Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Coordination

Question by Fæ
(candidates have been hidden-pinged to this message) All, I believe that 's most recent question is a violation of their topic ban. I would normally have WP:BANREVERTed, but since some people have chosen to answer, I'm instead offering this case-by-case -- if a candidate wants the question removed (even if you've answered already), let me or another election volunteer know and we'll remove it. Fæ, I have referred the matter to AN/I; please do not ask any further questions that would violate your topic ban. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with my answer, as I think it's a reasonable question, but if the consensus (here or at the ANI thread) determines they should be removed I won't fight that. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Primefac's thoughts also reflect mine. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't object if an elections commissioner wants to collapse or move the question, though I suggest any such actions be applied uniformly. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's considerably worse that just a T-ban breach. I lodged a report to ElectCom (apparently at the wrong page; I forgot about /Coordination), asking for removal. Also pinged the ban-imposing admin. Reading the above, and later posts at ANI, I prefer revdel.  I don't have an objection , as second choice to answered instances of it being refactored to the talk page, but would prefer that the false accusation in such instances be struck (or removed if the answer does not address that). Unanswered instances should be deleted. The editors' names should be removed in any kept cases.  I don't think any instance at all should be retained in a /Questions page, for reasons outlined in my report. PS: Do you want me to refactor that over to this page?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC); revised: 21:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've answered the question as I find it reasonable and pertinent, and I hope that the other candidates do the same. – bradv  🍁  18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brad. The issue raised is an important one that arbcom is going to have to make decisions about in the next few years, especially if the UCOC is passed with the language reference retained. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an important question. But it should have been raised (a) by someone who is not trying to derail another candidate's bid (b) whilst breaking a topic ban at the same time, and (c) in a format that wasn't a borderline PA.  Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the decision to refactor and collapse strikes the right balance between keeping a reasonable question and removing contributions in violation of a topic ban. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that we should collapse (or remove) the unanswered questions, and refactor all of the questions, to remove the second half of the first sentence talking about . SQL Query me!  19:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still reading and considering everything, but I am gravitating towards collapsing all questions across the board, including both answered and unanswered ones, and then strike the second half of the first sentence that improperly speculates about SMcCandlish. This will make it clear that the question is illegitimate while still allowing the candidates who have answered questions to keep their answers visible. If candidates who haven't answered the question still wish to do so, they could then edit the collapsed content. Mz7 (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Several ANI respondents are in favor of revdel (as now am I), and I expect that to grow, after Fæ made it clear that their agitprop is having the seemingly intended poison-the-well effect. As has been said by multiple respondents, nothing precludes someone asking a "clean" version of the same question. This seems likely because, when the chaff is weeded out, there's an interesting question in there. Those who have already answered the original screwy version can just copy-paste their old answers (if they make a copy now, anyway).  That said, I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep a WP:TALKFORK running here; might be better to  the ANI thread.  PS: Thryduulf's comment (which would actually have made a good close) is worth seeing in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, I am very hesitant to use revision deletion to hide the questions on the basis that doing so seems to be outside of the bounds of the criteria for revision deletion. However, I've just collapsed all of the questions on all election Q&A pages, and I've also removed the part that speculates about you. Mz7 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Coolio. I was just going with others supporting the idea (including some admins), as it seemed a "clean slate" way to approach it.  I suppose as an AC candidate, I should actually study up on REVDEL and a few other policies I don't wallow around in frequently. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the collapse strikes the right balance, but revdel would be justified under WP:RD5 since WP:G5 allows deletion of creations by banned users in violation of their ban. It's heavy handed and unnecessary, but I don't see it as outside of policy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, to me that seems like a relatively novel interpretation of WP:RD5, since I could probably use the same logic to revdel any edit made by a user in violation of a block or ban, and I don't think the community supports that idea. RD5 is a rather nebulous criterion that doesn't get used nearly to the same extent as the other ones, and I suspect at some point the community might want to clarify what it means. My take would be that WP:G5 only applies to pages created in violation of a ban or block, so if Fae had created the Q&A page with his question, then in that case we may be able to use RD5 to redact his question, but not here. Mz7 (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair, and as I look at how my interpretation would apply to other CSDs the results would be mostly nonsensical. My interpretation would allow deletions of revisions that contain crossnamespace redirects (R2) or revisions with no content/context (A1/3), and those are bad ideas. So yeah, I like your interpretation better. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mz7 gets it right - only page deletion is covered by G5, anything else would require community consensus. To summarize, there is no policy-based reasoning for revdel. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 13:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * G5 allows for deletion of pages created. I don't think it really applies to deleting specific edits, which is in effect revision deletion. isaacl (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is discussing various options, as well (from revdel to just removing names to trimming it to just the actual question, to someone else posting a similar and better-worded question (without the ad hominem stuff).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because this is a violation of Fæ's topic ban, we have collapsed Fæ's question on all election Q&A pages, regardless of whether the candidate has answered the question. We have also removed the part of the question that improperly speculated about SMcCandlish. If candidates wish to answer the question anyway, they are permitted to do so by editing the collapsed content. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The note on candidates' question pages links to the ANI thread, but that has now been archived to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052. I think it will be worth the effort of updating the link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This thread will also auto-archive a week after the latest post, the link to it will need updating when that happens. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawal
Hi all,

I’m very sorry to do this, but I’ve decided to withdraw from consideration. I apologize to everyone for any disruption this might cause. Serving on ArbCom is not anything I’ve ever wanted, and I ran this year out of a sense of dedication to the community when there were less candidates. I’m especially sorry not to have done this before voting started. Over the holiday weekend, I’ve begun to think more about what service on the committee would mean, both to me on-Wikipedia and in real life, and I’ve unfortunately come to the conclusion that I don’t think service in this way would be right for me at this time, especially when there are enough qualified candidates running who would do just as good a job, if not a better one, than me. It’s something I’ve struggled with, and I think withdrawing now when people have the opportunity to change their votes if they want is the best option, and to more easily allow the potential seating of 7 candidates who wish to serve by not serving as a potential spoiler. I put off deciding this earlier in the week thinking that I would change my mind, but if anything my thoughts have become more clear. If I’ve come to this conclusion before the election is over, I don’t think it’s fair to either the community or myself to not withdraw.

Again. My sincere apologies.

TonyBallioni (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for letting us know. I'll go ahead and ping to this, as if possible, it'd probably be a good idea to update Tony's SecurePoll name to " Candidate has withdrawn " or something like that. Mz7 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @2020 ACE Commissioners:     How will this withdrawal affect the outcome of the election? If Tony finishes in the top 7 (as most of the votes have already been cast), is that a seat that will simply go unfilled (as if Tony resigned his seat after the election) or will the calculation of the top 7 exclude Tony (as if Tony withdrew before votes started being cast)? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the latter is the better option here. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - The calculation of the top 7 should exclude Tony. That appears to be what happened in 2010, see the footnote Candidate withdrew from the election after the voting began, and therefore is still listed on the ballot but is ineligible for a position on ArbCom, regardless of the final vote tally. SQL Query me!  22:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This would be a good topic for next year's RfC.
 * Also, should an effort be made to notify editors that have already voted? SQL Query me!  22:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just want to note here that I agree with my fellow commissioners that the calculation of the top 7 should exclude Tony. It was a good question though—since the start of SecurePoll in 2009, a candidate withdrew between the start of voting and the end of voting in the 2010, 2013, 2014, and 2015 elections, and in none of those cases did the withdrawn candidates end up in a position where they would have been appointed if they hadn't withdrawn. I'm not aware of whether any kind of notification was made during those elections, although I wouldn't be opposed to a note at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Header if desired. Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see Tony drop out, but once again it illustrates the sense of voting support for all the candidates you think would be good arbs, rather than just up to the number of seats available. Some often withdraw, & others just lose. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This.  I don't think we've got any precedence for contacting voters that someone has withdrawn and it seems unnecessary. Those that are trying to do "strategic votes" and oppose people they otherwise think would be fine committee members are likely savvy enough to monitor the goings-on. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is when the withdraw occurred. I'd say no - voters don't need to be notified if candidates withdraw before the start of the election. I believe that a conversation should be had with regards to a withdraw after a significant amount of votes have been cast (in this case, we're currently at ~1549 votes, which is above the average for all ACE to date - 1509). SQL Query me!  05:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021 created. — xaosflux  Talk 15:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe precedent has been that we don't remove candidates mid-election. We can't strike them through either for technical reasons. I'm loathe to edit the candidate list on votewiki lest it screw things up in the tally, really... I will check with other folks about that, though. I would recommend instead just striking through Tony's candidacy on the various ACE2020 subpages to make it clear that he is no longer running. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Sounds like we don't really have a choice...better that we not risk messing up the vote tally. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I figured it out. :) I've struckthrough the name in the voting interface to indicate the withdrawal. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thank you Joe! GeneralNotability (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Four questions
I note that David Tornheim has asked at least many of the candidates four questions, despite the 2 question limit. None have replied to any of them yet that I've seen. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yup., please remove two of your questions. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have raised this on David's talkpage. there were an additional seven sets of excessive questions. SQL Query me!  00:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have responded to this concern here:
 * Too many questions (permalink)
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Headers
I'm putting this here mainly because it's not really an "election" thing, but more of a ElectCom/template-y thing (though it would only be implemented for next year's elections). Each candidate's talk page is transcluded here under the level-1 header "Candidates". This means that all "new sections" on the respective candidate's talk pages need to be a level-3 header to make the TOC on the centralized page appear properly.

Do we really need the level 1 header at the centralized page? If not, I think it would make more sense (and mean less unnecessary gnoming) to have the candidate's name on their respective talk pages be the level-1 header, and then new sections wouldn't need to be subsequently modified. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also think the current setup is kind of awkward—no objections at all to implementing your proposed change for next year. Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Some gratitude
As we begin the process of closing out this election, I would like to thank the following contributors for their critical help in coordinating this election. Without just one of them, the election would have probably been delayed or otherwise disrupted: And of course, thank you to everyone else who participated in the coordination of this election for your helpful comments and support. Best of luck to all candidates. Mz7 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and – fellow members of the Electoral Commission, who were highly responsive and went through a couple stressful moments behind-the-scenes these past few weeks as unexpected issues arose
 * (also known as ) – our WMF contact, who also had to go through several stressful moments these past few weeks as unexpected issues arose. I'd like to thank him especially for helping to coordinate a resolution to the technical difficulties with SecurePoll within 30 minutes of the issue being detected, as well as handling the technical issues surrounding the candidate withdrawal and the eligibility of partially blocked users.
 * – the WMF developer that was able to identify and patch the SecurePoll bug so quickly
 * – the technical contributor who compiled the list of eligible voters and mass message recipients, and also helped set up many of the election-related templates and banners
 * – the technical contributor who was also able to provide some institutional memory on the technical aspects of the election, and who sent out all of the mass messages in an orderly fashion
 * ,, and – the stewards who have been working diligently since the start of the voting period to scrutinize the election
 * Thank you to everyone listed above and to for all of your hard work  KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also add my appreciation to all of the above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it too early to describe expressing my appreciation for you all as "pile on"? Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Would like to echo my thanks. Everyone has been responsive and helpful, so all the bumps in the road have been smoothed out. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! --BDD (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for taking on the stress of elections so that the community could focus on the work at hand. Your work--seen and unseen--is greatly appreciated! — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How is the scrutinization going?
Any chance of a progress report? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020 for a somewhat humorous discussion on this. — xaosflux  Talk 16:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we have Wolf Blitzer announce the results? GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On a slightly more serious note: Will the results need to be decrypted once the scrutineers are done, and if so, is there anyone at the WMF available if it gets done over the weekend? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * has said that he may be available this weekend if results are ready to be released then. So buy him a beer if you ever meet him KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly I actually have met him, but he was too young to drink at the time. Thanks for the reply! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That was so long ago! But yes, to confirm, I am around over the weekend. Not like there's much else to do. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean that's nice of you and all (reinforcing that you're clearly a good guy who deserves many a drink bought for him) but I would suggest our poor planning around timing doesn't constitute an emergency on your part and, as an incredibly interested party, feel bad about pressuring you to work on the weekend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll give him a call. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Will Texas join 17 states requesting that the Supreme Court overturn the election claiming that the scrutineers violated their Constitutional rights? If so, I believe Wolf will be on scene.    ;) --David Tornheim (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They'll have to go to supreme court of various countries, across continents... None of the Stewards acting as Scrutineers this year lives within SCOTUS jurisdiction. :P &mdash; regards, Revi 19:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)