2017 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status
These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
FYI: Per self-request and the reserve plan, User:Ymblanter has resigned from the election commission and User:DoRD has been added. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 18:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333, Yunshui, and DoRD. I understand this is the place for contacting you as election coordinators. Collect has posted the exact same questions as in 2015 and in 2016 to all the candidates, with minor wording variations from earlier years, as for instance here. Those questions obviously refer to Collect's own arbcom case in 2015, and their purpose seems to be to express resentment of things that happened during that case, rather than to actually request meaningful information from the candidates. It must be quite hard to understand the point of them for any candidate who does not have a detailed familiarity with that case, especially the first question, "Should the existence of a 'case' imply that the committee should inevitably impose 'sanctions'?" (Apparently an arb, or someone, made a thoughtless statement to this effect on a casepage, and Collect hasn't got over it.) I think it's disruptive to keep repeating these grudge questions every year. The candidates have enough work to do replying to relevant questions, and readers trying to follow the election have enough to read, without attempting to take stock of increasingly (as Collect's arbcom case recedes into history) meaningless questions. The work and time involved may be minor for Collect himself — just copypaste the questions — he never seems to take the trouble to respond when he does get replies, not even to a "thank you". (I may have missed something, of course.) But for those candidates conscientious enough to try to deal with all questions, however ill-judged, and/or fearing being criticised for not answering everything, these mechanically repeated annual questions must be a bother they really don't need in mid-campaign. And it entails more bloat for those of us trying to follow the election. I have twice asked Collect to desist from adding the questions to more candidates, on the basis that they're disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He has declined to stop, pointing out that he uses the questions as a basis for a voter guide. [1] Here's his 2016 voter guide, so you can see if you find its usefulness outweighs the inconvenience of this annual bloat of the candidates' question pages. (Personally I don't think it tells a reader much.) Please put some pressure on Collect to stop it, and preferably also, if you would, remove the questions per this RFC. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC).
Note that I rather think that different candidates appear each year, and that therefore the partial repetition is no more a sin than the use of "standard questions" has been for administrators over many years now. I further suggest that removing the questions is not a proper act of the committee running the election. Collect ( talk) 01:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Should an administrator assert bad faith by a person who asks similar questions for a number of years without such an accusation being made before? is a better question. I note that I bear no "grudges", that, for example, I did not assail a major plagiarist who gave "evidence" against me, nor any "grudge" about any Wikipedian who has repeatedly posted on my talk page about my perceived sins, nor about others as well whom I won't dignify by naming. My questions are there are an attempt to see what the positions of candidates are on such issues in general, and attacking me personally repeatedly is, in my humble opinion, ill-befitting of any neutral party. Collect ( talk) 17:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
really just thinly veiled whinging about a years-old ArbCom decision which everyone else has forgotten", I object to that too. I recall answering these questions when I ran in December 2014, and was proud to receive Collect's highest score for my answers. I think they're good questions, and I take Collect's voter recommendations into consideration before I vote. By the way, I know nothing about that ArbCom decision. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Have arrangements been made with the Office to configure SecurePoll for this year? Thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
FYI, that since a troll had been blanking pages from multiple IPs I tried to go ahead and set semi-protection on this years main election pages until it was over. I messed up the p-batch and full-protected them for 2 days instead. I believe I have gone ahead and reset the protection to semi-protection for the remainder of that two day period, but I thought I should leave a post here in case any issues arose. You all are of course free to do whatever you want regarding my protections. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333, Yunshui, and DoRD. I am sorry to disturb, but may I request a quick look at Question 14 on my question page whenever you have time? I would like to know if the question is considered as appropriate ( WP:POLEMIC) per the RfC. Since I have already answered the question, I don't mind if the question is kept or not, but I thought it would be better to solicit some opinions from the coordinators. Regards, Alex Shih ( talk) 17:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Questions#Questions_from_Beyond_My_Ken is, in my opinion, excessive. Can you please move some or all of that discussion to the talk page? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi commissioners, has an ask (normally at meta:Stewards'_noticeboard) for scrutineers been started yet? Once selected an ask for arbcom to give them special checkuser election powers generally follows. — xaosflux Talk 14:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Good morning. I've decided to withdraw my candidacy. What's the cleanest way to go about this? Thank you, and sorry for the last-minute inconvenience.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you've seen it, but it's very likely that per this discussion there will very shortly be another withdrawal from this race. Primefac ( talk) 16:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
As the main page, says, "An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who .... is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans." So this disqualifies Dysklyver from running. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved, That temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.
There was a consensus at
this year's election RfC to continue sending a mass message to everyone who is eligible to vote and who has made at least one edit in the 12 months before the sending of the message
, informing these users that the election is taking place. Has a mailing list been set up to prepare for the message? Note that the message itself has been set up at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/MassMessage.
Mz7 (
talk) 18:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
{{target}}
template (which it now appears was a pointless exercise!). The actual text of the username was exactly as in the original list.
Yunshui
雲
水 15:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Actually, one more thing to add - filtering the list to those who have edited in the last year is very difficult. I'm not sure it'll be possible to do this in a timely fashion. (Edit - at least I'm not personally sure. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) ( talk) 23:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
As said before, I think the mass message is nothing I want (Brexit and our last German election come to mind), but here are simple checks:
Think again about sending a message at all. A message serves the bias that arbitration comes with clutter ;) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 08:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Joe, many thanks for sending the list over. I have passed it on this morning to
Mdann52, who has a script from last year that, by the sounds of things, can weed out all the dormant accounts. Once that's done, we should be in a position to send the message.
On behalf of the committee, I offer my apologies to the community for the delay in getting this done; we are doing or best to rectify the situation ASAP.
Yunshui
雲
水 09:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, if you guys do struggle to find a way to successfully generate a mailing list that meets the criteria of the RfC, I'd strongly oppose mass spamming of uninterested people without a stake, as per the results of the RfC. Also, I copyedited the proposed message earlier today. I'd appreciate some eyes on my edits, in case I fouled up. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 17:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The exact ACE 2017 RFC consensus (by 92%) was to send out a mass message to "everyone who is eligible to vote and who has made at least one edit in the 12 month". Mkdw talk 04:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Very clear consensus to send the message out again.Reading over it again, it is clear to me that while people did support limiting it, overall there was support for the message. Finding a technicality to not send it out on would be inappropriate. The message needs to go out, and it is better that we notify disinterested people than not notify people who may be interested. Claiming that the consensus was only for a limited message is a WikiLawyering reading of that conversation in my opinion: people's wishes were clear. The message should go out one way or the other. Obviously it is preferential to do the limited version, but it would be a much larger ignoring of consensus to not send it out than to oversend it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333:, @ DoRD:, @ Xaosflux:, @ Mdann52:, @ JSutherland (WMF): I'd really appreciate it if someone could pick up the ball on co-ordinating this; I'm going to be offline from now until probably Tuesday, and there are still issues that need to be resolved before the message can be sent. I'll try and check my email this evening at some point if I can, so if you need anything from me, please drop me a line (you all have my address). Cheers, Yunshui 雲 水 12:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Now that a clean source file has been provided, I think that Quarry is a wild goose chase, or probably unnecessary, at least. — DoRD ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
quarry:query/23376 is where I'm working now. Counting mainspace edits is quite inefficient. –
Train2104 (
t •
c) 17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
|
@ Mdann52 and Xaosflux: I found some issues in the source file provided by JSutherland (WMF), but I'm working with him on a fix at the moment. — DoRD ( talk) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to make a new section but this thread is running away a little bit. :) There is no reason to run a Quarry query for this data, a query was already run in order to import the list of eligible voters to SecurePoll. SecurePoll can test some criteria "live" (for example, whether or not a user is currently blocked, or carries the bot flag), but cannot work out things like account creation or number of mainspace edits. Therefore we need to tell it who meets those requirements (or it'll just let everyone vote, which would be A Bad Thing). The list of voters (not filtered by "active in the last year") is already with the commissioners. Joe Sutherland (WMF) ( talk) 19:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:BU Rob13/ACE 2017 voter list is a list of all editors that have made 400 total edits, are not currently blocked, registered early enough, and have edited within the past year. This differs from the suffrage requirement in that I filtered for 400 total edits instead of 150 mainspace edits. It's proving very difficult to filter mainspace edits in a SQL query; it can be done, but it can't be done within 30 minutes (which is when Quarry kills expensive queries). My list will include the vast majority of those meeting the requirement and very few editors who do not (e.g. editors who edit only in userspace, for instance). Given the overwhelming consensus for some form of message to be sent out, I think this is better than nothing. Thoughts? ~ Rob13 Talk 18:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The lists have been compiled at posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS. Several volunteers have reviewed to ensure that this list is properly inclusive. There is one known issue that will not be getting resolved - this list may include multiple accounts belonging to the same person (including bots and bot-like accounts). The mass mailings will begin in a few hours unless there are any last min issues identified here. — xaosflux Talk 15:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to pipe in here again (sorry) to thank those who've worked on getting this out. :) Thanks! Joe Sutherland (WMF) ( talk) 23:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Not a big deal at all, but I had already voted and then received the message today, so clicked the vote link to see what would happen and while it does note in the text that I have already voted, the actual voting grid looks like I never touched it. It would be interesting to see if there is any swing in those who already voted after the message though. Arkon ( talk) 03:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
from 2017 and 2016. 2017 still has only 26% of the votes of 2017 for the same number of days. So I assume that the technical fix hasn't been found yet. It's not time to give up though. It looks like the effect of the notice in 2016 on voting was overwhelmingly in the first couple of days. So let's say that the announcements can be posted before Wednesday. That would give 3 full weekdays for the announcement to reach almost all the voters who'd be likely to vote. If it's a full 24 hours later than that, then I'd want to consider whether an extra day should be added before the election closes. If needed, could the commissioners add 1 extra day on their own without an RfC? Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to raise a concern when people submit questions late in the game. I have no idea if I, or other candidates, can get to all questions asked if it's so close to voting. It would seem unfair and also it might give the appearance that we are ignoring or unable to answer questions posed this late in the game. Thoughts? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Please read this: https://www.academia.edu/9374855/Playing_with_Cards_Discrimination_Claims_and_the_Charge_of_Bad_Faith Sir Joseph (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I got this message
What does this mean? How do you get in the predetermined list? And what are the requirements? Sunshine Warrior04 ( talk) 21:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the scrutinzing period seemed to take forever last year. Since we're approaching the end of the voting period, I was just curious if the Commissioners had spoken to the Scrutineers to ask them to be as efficient as possible in going through the votes, so that it takes less time this year? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Are the scrutineers scrutinizing? It's rather hard to tell. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask. I was reading Instructions for scrutineers, and was curious how the commissioners are selected. I'm potentially interested to help in the future in this kind of role in this or similar elections. Are the commissioners typically admins / what is the process for selecting volunteers? = paul2520 ( talk) 16:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
2017 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status
These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
FYI: Per self-request and the reserve plan, User:Ymblanter has resigned from the election commission and User:DoRD has been added. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 18:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333, Yunshui, and DoRD. I understand this is the place for contacting you as election coordinators. Collect has posted the exact same questions as in 2015 and in 2016 to all the candidates, with minor wording variations from earlier years, as for instance here. Those questions obviously refer to Collect's own arbcom case in 2015, and their purpose seems to be to express resentment of things that happened during that case, rather than to actually request meaningful information from the candidates. It must be quite hard to understand the point of them for any candidate who does not have a detailed familiarity with that case, especially the first question, "Should the existence of a 'case' imply that the committee should inevitably impose 'sanctions'?" (Apparently an arb, or someone, made a thoughtless statement to this effect on a casepage, and Collect hasn't got over it.) I think it's disruptive to keep repeating these grudge questions every year. The candidates have enough work to do replying to relevant questions, and readers trying to follow the election have enough to read, without attempting to take stock of increasingly (as Collect's arbcom case recedes into history) meaningless questions. The work and time involved may be minor for Collect himself — just copypaste the questions — he never seems to take the trouble to respond when he does get replies, not even to a "thank you". (I may have missed something, of course.) But for those candidates conscientious enough to try to deal with all questions, however ill-judged, and/or fearing being criticised for not answering everything, these mechanically repeated annual questions must be a bother they really don't need in mid-campaign. And it entails more bloat for those of us trying to follow the election. I have twice asked Collect to desist from adding the questions to more candidates, on the basis that they're disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He has declined to stop, pointing out that he uses the questions as a basis for a voter guide. [1] Here's his 2016 voter guide, so you can see if you find its usefulness outweighs the inconvenience of this annual bloat of the candidates' question pages. (Personally I don't think it tells a reader much.) Please put some pressure on Collect to stop it, and preferably also, if you would, remove the questions per this RFC. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC).
Note that I rather think that different candidates appear each year, and that therefore the partial repetition is no more a sin than the use of "standard questions" has been for administrators over many years now. I further suggest that removing the questions is not a proper act of the committee running the election. Collect ( talk) 01:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Should an administrator assert bad faith by a person who asks similar questions for a number of years without such an accusation being made before? is a better question. I note that I bear no "grudges", that, for example, I did not assail a major plagiarist who gave "evidence" against me, nor any "grudge" about any Wikipedian who has repeatedly posted on my talk page about my perceived sins, nor about others as well whom I won't dignify by naming. My questions are there are an attempt to see what the positions of candidates are on such issues in general, and attacking me personally repeatedly is, in my humble opinion, ill-befitting of any neutral party. Collect ( talk) 17:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
really just thinly veiled whinging about a years-old ArbCom decision which everyone else has forgotten", I object to that too. I recall answering these questions when I ran in December 2014, and was proud to receive Collect's highest score for my answers. I think they're good questions, and I take Collect's voter recommendations into consideration before I vote. By the way, I know nothing about that ArbCom decision. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Have arrangements been made with the Office to configure SecurePoll for this year? Thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
FYI, that since a troll had been blanking pages from multiple IPs I tried to go ahead and set semi-protection on this years main election pages until it was over. I messed up the p-batch and full-protected them for 2 days instead. I believe I have gone ahead and reset the protection to semi-protection for the remainder of that two day period, but I thought I should leave a post here in case any issues arose. You all are of course free to do whatever you want regarding my protections. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333, Yunshui, and DoRD. I am sorry to disturb, but may I request a quick look at Question 14 on my question page whenever you have time? I would like to know if the question is considered as appropriate ( WP:POLEMIC) per the RfC. Since I have already answered the question, I don't mind if the question is kept or not, but I thought it would be better to solicit some opinions from the coordinators. Regards, Alex Shih ( talk) 17:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Questions#Questions_from_Beyond_My_Ken is, in my opinion, excessive. Can you please move some or all of that discussion to the talk page? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi commissioners, has an ask (normally at meta:Stewards'_noticeboard) for scrutineers been started yet? Once selected an ask for arbcom to give them special checkuser election powers generally follows. — xaosflux Talk 14:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Good morning. I've decided to withdraw my candidacy. What's the cleanest way to go about this? Thank you, and sorry for the last-minute inconvenience.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you've seen it, but it's very likely that per this discussion there will very shortly be another withdrawal from this race. Primefac ( talk) 16:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
As the main page, says, "An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who .... is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans." So this disqualifies Dysklyver from running. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved, That temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.
There was a consensus at
this year's election RfC to continue sending a mass message to everyone who is eligible to vote and who has made at least one edit in the 12 months before the sending of the message
, informing these users that the election is taking place. Has a mailing list been set up to prepare for the message? Note that the message itself has been set up at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/MassMessage.
Mz7 (
talk) 18:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
{{target}}
template (which it now appears was a pointless exercise!). The actual text of the username was exactly as in the original list.
Yunshui
雲
水 15:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Actually, one more thing to add - filtering the list to those who have edited in the last year is very difficult. I'm not sure it'll be possible to do this in a timely fashion. (Edit - at least I'm not personally sure. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) ( talk) 23:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
As said before, I think the mass message is nothing I want (Brexit and our last German election come to mind), but here are simple checks:
Think again about sending a message at all. A message serves the bias that arbitration comes with clutter ;) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 08:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Joe, many thanks for sending the list over. I have passed it on this morning to
Mdann52, who has a script from last year that, by the sounds of things, can weed out all the dormant accounts. Once that's done, we should be in a position to send the message.
On behalf of the committee, I offer my apologies to the community for the delay in getting this done; we are doing or best to rectify the situation ASAP.
Yunshui
雲
水 09:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, if you guys do struggle to find a way to successfully generate a mailing list that meets the criteria of the RfC, I'd strongly oppose mass spamming of uninterested people without a stake, as per the results of the RfC. Also, I copyedited the proposed message earlier today. I'd appreciate some eyes on my edits, in case I fouled up. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 17:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The exact ACE 2017 RFC consensus (by 92%) was to send out a mass message to "everyone who is eligible to vote and who has made at least one edit in the 12 month". Mkdw talk 04:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Very clear consensus to send the message out again.Reading over it again, it is clear to me that while people did support limiting it, overall there was support for the message. Finding a technicality to not send it out on would be inappropriate. The message needs to go out, and it is better that we notify disinterested people than not notify people who may be interested. Claiming that the consensus was only for a limited message is a WikiLawyering reading of that conversation in my opinion: people's wishes were clear. The message should go out one way or the other. Obviously it is preferential to do the limited version, but it would be a much larger ignoring of consensus to not send it out than to oversend it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333:, @ DoRD:, @ Xaosflux:, @ Mdann52:, @ JSutherland (WMF): I'd really appreciate it if someone could pick up the ball on co-ordinating this; I'm going to be offline from now until probably Tuesday, and there are still issues that need to be resolved before the message can be sent. I'll try and check my email this evening at some point if I can, so if you need anything from me, please drop me a line (you all have my address). Cheers, Yunshui 雲 水 12:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Now that a clean source file has been provided, I think that Quarry is a wild goose chase, or probably unnecessary, at least. — DoRD ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
quarry:query/23376 is where I'm working now. Counting mainspace edits is quite inefficient. –
Train2104 (
t •
c) 17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
|
@ Mdann52 and Xaosflux: I found some issues in the source file provided by JSutherland (WMF), but I'm working with him on a fix at the moment. — DoRD ( talk) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to make a new section but this thread is running away a little bit. :) There is no reason to run a Quarry query for this data, a query was already run in order to import the list of eligible voters to SecurePoll. SecurePoll can test some criteria "live" (for example, whether or not a user is currently blocked, or carries the bot flag), but cannot work out things like account creation or number of mainspace edits. Therefore we need to tell it who meets those requirements (or it'll just let everyone vote, which would be A Bad Thing). The list of voters (not filtered by "active in the last year") is already with the commissioners. Joe Sutherland (WMF) ( talk) 19:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:BU Rob13/ACE 2017 voter list is a list of all editors that have made 400 total edits, are not currently blocked, registered early enough, and have edited within the past year. This differs from the suffrage requirement in that I filtered for 400 total edits instead of 150 mainspace edits. It's proving very difficult to filter mainspace edits in a SQL query; it can be done, but it can't be done within 30 minutes (which is when Quarry kills expensive queries). My list will include the vast majority of those meeting the requirement and very few editors who do not (e.g. editors who edit only in userspace, for instance). Given the overwhelming consensus for some form of message to be sent out, I think this is better than nothing. Thoughts? ~ Rob13 Talk 18:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The lists have been compiled at posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS. Several volunteers have reviewed to ensure that this list is properly inclusive. There is one known issue that will not be getting resolved - this list may include multiple accounts belonging to the same person (including bots and bot-like accounts). The mass mailings will begin in a few hours unless there are any last min issues identified here. — xaosflux Talk 15:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to pipe in here again (sorry) to thank those who've worked on getting this out. :) Thanks! Joe Sutherland (WMF) ( talk) 23:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Not a big deal at all, but I had already voted and then received the message today, so clicked the vote link to see what would happen and while it does note in the text that I have already voted, the actual voting grid looks like I never touched it. It would be interesting to see if there is any swing in those who already voted after the message though. Arkon ( talk) 03:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
from 2017 and 2016. 2017 still has only 26% of the votes of 2017 for the same number of days. So I assume that the technical fix hasn't been found yet. It's not time to give up though. It looks like the effect of the notice in 2016 on voting was overwhelmingly in the first couple of days. So let's say that the announcements can be posted before Wednesday. That would give 3 full weekdays for the announcement to reach almost all the voters who'd be likely to vote. If it's a full 24 hours later than that, then I'd want to consider whether an extra day should be added before the election closes. If needed, could the commissioners add 1 extra day on their own without an RfC? Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to raise a concern when people submit questions late in the game. I have no idea if I, or other candidates, can get to all questions asked if it's so close to voting. It would seem unfair and also it might give the appearance that we are ignoring or unable to answer questions posed this late in the game. Thoughts? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Please read this: https://www.academia.edu/9374855/Playing_with_Cards_Discrimination_Claims_and_the_Charge_of_Bad_Faith Sir Joseph (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I got this message
What does this mean? How do you get in the predetermined list? And what are the requirements? Sunshine Warrior04 ( talk) 21:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the scrutinzing period seemed to take forever last year. Since we're approaching the end of the voting period, I was just curious if the Commissioners had spoken to the Scrutineers to ask them to be as efficient as possible in going through the votes, so that it takes less time this year? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Are the scrutineers scrutinizing? It's rather hard to tell. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask. I was reading Instructions for scrutineers, and was curious how the commissioners are selected. I'm potentially interested to help in the future in this kind of role in this or similar elections. Are the commissioners typically admins / what is the process for selecting volunteers? = paul2520 ( talk) 16:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)