Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination/Archive 1

WL'd
I've added the commissioner nominations to the watchlist header per prior year precedents, feel free to ping me for any other technical activity. — xaosflux  Talk 03:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

New voter requirements
Please keep in mind we have new requirements to participate as a voter this year, and to get Mass Messaged. Creating the eligible voters list and message targets list may take some addition time, and it would be useful to get the process in place as soon as possible. — xaosflux  Talk 00:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’d support beginning this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have a script that generates this list. If none of the commissioners object, and I can adapt it to the current requirements and begin generation of the list. —  CYBER POWER  (Trick or Treat) 01:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From the closings, it looks like the "eligible voters" that need to be on votewiki config and the "mass message targets" are different (with the later being a subset of the former). May need to have the T&S person involved here as well? if you have some specific queries those for generating and would share them for review that may be a good start. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Well it's a bunch of different queries run in a script the produces the end-result. It's designed to produce a mass. message list and a SecurePoll list.  Let me dig it up and I'll share the queries with you. —  CYBER POWER  ( Trick or Treat) 19:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, if you need to update for the new parameters this year, do that first :D — xaosflux  Talk 19:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko  talk  10:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Hawkeye7
I previewed my edit and it looked normal but when I actually saved it it's like invisible or something. I assume its something to do with the code above it but I don't know how to fix it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * the page but there might be an issue with a template that I don't have time to investigate right now. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I had the same issue when I created my page. the issue appears to be with the " su bst ", but what its for and why it's in the middle of a word I have no idea. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * again; the includeonly tags weren't needed because it's already commented out. Primefac (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Caker18
Hello thanks for volunteering to help. Not a lot of tasks to do right now, but you may want to watchlist all of the pages to keep an eye on things. One task you could help with is to keep track of any sort of things that are confusing or causing complaints this year and log them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020 so they can be on the RfC for the next election. — xaosflux  Talk 21:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, will do! Thanks! I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  21:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should I make a subpage where people can submit complaints and feedback? I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  21:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, any of the existing talk pages are fine for general feedback etc, some could be resolvable. For things that need to be reconsidered next year, drop them on that RfC page, leave a link back, and feel free to update the current talk with a note that is will be on next year's RfC. —  xaosflux  Talk 23:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Candidate editnotice incorrectly advises candidates they will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation
From User talk:Iridescent (Permanent link): the candidate editnotice page says: " You will have to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation if you are elected. Please do not run if you are not willing to identify, ...". I thought it was outdated but it was created this year; was it copied from somewhere else (if so please see WP:CWW)? Unfortunately there's not much time left in the nomination period for anyone who was chilled from stepping forward. –xenotalk 03:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * you made Arbitration Committee Elections/Candidates/Editintro, was this verbiage from elsewhere? The only part I'm seeing is that to be "appointed" candidates must complete the Access to nonpublic personal data policy requirements. The phrasing of "identify" seems to be this issue here correct, ? Should be easy enough to change that to match "criteria iii" from Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates.  This position doesn't require sending actual "identity" documents to WMF, most positions don't (I think I've only ever had to do one and it wasn't for anything on a single project). —  xaosflux  Talk 04:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW that verbiage seems to have been around for at least 10 years, even you edited the notice while it contained it! Seems wrong though. —  xaosflux  Talk 04:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The earliest source for it I can find is Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Editintro. I added "at least a link" on it's talk page. — xaosflux  Talk 04:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for datamining. It was true at the time, but no longer. Yes, you don't have to identify at all anymore. You just sign your username to some phab document. –xenotalk 04:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, you sign your full legal name to the document, not your username, but there is no longer any follow-up verification of whatever name you choose to sign with. Mz7 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I provided my ID in 2010 but when the new confidential agreement came in, I signed as Xeno. –xenotalk 00:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Any commissioner want to weigh in on this, I suggest this change for Arbitration Committee Elections/Candidates/Editintro:
 * FROM:
 * You will have to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation if you are elected . Please do not run if you are not willing to identify,...
 * TO:
 * You must meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and be willing to sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement. Please do not run if you are not willing to complete this process,
 * Does that alleviate your concern (about the verbiage) ? — xaosflux  Talk 04:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It does- please implement the change boldly and swiftly, it's clear it's just been erroneously copy and pasted. –xenotalk 04:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done, shouldn't be controversial - leaving this open should any of the commissioners want to further weigh in on the matter. — xaosflux  Talk 04:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (reserve commissioner comment) Seems fine to me, and good catch. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was offline: the change is fine with me. If someone could dig out a diff of the WMF actually making this change, it would be somewhat more reassuring, though I see no reason to doubt, the documentation and instructions when I was appointed an OS a year ago was somewhat confusing in this respect. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The actual requirements are listed at the relevant policy. This came into effect in November 2015. Nothing in the current policy requires the submission of person data (i.e., identifying documents). Risker (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yea, sorry. It seems to be resolved now, but it was copied from an older edit notice as the last few years didn't have one despite the code calling for one.  Thanks for catching it. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawing
As per my statement, there are now at least 11 viable other candidates running, and as a man of my word I shall therefore withdraw my candidacy.

Please could one of the coordinators attend to this (as I am not sure whether I'll be breaking something if I just take my name off the list, there may be other bits and bobs to sort out). Cheers. Fish +Karate 09:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 12:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting the ball rolling, even if you bravely ran away (away)... –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 23:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

DGG
HELP! My transclusion isn't workingright. My page is at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/DGG. I know it's the last hour, but could one of the cordinators fix this.  DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ you are good to go DGG as far as this goes. — xaosflux  Talk 23:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible disqualification - Enterprisey
Hello Commissioners, appears to have submitted their candidacy after the deadline for nominations. Would you please render a decision if this nomination is qualified to continue or not?? Best regards, — xaosflux  Talk 00:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . — xaosflux  Talk 00:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Was hoping it was just a late or errored translcusion, however the statement page also appears to be late. — xaosflux  Talk 00:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, there was an attempt at 23:59 (in Special:PermaLink/925893124) to start the nomination as well. Hopefully this can get a quick qualify/disqualify response so it doesn't drag out. —  xaosflux  Talk 00:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you're looking for opinions from the peanut gallery or not, but just in case: Not everyone has the little clock gadget, and not everyone has a clock sync'ed to UTC to the exact second. While it was unwise to wait until so close to the deadline (might get a question or two about that), it seems like 00:00 is functionally equivalent to 23:59. That is, if you allow this, it wouldn't be so much cutting them a break, as it would be recognizing that the world is slightly imperfect and fuzzy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see why any comments aren't welcome! The rules explicitly said ...until Tuesday 23:59, 12 November 2019, UTC, and I do see there was an effort made by that time - so I think this is literally an "edge case" (and I don't want to talk about if 23:59 really 23:59:00 or 23:59:59.9999!).  This is one of the reasons we have our highly paid commissioners, and there are three of them that can decide by vote. —  xaosflux  Talk 00:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the matter. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We are essentially of the opinion that despite the timing of the exact page-saving, if it were a minute the other way we wouldn't be having this discussion (basically a coin toss between bureaucracy for the sake of it and recognizing that the world is slightly imperfect and fuzzy) . Unless the community feels otherwise (either in this thread or a new one) we see no pressing need to penalize Enterprisey for their less-than-ideal timing. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update! My original reason for raising this was only procedural.  Will add additional timing questions to next year's RFC.  Seems like a good call - onward! —  xaosflux  Talk 02:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd be in favour of clarifying for future years that the candidate page must be correctly transcluded before the end of 23:59 on the final day of nominations, but see no reason to disqualify Enterprisey this year as this precision was not defined at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * added to the 2020 follow up questions. — xaosflux  Talk 11:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Updates on votewiki
Hey all - just wanted to update you all on what I've done today.
 * : I have created accounts for you on votewiki. Please check your emails for temporary passwords and log into the wiki at your earliest convenience. already had an account from last time so I just unblocked that, and I haven't created an account for  yet since they have yet to sign the access to nonpublic personal data policy. (We're asking for that just to be safe since votewiki access can mean access to quite a lot of information.) I'll add the primary Commissioners and Coordinators to the election in a bit.
 * The votewiki should be pretty much set up now. There's a bug with the labelling for "Support", which requires bascially setting that up from the database, so I'll do that closer to the date.
 * Encryption is all set up and should be ready to go.

I think that's it for now. There's probably stuff I'm forgetting, so do feel free to let me know. As I wrote above, the new requirements mean that we can't compile the voter list ourselves as we generally do, but hopefully Cyberpower's list is accurate. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * only our 'commissioners' should get votewiki access, please revoke Mz7, Swarm, myself, and don't set up Caker18. — xaosflux  Talk 00:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Woops. All blocked now. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * we are working on the listing now, is there a specific format you would like it in to load to the election? Will the votewiki still be able to check "is currently blocked" ? —  xaosflux  Talk 00:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually have no idea. I believe it just takes a raw list. (Most of this was done by James in the past so I'm kind of winging it here.) Edit: Yes, it will check whether the voter is blocked on the fly. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yes, under "Voter eligibility configuration", blocks, flagged as bot, and minimum edits are checked on the fly. IIRC the "Eligibility list" should take raw text, but it MAY need to be in the format of "SQL@enwiki", I honestly can't recall, and my test box isn't in a CA cluster., if you want to test anything, securepoll is installed on the beta cluster. I'd be happy to assign you whatever permissions that you need there for testing. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the clarification. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also - Thank you! — xaosflux  Talk 00:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Got the account creation email :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Once you have access to your votewiki account, please go to the election as it currently exists (hit "SecurePoll" in the sidebar) and double-check the details (title, dates, my spellings of the candidates' usernames, etc). :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, if it's easier to coordinate this by email rather than onwiki, do let me know that too and I can open a thread with the five of us. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a link in the sidebar but I found Special:SecurePoll. Don't see anything obviously wrong. I do think for some of the minutiae it will be easier to coordinate via email both for time-reply purposes and also flooding this page. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm curious why you include Ivanvector, but not me. Ivanvector is a reserve commissioner, as am I. :-). So it should only be 4 of you, not 5. :p — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The reserve commissioners are all vetted by the community and the current arbcom to be privy to election workings, however they have no "vote" on matters unless there is a vacancy from a primary commissioner. — xaosflux  Talk 14:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I actually didn't include Ivanvector, that was a mistake. They're not currently an electionadmin. Sorry for the confusion. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , no worries. :-) — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 23:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Pre-election work needed

 * 1) Please double check the votewiki configurations for voting options, the "Support" label does not appear to be initiated (the Oppose and Neutral option labels do appear to be). — xaosflux  Talk 14:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the non-candidate text appears to need to be populated still as well (compare to last year's). — xaosflux  Talk 14:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , all done. The "Support" being missing thing is unfortunately a bug in SecurePoll and will probably need to be fixed again. (It just gets deleted when you edit any other aspect of the election.) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Update, this has been added and should now show up. I'll double-check when voting opens. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Load the electoral roll that posted above. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pings to —  xaosflux  Talk 20:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I loaded your list in at testwiki (testwiki:Special:SecurePoll/votereligibility/711) and it seemed to process OK, even very odd edge names with now-disallowed characters, odd unicodes, and RTL names, looks like a good sampling to rule out encoding errors. (The count is off as most people don't have @testwiki "accounts" created). —  xaosflux  Talk 21:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry to keep on this - when you said 'all done' above, did it include this part (loading the eligibility list)? If so, can you confirm that every name validated (should be the same number of rows after hitting save as before). —  xaosflux  Talk 21:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Disregard, I see the list on votewiki: However, there appears to be one user missing from the votewiki list: . —  xaosflux  Talk 22:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , On votewiki or my list? Because it is on my list. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 22:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it was on your list, but for some reason was missed from votewiki until Joe fixed it below. — xaosflux  Talk 00:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I added them manually through the db (so it won't appear on the votewiki interface, at least until something else is updated). The voter eligibility checks have also now been added through the database. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) withdrew (see below) - if possible please remove from votewiki. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , done. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — xaosflux  Talk 21:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To save some precious electrons; the commissioners do not currently have the ability to edit the votewiki page. The speediest way of drawing attention to something that needs to be fixed is to ping Joe Sutherland, as he can fix things (feel free to let us know, too, of course; it's just that our next course of action will be to bother Joe). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawing
To the coordinators: I wish to withdraw my candidacy. To anyone wondering why: When I submitted, there were few people in the running and I thought I would make a difference if elected. There are now plenty of well-qualified candidates who I have no doubt will do a fine job. I've also been asked some fair questions, both publicly and privately, about my available time to dedicate to the Committee. On reflection, I'd rather spend my time elsewhere. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting us know, best wishes. — xaosflux  Talk 20:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Bishonen and Bishzilla
I'm pleased to see both Bishonen and Bishzilla appear on the electoral roll. Very proper. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC).
 * as they both meet the suffrage requirements they both appear, of course socking isn't allowed but you may actually use one or the other for making your vote - perhaps depending on how fiery you want it to be? — xaosflux  Talk 00:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll use Bishzilla, on the assumption that she gets to vote more than once, per WP:WEIGHT. Modestly, say 50 times? Bishonen &#124; talk 00:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC).
 * You can vote 50 times, you just have to click save each time ;) — xaosflux  Talk 00:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

SecurePoll List
Technically, while User:James Council does meet the requirements to vote for the election, the user has unfortunately passed away over the summer. Not sure if that would warrant removal from the list or not, but I wanted to let you know all the same. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to make too light of a situation like this, but being dead is not currently a listed reason a user cannot vote. That being said, we will get the Stewards to lock the account (as is generally done for deceased Wikipedians) which will then ( officially effectively ) disqualify them. Primefac (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think locking the account is fine and we wouldn't need to update the list since no one would be able to log in to vote with it. (cc: ) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done; It could be said that locking is not a disqualification per se: it's merely denying them login so they cannot ever vote. &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 04:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point; comment struck/changed above. Primefac (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , This is certainly interesting. They’re in a category that should have filtered them out of the list.  I will investigate this. — CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 12:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist notice (end date)
I just noticed that the watchlist notice for the election does not say when the election closes, and (IIRC) all of the previous notices about election stages included an end time. Can we modify it to include the date/time that the election closes? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've updated that WLN, better? —  xaosflux  Talk 14:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good! Now I'm not panicking that I have to rush to vote :) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Eligible with former account/current account? (RAGentry)
Hello. Am I still allowed to vote in the Arbitration Committee elections if the reason I am not technically eligible is that I changed to a new account recently? Considering my former account and my current account (I switched in March 2018) I would be eligible. My former account is User:ITAC. If I am interpreting the eligibility rules correctly (note that it refers to "editors" that meet the criteria rather than "accounts"), I meet the four criteria. Both my current account, User:RAGentry, and my former account, User:ITAC meet criterion (i). ITAC meets criterion (ii) (see here). RAGentry meets criterion (iii) (see here). They, along with my only other previous account, meet criterion (iv). Thanks for your time. RAGentry (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , everything looks good to me; based on their PERM request I can reasonably verify that the accounts are linked and the old account meets the requirements the current account doesn't yet meet. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've added you to the voter list, so you should now be able to vote with that account. Let me know if you run into problems. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything appears to be working properly, thanks JSutherland (WMF) and Primefac. RAGentry (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Added to 2020 discussion topic — xaosflux  Talk 14:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Old Account Eligibility (WJ94)
I have recently come back to editing Wikipedia after a long wikibreak with a new account (old account is . Details can be found here and confirmation from my old account here. Am I eligible to vote in this year's elections and, if so, how? I believe ItsZippy meets criteria 1 & 2, WJ94 meets criterion 3, and both meet criterion 4. Kind regards. WJ94 (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Another one ; reasonably confident that the accounts are connected and that WJ94 meets the editing requirements when both accounts are considered. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you able to log in with ItsZippy? Otherwise I'll need to hack together a solution, since WJ94 will be blocked from voting automatically by the SecurePoll system. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Won't the override list bypass that? — xaosflux  Talk 20:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, let's try it., have a go at voting now? Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have successfully voted with this account. WJ94 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Generate roll/message targets
Hello, as the final deadline for input calculations to determining eligible voters has occurred, the electoral roll should be able to get generated. Who specifically is following up on this task? Additionally, a subset of the electoral roll is the mass message targeting list, this will subsequently need to be generated as well. — xaosflux  Talk 03:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pings: previously this has been done by both T&S employees and volunteers, but it has been problematic and should be audited (the second part had to be regenerated many times a few years ago before it was accurate). —  xaosflux  Talk 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I know I offered a week ago, just haven't gotten to it yet. I have a pretty much ready script to do the job fairly quickly.  If the EC want to use it, I will try to get it modified this week and posted. — CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 01:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * any update on this? Likewise, has WMF T&S been engaged to reserve the voteserver? — xaosflux  Talk 00:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Talked to Joe. Votewiki is reserved. I’m not sure what else is needed on the list generation side, but if you all could come up with a list of what the WMF could help with, that’d likely be a starting point. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * biggest thing is that we have a different voter suffrage requirement this year - as far as votewiki goes from what I recall there are 2 ways this can be handled (a) give the election the suffrage requirements and it will check as voters attempt to vote, or (b) feed a static list of preapproved voters in. It is possible that the new suffrage requirements will necessitate (b).  Joe should be able to validate this, and validate if T&S will produce the list or will require the community to. —  xaosflux  Talk 01:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * any update on this? It is a critcal-path item for the election, but if (b) is being used it can also be the input to the script used to create the mass messaging target lists, else they will need to be self-seeded from all users and then filtered down.  Either is OK - but the work needs to get going in order to have time to format and validate the messaging lists. —  xaosflux  Talk 00:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the later reply. I emailed the WMF/Joe to confirm and asked him to comment here. It’s not working hours currently, but hopefully you’ll have a direct answer from him soon. I do know that he confirmed it was reserved for use. I’m hopeful that getting an answer in 12 hours will leave enough time for the list to be generated regardless of whom ultimately is doing it. Copying who may be more available than me in waking hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , how did the suffrage change for this year exactly? (Sorry, a million things going on as always so hard to keep on top of it all!) Also, to confirm, votewiki will be set up in time for this. Farsi Wikipedia's elections just finished. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you have the poll ID for the vote? I still note our data template has xxx, instead of an actual number. — CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 04:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - you can use 759 751. (Update for, it's 751. I was quoting the votewiki ID.) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Joe, following this year's RfC, voters must:
 * 1) Have registered on the English Wikipedia prior to 2019-10-01
 * 2) Have made at least 150 edits in NS:0 ("main" / "article") on the English Wikipedia prior to 2019-11-01
 * 3) Have made at least 10 "live" (non- deleted/suppressed/imported) edits (any NS) on the English Wikipedia between 2018-11-01 and 2019-11-01
 * 4) Not be blocked on the English Wikipedia while voting (This criteria must be dynamic, while other criteria can be precomputed.)
 * We planned to generate the mass-messaging target list locally, however if the electoral roll will be precomputed, we could use it to seed the additional filters for that process and save time. — xaosflux  Talk 03:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and, I have the script ready to generate both the SecurePoll list and Mass Message list. The script can be found at User:Cyberpower678/ListGen.php.  It's quite an efficient little script, based on last year's performance, and does a great job at providing said list.  I encourage you guys to review the code.  If you guys approve I can go ahead and run it. — CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 04:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , repinging. Previous was a bust. — CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 04:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * is you runtime "long" on that? — xaosflux  Talk 04:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , IIRC, last year, it only took an hour or two to generate. — CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 04:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * perhaps start the MMS targets one when you have the chance? We can start loading those up here along the lines of the ones at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination/MMS.  —  xaosflux  Talk 04:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , #3 means that our makeSimpleList script is not going to work for this. Assuming 's script works, that's probably going to be the most efficient solution (the other solution is that I find a developer to adapt the existing script, and this is not a task that belongs to any particular team's workflow so that's honestly likely a big ask given there's only a week to go). Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * less than a week - when is the latest you need this by? can you kick off the primary roll generator as well? We need time to at least do spot checks/sanity checks. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's under way, but with the new actor table things are slower than they were. I'll provide an ETA when it's ready, but I don't think we will be waiting until tomorrow for both lists.  At least I hope not. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Both lists will be ready in 8 hours. It's vetting 172k users. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 15:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update! — xaosflux  Talk 15:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * any update on this? — xaosflux  Talk 04:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's still rattling away on it. :-(. It's significantly slower than when I ran it last year.  I'm already working on improving the script for its next run, but I'll check back tomorrow morning.  I suspect it's either because the replication DB is under higher load atm, or the new schema changes introduced a performance hit.  I know part of it is the additional activity requirements which require somewhat heavier queries to be run. — CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 04:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the update, if you have to run those two outputs separately and it for some reason it has to be restarted you should prioritize the electoral roll first since it has to get sent up to votewiki server and make sure it works there - the messaging list formatting is "easy". Thank you! —  xaosflux  Talk 04:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - any updates on the output? — xaosflux  Talk 18:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have a list, but somehow, some inactive users ended up in the list despite the code logic forbidding it. I'm working to quickly clean it up. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And investigating what went wrong to prevent it from happening again. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your efforts on this. The new requirement, it has to be said, makes this process considerably more difficult since you need to scan pretty much every edit made to enwiki in the past 12 months. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Added to next years revisit list. — xaosflux  Talk 19:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think once a good solution is in place, this shouldn't be an issue as long as the appropriate amount of time is taken into account. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 19:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , No problem. I think once an effective solution is figured out, it shouldn't be much of an issue.  I'm always up for a challenge. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 19:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry to be so ping-repetitive here, but we are down to about 70+ hours until the election is supposed to go live. At some point we may need to have the commissioners evaluate backup plans (either using a wider electoral roll or pushing the start date perhaps). —  xaosflux  Talk 01:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don’t think we’ll come to that. I’m fairly certain that the lists will be ready in time. — CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 01:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and, I have the lists ready and I believe them to be accurate. Would you guys like to check them?  SecurePoll ready list is at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination/SP and Mass Message is at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination/MMS — CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 12:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. after tinkering about with the script, I managed to get list generation down to 3.75 hours, so it can be rerun if an issue is found. — CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 12:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And for the SecurePoll list, make sure you're copying the page source and not the rendered content. — CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 12:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the update, the MMS lists look good so far, I haven't found any names that don't belong in spot checks, the reverse is a bit harder to check. — xaosflux  Talk 20:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Eligible to vote? (Davey2010)
Hi, Over at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination/SP/human (and other lists listed at Administrators%27_noticeboard) my name isn't listed - Does this mean I'm now not eligible to vote? I can't see how given I've been here since 2010 and have made 12898 edits this year alone (I need to get out more!). Many thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * checking on this, you do appear to be eligible. There may have been a problem with one of the generation scripts, they are being re-reviewed as we type this. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * exemplar above. — xaosflux  Talk 15:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, there was an error. The script performed its task correctly, but I gave it the wrong instructions.  All marked alternates, bots, and deceased users were filtered out of the SecurePoll list.  You are marked as an alternate account, which is why you got filtered out. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 15:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi and, Many thanks for your help,
 * Cyberpower678 just wondering why is my account marked as alternate?, Other than User:Davey2010 test account I can't see what it'd be alternate too ?,
 * Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it is because you have on your page, this is putting your primary account in the alt-account category.  The current rules allow for you to "vote" with any ONE account, but we were making efforts to not send out as many MMS spam messages this year (such as to declared bots, secondary accounts, etc). —  xaosflux  Talk 15:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Ahhh okay I'm with you, In that case I'll remove that box to hopefully avoid similar issues in future,
 * Many thanks again xaosflux and Cyberpower678 for your help it's much appreciated,
 * Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI, thank you to early reviewers and feedback. A problem with the roll has been identified and is currently being worked on. Management overview: certain accounts marked as "secondary" accounts have been erroneously excluded from the eligible voters list.  This should be resolved today. As a reminder, there is a fall-back process for anyone wrongfully disenfranchised from the election - the commissioners have a process to "give you an empty ballot" if you report such a problem - it is not super quick, so we certainly want to resolve the root issue first.  Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk 15:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the new list has been created and handed off to Joe. I'm sure he'll load it up as soon as he sees the list. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 19:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the update. Can you please post it on-wiki for review? The prior MMS list should be fine, right? —  xaosflux  Talk 20:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , If there are a few others like Davey2010 out there, they might not get a message, but the different in the numbers isn't great so I peg that to be a low probability. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 20:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , ✅ — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 20:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. According to the rules Davey2010 shouldn't get a MMS anyway (by virtue of opting out by placing themself in the exclusion category) so that shouldn't change. —  xaosflux  Talk 21:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , which category would that be? I don't see it. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * they were in Category:Wikipedia alternative accounts, but recently removed themselves - and that was on the MMS exclusion RFC. — xaosflux  Talk 22:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I just checked the latest list and I'm still not on it, although I can't see any reason that I wouldn't be eligible. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * can you check this one? — xaosflux  Talk 21:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , looking now. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , It would appear when I run the SQL query against your user id, nothing comes back. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Okay. I see the problem.  You don't have a registration timestamp assigned to your username, so the query fails because the NULL field won't compute with the required registration timestamp being demanded in the query. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , um, how do I get a registration timestamp assigned to my username? Schazjmd   (talk)  22:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you don't, unless it really matters to you. New users that create an account have that timestamp assigned to them.  Older users are apparently missing this timestamp.  I assume you are a senior user. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 22:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'd just like to be able to vote in the arbcom election, but it sounds like I'll have to ask for an "empty ballot", correct? (And thanks for figuring out what the problem was.) Schazjmd   (talk)  22:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , nope. I've corrected the script to account for missing registration timestamps for old users and am producing yet another list.  This one should have your name on it.  So you will be able to vote like everyone else. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll get it sorted, but yes, if you're not able to vote on SecurePoll you'll get an "empty ballot". Primefac (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are now on the voter’s list. Happy voting. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your help, I appreciate it.  Schazjmd   (talk)  18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Methinks that anyone with a null value for their registration date should be considered "in". Primefac (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Under normal circumstances, null can equal 0 when loosely cast, which automatically meets the requirements. In SQL NULL is skipped entirely if a condition is applied to it, unless the condition checks if the value is null. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 22:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Primefac. Incorrect acceptance to the voter list is easier to control for than incorrect exclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, for the 'registration time' issue, the timestamps have been very good for the last few years, so using "not after" is better then "before" here. — xaosflux  Talk 22:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Update, thanks for the latest version of the dump .  you appear on the list now.  Hopefully this will be the last fix!  User:JSutherland (WMF), can you confirm that the votewiki side is updated with the current version? —  xaosflux  Talk 12:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll get it into votewiki momentarily. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , MMS is also up to date and ready. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks and  again for your help here It's very much appreciated,
 * My name does appear on the list, Great success High five :). – Davey 2010 Talk 20:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Peacemaker67 soapboxing/spamming question pages
I, and most other candidates, answered this users' question in good faith. This was their reply. If you look at their edits for yesterday, you will see that they posted the exact same reply to 20 different candidates in as many minutes. This is clearly not a reasoned response to individual answers but rather an attempt at grandstanding for their pet grievance. I was about to just collapse the reply but it occurred to me that the other 19 or so people who got this same reply may not be aware that it was just a cookie-cutter reply and not an actual response to their good faith answer to the question. If you ask me all instances of it should be collapsed or stricken or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the facts Beeblebrox presents, but would just say that I worked hard on my response to his blanket statement and think it could be informative to voters to read it. So I would, personally, prefer that his response and my response to it not be collapsed or stricken. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don’t think anything good will come of striking this. It’s a controversial case in some areas of the community, and allowing people to read his thoughts doesn’t really do any harm. All of the candidates are experienced users who knew what they were getting into. Preventing someone from making a fairly benign wikipolitical point on the most political wiki-event of the year doesn’t seem like a good precedent to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it just feels... rude and dismissive to know that I took the time to write a real answer and I don't know that he even read it, it was just a ploy to spam the same comment on 20 pages. Is it a problem if I personally collapse it on my questions page? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not a commissioner, at least not an active one, but I think that falls within the spirit of the RfC that disallows altering of questions, or removing them. — CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 04:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, that's why i asked instead of doing anything, I don't anna go all "Fred" if you take my meaning. I'll just reply to it. Really I just mainly wanted people to be aware that this happened as it is frankly, a pretty lame stunt to pull. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not a stunt, soapboxing, spamming or a "gotcha". I have responded to Beeblebrox on their question page. My question was an entirely legitimate one, which centres on the role of ArbCom in taking or rejecting cases on matters almost entirely relating to content. There are a variety of views on these matters from the various candidates (as expected), which the question has elicited. Voters who are concerned about the decision to take the case and about its outcomes will form views based on the responses of the candidates. My follow-up comment was to put one perspective of the decision to each Arb, especially highlighting the negative outcomes of taking a case where the issue is really a content dispute. These are legitimate points to raise when people want to be an Arb. The candidates can choose to ignore my follow-on comment or engage with it. Some haven't even answered my initial question, which it is their right to do. Striking it would be highly inappropriate given one of the major issues for many editors this year (after this case and FRAM) is the role of ArbCom and what work it should or should not get involved in, and the consequences of it getting involved in content areas as well as the behaviour and conduct areas it is supposed to be involved in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO if you want to make a general comment about wikipolitics and your opinions on what you think arbcom should or should not be doing then you should be doing it in in your userspace, possibly as a voter guide - or in your own candidate statement. The questions for candidates page should be for questions to individual candidates including follow-up questions and individual responses to their answers. Imagine how unwieldy it would get if every voter were allowed to paste their own statement of views on every candidates' page. Questions asked in good faith are fine, soapboxing is not (again, my opinion only). Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly with Tony on this one - if an identical comment is made on all of the members, then clearly it's being used to make a statement rather than actually look for opinions - for them. The answers given by the candidates might still be useful to voters, so I think that the question (and reply) should stand, but you're welcome to leave a note on your question page that it's a carbon copy across all of the question pages. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. An identical comment made on all the candidates' question pages isn't a question so much as a rhetorical point, but responses to it may still be informative to voters, and in the absence of problems with the content of the comment I am not inclined to remove it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment by an involved editor
For the avoidance of doubt, this in re Peacemaker67's follow-on comment, times 20:, starting with: "I would say that the banning..." Disclaimer: I was also a party to the case (WP:ARBGWE); my RFAR initiated the case, with Peacemaker67 joining in, along with two other MILHIST coordinators. These three editors, including PM, were subsequently added as parties to the case -- in part, I presume, due to their comments during RFAR. See for example PM's contribution: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort.

I would like to offer the following points:
 * In the course of the ACE comments, PM did not mention that he was a party to the case.
 * PM is referring to himself in the 3rd person when he mentions "good-faith editors" against whom the case is allegedly being weaponised (presumably, by myself).
 * PM is attempting to sway potential arbitrators, as well as readers of the ACE pages, to his/MILHIST's point of view where the case was indeed controversial. For a rundown on how the case was received by MILHIST coordinators, please see this list from a third-party editor:.

This is the second year in a row that PM asked this question, but this year he's added a follow-up comment. I hope that this thread would serve as a precaution to avoid similar politicking in the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That was more or less my goal as well, although I hadn't realized he was making it into an annual tradition. In any given year, a decent percentage of questions are pretty obviously someone bringing their arbcom-related axe to grind it on the ACE whetstone. That's just how it is, and we're all used to seeing everyone being asked the same set of prepackaged questions. What's different here is the canned comeback to every single reply to the question, which is gives away the game and is extremely rude to those who took the time to consider the merits of the question, even if it was obviously asked with an agenda in mind like so many others. In retrospect it was clearly overreaching to ask for it to be just stricken, I was just so offended when I realized the sheer rudeness of what had been going on that I wanted to kill it with fire. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't come here with clean hands, KEC. I volunteered to be made a party to the case to provide the opposing view, I was not drawn into it by the committee or by being the complainant (you). The whole case was based on a dubious polemic by you, and it is quite appropriate to highlight to potential Arbs that the acceptance of the case and its outcomes were not universally acclaimed, and that greater care should have been taken. It is a classic example of ArbCom overreach into content areas where it has no business, which my question and comment have made clear. That is an entirely legitimate object in an ArbCom election. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Voter guides
Hi Folks. I've dropped a note on a few of the voter guides, where they are candidates also (which has gone down as well as you might expect). One thing that was pointed out to me by one individual was that they did not add their vote guide to the template / category, and someone else did that for them. I think that it should be down to the voter guide writer to add their guide to the template - they may want to be making their own notes for themselves, rather than guiding others. Can the co-ordinators please consider whether voter guides should be added to the template especially by editors other than the guide writer and consider checking with the guide writer if they want them in the template? <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree on this, the guides should only be categorized/added to the template if "owner" wants it to be there. Any are welcome to remove their guides and noone should edit war over that. — xaosflux  Talk 11:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * your voter guides were added to ACE2019 by a different user; per the above conversation, are you okay with it being listed? Primefac (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am ok with the listing, but what I write is not a "guide", just a comparison I use for my own voting. So list or not, as you see fit. Each year, I'm impressed how many readers such a thing attracts ;) - Primefac, I pinged you to EC, did you get that? Look for "It hurts". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, and whether I'm happy or not with it being listed there is neither here nor there really. As noted, I didn't add it, although that seems to have passed most people by. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There also exists Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2019 voter guides, I think the rules for presence in and adding to the template (whatever they are) should also apply to the category. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Added this, and the candidate-authoring-a-guide to the 2020 follow up list as well. — xaosflux  Talk 12:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from an IP
I've been asked, and have answered, a question from an IP user making the second edit to the project (their other being 10 days ago to Iridescent's talk page, the unproductive edit to Swan attributed to the same IP in 2010 most likely being another person). I don't grok IP ranges, but I can't spot any other edits from 174.91.115.* in 2019. The question was legitimate, and I'm not asking for it to be removed and I'm not making allegations of wrongdoing, but it just feels odd somehow to be asked a very specific question about WP:FRAM by someone ineligible to vote. I'm just putting this here for awareness in case anyone else has thoughts about it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We should be good to go
I believe everything is set up with votewiki. The voter list as it appears on votewiki is one shy of the list I was provided by - I imagine that's just a SecurePoll bug, but if you can't vote for whatever reason when the polling opens feel free to ping me here and I'll add you manually to the voter list (once the coordinators confirm you meet the requirements, of course). Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please report missing users that are eligible to vote to me so I can correct the script for next year.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm surprised you haven't disabled the coords on votewiki this year, as we were told last year would be standard practice going forth.... SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  00:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes they should be now, but that is one of the reasons they were highly vetted (in case of 'inadvertent' disclosures). — xaosflux  Talk 00:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , oops, I've gone ahead and removed the  right from the three coordinators and blocked them on votewiki. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Question
Hi! I thought I was going to be eligible to vote, but I didn't realize that I had to have 150 mainspace edits before November 1. I've been really busy in real life, and what time I've had on Wikipedia I've devoted to working on my CVUA course. I read up on all the voter guides because I thought I would be eligible, but I didn't get a message. Can y'all please consider allowing me to vote in this election? As I said before, I've read everything and I know the candidate statements and everything. I can answer any questions you have if I need to. Thank you. Yours - Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  00:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the rules are pretty set in stone, and we will not be able to make an exception for you. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

😢 ok... Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  03:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to add to what Primefac said above; the eligibility requirements were set via an RfC, including, specifically, the number of mainspace edits. As such it's not something the commissioners have discretion over. I sympathise, but there's really not much we can do. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, it's fine... I guess next year. :/ Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  05:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

and, thanks for responding to my question so quickly. I appreciate your reaponses, even though y oh can't do anything. Just wanted to let you know. Thank you, Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  05:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Electionadmin on votewiki for scrutineers
Hi, I cannot see CU data at votewiki for this election, seems like I have not a  flag. , can you see it? einsbor talk 08:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I also cannot see the CU data, If i remember correctly we will start after the voting completion and we should get our account created on vote.wikimedia with election admin permission (my old account is blocked there). -- Shanmugam p7   (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Scrutineers are not on the electionadmin list. &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * can you review the access required for the scrutineers. — xaosflux  Talk 01:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , would you like them added right now? I can do that but I don't remember what timing for this generally looks like. (That said, there are going to be probably thousands of votes, so may make sense to allow them to just get started with it now.) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Need one of the commissioners to weigh in on this. — xaosflux  Talk 18:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. Courtesy pings for, and  in that case. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seen, discussing. Primefac (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the past we have been added upfront. &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 01:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ElectComm see no issue with getting you folks started as soon as possible. I suspect will be adding you soon. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone (especially, and ) - I've added the three Stewards listed on WP:ACE/C to the election via the database, and have given each account   rights. I had to create an account for you (temp pw in your inbox), but the other two already had accounts. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Activated, thanks. --Base (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Help! (Gumshoe97 unable to vote)
I joined Wikipedia a month ago, and have made 100 edits, and an article in collaboration with another user. But why can't I vote, is there any way you can let me vote? thanks in advance! Gumshoe97 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * to vote you must meet the 4 eligibility requirements. You do not meet requirements (i) or (ii). — xaosflux  Talk 01:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

All my socks (DannyS712)
Hi. Can I ask why is allowed to vote (in addition to my main account), but not, , , , or ? Is there no rule against bot accounts? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to vote precisely once in the election: it is editors who are truly eligible, not accounts. The list in votewiki includes all accounts that met the edit count requirements; you may, however, only vote with one of them (or if you vote with both, the earlier of your votes will be struck). Vanamonde (Talk) 05:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and only planned to vote with this account, but was wondering why the bot account wasn't screened out? DannyS712 (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a question for, who wrote the script; but my short answer (which might be incorrect) is that alternative accounts in general were not screened for, on the principal that a user may wish to vote with an account other than their main account. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The SecurePoll filters out bots automatically, so it was not necessary to remove from the list generation. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, bot flagged accounts were not screened for because the RfC didn't specifically rule to rule out those accounts, though as Primefac says votewiki bars them. We could screen them out next year if the RfC supports it. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Disenfranchised without notice?
As anyone can see, I have made 8 live edits in the past year. I do not believe I engaged in any article rescue or any other activity which would have yielded deleted edits. In the month of September, when I had made no contributions, a consensus formed on Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019 to limit Arb Committee voting to those with 10 edits activity between 1 Nov 2018 and 1 Nov 2019. I'll note that by the time this was proposed, roughly 90% of the target contribution period had elapsed. In no way was I appraised of the change to voter eligibility requirements, either before or after the contribution deadline had passed. Indeed, the first notification I had that I was ineligible to vote was when I went to vote and was rejected as ineligible. (I'll note that I served as an arbitrator concurrently with four of the current candidates, and have firsthand experience of their conduct as arbitrators from the perspective of a peer arbitrator, prompting my interest in the current election.) Obviously, the change to longstanding rules of voter eligibility was not communicated effectively to all parties who would be affected by its implementation. Thus, I formally protest that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in the ACE2019 RfC has inappropriately disenfranchised longer-term Wikipedians who may be less active, but whose contributions to the project are uncontested. I believe the appropriate remedy would be to delay the new voter eligibility requirement until 2020, when the entire period of minimal activity would fall after it was enacted. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, but given that the voting eligibility requirements were explicitly determined by a community-wide RfC, I don't see that the commissioners have the authority to overrule them. The appropriate place to bring this up would be at the RfC for the 2020 election. It's also worth keeping in mind that we have changed eligibility requirements many times, and I don't believe we have ever notified those who would lose their eligibility because of a change. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have we ever changed eligibility to exclude prior voters? I am unaware of such. Bringing this up at 2020 will have no bearing on the current election, which is the only one affected. I am not disputing that a community-wide RfC was held and reached a logical conclusion.  Rather, I am noting that the addition of an ex post facto requirement disenfranchising prior voters without notice renders that aspect of the RfC unjust and protesting its application. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably, by digging through the archives, one could answer that question, but I have no intention of doing so: I was only pointing out that changes to voting requirements have not previously been communicated to those affected, and therefore arguing that they should have been in this case isn't much of a mitigating circumstance. My basic point stands; these specific requirements were determined by comunity consensus. Overruling them is outside our authority. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The new rules were fairly obviously designed to disenfranchise former active participants of the project who are no longer active on en.wiki. There is no grandfather clause, and if one had been proposed it wouldn’t have passed. You are asking us to overturn the obvious intent of the community because you don’t like what that intent was. We don’t have that authority. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the right of the community to disenfranchise people; I'm saying that the current rules are retroactive and without notice. Establishing 2020 eligibility in 2019 is appropriate.  Changing 2019 eligibility rules in late 2019 is not.  If the election committee feels themselves incapable of WP:IARing  to correct such an error, then to whom shall I appeal? Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly I don't believe that it was an error - I voted in favour of that proposal in the RFC because I believe that only those currently engaged with the English Wikipedia should have a vote in the elections for the English Wikipedia arbitration committee, and that this was a reasonable method of determining this. As for an appeal, you could in theory try Jimbo I suppose, but other than that the Commissioner's word is final. (note: I'm a candidate in these elections, not a commissioner) Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I find myself in agreement with my fellow Commissioners; while I wish I could just ignore the rules and convince Joe to add you to the register, and while I can see it being problematic that the voting requirements were changed without any notice (though I don't see how that could have been communicated effectively), we were elected to keep the rules, not break them. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just some history, voter suffrage has been discussed and adjusted multiple times:
 * 2009: Discussed, no change
 * ✅2011: Cutoff for the 150 mainspace edits added, "not blocked" requirement added
 * ✅2012: Account registration cut off added
 * 2014: Discussed, no change
 * 2016: Discussed, no change
 * 2017: Discussed, no change
 * ✅2019: Registation cut off updated, 10 edits in last year added
 * — xaosflux  Talk 14:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the history. To summarize, no changes to user eligibility were discussed last year, and the last time eligibility requirements were meaningfully changed was in 2012.  Also, reviewing the 2019 discussion, very little centers around people needing to be engaged, but rather seems to be managing the size of voter rolls.  Am I misstating the RfC discussion? Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , The whole intent was to disqualify users not actively engaged in the encyclopedia. If they aren't engaged, then they shouldn't be picking out the new arbs.  That's how I read the community's intent on this new criteria.  Sorry to be blunt about it, but the fact you didn't notice this change being implemented proves the point.  The change was proposed and advertised, discussed, and implemented.  The appropriate pages were updated, and there was still time to get ten edits in before the cutoff period, so it wasn't an impossible demand.  Anyone still lurking about but not actively editing would have easily been able to get themselves into the activity threshold in time to qualify as eligible, if they were interested in voting.
 * I do thank you and respect you for your many years of service, though. Please don't take my directness as offense to you. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Actively engaged" as defined by either edits in general, or following the minutiae of Arb voting. Not reflected in the edit count is the number of times I actively use Wikipedia--reading, linking to articles from Facebook or other discussion sites, and the like--and find things not in need of change.
 * As far as time to increase activity, I completely agree--there WAS some time, and I can crank out 10 edits in a matter of minutes. I knew there would be an RfC in October for ArbCom elections, as typical, but felt no need to view it, nor had any reason to suspect anything meaningful would change. Thus, I was not aware that a material change to ArbCom voting eligibility had been proposed; how would I have seen that? Nor was I aware that a meaningful change to ArbCom voting eligibility had been enacted; again, how would I have seen that?  I routinely see the various banner ads about monuments or Asia month or whatever, and would be surprised to find any such notification ran.  It would have been possible (although non-trivial, obviously) to run a script to search for previous ArbCom voters (although I can't seem to query the Secure Poll site itself to see in which previous elections I did or did not vote; I believe it to have been at least five or six) not currently meeting the activity threshold and notify them via talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as time to increase activity, I completely agree--there WAS some time, and I can crank out 10 edits in a matter of minutes. I knew there would be an RfC in October for ArbCom elections, as typical, but felt no need to view it, nor had any reason to suspect anything meaningful would change. Thus, I was not aware that a material change to ArbCom voting eligibility had been proposed; how would I have seen that? Nor was I aware that a meaningful change to ArbCom voting eligibility had been enacted; again, how would I have seen that?  I routinely see the various banner ads about monuments or Asia month or whatever, and would be surprised to find any such notification ran.  It would have been possible (although non-trivial, obviously) to run a script to search for previous ArbCom voters (although I can't seem to query the Secure Poll site itself to see in which previous elections I did or did not vote; I believe it to have been at least five or six) not currently meeting the activity threshold and notify them via talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Immediate Notice of Voter Eligibility
Hello, I just spent several hours reviewing the candidates, and went to vote and found that I was ineligible to do so. I understand that I no exceptions would be made, but I am rather upset that there was no upfront notification of eligibility criteria before (or even after) the "Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open to eligible editors until 4:59 pm, 2 December 2019, Monday (9 days from now) (UTC−7). If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page." part in Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019.

After reading the "For Voters" section, I then read about the candidates and their histories. I would have had to scroll all the way to the bottom of the main page, click on the see also for the 5-minute guide to ArbCom elections page, and then scroll all the way to the "Voting Process" section (at the bottom of the page), which I thought I already read from the "For Voters" section. I am upset that I wasn't notified in a clear and accessible manner any time before I attempted to vote. Even after I got a "you are ineligible to vote in this election" message, I still had to find out why, and there was no quick way to do that. This was my first and only time (so far) that I have tried to vote here. I hope by the time I am eligible, the criteria will be placed firmly at the top of the main page dedicated to a (Wikimedia) election.

Finally, although I am dissatisfied with this experience, I realize from reading the candidates' statements that being on the committee isn't easy nor necessarily fun, and I think that having to deal with complaints and criticisms in general is a miserable experience for most people, so thank you for taking the time to read this and for being a coordinator as well. KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to review the candidates, and understand how frustrating it must have been not to be able to submit your votes after that careful consideration. Someone will make a note to look at enhancing the visibility of the requirements. I suppose a silver lining is that you might increase your activity on the project so that you can participate in the following year: I look forward to your future contributions! Happy editing, –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 10:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Sorry for your troubles; this will definitely be discussed for next year's elections. For the remainder of this year I will look into what simple changes can be made to make it a little more obvious. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , in that message, eligible users is a link to the election timeline outlining the requirements to vote. It should be one of the first things you see. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added that about two minutes ago. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , to the watchlist notice? I could swear that's always been there. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, missed that. I added it to the /Header text, since that template is on almost every page. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some enterprising developer could fork the stewards election eligibility tool for next year? — xaosflux  Talk 14:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Forking it is probably unnecessary, as the developer made a change to it only a week ago. A simple pull request (or even a request for it to be added) should suffice. stwalkerster (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wink to Pathoschild... — xaosflux  Talk 15:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to message me anytime if you want to add an event to the tool. It seems like SecurePoll could be improved to show the reason though, or have a convenient eligibility page since it's already checking requirements. — Pathoschild 18:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your quick responses and for quickly fixing things! KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the feedback, I've placed a feature request to improve the securepoll extension - there is no guarantee this will be completed, but it is at least now tracked. — xaosflux  Talk 02:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Election issues
Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019 The main issue remaining is do we potentially fill all 11 seats with one-year-terms. There has been some ad hoc interim editing of the main page but it needs to be cleaned up rather definitively (I guess before the noms take place). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this an inappropriate use of the question page?
I feel that a user making statements advertising their voting guide and advising voters to oppose a candidate is an inappropriate use of the candidate page. Would the coordinators remove (or allow me to remove) it from my page? Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Second that ^^^ The problem is, letting go: "For you, Tommy, ze GWE arb case is over!"  :)  ——  SN  54129  18:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The latter half of the post is indeed inappropriate, and I have removed it. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)