. Whatever it may sound like to you your suggestion is not what it sounds like to me. Fiddle   Faddle  14:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it does appear that there is some room for confusion as mentioned in a section below. But the same section also provides an example of an elector actively seeking to read the questions upon their own volition. A single sample, yes, but in timely contrast to your point all the same.


 * It was not my intent to imply making electors view a candidate's answers to questions before voting — brings to my mind checking forced user agreement forms for software and web services — would in and of itself lead to a cabal controlling candidacy. It's the desire to micromanage the poor unenlightened masses (i.e. the electorate) which I question. The proposal assumes, is predicated upon, the premise that the electorate are in fact currently not reading the questions. I find this to be a rather arbitrary postulate. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It is based upon my own voting experience, one where I had to make an exceptional effort to read the questions and answers. I chose to vote before all the questions and the answers were complete, so I have half voted as in a beauty contest, and half as a better informed editor. Fiddle   Faddle  15:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Check out the titles for the radio buttons - look "wrong" to me
This is what the top line of code looks like in the voting table: This is what it probably should look like:

I know this is probably a technical issue with Special:SecurePoll and it's extension, and if no-one beats me to it I'll submit a bug report on Bugzilla for it later. Just wanted to jot it down (in case it is just another minor configuration error that you can easily fix) someplace so others can know it's been seen and will be reported (and maybe fixed before this poll is complete). Technical 13 (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been advocating strongly for a rewrite and proper documentation of SecurePoll ever since I had to work with it as an election admin for the WMF Board/FDC elections earlier this year. The software is extremely finicky, hasn't been updated in years, isn't keeping pace with the improvements in the rest of MediaWiki (and when it does, it does so in perverse ways, such as indicating "domain" as the user's home wiki rather than the domain from which they voted), and it's incredibly easy to make errors. It seems that the issue you're identifying will not affect the outcome of the election; it's not interfering with anyone's ability to vote.  Therefore, I'd suggest it be filed as a bugzilla for future work, although I have been given to understand that Engineering does not consider this a priority.  If you do file a bugzilla, could you please either include me in the CC or leave me a link on my talk page?  Thanks!  Risker (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does domain really refer to the user's home wiki? Good grief, that's confusing. When looking at the log, I always thought a lot of people just liked to vote from other sites. The foundation loves reducing costs, so let's frame the proposal in terms they'll like. Writing a better voting extension would offer the foundation a chance to open the administration of elections to non-staff users, through an on-wiki interface (Stewards could set up global elections on Meta; bureaucrats could set up ArbCom elections on here; etc.). For a short-term investment of developer time, they'd therefore never have the headache of manually setting up elections every year, and we'd have a fit-for-purpose elections interface. AGK  [•] 17:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 to this suggestion (in my staff capacity). I can't guarantee that would get it into the budget, of course, but I can guarantee that I'd support it, since it's frequently my team that has to parachute in to try to fix the thing.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what "domain" is referring to this time; five months ago during the Board elections, it referred to the location where the person voted, and nobody is certain exactly why or how this changed. WMF sysadmins will always have to be involved in preparation of whatever software is involved because the voter lists pull from non-public data to some extent, and because the polls need to be encrypted, but I suspect that a complete rewrite with very good step-by-step documentation done by volunteer developers with sufficient access might get things done. It's not about costs, apparently, it's about staff time and priorities; in fairness, SecurePoll is used so rarely that absent a direction from the Board to get this done (it was originally designed for secure WMF Board elections), it's not going to be at the top of anyone's list.  Risker (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppets voting
This guy shouldn't have been able to vote. Is it possible to strike his vote? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ GiantSnowman 20:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm. There's a lot of things wrong with that vote. Blocked user, but also insufficient number of edits. Were these criteria included in the development of the voter list?  If not, we're going to have to go through and verify that all who have voted have met the edit requirements. Risker (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ,, , and  are also ineligible with less than 150 mainspace edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Got those 4. GiantSnowman 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ,, - please check what configuration was used to make up the voter list. If the standing voter criteria were not met, then *all* voters need to be checked to confirm they meet the criteria.  Risker (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * and are ineligible too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Got those 2. GiantSnowman 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * has just voted, but is ineligible. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviuously I miscounted, but I assumed if it was letting me vote I was eligible. BTW, are you claiming I'm a "sock puppet"? -- Resuna (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's 150 mainspace edits as of November 1. Seems the scrutineers will have more work this year... --Rschen7754 01:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 150 Mainspace edits as of November 1.  does not appear to meet it and even this user  now called  who is way above edit requirement now and at the timing of voting may not meet on as of November 1 through would like to  someone to recheck this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * - the scrutineers are checking the votes as we speak, specifically the number of edits, I have had an e-mail confirming so. GiantSnowman 18:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a technical restriction? Remove mine, didn't realise I only met it on the 12th. I made 150 edits across the whole site on 21st October though. Dark Sun (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

150 mainspace edits
I find voters with less than 150 mainspace edits are voting. User:Mr. Treason now blocked and also User:Superflat Monogram with 135 edits being able to vote.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC) User:Lustywench has 131 edits ,Neonchameleon, PaulCHebert, Arkady Rose and User:Dearth of Rats as far I can see so far.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Already dealt with above. GiantSnowman 21:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)I've peeked into the config on request of Risker when she noticed the discussions here. There appears to have been a problem with the import on min edits (it was set somehow to 1, possibly misreading the xml config when it was imported because that was clearly set to 150). That setting has now been fixed. That said I do not know if that setting actually checks mainspace edits only (my understanding is that it only checks edits total but I may be wrong). On the blocked question I have no clue right now... the setting appears to be correctly set for that but clearly if people are getting through something isn't working. Jalexander--WMF 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe y'all should have done a better job of configuring the system so that users who don't qualify either could not vote, or knew what the qualifications were. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to answer this. I'm not sure, User:PaulCHebert, who you are referring to with that comment, but I'd like to say that User:Jalexander had nothing to do with setting up the system or configuring it.  As his manager, I feel obliged to step in here.  He's fixing these issues, but he didn't create them.  I don't frankly know who did, but the WMF didn't set up this election.  We were handed a file and told to run it as the config.  Only once Jalexander got involved did we notice there were problems.  So I'd like to be sure that you're not calling out a member of my staff for 1) identifying, 2) isolating, 3) reporting, and then 4) fixing the issues.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how the corporate structure is organized; my comment was directed at the the website at large. Whoever organized this election made it possible for me to vote, then made it so that my doing what I was invited to do engendered a response on my talk page that was not voiced in a tone that said "Hey, sorry, there was a mix-up, don't take it personally, hope this doesn't discourage you from staying involved with the project...." but said "you did something wrong." The OP in this section didn't say "I think there's a problem with the system, it's allowing unqualified editors to vote, we should explain and apologize"; they said: "these people have voted" (IE: ("These people have done what they were invited to do."). The thread then conflated sock-puppets and blocked editors with people who did what they were invited to do. Not a big deal, I'm not that butt-hurt or nothin', I just think this is a prime example of how poor PR practices can make a small, understandable problem become something involving misunderstandings and an alienated contributor base. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The perfunctory message to your talk page and the passive aggressive response from the WMF manager above (who really should know better) are inexcusable. Leaky  Caldron  18:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is part of life in Wikipedia unfortunately. For a user to become an admin they have to run through a gauntlet, have every piece of dirty laundry drug out and scattered around, present a virgin and sacrifice a goat...just to be able to see deleted content and delete vandalism. Then the Arbcom, who are supposed to be a group of our most trusted users and are elected to participate in some of the most sensitive areas of the project hold "secret" ballots, with minimal comment and then they are there for a year? Then they make it so complicated only the most experienced editors will even turn out or those who have a vested interest. I doubt there will be more than 200 editors and that's a generous number. Last year I don't think it was that many. Then there are problems with the vote and it had to be wiped out and advertised to restart, which frankly probably helped draw in people because its a big banner message at the top. Then they come here and have to navigate a maze? It hardly makes sense but its just par for the course here. Personally I wouldn't vote for any incumbent or clerk. There was one or 2 highly qualified persons, several more somewhat less qualified a non admin (which I think is good) and there is someone who works for the WMF (which I also think is quite good). Other than that, its either the same cast of characters or frankly folks I have never heard of. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure virgins aren't too hard to find around most parts of the Internet. That said, I have no dog in the "what the voting requirements are" fight. I just kinda resent being given an opportunity to vote, and then being called out like a petty criminal by exercising it. PaulCHebert (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I totally understand that too. Unfortunately over the years WP:AGF has become less of a policy. These days it rarely applies to editors but is often used as a bludgeon by admins. That's why I edit rarely these days and when I do its as an IP. The only time I even bother to login is if I want to vote on something like this. The Wikipedia culture has become such a shadow of what it once was and could be that I've become pretty disenfranchised (as you can probably tell) with the whole place. Maybe the new Arbcom can help turn that around. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr Hebert has a point; perhaps a link to the eligibility requirements on either the watchlist notice or the securepoll page itself, or (even better) maybe a rundown of the eligibility requirements on the securepoll page itself. I think that might have been done in previous years, but I can't see the page used last year to verify. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the past, the configuration was coded so that people who were blocked or who did not meet the editing requirements did not get a ballot, but instead got a message that said they were not permitted to vote. I am at a loss to explain why this did not happen this time.  Risker (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Has this been dealt with yet? FWIW, last year it was clear that the editing requirement limit could only be set for total number of edits. See here. So you still had scrutineers having to check eligibility last year as well. But this year the config file didn't even have that 150-edit limit in it or a setting to leave out blocked editors (that seems to have been a major oversight)? More generally, was the potential problem carrying over from last year even discussed by the community at the pre-election RFC or the post-2012 election feedback page? Has SecurePoll changed since last year so it could have been set to count mainspace edits (I doubt it)? The focus now, if nothing more can be done, needs to be on people pitching in to help check eligibility, and making sure those not eligible are politely told why they were allowed to vote and what is being done about this. Last year I said "I also agree that the voting system really should be set up properly next time, so there is less of the rather embarrassing spectacle of good-faith voters having their votes struck because the software didn't tell them they were ineligible (I know why it happened this time, but it should really be avoided)." So the same thing happened again this year, but it is worse as more people are affected (wrongly being allowed to vote)? Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

How are sockpuppets dealt with?
Checking to see how many mainspace edits a voter has is relatively easy, and something anyone can do, but how is the problem of sockpuppetry dealt with? Is there a CU available to rule out potential sockpuppetry? I raise the issue because in looking over the voting log I see teo users, Mrmoustache14 and MrMoustacheMM, who disavow any connection to each other on their respective talk pages, but who voted within 18 minutes of each other. I am explicitly not accusing these editors of being sockpuppets, and the similarity of their names can be explained by their being based on the name of a song, but such a prima facie example of the possibility of sockpuppetry raises the question of how that is dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the election scrutineers (all stewards) will be doing that cross-check. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was also my understanding. GiantSnowman 16:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, that's good to know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"An Abstain does not affect the outcome in any way"
What a nonsensical statement, of course it affects the outcome if I choose Abstain rather than Support, or Abstain rather than Oppose. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But voting abstain for all candidates would have the same effect as not voting (ie nothing), which is what the statement means. In most elections voters have the option to only vote in part of the election by leaving other parts blank; this is a reassurance that it is still possible to do so, despite being forced to mark one checkbox for each candidate in order to be able to submit a ballot at all. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 10:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So it should say "a complete slate of Abstains", not "an Abstain". But what are the "parts" of this election in which we have the option to vote separately? I don't see it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no parts where you have the option to vote separately; that's the point. In an election you can generally "not affect the outcome" by not writing an X or a number or whatever on the given section of the ballot.  Here, you can "not affect the outcome" by selecting "abstain".  Which is precisely what the instruction says. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 12:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense. You can "not affect the outcome" by not voting at all, or by submitting a ballot paper with Abstains (plural) for all the candidates. It is not true in any sense that I can divine, that a single "Abstain" does "not affect the outcome". My choice to Abstain for a particular candidate, as opposed to exercising any other of my available options (which are only Support and Oppose, from what I can tell), certainly may affect the outcome. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Abstentions can most assuredly affect outcomes if certain candidates are voted FOR and certain AGAINST, and yet others are ABSTAINS. The issue that we have here that makes our elections peculiar is that one may vote against. It is perfectly possible in theory to be the majority candidate with a negative tally of votes! This is all part of the alleged wisdom of crowds. We have the bureaucracy we have created, thus it must be the one we deserve! Rather like a 'rest' in a piece of music, the abstain votes are most assuredly played. Only those not voting at all can truly not influence the actual ballot. Fiddle   Faddle  13:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So is there any way the offending statement can be removed from the voting instructions? If not now, at least for future elections? W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (Innocent bystander interjection) My understanding is that candidates are ranked according to S/(S+O), i.e. abstain votes are ignored in calculating the ratio for each candidate. Therefore the intended interpretation of the statement is as follows: if I vote S for a candidate, I nudge their ratio higher and therefore actively increase their likelihood of being elected. If I vote O, I nudge their ratio lower and decrease their likelihood. If I vote A, I do not affect their ratio, and my direct impact *on them* is the same as if I had not voted at all. The statement is intended to negate the plausible but incorrect alternate assumption that I would be reducing a candidate's support percentage merely by casting any ballot in which I failed to explicitly support them. It is of course true that by voting S or O for other candidates and thereby affecting their ratios, I am expressing a rank order of candidates, and so indirectly the candidates I vote A on will be impacted in relation to the others. However it is at least theoretically possible that a candidate with a handful of S, no O, and nearly all As would rank higher than a candidate with no A, one O, and everyone else an S. Martinp (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So it is perhaps true to say (in a certain non-obvious sense) that an Abstain does not affect a given candidate's "ratio"; but it remains false to say that it does not affect "the outcome", which is what is currently stated. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "An abstain does not count as a support; an abstain does not count as an oppose" But honestly, why say it at all? It clarifies absolutely nothing. Jd2718 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I suppose it's supposed to be trying to tell people that abstaining is somewhere in the middle between supporting and opposing, in case voters can't work that out for themselves. Instead there should probably just be a link to a page containing detailed and accurate explanation of the vote calculation system (which may be there already, I don't remember). W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I broadly agree with User:W._P._Uzer regarding the desirability of some kind of link. If I mainly want to elect one candidate, the most effective way I can cast my vote to do this is to Support that candidate and Oppose all other candidates. Telling me that Abstain makes no difference may mislead me into being 'nice' by abstaining instead of opposing. Something similar is true if I mainly want to stop one candidate, or if I want to elect 7 candidates, etc. But if I want to elect one candidate and also stop another it might well be best to abstain on some of the remaining candidates - basically, especially if I have found a reasonably trustworthy 'guide to guides' (which is a kind of opinion poll), I'd want to oppose those who seem a threat to my favourite candidate, support those who seem a threat to my most hated candidate, and perhaps abstain where the precise threat position seems unclear. Perhaps what's needed is a link to something that explains (as far as reasonably practicable) 'How your vote works in practice', while also making it clear that the precise effect of abstentions can't always be reliably predicted (while perhaps adding that 'guides to guides', which are a kind of opinion poll, if reasonably trustworthy, can at least in theory help with such tactical voting decisions, and while perhaps also adding that it may not be easy to work out how honest and trustworthy any such 'guide to guides' actually is). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Banned users voting via sockpuppets
appears to have voted in these elections as, whom I recently blocked. The account was originally blocked by on 1 April 2006, since it was taken to be a sock of a vandal. Phil Sandifer (then ), promptly unblocked the account with the summary "/scowl". It was promptly re-blocked by another admin. Presumably, the wheel-warring was due to April Fool's Day clowning around, a view bolstered by this account being used to comment on 1 April on ANI regarding joke RFAs. A long-term abuse page was created in the name of this account for a group of trolling IPs who liked to claim "treason". A perusal of the history shows that Phil Sandifer and Mr. Treason both edited the article. Finally, the account claimed to be Snowspinner, and Phil Sandifer (then Snowspinner), did not block the account for impersonation. Thus, it appears reasonable to conclude that Phil Sandifer owned the Mr. Treason account and has just used it as an illegitimate sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It does also have less than 150 mainspace edits. --Rschen7754 02:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

questions are out of control
I just counted, and as of right now I have answered sixty three questions, almost every last one of them a boilerplate that was submitted to every single candidate, and some of them basically retreads of questions that were already asked and answered. I realize that arbs have to put up with a lot more than that, but do we expect the voting public to actually review that many replies? Some have had even more, but if we say the average is sixty that means there are something like thirteen hundred questions and answers in total. I try to be responsive when anyone asks me a question in good faith anywhere on WP, but this is getting ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I didn't answer as many as you did, and I'm no longer going to answer any more that are not specific to me. If people are going to vote against you because you don't answer question #64, that shouldn't keep you up at night. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't even read any of the copy-paste questions that seem to be getting spammed on every candidate's page. I only read the thought-out and relevant ones when making my decisions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, yeah, I (and plenty of others) already voted, and the vote wasn't based chiefly on candidates' A's to Q's. Moreover, I won't be following that part anymore. On the other hand, you're putting yourselves up for a position that not only carries a lot of weight regarding how this encyclopedia is managed, but (ideally) will also require a decent chunk of your time reviewing cases (not to mention all the stuff we don't even see on-wiki). Ideally, I don't think it's too much to ask you to "campaign" and answer as many questions as you feel comfortable answering, plus a little bit more, but, hey, I'm glad some reasonable people are even running, so I won't push my point any further. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thank you and many others for answering my three questions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps posting identical 'boilerplate' questions to all the candidates allows electors to observe how candidates respond differently to a common stimulus and thus make comparative inferences about style and character. I suspect in part it's also a way for electors to feel 'involved'. Also, some may simply be following the example that was set by having 'official' boilerplate questions preceding the space for individual questions. Perhaps it would be helpful if boilerplate and candidate specific questions were on separate subpages? Or perhaps some sort of pre-election process of community proposing and narrowing down boilerplate question? Merging similar ones and such? Also, it strikes me that if truly redundant questions arise the candidate has the option to simply reply by linking a previous answer perhaps with qualifiers if differences in nuance need addressed.


 * Obviously it would be easiest for the candidates if a bare list of Usernames was simply tossed up and the electors were left to do all their own research and to initiate independent inquiries on talk pages discussions if they have questions. But is the convenience of the candidates really the priority here? I think it begs the question as to whether one aspires to rule or to serve? --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Where are those questions?
The link at the top of this page in the navigation box goes to: WP:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Questions which is completely devoid of questions. The shortcut WP:ACE2013/Q is regrettably red. Jd2718 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion as to which questions would perforce be asked of all candidates was terse in nature, and few in participants, and a number of questions which had previously been generally asked were elided. While the gantlet seems big, it is nowhere near the quantity of thought needed for a single case - thus any candidate who can not handle this number is unlikely to be able to handle the greater amount of material in a case.  I would commend candidates to read a large number of prior cases to get a feel for how much thought ought be expended on any given case. Collect (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where you get that idea, Collect. Cases have a lot more reading, but very few questions. There is no correlation at all with the number of questions answered, the answers to those questions, and the ability of any particular arbitrator to manage the volume of postings related to cases. Risker (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I referred to the amount of reading and thought needed to reasonably consider a case as opposed to the reading and deliberation needed to reasonably weigh and answer questions. As I did not refer to any count of "questions" in a case, I am puzzled as to where your comments come from here.    As to where I "get that idea" -- it comes from having read more than four million messages over part of my online career, and reviewed on the order of a hundred thousand images -- perhaps that elided you?  BTW, I have only read through a dozen or so cases as archived -- as few new ones occur each year.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think anything elided me; nothing I said was "omitted or cancelled" nor "ignored or suppressed" (definitions 2&3 from the Gage Canadian Dictionary). I think perhaps you mean "you chose not to consider my activities", which is not the same thing. Nonetheless, your initial response specifically refers to the number of questions ("any candidate who can not handle this number") and I am pointing out that there is no correlation between the number of questions and the activities required of an arbitrator. Risker (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe had I said "elided your notice" (that is, you appear not to know my background) that your "sic-ism" would have been thought dismissive at best. Oxford has: mid 16th century (in the sense 'annul, do away with', chiefly as a Scots legal term): from Latin elidere 'crush out', from e- (variant of ex-) 'out' + laedere 'to dash' .   Arbitrators need to be able to comprehend substantial masses of material in any given case, and if they somehow feel that they can ignore material because of their own convenience, then they ought not be arbitrators at any level in any society.  IMO of course, just in case you feel that arbs should be free to ignore as much as they wish in any gathering of evidence etc., then your position would not be congruent with mine.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my. You're still equating answering masses of irrelevant questions (and yes, most of them are irrelevant) with being effective at analysing evidence. I'd suggest to you that ignoring the irrelevant is actually an important skill for arbitrators. And I believe you've still got the wrong emphasis on "elided": you seem to mean to say that I elided your contributions, not that they elided me. I've never known anyone's contributions to ignore anyone. Risker (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I made no such equation - your response is getting ever more puzzling. And as for your gratuitous implication that the three questions I added are "irrelevant" - that is perilously close to a personal attack from an Arbitrator of all people! At least I trust you are not calling the questions which has been part of the general questions last year "irrelevant."   And as for your apparent belief that the Oxford dictionary is "wrong" -- I find that to be a quite interesting position for anyone at all to take -- it implies a belief that HumptyDumptyism lives on at ArbCom (sigh).  Cheers -- I think you are quite through exposing your position here at this point. Collect (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To answer the OP's question: Unlike the candidate statements, there is not a single page where you can read all of the candidates' answers to questions (it would be really, really, long). But if you go to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates, each candidate has a box below their statement, and you can follow that link to see each candidates' question page.  For example, mine are at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam/Questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had missed it (overshadowed by the status box). And I de-redded ACE2013/Q. FWIW, the long lists of questions seemed not so useful, and not so long. It looks like the candidates are dealing with them just fine. Jd2718 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the questions need to be brought under some control for next year. Maybe individual editors need to be limited to one or two questions. (I can hear the yelling and table-pounding already.) Or maybe the "fallow period" between the end of nominations and the beginning of voting needs to be greatly expanded - like to 3 or 4 weeks - to give candidates enough of a chance to really think about the questions and answer them. I have also noticed a bit of foot-stomping about candidates not answering questions, when those who decided to run at the last minute really only had a couple of days to answer them. That would also be remedied by allowing more time before voting starts. In "real" elections (at least in my state) there are four months between the nomination of candidates (at primaries) and the general election, during which candidates campaign, including answering questions from the voters. (If they answer.) Four months would obviously not be reasonable for an online election, but neither is four (or five) days. Neutron (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A two-question limit is perfectly reasonable, and was effective in the past; hypothetically, the questions are supposed to provide information for the voters, and there are so many of them that most voters will wind up just going on their gut rather than trying to make it through all that. In fairness, none of the candidates this year are answering the number of questions I answered in my first candidacy (I think it was 140), but then again more of those questions were personalized. Perhaps we should start the "issues to consider for next year" page...  Risker (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Conversely -- then parliamentary question time should be limited to two questions so that the prime minister need not tax his brain. Cheers -- I find such a gross change in Wikipedia practice to be errant. Collect (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This proposal isn't the equivalent of restricting the PM to only answering two questions, it is saying that no individual questioner may ask the prime minister more than two questions. In the UK at least, the number of questions any one person may ask of the prime minister is limited to between 1 and 6 per session (depending on their role). Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So how many questions which were previously used as general questions would be estopped from being asked in that case?  If I expect a candidate to be willing to spend 20 hours on a case, I hardly think asking a candidate to spend two hours on questions is grossly excessive -- if they canna spare two hours now, I canna expect they will spend 20 hours later .... Collect (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That questions were previously asked as general questions is irrelevant. The general questions for each year are determined by consensus, if a question didn't make it this year then there was no consensus that it was of sufficient importance/utility/quality/relevance/whatever. The problem isn't the amount of time taken spent answering questions (although the current arbs, the only ones who can know, seem to regard it as a poor measure) but with the amount of time it takes for voters to read the questions and answers - there is a strong feeling that TLDR applies. I have personally spent around 8 hours so far reading the questions asked of candidates and I have only got down as far as RegensPark. When I am finished I will then go back and look for new questions and answers from each candidate before casting my vote. Limiting the number of questions should also focus people's minds on asking only the most relevant, least duplicative ones - e.g. candidates are asked how they will handle being outed 2 or 3 times each which educates voters no more than if it was asked once, and the candidates views on judicial incarceration in the USA are of no relevance I have been able to determine. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Might you tell us precisely how many editors made up the "consensus" this year? Might you note that I and others did not concur with the very limited number who averred that the NYB list was sufficient?  and that no one demurred on me asking the seven questions -- four of which were from last year's general question list, and three new ones which I proposed at the start of the entire discussion?  And yet the questions I posed are now "irrelevant"?  I suggest that if we had thirty or so participants in a consensus that you would be on solid ground -- how far short of thirty people participated in your averred "consensus"?  Might you tell me where the "general questions" are listed at Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Questions?  Sorry Charley --  that consensus appears not to exist, and the agreement for the list seems not to exist, and the demurral about questions proposed to be general at the very start  seems not to exist.   Cheers.  And I shall propose the same list next year, just so no one is surprised. Collect (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Note to Risker (per her comment above) and others: The discussion page for "feedback on the election to be considered for next year" is already started at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Feedback. The section on the candidate questions is here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should go one small step further than the current questioning "system", and tie heavy weights to all the candidates, throw them in deep water, and whoever floats will be considered pure of heart enough to be on the committee. As for the rest... well, I guess the water line would represent 50% support. (And no, I don't think I invented this idea, but I'm not sure it's been adapted to ArbCom elections before.) Neutron (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "We have found some candidate. May we burn them?" Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "If the candidate is a duck..." (Bishzilla stomps in) CHOMP "err... WAS a duck...."
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, ducking was easier: who floated was guilty, who drowned was innocent, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I used to think so too, but as explained in the article that I linked to, it depends on what era you are talking about. In some places and times the innocent floated, in others the innocent sank.  I think that in modern times, "we" are more familiar with the versions of the story where the innocent were expected to sink.  (And by the way, the article also explains that at least in some places where the innocent were expected to sink, the townsfolk did tie a rope around the person's waist so they could pull them out before they drowned.  Or try to, at least.  I had never heard about that part until I read that article.  Aren't election discussions educational?)  Neutron (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * She turned me into a newt. But I should point out that I wasn't necessarily trying to be "funny" with my comment, I was trying to be sarcastic, so as to make a point.  Neutron (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (Quizically) "A newt?" Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I got better. (I recently attended a production of Spamalot and was surprised to see that that scene did not make it into the musical, especially considering some of the new, um, "stuff" that did.) Neutron (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Signficant inconsistency concerning vacant seats
Two statements are inconsistent with each other, under "Vacant seats" overleaf:

"The committee will continue to have 15 seats, leaving nine vacant seats filled in this election."

and

"The minimum support percentage is 50%."

Can someone please explain? Tony  (talk)  13:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence immediately after the second you quote explains it, "If there are more vacancies than candidates with 50% support, those seats will remain vacant." although the section is poorly phrased, changing as follows would imho resolve it:
 * "The committee will continue to have 15 seats, leaving nine vacant seats filled in for this election."
 * "8 seats will be filled for have 2 year terms, and one will be filled for has a 1 year term."
 * "the seat they vacate will be filled added to the election, and will be for have a one-year term."
 * I'm not certain whether this can be changed before next year's RFC though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's just poorly written. There was some discussion of the wording (though not necessarily the specific issue Tony raises) prior to the nominating period, and I started trying to fix it up by changing a few words there and there but I kept finding more and more problems with that paragraph and eventually just gave up and didn't change anything, and never got back to it.  (I don't think there would be anything wrong with editing it now, as long as the meaning were not changed -- well, not changed from what it is supposed to mean.  I don't think that specific wording was "adopted" by an RfC, though I could be wrong about that.)  On the other hand, I do not see anything wrong with using the word "filled", as long as it is made clear that while there are nine seats to be filled, a seat would go unfilled if fewer that nine candidates achieve 50% percent support -- which is (I think) what Tony's point is.  Neutron (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just made a small edit to that paragraph (changing "seats filled" to "seats to be filled.) But actually, after having re-read the paragraph, I see that the "inconsistency" mentioned by Tony is not really there.  The very next sentence after "The minimum support percentage is 50%." is "If there are more vacancies than candidates with 50% support, those seats will remain vacant."  (Later note, now I see Thryduulf already pointed that out.)  So I think that part is clear enough.  There are nine seats "to be filled", but the actual number of seats that will be filled will depend on how many candidates receive at least 50% support.  As I said before, however, the whole thing could use a rewrite.  Neutron (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see there's going to be dramah if fewer than nine candidates make it over this ridiculous, arbitrary 50% formula mark (in practice, very candidates are ever supported by more than 50% of voters, which many editors would say is a more realistic measure). The graph just below this two-timing text marks eight seats with "Top 8 Candidates" and one with "9th Place". Sounds pretty cut-and-dried, don't you think? Tony   (talk)  00:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course there would be "dramah." This is Wikipedia.  There's drama over everything.  The WMF would save a lot of money if they could figure out a way to power the servers with drama instead of electricity.  But there would be much MORE drama if anyone were ever appointed to ArbCom with more opposes than supports.  I think the past RfC's show that a large majority would prefer to see empty seats on the committee rather than have arbitrators who received a majority of opposes.  As for "cut-and-dried":  Our election method here is kind of unusual, and kind of complicated, and therefore not the easiest thing to describe, especially when the description was written "by committee" over a period of years.  I think the system is ok, we just need a better description.  Neutron (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We do try to minimise the risk of drama, surely. The problem with the argument you put is that no one knows how many opposes were cast for any one candidate on the basis of "I really don't want that person to be an arb" versus the strategic voting rationale of "I don't know about that candidate, but I'm opposing everyone but my preferred few candidates, to give them maximum advantage in the formulaic race". (I voted strategically, and I'm pretty sure it's a lot of others did too.) Reducing opposes to a simple binary message is a grand presumption, and I believe the corollary to that is that "better empty seats than arbs who received more opposes than supports" is based on a wobbly presumption about the meaning of opposes. To put my neutral hat on: the graph text is a liability if you really want to exclude someone who received a formula-derived 49.9 ranking when only five got over the contrived 50 benchmark. BTW, I see no reason to express the formula outputs as percentages: percentages of what? Tony   (talk)  09:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * An urgent matter: the watchlist banner warns voters that, in effect, their vote didn't count if cast before a certain date. Could a link to the list of voters be piped within that statement so people like me can check whether they voted before that time? I can't even find a link when I try. Tony   (talk)  09:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's an alphabetical list of everyone who voted before that date (it's a separate, discarded poll, a new one was started when they noticed something was wrong with the first one). ---Sluzzelin talk  13:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, "in practice, very candidates are ever supported by more than 50% of voters" is not true, according to my research. For example, last year, 13 users got more than 50% of support, from which 8 became arbitrators. In 2011, 10 users received more than 50% of support, of which (again) 8 became arbitrators. In 2010, a record 13 candidates received more tha 50% of support. 2010 was an unusual year because 12 seats were filled, and even that year, no seat was left vacant. So, there is no doubt we will get 9 users elected this year. — ΛΧΣ  21  14:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We seem to have 2 different subjects interwoven here, but... I suggest removing the note about the discarded votes from the watchlist notice; by my count there are only 17 editors who voted in the first election attempt who haven't yet voted in the do-over. It doesn't make sense to target part of a watchlist notice to 17 people - just leave another note on their talk page and/or email them again.  At this stage, all that note does is confuse people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)  addendum:, you said earlier you wanted to be pinged (pung?) to remind you to compare the two lists.  Now might be a decent time to do so; down to a manageable size list of people who haven't re-voted yet, and enough time left to contact them again while they can still see the message and re-vote. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hahc21: "13 users got more than 50% of support"—no, 13 received more supports than opposes (when we really don't know what proportion of opposes were simply strategic voting). Only three of the 21 candidates got more than 50% support—that is, they gained the support of more than 50% of the 824 voters: Newyorkbrad, with 70.1%, NuclearWarfare, with 55.1%, and Worm That Turned, with 54.1%. Floq, yes, sounds like a good idea.  Tony   (talk)  15:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony1, when people say "more than 50% support", they mean "more supports than opposes", i.e. more than 50% of (supports + opposes). Untidy wording, but that's what it has meant in the context of ArbCom elections for the last 3 years at least (not quite sure about before that). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Tony, we have this same discussion every year. Hahc's figures are correct, because "abstains" don't count.  The instructions say:  "There will be an abstain option; choosing this option will not affect the support percentage for the candidate, and will be treated as though you did not vote in the election with respect to that candidate."  I don't think it could be made any clearer than that.  Abstains don't count for anything.  If 1000 people vote and a candidate gets 450 supports, 300 opposes and 250 people abstain, the candidate got 60 percent support.  That's the way our "system" counts it.  If you want to count it as 45 percent, you can, but that's not the system we have.  (Later added note:  Floquenbeam, thank you for correcting my math; I guess I was subconsciously illustrating that abstains don't count, by counting them incorrectly.)  Neutron (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Tony1, as much as I understand the spirit of your comment, it is pretty off from what is the reality. By making a comparison with the number of voters, you count the abstain votes, which is a mistake. They do not count for the percentage of support, since they are not taking any sides. And well, for me, "13 received more supports than opposes" is exactly the same as "13 users got more than 50% of support". I don't see any difference. — ΛΧΣ  21  20:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a problem if you don't see the difference. If someone goes into the system and doesn't vote support for candidate X, they're still a voter, right? It doesn't matter whether this voter voted oppose or neutral, they still didn't support candidate X, right? I'm simply counting the proportion of voters who supported candidate X, which is an almost universally understood measure. I suspect that this S/S+O weirdness was adopted by those whose interests are served by distorting massively upwards the real support that arbs garner at elections. It's time we punctured this fallacy, even if the official system counts this ranking formula. You're equating 50% ranking formula with 50% of the electors voted for X. Not so. And 12 supports, 8 opposes, and 874 neutrals whatever they're called, gives a formula ranking of 60. Great. Tony   (talk)  23:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, then you'd have to change RfA as well, because the ArbCom elections' system was borrowed from there. RfA's are calculated exactly the same way, S/S+O * 100, and neutral votes don't count. If you run for adminship, and then you get 75 support votes, 25 opposes and 1000 neutrals, do you pass or not? — ΛΧΣ  21  00:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the scoring, S/A/O, result=S/(S+O) is perfectly sensible. On a per-candidate basis, you have two options, S or O.  You should not count the thousands or millions who did not S or O the candidate.  You may have preferred a separate ballot for every candidate, with the options S or not(S), and ignore the non-voters, or do you support mandatory recording of preference for all candidates, or none?   I think a single ballot easier for the voters, and with all votes defaulting to A, every A should be interpreted no different to the voter not voting.  If there were no A, how should the vote default, or should the vote be impossible to complete without taking an action on every candidate?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Tony, I suspect that if something like that ever actually happened - someone being elected 12-8-874 or any similar pattern of numbers where the supports and opposes were completely dwarfed by the abstentions - there would be an uproar and the system would probably be changed. But it hasn't happened, so it hasn't happened. My perception of how things work on Wikipedia is that policies and procedures are generally not changed simply because there is a concern that something bad might possibly, conceivably, hypothetically occur.  Generally the "something bad" has to actually happen, and even then there might not be consensus for a change.  Is that a good way to run an organization?  Probably not, but that's how Wikipedia seems to operate, and for better or for worse, it's still here.  Neutron (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, whether you agree with the way the 50% support is calculated or not is frankly irrelevant at this point. The formula is explicitly and unambiguously defined and seemingly understood by almost everyone. The result=S/(S+O) method was chosen by consensus at an RfC a few years ago and reselected by an RfC in every year since. If you would prefer a different formula be used then you need to propose an alternative in next year's RfC (put a note on the feedback page as an aide mémoire if you want), and if your proposal gains consensus then it will be used for the 2014 election. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother unless I saw signs of a reasonable chance of reform. All I want is for people to recognise that this formula system is not synonymous with percentage endorsement by the community. That is the smoke and mirrors of it. Tony   (talk)  05:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The percentage support is not representative of the community. It represents a small self selecting group of voters.  Has anyone done a demographic analysis of the voters and compared to random editors (random editor selection requires a few decisions).  My impression is that the self-selecting voters tend to overrepresent project-space active editors.  The most obvious failing is non-response bias.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No matter what method you choose, you will only ever get a percentage support of voters. Whether you count the percentage of those who expressed an opinion about that candidate or a percentage of those who expressed an opinion about any candidate, you are only working with the opinions of a self-selected subset of the electorate (circa 800 out of probably tens of thousands). Why is that relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All discussions. All decisions, in this project, are made by groups of self-selected volunteer participants. It works well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is all legitimate, but entirely academic, discussion; and it's not particularly constructive to have it midway through the election. The formula of S/(S+O) was formalised in 2011, and the selection of 50% (which is equivalent to requiring more supports than opposes) was first formalised there and then confirmed in 2012 and 2013. This election will be conducted under that process. Whether or not you think it is fair, democratic or sensible, now is not the time to change it. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 22:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have the last few comments gone off the previous theme? I'm unsure how they relate to the ranking formula and a straight percentage of voters who clicked support for candidate X. And again, I struggle to see why the ranking formula has been expressed as a percentage. Tony   (talk)  11:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. It is illustrating that the current method does not distinguish, for the purposes of determining who is elected, between someone who offered no opinion on user:Example's candidacy but did express an opinion about one or more other candidates and someone who expressed no opinion about any candidate. I believe this is fair and correct, but it seems this view is not universal.
 * As for expressing support as a percentage, I don't know why, but given the criteria used for this election the statements "At least 50% support" and "More supports than opposes" have identical meaning, and ranking candidates by the percentage support and ranking candidates by how many more supports than opposes they got produces an identical ranking I don't understand why it is an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not true, is it? What you call the percentage support, and what I would understand by "how many more supports than opposes" (which sounds like the result of a subtraction), don't have to rank in the same order. Anyway, if we mean more supports than opposes, then why not say that, instead of the potentially misleading "more than 50% support"? W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We say "at least 50% support, defined as ..." because that's how the controlling RfC defined the criteria. Prior to this thread I'm not aware that anyone has noted it as being potentially misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? We're noting it as being potentially misleading now. People reading it won't know how the "controlling RfC" defined the criteria (whatever that means). Better to use plain language that everyone will understand correctly without insider knowledge. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The controlling RfC is Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 which defined the rules and requirements of this election. You can't just change things part way through (which is one of the reasons we have the RfC), but I still don't get what is not clear about "Seats will be filled based on support percentage, as calculated by support/(support + oppose)"? Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * H-M, I'm not for a moment suggesting that it be changed for this election. I'm keen, however, that people not misinterpret ranking formula as a percentage of voter support—it is far from that, and there seemed to be a little confusion even among election coordinators. Tony   (talk)  00:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Total voters
As of 02:58, 5 December 2013, 707 valid votes have been cast. We still have 4 days to reach, match or surpass 2012's total number (824). Cheers. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Should another attempt to contact those who voted in the first abortive poll, but haven't yet revoted, be made? Does anyone have the updated numbers for this problem? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * noted yesterday that there were only approximately 17 users who have not revoted.
 * Will there be an update on this (total numbers and whether any users in the initial poll failed to re-vote) after voting closes? Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are still 11 people that voted the first time but not the second. I'm not really comfortable acting like a coordinator here, when I'm a candidate.  If I make a mistake and miss one, am I going to be accused of leaving off a voter I think won't vote for me?  But with the caveat that I'm not responsible for the accuracy of this list, it looks like the following people have not re-voted:
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we posting details of anyone who may have voted here? Is a vote, cancelled or not, not an entirely private matter? Leaky  Caldron  16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether someone voted or not can be seen by everyone. I'm not on the EC, I have no access to any special info, just looking at the list of voters just like you could: Special:SecurePoll/vote/360. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, understood. Like you said though, I wouldn't be comfortable getting involved in any of this. We have a committee to consider such issues and if you are a candidate there is a theoretical COI. Leaky  Caldron  16:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the power vested in me by the State of Confusion, I hereby deputize you as an ArbCom Election Coordinator for 2013 (updated total number of coordinators this election: 1). Please do whatever you think is best. No one else is doing anything about this except asking questions or making comments. Tag, you're it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Well for the edit summary if nothing else, that's one vote you've just lost. Leaky  Caldron  16:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Two of the final eleven voters on your list have re-voted. In other words, 9 users lost their votes. Floquenbeam, if you don't get elected to ArbCom (which would be unfortunate) you should consider running for the electoral commission. Altamel (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm hoping Floquenbeam gets elected, if just to run the CU/OS and AUSC appointment processes. They'll be run like Mussolini's railroads...  Risker (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we posting details of anyone who may have voted here? Is a vote, cancelled or not, not an entirely private matter? Leaky  Caldron  16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether someone voted or not can be seen by everyone. I'm not on the EC, I have no access to any special info, just looking at the list of voters just like you could: Special:SecurePoll/vote/360. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, understood. Like you said though, I wouldn't be comfortable getting involved in any of this. We have a committee to consider such issues and if you are a candidate there is a theoretical COI. Leaky  Caldron  16:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the power vested in me by the State of Confusion, I hereby deputize you as an ArbCom Election Coordinator for 2013 (updated total number of coordinators this election: 1). Please do whatever you think is best. No one else is doing anything about this except asking questions or making comments. Tag, you're it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Well for the edit summary if nothing else, that's one vote you've just lost. Leaky  Caldron  16:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Two of the final eleven voters on your list have re-voted. In other words, 9 users lost their votes. Floquenbeam, if you don't get elected to ArbCom (which would be unfortunate) you should consider running for the electoral commission. Altamel (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm hoping Floquenbeam gets elected, if just to run the CU/OS and AUSC appointment processes. They'll be run like Mussolini's railroads...  Risker (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Well for the edit summary if nothing else, that's one vote you've just lost. Leaky  Caldron  16:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Two of the final eleven voters on your list have re-voted. In other words, 9 users lost their votes. Floquenbeam, if you don't get elected to ArbCom (which would be unfortunate) you should consider running for the electoral commission. Altamel (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm hoping Floquenbeam gets elected, if just to run the CU/OS and AUSC appointment processes. They'll be run like Mussolini's railroads...  Risker (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a note here for the record, I did not revote because I held the decryption key and server access in my staff role and so felt it was better for me to refrain (I believe Philippe did the same thing because while he doesn't have server access he was the backup holding the key for me incase I got hit by a bus). My original vote was done without that handicap (it was also how I realized that there was no encryption key inserted because I recognized how the receipt was being given). James of UR (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Candidate Arthur Rubin
It was just pointed out, Arthur Rubin is under Editing restrictions: an indefinite ban from editing Tea Party Movement related articles. The Arbitration Committee had to deal with this person in a disciplinary fashion regarding his inability to be impartial. He has a dispute with the committee, so it should be clear he has NO BUSINESS being involved ON the committee. Why is his disciplinary position not an immediate disqualification for the position? Why is this not even being discussed? OsamaPJ (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears the term "blocked or banned" refers to the project qua project and does not encompass a limited topic ban -- but was intended to prevent candidates whose actions were judged so antithetical to the project itself that their candidacy ought be barred. The material with regard to Arthur does not seem remotely to extend to that state.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how it appears. And this was discussed, more than two weeks ago, between the close of nominations and the start of voting, here.  It was not a very lengthy discussion:  Another current candidate raised the question of whether Arthur Rubin was eligible, I said I thought he was, and NewYorkBrad and Thryduulf agreed with me, and the questioner appeared to be satisfied.  I suppose the issue could be raised in the RfC for next year's election, but if we are to have a clear-cut "rule" on this, I would favor retaining what has been followed for this election:  If you are allowed to edit the project "at all", and otherwise meet the numerical criteria for candidacy, you are allowed to run.  Of course, a topic ban is one of the many facts that the voters may take into account when making their choices, and in this particular case, many of the "voter guides" mentioned the topic ban, so the voters were adequately informed of the topic ban.  Whether this candidates has any "business" being on the committee is for the voters to decide.  Neutron (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as a candidate is not under a restriction that means they are not permitted to engage in dispute resolution unrelated to themselves, and recognise that they would need to recuse from any discussions about the topic area in which they are banned, then I personally don't have a problem. Obviously it could get tricky if two candidates were under an interaction ban with each other and both were elected, but I can't see that happening. It would be good to discuss this in next year's RFC though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Nasty MONGO here to ask OsmaaPJ why after not editing for 3 years that this issue matters to them.--MONGO 03:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mongo, if you must know, I am actually quite active as an IP editor. I deliberately do that because one's political editing is being traced by interest groups.  I hold a position in an institution that could want to control what I publish.  See William Cronon.  In that light, I have observed this Arthur Rubin character and an additional handfule of his clique take WP:ownership of articles to ramrod their POV.  I assume that is why he was banned.  I could give you a few more names that need such discipline.  What offends me is this political activist is using wikipedia politics to attain a more powerful position to further affect the spread of his POV.  After establishing this account I rarely use it, except now when a login is required. OsamaPJ (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, you don't like him because he edits from a different perspective, as does "his clique" that need "discipline".--MONGO 12:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MONGO, you know better than that. Editors are expected to enforce a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) at all times. If an editor is so heavily emotionally invested in a particular political perspective that he finds it impossible to write from a neutral viewpoint, then he shouldn't be editing articles in that area.  That's one of the things that has resulted in Rubin getting himself blocked. SimpsonDG (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He's topic banned as of this posting, not currently blocked. Left with a complex case as the TPm one was, the committee did probably the only thing they could do and that was to topic ban virtually every named party in the case.--MONGO 04:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably best not to continue this discussion; it's morphed into something completely unrelated to the ArbCom election. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly one issue that arose with the Rubin candidacy is what to do with candidates who are being considered for a block, but not yet blocked at the time of the election. It seems like a sensible solution for the future would be to allow the candidacy provisionally; but if the candidate wins AND the block goes into effect, then the candidate is no longer eligible to serve on the committee, and must be replaced. SimpsonDG (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh? We have no policy that s blocked Arbcom member must resign.  This seems novel.  What purpose is served...? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that we DO have a policy that a blocked editor cannot run for Arbcom. This situation created a bit of a dilemma: Rubin was under consideration for a block, but no decision had yet been made, at the time the voting was closed.  There is apparently no rule in place to handle this situation.  See discussion [|here]. SimpsonDG (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Header error
Am I the only one seeing this? The header is claiming the results have been verified and published, but voting is not even over yet.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorted, I think. The header wasn't changed when the vote was restarted, and the final 2012 header as it was after votes were tallied was copied over, instead of the wording right after the polls close.  It should switch correctly at midnight UTC now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When I fixed it last night, it was working fine, but this morning it just says "Status". I reverted mt changes to make sure I didn't screw anything up, but that wasn't it. This is beyond my very limited template skills. Any ideas?  Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Header.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the header is now in Category:Pages with script errors, I don't think that was the case last night. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just hard-coded the correct message until someone can figure it out. sometimes these fancy switches are more trouble than they're worth... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have actually used a different method to create the header. — ΛΧΣ  21  23:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting closed
Okay. Here are the two tables with information collected from the guides. Those tables provide the guide writers' overall perspective of which are the candidates that should be elected. Of course, this does not represent the final outcome, but comes pretty close. Y'all know :) — ΛΧΣ  21  00:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice chart! It will be interesting to see if the results parallel the guide recommendation. However, I think some of your data are incorrect. Did you intend to leave GregJackP's guide off the chart? And some of Bishzilla's endorsements don't match either. Altamel (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, looks like he finally got to finish his guide; time to add it then. And thanks for the note, I will check Bish's guide again and make the modifications! — ΛΧΣ  21  02:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. However, FWIW, I read neutral leaning X as X instead of neutral. I am amazed at how adding Greg's guide almost had no impact on the table. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't vote neutral on Floquenbeam. I strongly supported her. I also did not support Guerillero. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reaper Eternal: I also forgot to go and update your guide's votes. I will do that now. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ  21  16:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So, even though "guides to guides" are discouraged, Hahc21 put one up on 23 November. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, incorrect. They are not discouraged, they are not allowed to be presented as guides, and last year I was told not to publish them before the election period was over. And that's what I did. — ΛΧΣ  21  16:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You published it on November 23. You may not have widely announced the publication, but nonetheless, you published it well before elections ended, and surely people knew that. Next year, we need to make sure you don't do this. I also find your addition of a meaningless percentage column troubling.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Guides to guides" are not included in the elections template and I understand why some people don't care for them, but I'm not sure anyone has the authority to prohibit someone from creating one in their userspace. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He didn't create it in his userspace; he created it as an image! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia: let me be clear on this. The rules are that guides to guides are not to be added to the election template. Apart from that, I can create my tables and upload them to Wikimedia Commons whenever I want, and I want to make very clear that nor you, nor anyone can prohibit me from doing so. I did not even add the tables to my guide to make sure I met the rules, so stop making incorrect claims. — ΛΧΣ  21  19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I suggest the community should discuss further whether you should be publishing something like this on Commons next year. Rules lawyering doesn't impress me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt you'd reach anywhere with such a proposal. — ΛΧΣ  21  20:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, let's do be clear. Do you intend to rules-lawyer your way around this again next year, in spite of knowing the negative effect of guides to guides, and the community views on them?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, stop right there. As far as I know, the community's views about guides is that they have no place in the elections template, period. Last year, I was told that it was better if I placed my guides after the elections period closed, period. The ArbCom elections took place on the English Wikipedia, so I intentionally uploded my guides to Commons so that nobody could reach them easily. They were intentionally hidden from the English Wikipedia to comply with the indications I received last year. In addition to that, there is a big difference between SandyGeorgia dislikes guides to guides and the community dislikes guides to guides. Last year, I received a bunch of thank-you comments because of my work with these tables, and such a thing doesn't translate into they disliked guides to guides. So, yes, I will make my tables each ArbCom elections hereafter, and I will use the same procedure. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In what sense were the files “hidden”, having been assigned (quite appropriately) to the “English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections” category? I have no opinion about the publication of guides-to-guides in general except that they seem rather pointless while incomplete, but are interesting to compare to each other and to the results. Thanks for posting them here & ‘now‘, anyway. I can‘t resist observing that they should be SVGs, though: easier to edit, and usually smaller files. —Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By hidden, I meant that they weren't at a visible place like this talk page, or any guide on the elections template, or any page on Wikipedia, for that purpose, except this one. — ΛΧΣ  21  13:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not hidden from anyone by being placed on Commons, and certainly not if they are listed in the Category. So, you intend to rules-lawyer this issue again next year?  So, I suggest the community should revisit (once again) their views on same.  If last year, as you say, you were "told that it was better if I placed my guides after the elections period closed, period", you did not comply.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was told two things: Not to add it to the elections template, and not to post it here before the voting period closed. Unless I am missing something, that was exactly what I did, and nobody but you has said otherwise. Also, I do not understand what you mean by "rules-lawyer," (since there are no rules) but if what you mean is if I will publish my tables again next year, and the year after next year, and so on, the answer is yes, I will. — ΛΧΣ  21  14:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The only guide I followed was the one by Bishzilla...dinosaurs know best.--MONGO 18:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect was neutral on 28bytes. No one opposed him by my count. SirFozzie supported Kww, while you mark him as neutral.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not expect 100% accuracy on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Devil's Advocate: Thanks, I have re-checked all the guides and corrected the votes.
 * Collect: What happened was that I forgot to go back and heck if there were any updates in the guides. Everything has been corrected though.
 * On a general note, I decided to remove Volunteer Marek's guide because he erased it all. Also, I did not update Neotarf's votes because I did not properly understand the change he did to his guide, and so I preferred to not update it rather than removing it from the table. — ΛΧΣ  21  19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * These are some very interesting charts, thanks for making them Hahc21. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The table has now been updated with the final results. This year was a very interesting year, in correspondence between the guides and the voters. Warm congratulations to the newly elected arbitrators. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Delay
(note below split off into its own section by me --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC))
 * Sadly there's something wrong with the securepoll behaviour, I'm pretty sure it will be fixed soon but till now it was impossible to tally the poll. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting on my SecurePoll administrator hat, why are you trying to tally the poll already? Have the scrutineers all reviewed the votes, eliminated socks, queried questionable votes, ensured that all voters meet the editing criteria? Only when ALL of you have signed off that there are no further corrections or changes to the the vote data should you be tallying the poll.  There's nothing wrong with SecurePoll here; someone is holding the key, and won't give it to you until you've all signed off that there are no further corrections to be made to the votes.  Risker (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be more specific here. Go to Special:SecurePoll/list/360. Using the tabs at the top, look for same/similar IP and user agent combos (there are bound to be some) and then review the users to see if they are likely socks or are two people who reside together (there will be some of them, too).  Look for CSRF tags and see if there is a reason to question those votes; in the past, scrutineers have sometimes contacted those editors directly.  Look for near-identical usernames.  Check with the election commissioners to see if they have received any emailed concerns about possible socks.  Once you've investigated all of these issues, and all of you have signed off that you are satisfied there are no further votes to be eliminated, then you contact the person who holds the key (the election commissioners will tell you who it is and how to make contact). At that point, you can insert the key and do the tally.  Risker (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: are you saying that everyone who votes in Arbcom elections is scrutinized using checkuser as a matter of course? If so, was that made clear somewhere? -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 19:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That'll teach me not to log in to vote while I'm at the hair salon. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * SB_Johnny, every vote is recorded with the IP and user agent data; the scrutineers see the username, date of vote, IP, user agent, and if applicable a flag for possible duplicate or CSRF problem; nobody sees how any specific user voted. That information is available only to the scrutineers, which is why they must be WMF-identified, and should normally have some experience with Checkuser. This should be somewhere in the documentation for SecurePoll (but probably isn't, since it's so badly documented...) Risker (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like there was a mention of it within the guide for for voters "The process will be conducted using the SecurePoll extension which ensures that individual voter's decisions will not be publicly viewable (although technical information about voters, such as their IP address and user-agents, will be visible to the WMF-identified election administrators and scrutineers)" but there is always a question about making it clearer. Jalexander--WMF 21:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Will be visible" isn't the same as "will be checked". CU data is always visible for every edit by Checkusers, but they certainly don't go checking that data on everyone who edits. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 01:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Having it in the messages as you go through the voting process would be nice as a reminder. I knew, but I could see how others might miss it...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that would be a good approach. Personally I could care less if they know my IP, xff, and other identifying data, but I know there's some who feel that's a violation of privacy. OTOH, I find it hard to imagine that there would be enough sock voters to actually skew the results, so it seems silly not to release the raw results even before the "scrutineers" go through it. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 01:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the SecurePoll software doesn't permit any modification of the voter list or results once the tally is run; the entire poll is locked once the key is inserted and no changes to the voter list can be done, nor can any additional ballots be cast. That serves several purposes, first of which is to prevent vote manipulation, second of which is to prevent the scrutineers or election admins from peeking at the running tally and potentially providing that information to third parties, who may attempt to canvass or otherwise try to affect the outcome. They're secret ballots, and variance between the "raw" data and the "final" data could very well reveal the actions of the (few) votes that get struck. Risker (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * could you please refresh us on where can be found the list of editors who know our IPs as a result of voting? I will vote from the hair salon in the future :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not Risker, but: ACN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , see here - I believe both the electoral commission and the scrutineers can see. Risker (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * if you are saying that Happy-Melon and GiantSnowman have access to IPs, that is news to me. If I should have known, I didn't.  I imagined the stewards saw IPs.  How many others didn't know the election commission could access our IPs?  I hope that will be made clear next year when scrutineers are appointed.  The stewards are appointed by ArbCom and have a level of community trust; the decision on who is appointed as election commission was a "vote" subject to a couple dozen people.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Risker, not because you're responsible, but because you seem to know what's going on: Wouldn't the EC need Checkuser permission to see them?? The EC is chosen in a (slightly refreshingly) relaxed manner; does that really satisfy the level of scrutiny usually required for something like Checkuser? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Flo, we're saying/asking the same thing. I understood that CU was being granted to the stewards appointed by the arbs to oversee the election.  That it would also be granted to three editors chosen here in a very "relaxed manner" is something I find disconcerting. We should have clarity on this, and if those three members have access to IPs, then the process by which they are selected should be more broadly advertised next year.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You and Floquenbeam both raise good points. As I recall, for the first Arbcom election using SecurePoll, and the one go-round of CU/OS/AUSC elections using SecurePoll, all of the election admins were either already CU/OS (for Arbcom elections) or arbitrators (CU/OS/AUSC votes). I'm not entirely sure why it was decided a few years back that the steward scrutineers needed CU access — best guess I have is that they would do "regular" CUs to root out socking on voting if it was reported to them — but I've been a SecurePoll admin on two global elections and had no need for CU on either one, nor would I think it would have been helpful. I think what's happened here is that we've normalized certain practices without fully understanding their implications.  Risker (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's seldom a good bet to say Risker is wrong about something, but... I think she may be mistaken here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It says so right in the instructions for scrutineers that the election commissioners have the same access as the scrutineers. The giveaway is that, in reading the last sentence of the "Technical background" section, it's clear that election administrators (commissioners) have the ability to strike votes, but are not supposed to do so; only those with access to the IP/UA data are also able to strike/unstrike votes. Risker (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that the secure voting process has stated this before. As well as the fact that the scrutineers check each vote to make sure no dupes, socks, etc. It would seem a violation of any election process on the web for it not to be checked. Right? How could we possibly have a secure election with confidence without knowing that the foundation has policies in place to make sure some jokers aren't voting multiple times? Dave Dial (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think they can really make sure; it would be easy enough to vote from different IP addresses if someone were that determined. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, without going into too much detail, while nothing can be perfect the securepoll system has multiple extra ways to help determine if someone is socking then just IP info [more so then normal CU actually]. Jalexander--WMF 19:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, although Risker has already done an excellent job of explaining, she is entirely correct. There is only one class of SecurePoll administrator, and so both EC and scrutineers are given that level of access. I posted a screenshot of the interface last year which made it very clear what was and was not visible, to me as well as to the other SecurePoll admins.

For each vote cast, the IP, XFF and UserAgent information is recorded and is easily visible to all SecurePoll admins; so it is true that TParis, GiantSnowman and myself have access to that "CheckUser-like data" immediately related to the vote, in addition to the scrutineers. It is not correct that we have CheckUser access in any more general sense. We cannot use the normal CheckUser interface to investigate other wiki activity, either technically or by policy. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 09:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * - re:your earlier comment that "the decision on who is appointed as election commission was a "vote" subject to a couple dozen people" is not wholly correct, we were actually appointed by Jimbo following a public !vote. But your point remains valid, it should have been clearer who could see what 'hidden' informnation - though I hope you trust us. GiantSnowman 13:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a feedback page for discussion of how the election process went this year and what changes, if any, should be considered for next year. If anyone thinks we need to discuss possible changes relating to this issue, that is probably the best place to discuss it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks all for the clarification; this is a rather big oversight that should be corrected. In the future, the community should know that when they do not (because most didn't) come over to these pages to "vote" on election commission, they should know that those people will have access to CU data.  So, there are two problematic issues on this page now that should be revisited on the feedback page.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I almost hate to mention something directly related to this year's election, but... what is the status of the issue raised by Vituzzu at the beginning of this section? There seemed to be a problem tallying the results of the election. Then Risker seemed to be saying that shouldn't be a problem because before the votes are tallied, some other things are supposed to happen, and at that point the whole thing turned into a blur for me due to my extremely vague understanding of technical stuff. Then the whole section got off on a tangent, and I guess I'm sort of trying to pull it back to where it started. Is everything ok? Is everything that is supposed to be happening, happening, in the correct order? I want to make it clear I am not trying to rush the results, because I remember that one year (the first year SecurePoll was used for an ArbCom election, I think) when people were rushing the vote-counters and scrutineers and there ended up being a problem that could not be fixed, but which luckily did not affect the outcome of the election. We all want everything to be done properly and accurately even if it takes a little extra time. So, there's not a really serious problem, is there? Neutron (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Vito's just enthusiastic to get it all done --Rschen7754 23:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Risker: I use to calibrate the depth of my analysis upon delta. A very very deep analysis must be taken with a 2 votes margin, while it's a useless waste of energies with a 50 votes margin. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's kinda my point, . It's not about the delta, it's about the acceptable votes. The only tally that matters is the one based on acceptable votes; there is no "delta" involved. It's not that much work, with under 1000 votes the check reviews should take about 2 hours unless there are significant problems.  Risker (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't respond to your question. Tallying wasn't "broken" because the decryption key has not yet been activated. It cannot be activated until all of the improper votes are struck, and the scrutineers so certify.  That is because once the tally is run, no changes to the voter list can be made; that is, votes of users who do not meet the criteria could not be struck.  This is a deliberate and intentional security measure to prevent the SecurePoll administrators from repeatedly running tallies, striking votes and running new tallies (thus negating the secrecy of the ballots). There is no actual problem here, and there is nothing that needs to be fixed.  The problem you refer to in your post is actually solved by the fact that repeated tallies cannot be run; the problem that first time was that scrutineers apparently were able to repeatedly run tallies and strike votes afterward, and my suspicion is that the first SecurePoll Arbcom election may not have been properly encrypted, although I agree that it did not make a difference in the outcome.  Risker (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This (it not being permissible to publish more than one tally) is exactly what happened in 2009 as Neutron says, when we discovered three duplicate votes just after the results had been published, and could not strike them without compromising their secrecy. The ACE09 election was indeed not encrypted (nor were '10, '11 and '12), because managing the encryption requires more involvement from the WMF, which has not been as forthcoming in previous years.  Implementing encryption was the reason why the poll was restarted this year.
 * I do sympathise with Vituzzu's point about more rigour being required if the election is very tight; but it's also true that exposing the ranking before completing the striking is not really on. It would be a good feature for SecurePoll to have an option to produce a tally of results, but without the candidate names, perhaps?  <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 09:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would that make any difference? When the final results were published, it would be easy to go back to the previous tally and match names to numbers. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't address the reduction in ballot secrecy if only a small number of votes are struck, no. It would prevent theoretical biased scrutineers deliberately striking votes in order to get their preferred candidate into the top spot, because they wouldn't know who was where on the ranking.  <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 11:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. Sounds to be a good idea (provided it was the only available option up to the point where striking had finished). W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Risker: so I must infer my standards are definitely different from those which I am supposed to implement, good to know.
 * I think no securepoll's admins are needed for the future if it has been argued they can try to remove random votes in order to alter the result, that's, ofc, quite airy since it would originate lots of logged removal and unremovals attempt, anyway it's another good thing to know. I must also underline is a success for the whole organisation we were made aware of this new procedure (about the secret key) let's say...incidentally. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no SecurePoll logs, other than the voter list, . No logs of who changes the translations, when, or from what to what. No logs of who pushes the tally button. No logs of who strikes votes or when, or who reinstates them and when. If there was logging, what you said would be a deterrent to inappropriate administrator behaviour, I quite agree. But there is no logging on SecurePoll, other than the voter list, and technically that's a database, not a log. Risker (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true - there is a log of strikes and unstrikes attached to each vote, just no overall log of activities across a whole election. So strikes and unstrikes are recorded, just not in a very easily-accessible format.  SecurePoll's logging infrastructure definitely needs considerable improvement, though.  <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 18:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure the data connected to an individual vote is actually a log; it might be a data point instead, since it's only connected to the vote itself and not anything else; unless someone looks at the individual back-data for the specific vote, one would never know whether or not it was struck and then unstruck. But yes, as you're probably aware, I've been agitating for some major reworking of SecurePoll for a while now, and logging is one matter that needs to be addressed. Risker (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it important at all for everyone to see when I voted, how often I changed my vote, when I changed my vote ...? All one needs is some confirmation that one's own vote or one's change of a vote have been registered. Is this something that is or has been discussed somewhere else too? (I didn't mind the completely open voting we used to have, but I fully understand why voting has become secret, only, why not go all the way then? Or do we rely on scrutineering by the community regarding illegitimate votes etc?) ---Sluzzelin talk  20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest that things be slowed down here, let the scrutineers do their work (I'm very curious to see the results, both as a former member of the Committee, as a voter, a guide writer, and an interested Wikipedia.... but I've been able to tamp down on my curiosity in order to let the scrutineers do the work), and the discussion on improving SecurePoll and next year's elections be moved to the proper area. SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, keep free discussion here at least until after the results have been announced, plus a decent interval afterwards for post-mortems regarding why the delay was so long and whether it had to be that way, and so on. Later such discusions can always be copied to the discussion on improving SecurePoll if anybody wants to do so. But in the meantime having an unfettered discussion here reduces the danger that the delay will cause paranoia about election fraud, etc. A free discussion here shouldn't prevent the scrutineers from doing their job, but anything that promotes paranoia about the delay (such as attempts to restrict free discussion about it here) may well put unreasonable pressure on scrutineers to rush the job, as well as having many other undesirable consequences. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree in full with Tlhslobus. That said, this delay is absurd. It's just some votes and some user names. How about a report on progress to date and a rough idea when we can finally expect the results? Jus  da  fax   11:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how any debate here slows down the scrutineers, it's not like they are all participating in the discussion. But be careful what you say here. When I compared our vote processes to that of an African dictatorship last year I was warned by an Arbitrator that I might be blocked. Leaky  Caldron  11:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted, with thanks! Jus  da  fax   11:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * African dictatorships are surely far more efficient. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But maybe that's just because Arbitrators aren't yet in a position to oppress the electorate as efficiently as real dictators can :) Tlhslobus (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, Leaky Caldron, do you by any chance have a link to your comparison and the Arbitrator's warning? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bottom section of this covers it.  Leaky  Caldron  18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that most informative link, Leaky Caldron, it's always useful to learn that even at election time some of our arbs remain firm believers in our core principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and also know that they are far too important for Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith to apply to them :) Tlhslobus (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

As an (informal) update, there have been expressions from three of the scrutineers that they are happy with the results, so we are near the end of the process (there may have been a final confirmation that I haven't been made privy to). Even assuming that that is forthcoming, however, the new encryption means that the keys (which are currently locked in Philippe's desk, apparently) need to be uploaded by WMF staff before the election can be tallied; that of course won't happen until Monday at the earliest. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 18:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming final confirmation can be gotten, give him a call or text, somebody. He won't mind, I suspect. Or at least ping him here. Jus  da  fax   20:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I wouldn't mind. But as it turns out, I'm monitoring this thing closely anyway, so it's not necessary.  User:Happy-melon, I planned ahead on this, and I have the keys with me and made arrangements for User:Jalexander to get access at the appropriate time, as well.  We're holding, waiting for the final confirmation from scrutineers.  We've been ready - and continue to be ready - to flip the proverbial switch as soon as we get that confirmation.  (IOW, no need to wait til Monday - for that anyway.  If we get the confirmation, the WMF is ready to go.)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Outstanding, thanks Philippe! Jus  da  fax   06:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A further (informal) update: the WMF decrypted the ballots today and provided a full dump and the secret keys to the scrutineers for independent verification. This was completed about two hours ago.  At this point, our involvement ends, until we are asked to accept identification on behalf of any newly elected arbs prior to their taking up the restricted oversight and checkuser tools.  It's been our pleasure to assist the community once again with an election.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even better. Thanks again! Jus  da  fax   00:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Percentages
I notice that this year the Net and Percentage columns have been left blank for losing candidates, a departure from years past. Is there a reason for this? It seems very useful for the community to know how close some of the losing candidates came to winning, and vice versa. Also, of course, like this we just have to take the scrutineers' word for it that that's who actually won, or, even worse, do math for ourselves. ;)

Oh, and congratulations/condolences to our new arbitrators. Sorry for all the crap we'll put you guys through over the next two years. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  01:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not difficult to get them. Just copy it into Excel and work some numbers.--v/r - TP 01:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My table above already has the percentages for the rest of the candidates, I will update it properly now. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that it has already been done. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "just copy it to Excel" is a major job, since the WMF still doesn't give us tables that can be copy-pasted. You'd think that would be a fundamental priority. I will have to do it for Signpost coverage, so anyone who wants a copy can email me and I'll send it (but I'd need to know the email address to attach, of course). Tony   (talk)  02:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony1: I can send you my Excel file so that you don't have to start from scratch. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hahc—I've emailed you my address. Tony   (talk)  03:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC) -- 1989 13:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)