2011
Arbitration Committee Elections
Status
Might come in handy, but hard to tell at a quick look. Tony (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Instructions for scrutineers, written last year by election admin Happy-Melon, will be useful background for coordinators. Tony (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any? The scrutineers and developer are listed on the election page, but not the election admins. Skomorokh 15:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a notice at WP:AN as well as at WT:OTRS to call for election admins. – MuZemike 17:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I just realised as an OTRSer I'm eligible. Do people think there's any conflict with being an active coordinator? Skomorokh 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to give coordinators a heads-up if you are looking for a way to help out, here is what currently needs to be done when a new candidate enters the fray:
==[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example|Example]]==
<noinclude>{{ACE2011 discussion}}
<!-- Please discuss the candidate below this line using third-level headings--></noinclude>
I know I've forgotten bits, but I'll add them in as they come back to me. If anyone has any ideas about how to automate or otherwise streamline any of this, I'm all ears. Skomorokh 14:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
In past years, one of the more time-critical tasks was updating the header. At one point, we used a parserfunction to change the text based on the official server clock, and it might make sense to do that again here, if there are no objections. I can work on it over the next couple days. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&diff=460845578&oldid=460837449 – Would it be alright if I don't list all of the accounts Geni has created over the years on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Guide? Common sense tells me that I can't list all of those accounts, but I would to obtain a second opinion before I send a reply to Geni. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone who has the time run through the full paperwork for these candidates? Steps listed above.
At a glance, neither of their disclosures are up to scratch - they need to list (or link to) all accounts, and state categorically something like "These are all the accounts I have ever used" or "I have never edited Wikipedia from another account than the following", so there is no wiggle room if someone discovers an unnamed account later.
The disclosures don't affect the 400-word limit, but they need to be airtight. Thanks for any help, Skomorokh 14:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(ii) agrees to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data January 1st 2011 or has already met the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data.
" work? --
DQ
(t)
(e)
12:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Thanks for pitching in all, and that checkpage is a great idea; to clarify, it was the alternate accouts disclosure rather than the WMF bit I was concerned with. Courcelles' statement looks in-line now, Geni's doesn't but I don't think it kosher to suspend the candidacy for a faulty memory no-one can do anything about. It's great to have such a diligent bunch co-ordinating this year, I really apprecite it. Skomorokh 13:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've brought the issue of Geni's account disclosure up on the main election talkpage. Skomorokh 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope I'm not being too picky, but there's a slippery slope to avoid. One of the statements is 519 words, well over the 400 limit. I've said to the candidate that I'd ask here whether the provision allowing a link to further statements might include a neat sequestering of the list of alt accounts (which might go most of the way towards beating the limit). Could people advise? Tony (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been bold and updated the candidates' instructions accordingly; hope this is okay with you Tony. Skomorokh 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Anticipating a lacklustre uptake in nominations, I was going to do another round of announcements today, and then the usual 24-hours-to-go-last-chance note on Sunday night UTC. Given the healthy state of the field, and the tendency in previous years for candidates to wait 'til the end of the nomination period to come out of the woodwork, I wonder if we ought to just have one more cal for candidates on Sunday and leave it at that. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It's unlikely that I will be online later today UTC; will any of you be available around midnight to give a "Last call for nominations" run around the usual fora? Dig in the WP:VPM/ WP:AN etc. archives for last year Nov 22-24 if you want to copy the wording. Cheers, Skomorokh 17:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I will be stepping away as a coordinator because of my involvement now. As for my bot, I'll be looking to transfer it to Alexandria who I will be talking with tomorrow to verify. I just see the best for conflict of interest that I don't run it. I don't expect any hiccups with it as it's pretty easier to operate. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we know what the secure poll number for the election is going to be? There are several places it will need to be filled in. Also want to make sure we are on target for having it ready. Monty 845 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I just sent an email to Tim Starling about the SecurePoll specifics, noting the voter eligibility and Maxim's recent withdrawal. I also asked about random placement of candidates on the ballot to help reduce "top of the ballot bias"; that would be nice to have. – MuZemike 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]{{•}} [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman/Statement|Statement]]{{•}} [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman/Questions|Questions]]{{•}} [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman|Discussion]]
Ok, I've now updated the candidate name fields. I've also tweaked the post-voting message, which is at MediaWiki:Securepoll-thanks; feel free to tweak it further. Happy‑ melon 20:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Maxim has withdrawn. Happy-Melon, could you follow up with the devs? I am untranscluding as appropriate throughout, following how Chutznik was treated in 2009.-- Tznkai ( talk) 05:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, just letting you know I'm taking over from DeltaQuad to run the logging bot this year. Votes will still be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Log. The bot is currently going through approval, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 6 for details, and feel free to comment. Thanks, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No meltdowns thus far :D One very productive development over the past year is that with the cluster-wide SSL support ( http://en.wikipedia.org and https://en.wikipedia.org instead of https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en) SecurePoll does not get confused over where the user is voting from and so correctly strikes the older vote; so we should have many fewer voters from secure.wikimedia.org and so less chance of a repetition of the problems from 2009. Happy‑ melon 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Have the scrutineers been sent the briefing from last year?
It might be good to check in with them now and make sure they are aware that voting is underway, and that all of them are still in a position to fulfill the duties of the role. -- Skomorokh ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The vote log states. Editors are invited to comment on possibly ineligible votes and to identify sockpuppet accounts, but it is not clear where the comments should go. I think comments in the log area will be overwritten by the bot on each update. Should there be a link to some comment area for users who want to comment? Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
<!--Please do not post below this line->
at the bottom of the page. Somebody may want to fix that. Thanks. -
Hydroxonium (
T•
C•
V)
00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Comments can be placed inline; the bot won't overwrite them if it behaves like previous years. I've dropped the footmatter of this page as it was causing more trouble than it was worth. Skomorokh 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought this was going to be ok, but SandyGeorgia has complained about it. Could you advise me whether it should be taken down? If you say yes, I'll do so immediately (really really busy at work, so I don't mind if one of you takes it down, if that's what you think is proper). Tony (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The draft is here. Reviews and edits will be appreciated. Tony (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011#How_should_the_community_be_notified_of_the_election.3F – What ever happened to the promised "Wikipedia wide top banner"? Did I miss it? Are we saving it for later? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 12:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I've collapsed and moved the questions by FT2 and their responses by various candidates to the appropriate discussion pages. On balance, they are not appropriate for the questions page, and the discussion bumps right up against the privacy of various parties. Other election volunteers should feel free to opine here. -- Tznkai ( talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
What are people's thoughts on the timing? The election closes end of Saturday UTC. What about late Thursday or early Friday? I wasn't exactly volunteering to do it, but I will chip in if no one else can. Tony (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
How do people feel about having a messagebot send around a talkpage note requesting feedback from the voters? Skomorokh 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
2011
Arbitration Committee Elections
Status
Might come in handy, but hard to tell at a quick look. Tony (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Instructions for scrutineers, written last year by election admin Happy-Melon, will be useful background for coordinators. Tony (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any? The scrutineers and developer are listed on the election page, but not the election admins. Skomorokh 15:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a notice at WP:AN as well as at WT:OTRS to call for election admins. – MuZemike 17:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I just realised as an OTRSer I'm eligible. Do people think there's any conflict with being an active coordinator? Skomorokh 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to give coordinators a heads-up if you are looking for a way to help out, here is what currently needs to be done when a new candidate enters the fray:
==[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example|Example]]==
<noinclude>{{ACE2011 discussion}}
<!-- Please discuss the candidate below this line using third-level headings--></noinclude>
I know I've forgotten bits, but I'll add them in as they come back to me. If anyone has any ideas about how to automate or otherwise streamline any of this, I'm all ears. Skomorokh 14:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
In past years, one of the more time-critical tasks was updating the header. At one point, we used a parserfunction to change the text based on the official server clock, and it might make sense to do that again here, if there are no objections. I can work on it over the next couple days. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&diff=460845578&oldid=460837449 – Would it be alright if I don't list all of the accounts Geni has created over the years on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Guide? Common sense tells me that I can't list all of those accounts, but I would to obtain a second opinion before I send a reply to Geni. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone who has the time run through the full paperwork for these candidates? Steps listed above.
At a glance, neither of their disclosures are up to scratch - they need to list (or link to) all accounts, and state categorically something like "These are all the accounts I have ever used" or "I have never edited Wikipedia from another account than the following", so there is no wiggle room if someone discovers an unnamed account later.
The disclosures don't affect the 400-word limit, but they need to be airtight. Thanks for any help, Skomorokh 14:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(ii) agrees to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data January 1st 2011 or has already met the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data.
" work? --
DQ
(t)
(e)
12:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Thanks for pitching in all, and that checkpage is a great idea; to clarify, it was the alternate accouts disclosure rather than the WMF bit I was concerned with. Courcelles' statement looks in-line now, Geni's doesn't but I don't think it kosher to suspend the candidacy for a faulty memory no-one can do anything about. It's great to have such a diligent bunch co-ordinating this year, I really apprecite it. Skomorokh 13:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've brought the issue of Geni's account disclosure up on the main election talkpage. Skomorokh 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope I'm not being too picky, but there's a slippery slope to avoid. One of the statements is 519 words, well over the 400 limit. I've said to the candidate that I'd ask here whether the provision allowing a link to further statements might include a neat sequestering of the list of alt accounts (which might go most of the way towards beating the limit). Could people advise? Tony (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been bold and updated the candidates' instructions accordingly; hope this is okay with you Tony. Skomorokh 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Anticipating a lacklustre uptake in nominations, I was going to do another round of announcements today, and then the usual 24-hours-to-go-last-chance note on Sunday night UTC. Given the healthy state of the field, and the tendency in previous years for candidates to wait 'til the end of the nomination period to come out of the woodwork, I wonder if we ought to just have one more cal for candidates on Sunday and leave it at that. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It's unlikely that I will be online later today UTC; will any of you be available around midnight to give a "Last call for nominations" run around the usual fora? Dig in the WP:VPM/ WP:AN etc. archives for last year Nov 22-24 if you want to copy the wording. Cheers, Skomorokh 17:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I will be stepping away as a coordinator because of my involvement now. As for my bot, I'll be looking to transfer it to Alexandria who I will be talking with tomorrow to verify. I just see the best for conflict of interest that I don't run it. I don't expect any hiccups with it as it's pretty easier to operate. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we know what the secure poll number for the election is going to be? There are several places it will need to be filled in. Also want to make sure we are on target for having it ready. Monty 845 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I just sent an email to Tim Starling about the SecurePoll specifics, noting the voter eligibility and Maxim's recent withdrawal. I also asked about random placement of candidates on the ballot to help reduce "top of the ballot bias"; that would be nice to have. – MuZemike 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]{{•}} [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman/Statement|Statement]]{{•}} [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman/Questions|Questions]]{{•}} [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman|Discussion]]
Ok, I've now updated the candidate name fields. I've also tweaked the post-voting message, which is at MediaWiki:Securepoll-thanks; feel free to tweak it further. Happy‑ melon 20:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Maxim has withdrawn. Happy-Melon, could you follow up with the devs? I am untranscluding as appropriate throughout, following how Chutznik was treated in 2009.-- Tznkai ( talk) 05:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, just letting you know I'm taking over from DeltaQuad to run the logging bot this year. Votes will still be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Log. The bot is currently going through approval, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 6 for details, and feel free to comment. Thanks, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No meltdowns thus far :D One very productive development over the past year is that with the cluster-wide SSL support ( http://en.wikipedia.org and https://en.wikipedia.org instead of https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en) SecurePoll does not get confused over where the user is voting from and so correctly strikes the older vote; so we should have many fewer voters from secure.wikimedia.org and so less chance of a repetition of the problems from 2009. Happy‑ melon 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Have the scrutineers been sent the briefing from last year?
It might be good to check in with them now and make sure they are aware that voting is underway, and that all of them are still in a position to fulfill the duties of the role. -- Skomorokh ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The vote log states. Editors are invited to comment on possibly ineligible votes and to identify sockpuppet accounts, but it is not clear where the comments should go. I think comments in the log area will be overwritten by the bot on each update. Should there be a link to some comment area for users who want to comment? Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
<!--Please do not post below this line->
at the bottom of the page. Somebody may want to fix that. Thanks. -
Hydroxonium (
T•
C•
V)
00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Comments can be placed inline; the bot won't overwrite them if it behaves like previous years. I've dropped the footmatter of this page as it was causing more trouble than it was worth. Skomorokh 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought this was going to be ok, but SandyGeorgia has complained about it. Could you advise me whether it should be taken down? If you say yes, I'll do so immediately (really really busy at work, so I don't mind if one of you takes it down, if that's what you think is proper). Tony (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The draft is here. Reviews and edits will be appreciated. Tony (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011#How_should_the_community_be_notified_of_the_election.3F – What ever happened to the promised "Wikipedia wide top banner"? Did I miss it? Are we saving it for later? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 12:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I've collapsed and moved the questions by FT2 and their responses by various candidates to the appropriate discussion pages. On balance, they are not appropriate for the questions page, and the discussion bumps right up against the privacy of various parties. Other election volunteers should feel free to opine here. -- Tznkai ( talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
What are people's thoughts on the timing? The election closes end of Saturday UTC. What about late Thursday or early Friday? I wasn't exactly volunteering to do it, but I will chip in if no one else can. Tony (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
How do people feel about having a messagebot send around a talkpage note requesting feedback from the voters? Skomorokh 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)