There is always a bias towards the end of the nomination period for candidates to self nominate, this year more extreme than most. I personally don't think this is healthy for the project, and when I've stood (I'm not currently planning on doing so this year) I've always self-nominated towards the start of the period (last year it was a few days in as I was busy offline). However enough people do wait that they must perceive some benefit from doing so. So I want to understand what this perceived benefit is to see if there is anything can be done to remove it. In an ideal world there should be advantage or disadvantage to nominating at any point during the period available. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who was once a lastminute nomination myself it seems perfectly rational to me. If I were considering running again, surely it would just be common sense to see who else is running, both from the "is someone better qualified than me going to run" and from the "are there people among the likely winners whom I know I'd have difficulty working with?" perspective. ‑ Iridescent14:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts:
Waiting means that, if closer to the deadline candidates who are more likely to win nominate themselves, they don't have to worry about loosing or withdrawing. If the candidate pool is smaller and they think they have a better chance, they could then go for it. I say this because this process has a feel of RfA, where withdrawing and loosing may be seen as a "negative thing" when going for the process again, even if the withdraw is sensible and good / them not winning is because several other very good candidates were also nominated themselves
Questions here can be hard to answer so, although this may not be a motivation for anyone, adding their nomination later means that the time for questions is shorter. The less time there is to ask questions probably means fewer questions are asked, so it means less time is spent by the candidate answering questions. I'm not suggesting any one nomination which was close to the deadline is because of this, but it might be a reason for a couple of previous candidates.
I really think that for a lot of people they think they could get elected, but aren't convinced they want to be. ArbCom is not exactly the funnest unpaid job in the world and it can be intimidating, in particular to those who have not filled such a role before. So they wait to see if enough good candidates to fill all open spots show up. If they don't see what looks like a good candidate pool they cave in and nominate themselves. On occasion we've also seen the opposite, where a candidate withdraws because they feel there are enough good people that they aren't needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike real-world political elections, there isn't any fundraising needs or significant mindshare advantages, so there's not much incentive to submit a nomination early. If we want to give everyone more time to mull over the candidates, then we should extend the period of time between the close of nominations and the election. isaacl (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just a general phenomenon, probably akin to Schelling points. When there is a benefit to coordinating action, we see people spontaneously coordinate without communication or even explicit reasoning. There's safety in a pack, so it benefits candidates to nominate all together. This spontaneous coordination tends to converge on the most salient options (i.e., a Schelling point) because if an option stands out to me it probably stands out to you. There are two dates that could serve as Schelling points: open of nominations and close of nominations. So if candidates are (consciously or unconsciously) coordinating to nominate in packs, we would expect most nominations to come either at the beginning or end of the nomination period. Since nominating at the start increases the duration that you are under scrutiny, it counters the benefit of a pack nomination, and so open of nominations is probably a worse Schelling point than the end of the nomination period. This predicts a U-shaped distribution of nominations where the early peak is lower than the later peak (so I guess that makes it a J-shaped distribution?). I haven't run any stats, but looking at User:SQL/AceStatsByDay it does seem like there's a rough J-shaped distribution of nominations, with the larger peak towards the final days of nomination. That's not to say the other reasons given are wrong. In fact, the explanations already given are probably the shared lines of reasoning that lead to this pattern in the first place. However I think the game theoretic explanation helps understand why the J-shaped nomination distribution is probably going to happen no matter what we do. — Wug·a·po·des22:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To build off the great thinking above, what incentive is there to go early? Speaking personally not only is there no incentive to go early I think there are active disincentives to go early. The Election Commission already had to get involved because of questions and that's really all an early nomination nets you: the chance to be asked more questions. Plus, as I like to say "deadlines spur action" so it's not surprising that people group around the deadline. The answer to all this, in my mind, is to either give some incentive for earlier nominations. One idea that was rejected during the ACE RfC this year was the idea of ballot order based on nomination time but some other incentive could maybe get support or to start the question/discussion period after the deadline (as we now do when selecting people for the election commission) and at least remove a disincentive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the incentive would be immoral, not to mention potentially counterproductive - candidates unsure about running might well decide entirely against it because they hadn't been there at the start. However, there may be something to not having questions open during early nom. I find the middle question-only slot fairly short, so I'd probably want that to be expanded by 3-4 days if this route were to be taken. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the community has already rejected that incentive so I won't disagree it's not an idea worth pursuing. But there could be other incentives given (maybe you get a few extra words in your candidate statement if you go early; this could be an incentive for some but not a disincentive for others as not everyone uses all their words now) if the community wanted to brainstorm. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The questioning disadvantage could be reduced (and maybe removed) if the questioning period started at the close of nominations. An early nomination would give people longer time to think of questions though, so which is why I don't say that would definitely solve it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An advantage may be gained from seeing how others answered a question before you answer the question yourself. It's well known that some questioners ask the same questions of everyone. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before making any changes, we need to understand what problem are we trying to solve? If it's to give people more time to consider the candidates, I think it's simpler to shift the whole process up a week (or for whatever period deemed desirable) and thus have a longer pause before voting. If it's to ease anxiety about sufficient candidates running, then we should tackle this issue head on and find and recruit suitable candidates, which we ought to do anyway, regardless of the pattern of incoming nominations. (I don't have any particular objection to freezing questions until the end of nominations, but people nominate themselves early with full knowledge that questions will ensue, and for a more obscure candidate, this can be a way to foster more support.) isaacl (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: re: "when I've stood (I'm not currently planning on doing so this year) I've always self-nominated towards the start of the period"... At 21:45, 18 November 2014 you entered as the 19th candidate in an already crowded field (that peaked at 20 candidates), just 2 hours and 15 minutes before nominations closed. That year you were elected to a one-year term as the ninth of nine successful candidates. That year I entered as just the third candidate in the field at 16:20, 15 November 2014 – 3 days, 5 hours and 25 minutes before you entered, but 4 days, 18 hours and 20 minutes after the first candidate entered the contest. I placed 15th of 20 with just 17.74% support from the voters. I vowed to myself not to make that mistake again. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late to this but I'd prefer no questions or discussions took place until all nominations were in; and perhaps even for no questions or discussions to be asked until 24 hours after the end of all nominations to reduce question bias against earlier nominations. Some candidates only stepped in to a possible dearth of candidates until very late on and a technology hiccup might have had a real effect here. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, as someone who went through this twice - and ran the first time as a last minute candidate after being asked to run, I think this is an excellent idea and would help level the playing field. Doug Wellertalk19:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put my name in earlier in the process because I wanted more time to answer questions. The Q&A is a good forum for presenting one's ideas and a great opportunity for the community to get to know the candidates, and I'd be somewhat surprised at any candidates who wouldn't want to take part in that process. I'm not sure why so many of the comments here assume that candidates were waiting so they could avoid questions – I assumed they were waiting until they had made up their minds on whether to run. Or they were just having trouble writing a nomination statement. – bradv🍁19:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I've already posted my own reasons over here. Tiny version: There were too few candidates to fill seats when I checked, so my original plan to wait until 2021-12 seemed worth accelerating. And more Arbs and candidates than usual this year appear to share some of my key concerns/ideas (i.e., good opportunity to get some things done). There is no "strategy" in it (and I know enough from previous threads like this to realizethat there's actually a bit of prejudice against late-arriving candidates). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@2020 ACE Commissioners: I actually have some concerns about this. A month ago someone on this IP range was found to be violating a topic ban. You can read this ANI thread which covers most of the issue and lists the relevant IP ranges. There are also a couple revision deletions @Dlthewave: who did a lot of cleanup for that thread. I haven't had the chance to look into this thoroughly, but it's a strange series of facts to say the least. — Wug·a·po·des23:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes, thanks for the heads up. I took a look, and like Perryprog, I'm not aware of any rules that would preclude unregistered users from asking a question. It also isn't clear to me from the ANI thread whether a topic ban was ever enacted for this IP range or just a partial block. Since so far the IP's questions don't seem to violate any rules, I'm not sure whether any action from us is needed at this time. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that appears to be a (wide) mobile range, so it's not certain that the person behind this IP is the same one from the AN/I thread. Regardless, the question seems to be fairly reasonable, so no issues here. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, sorry for not being clear. I wasn't trying to say the questions are unreasonable or against policy (I agree they're reasonable and allowed), or that this particular person is the same as the one at ANI (that's why I said someone and pointed out it was from a month ago). I just wanted to point out that activity on the range in case it did become relevant given some of the actual IP disruption we've seen. — Wug·a·po·des01:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor who uses that range is currently under a Race and Intelligence topic ban documented here (April 2020) and confirmed by admins here (October 2020). The ban applies to the editor himself regardless of which address or account he may be using. –dlthewave☎04:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The IP was topic banned regarding race and intelligence. It's worth noting also that this IP is linking to an article which directly mentions Wikipedia's article on race and intelligence. The link is specifically in support of the political views espoused by the IP. Broadly construed, linking to an off-site article to push a specific position about a topic counts as a topic ban violation. It doesn't matter whether or not the IP uses any specific words to promote this position, these edits are still fundamentally about the topic. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, just so we're clear: logging in logs these things. Making an edit logs these things. Sending an email through the wiki logs these things. Scrutineering has been a thing since at least 2014. There are specific limits to how scrutineers may use the information provided here. Whether or not you vote is your decision, but this an established part of the process and (presumably) was created by community consensus as with all uses of the checkuser tool and the people performing the scrutineering are all restricted by the non-public information policy. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been able to find an answer to this, but are partial blocks counted against the "is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote" part. Taking User:Mr Hall of England as an example (a autoblock for them was at the top of Special:BlockList partial blocks for me), they are in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/SecurePoll, but are not listed in any of the mass message lists (from a quick control and F) nor did they receive a mass message according to their talk page history. They were partially blocked 14 days ago, so before both the lists were created. I would have thought that all eligible voters get a mass message notification, so unless I've missed something there seems to be an inconsistency here. If there isn't an answer, what will we do with this for the current elections? I guess ElectCom would decide. Obviously having this sorted before the election closes is a good idea. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions23:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: the massmessage list is a subset of the voter rolls and specifically excludes editors that are blocked beyond the length of the election; the actual eligibility list does not exclude blocked users as this is enforced by SecurePoll (and so the rolls don't have to be changed if someone is unblocked or subsequently blocked). — xaosfluxTalk00:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as for "should partially blocked users" have been mass messaged (see a bit more on this in the EC question below)? I'd say no, and perhaps revisit next year? — xaosfluxTalk00:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability, yep. That's what happened. Apparently being pblocked, shows as a full block in the DB. MMS lists are more restrictive than SecurePoll since SecurePoll has it's own filtering functions in place. MMS lists are generally produced for those that are uncontroversially eligible to vote. —CYBERPOWER(Happy Thanksgiving)13:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): this SecurePoll is configured with not-blocked:"1" -- from a software perspective, does this enforce the restriction if any blocks of any type are in place, only a "site wide editing block", or something else? — xaosfluxTalk00:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, partial blocks are treated as a block by the isBlocked function. This is because the newListFromTarget (which calls newLoad) function selects blocks from the ipblocks table. This also stores partial blocks per the schema. The function doesn't seem to filter out partial blocks, so it will return the block to getUserBlock which returns up the tree. Therefore, my understanding from the source code is that if you are partially blocked you are unable to vote. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions01:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on where the election commission falls on partial blocks as a barrier to suffrage, and assuming you are correct in thinking that a partial block is being treated as a regular block by the software, we have two options: Set not-blocked to 0 (i.e., disable votewiki's automatic check for a local block at the time of voting, which would vastly increase workload for scrutineers) or add people to the exemption override list on demand, which would increase overhead for commissioners or the Foundation (me). I think the latter option is probably the safest. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A double check of the source code leads to me to be fairly confident that partial blocks are treated as blocks by the secure poll extension. If a user is happy to volunteer to vote who is already partially blocked that would be great, but failing that perhaps a willing volunteer would be happy to be partially blocked for the purposes of a test. I'm heading off for the night, so I'll leave it to other users here (unless it's unresolved by tomorrow). Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions01:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can confirm, p-blocked users cannot access SecurePoll server. I receive the message "Sorry, you cannot vote in this election if you are currently blocked from editing." — Wug·a·po·des02:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GeneralNotability, Mz7, and SQL: looks like we may need a ruling here; the voter requirement from prior RfC's is not currently blocked at the time of voting. Is an editor with a "partial block" considered "currently blocked" for this rule? I'd think that yes they are, unless you want to get in very specifics of what partially blocked means (e.g. you can be partially blocked from editing all namespaces except one... but you can also be partially blocked against only editing one page...). — xaosfluxTalk00:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, this is not a final decision yet, but my intuition is actually the opposite. From a certain view, partial blocks aren't all that different from topic bans, and we allow topic-banned editors to vote. We're still trying to figure out if partially blocked editors are currently technically able to vote, so let's wait until we confirm that. Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So we've confirmed above that pblocks prevent voting in the election. While I don't think we have many pblocked editors who would vote, as a matter of principle I agree with Mz7 - I do not believe that a pbock should prevent voting. I think we will need two things going forward - we'll want to get this on the list for ACE2021 regardless of our final decision here, and we'll also probably want a phab ticket opened to make this setting configurable. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the early notes - 100% agree it should be on next year's RfC (added to list). I suggest these are at the least taken case-by-case along Mz7 reasoning -- if the p-block appears to be of the sort that it is enforcing a restriction that could be like a t-ban then override; if it is for some sort of general behavioral reason perhaps not? — xaosfluxTalk02:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just drop my $0.02, that I can't see any partial ban be grounds for restricting voting. As far as I know we don't have any TBANs that warrant removal of suffrage, and so neither should partial bans. I'd also suggest any ultimate decision on this be pushed fairly broadly, as I suspect partially banned editors are less likely than the average arbcom voter to know where to go to request whitelisting Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So how should we go about it? Would it be to just whitelist everyone with a partial block? Would we set the server to allow blocked voting and just give scrutineers a list of votes from site blocked users to throw out? I'm already planning on compiling a list of sockblocks for scrutineers, but I'm not sure which route would be easiest since partial blocked users can't access the server under the current configuration. — Wug·a·po·des21:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding; today is a holiday in the US, so not a lot of free time. The other electoral commissioners and I discussed this last night, and we all seemed to agree in principle that partially blocked users should not be forbidden from voting because they are partially blocked. As far as a way forward, we think the best idea is probably to have any partially blocked editor that wishes to vote ask to be put on the override list. I believe it is possible to query the database and generate a list of eligible voters that are partially blocked, but at this time, it seems that may require a nontrivial amount of technical work. I know this is not an ideal solution because most partially blocked users are editors who are unlikely to know where to ask, but the technical limitations of the election software seem to make this a challenge. Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some time today, I'll see what I can do with the query from Kevin. If I can get a solid list, I'll send out a mass message to those affected letting them know where to ask. — Wug·a·po·des22:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote up a pywikibot program – below are the eligible pblocked users as of two hours ago. There's not all that many of them, but then again there aren't all that many pblocked users to begin with. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 23:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Roelle Dimalanta
NewRuins012
0blcsp
ჯეო
Vallee01
Mr Hall of England
Miguelemejia
DilletantiAnonymous
Wikieditor19920
JimKaatFan
Crystal3003
Joppa Chong
Peet2000
Kostas181
Farhanakbar1998
Kiraroshi1976
Dapi89
Dreamofdealers
MikaelaArsenault
C2A06
Jackson767
Geb11
Leahritterband.MacDowell
Jeremykuhl
Randam
Seguro64
WikiLover4Ever
Saynotodrugs12
Chrisvacc
Александр Мотин
Beyhiveboys
Arthur Rubin
Saff V.
Itsmebeachhh
Yeah, I can look through them to see if the p-blocks are still needed. Since there are so few, it may be easier to just add them to the whitelist rather than having them come request it. — Wug·a·po·des23:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went through them all and they look like good blocks. If anything I saw some that I'd rather be site blocks, but I wound up just leaving those alone. — Wug·a·po·des00:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks L235! I can manually add in overrides for them now, if GeneralNotability, Mz7, and SQL want that, or we can do it on request. If it's just 34 users then even if we get 34 requests, it's not a huge lift. But adding them all in advance might be more akin to what people actually want to happen (i.e. not forcing eligible voters to "register" first). The commissioners can certainly let me know either way and I'll accommodate. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
L235, thank you so much for your help on this! This list is super helpful, and yep, JSutherland (WMF), we agree that adding them all to the override list in advance would be the most natural solution if it's not too much trouble. Mz7 (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability, Mz7, and SQL: Belatedly, this has now been done (with the exception of 0blcsp, whose partial block has expired). Note that if any of the users above are full-blocked, they would still be able to vote through the override, so do let me know if that happens and I can remove them from the override list so they'd be barred from voting like any other blocked user. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I voted yesterday and got a confirmation message, but I'm not listed as having voted here. But when I try to vote again it's recognised that I've already voted. I don't know if I've done something wrong but I'll try and vote again and see what happens. Let me know if I've made an error, because I can't see what it is. Deb (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is with Voting server Log in ? I was not able to vote as I am unable to Log in, yet the hat-message over there says how Login is actually unnecessary in the first place.--౪ Santa ౪99°19:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Santasa99, yeah, the way it works is a little peculiar in that you don’t actually need an account on the voting server to vote. Indeed, only election administrators and scrutineers have accounts on https://vote.wikimedia.org, and those accounts let them manage the election. However, if you follow the vote link in {{ACE2020}} and the mass message we sent while logged in from the English Wikipedia, it should redirect you to the voting server and allow you to vote under your username. Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In the 2019 election, there were 22 candidates. This year there are 12. Is there any reason for this decrease in numbers? Judging by previous years (2018: 13 and 2017: 12) it seems as if 2019 stands out but I was curious as to why this significant decrease has occurred. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Willbb234: a couple of reasons come to mind for me. In 2019, we'd ended up with a massive dearth of arbs, and people were concerned that would happen again, so there was a big block willing to stand. Additionally, while we had a few contentious cases in the first half of the year, it's been a quiet second half. I think fewer perceived issues reduces a feeling that "I better run, if I want it to improve" Nosebagbear (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: "greyed out" votes indicate they are being discarded due to re-vote. I'm not sure why so many greyed-out's are actually "struck" right now - this is normally a manual action by the scrutineers or staff - perhaps @JSutherland (WMF): can clarify if the software changed or if someone is manually (and unnecessarily) striking out votes that have already been replaced. — xaosfluxTalk13:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung, Dreamy Jazz, and Xaosflux: as Xaosflux said, "greyed out" votes indicate they are discarded due to it being a previous vote. However, @Mardetanha: said that on previous elections the scrutineers also struck those, so they are also being struck manually by the scrutineers. The duplicate votes not being struck simply indicate no one had seen them yet (I was sleeping, for instance). Best, —Thanks for the fish!talk•contribs14:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I don't really know how to explain it, as it's my first election as a scrutineer. Mard said that, and I'm following heh. I think he'd be the suitable one to explain here. I do agree that it makes it easier to scrutineer, as the contrast between grey/background and grey/black is a bit too low in my opinion. Best, —Thanks for the fish!talk•contribs15:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)|[reply]
Well, we also have our own internal documentations anyway so that might use some updates as well. — regards, Revi13:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I didn't quiet get what you mean by """and shouldn't be technically unnecessary """ does it mean it is not necessary or does it mean it is necessary but anyhow we used to strike out double, triple, quadruple, quintuple votes to make sure everyone voted only once, I had prior disucsction with Martin and he said with current software it is not really necessary but I as I don't trust software as much as him, I still strike them out manually to make sure everyone got to vote only once Mardetanha (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mardetanha: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but SecurePoll only counts votes that are recorded, that are not the most recent of a revote, and that are not stricken. So striking a vote that is already greyed out should have no affect on the results - thus not necessary. Notice the 2019 list where A total of 1,783 votes have been cast. Of these, 88 are thrown away because the voter has voted again, and 23 are struck. - striking of the throw aways isn't necessary. If this helps the scrutineers do their job better, its not really a problem - but we should update the instructions so that the process can be consistent and explainable. — xaosfluxTalk16:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it was practice that we had in past years, and I think it helps scrutineers to check votes better and as you put do their job better, updating instruction is great idea Mardetanha (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scrutineers are still doing their scrutineering. As I understand it, they can't really do it in advance of the vote closing (you can't clear a vote as "not made by a sock" until no more votes are coming into the system, since a future vote might be a sock). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goody, this year that's the date the presidential electors will meet in the US meet. Maybe Trump will tweet about the obvious fraud going on here. And anyway, I've already announced that I won the election in a landslide. I'm accepting donations to underwrite my personal attorney Levivich's various lawsuits to combat the scrutineers' hoax. EEng01:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like scrutineering is a mind-numbingly manual process, if it takes that long to complete. Surely there should be some way to automate some parts of it to look for obvious similarities between voters and such, no? —ScottyWong— 20:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF anti-harassment team is going to be spending some time working on the SecurePoll extension before the next board elections, hopefully whatever improvements they make also make scrutineering easier (cc @NKohli (WMF)) - normally, I would offer to make a script to simplify things, but unfortunately that isn't really an option here since only the scrutineers can see the relevant details that the script would process DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last year, there was a pretty outrageous sockpuppetry case that came out when scrutinizing ArbCom votes. And if you look at election results from other years, there are always some vote irregularities, duplicate votes, disqualified votes. I understand that candidates might be anxious, but scrutinizers should take their time. LizRead!Talk!02:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last year was super fun for me, as at the exact same time as the scrutineering, I was in training for a new job, for which they had deliberately hired more people than they needed, and on the last day of training we would find out if we were actually hired or if we would just get the one paycheck for the training week and sent on our way. Turned out I got both gigs, but man, tense week for ole Beebs over here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as certain US politicians might say, it's evidence of massive election fraud that needs looking into. (I'm not saying that seriously!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To answer everyone that has been asking, revi's comment is on point. This is a fairly tedious task, and not being familiar with the technical nuances of the data involved here makes it worse. We are, however, trying to do this as quickly as possible, and will share the result as soon as we can. Best, —Thanks for the fish!talk•contribs20:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@-revi and Tks4Fish: I think most people on en.wiki know this, but it occurs to me that maybe the stewards/scrutineers don't. So, to kind of ruin the "joke" but just to be safe: everyone in this thread pretending to ask what is taking so long is kidding. We know it takes a long time. I was mocking the fact that a thread like this seems to pop up a few days after the poll closes every year, so I created one this year less than a day after the poll closed. We're poking fun at the process, not trying actually rush you, or God forbid criticize you. I assume I speak for everyone when I say thanks so much for volunteering to do this for free. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of that con I mean, fundraising activity, I was able to increase their pay by an order of magnitude. No, two orders of magnitude. They are getting 100x what they got last year. (And the mortgage on my place in the Hamptons got paid for another year) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the jokes (thanks for some enwiki admins hanging out with me) but some stewards don't get the jokes, so I was more of trying to save the question "wtf" and answered it for them :P — regards, Revi12:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is now 13 days since close of polls, and we don't yet have a result. Rather than criticise those who are presumably putting a lot of time into this behind the scenes, or making jokes about this v US electoral systems, do we need this level of scrutiny of the results? In a contested political election you don't go for a recount unless one of the losing candidates or their agent requests it. It should be possible to at least run the initial result by the candidates and ask if any of them wants a recount and voter verification. Also this election takes place over several days so it is possible to do voter verification of most voters before the close of polls. It should also be possible to verify a sample of the votes and only verify the rest if you find something troubling in the sample. In any event, this is slow.... ϢereSpielChequers15:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers, I'll be the first to admit that humor can fall flat in online text, but neither I nor anyone else means any harm in any of it. I'll admit that I, myself, was initially a little puzzled over Floquenbeam's opening post, because it was sufficiently straight-faced that I wasn't quite sure whether he was joking or serious, and it didn't make sense to me if he were serious. But he has since made it clear that he was riffing off posts from previous years, where some users have, in fact, pestered the scrutineers. I don't think that anyone this year is seriously criticizing the process or the people who are working hard to carry the process out. If anyone is criticizing the people doing the work, that should stop. Let's all please be of good cheer, and hope that 2021 is a better year than 2020 has been. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last year it was 12 days between close of polls and results. 2018, it was 11 days. The current pace is not really that much slower than the previous years. The current system is set up to put verification after voting. You can suggest a change for 2021 at the next RFC but if I understand it correctly, scrutineers can't start before the end of the election because you need complete data to be able to scrutinize it correctly. See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Expedite scrutinizing from last year. Regards SoWhy15:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a need to rush, besides just wanting to know the results sooner? Terms don't start until January 1st regardless of how fast the results are scrutinized. —ScottyWong— 16:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your implicit assertion is probably just yet more Fake News - in fact the WMF is presumably using WP:BLP to censor any attempt to blame it on Powell and Giuliani for fear of having to defend dozens of nonsense cases all the way to SCOTUS Tlhslobus (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's beyond me to figure out how to fix the template, but the page-top notice says that the results will be posted "at at" or "at on" the page where it appears. Perhaps someone from the Redundancy Dept. Dept. who knows where where to make the correction could do so. Thanks thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to 2009, even discarding single "possible joke" candidates - it looks like this is the first year all of the candidates cleared the 50% bar - looks like any pre-screening/guidance/qualifications/etc parameters worked well this time! Congratz to all candidates for setting this record. — xaosfluxTalk20:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pssshh, normality is overrated and not to be found on Wikipedia! Nosebagbear (talk)
We're congratulating ourselves because one candidate was supported by over half the valid votes? That seems worryingly low to me - "neutral" won by a landslide. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each voter has a few candidates they'd like to vote for, and maybe one or two they'd rather not see on the arbcom, and are neutral on the rest. Having many neutral votes seems preferable to requiring donkey votes. Cabayi (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There weren't so many more candidates than places, & that there would be drop-outs was pretty predictable, so most people probably voted for everyone they thought could do a decent job - I certainly did. Johnbod (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) That's a function of the electoral system used and the number of candidates. Assuming that a lot of voters are voting oppose for candidates they don't think are suitable, support for the ones they want to win, and neutral for qualified candidates they think are surplus, then it is reasonable to treat neutral as at least not an oppose. If there had been a couple of "joke" candidates then the election wouldn't look much different, but a couple of qulaified candidates would have spread the supports out more thinly. ϢereSpielChequers11:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder - given the probability of drop-outs, & some candidates one supports inevitably being not generally liked, the only sensible strategy imo is to vote for everyone suitable - there are no "surplus" candidates (with this ratio of seats to candidates anyway). I think many people vote that way. So the low levels of supports means ... low levels of support. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tradeoff: if category A is the candidates you prefer, category B is the candidates you can live with, and category C is candidates you don't want elected, voting for A but not B (instead of A and B) increases the election probability of category A over B, but also increases the election probability of category C over B. isaacl (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a 4th, worked out fine for me. The 4 I supported got elected, the 2 I opposed didn't, and the wisdom of the community chose others that I had less of a firm opinion about and so !voted Neutral. I don't tactical vote, since I see no reason why I should try to make my vote could more than average. And I think it's very likely that most of the people who ran could do a more than adequate job, just as I think all previous iterations of the committee have done a pretty good job (even if on occasion, I haven't agreed with their decisions, and on occasion, have felt someone said something really dumb. But I've said dumb things too.) Martinp (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? It worked out quite well. Five of the seven people I supported were elected, and I fully expected one of the two people I supported (SMcCandlish) to not get elected since the community has a habit of not voting for non-admins. My personal opinion always has been that there should be at least one, preferably two to three, non-admins on Arbcom. The one candidate I opposed did not get elected. Two people I voted neutral on got elected, and I have no serious issues with them—I simply felt another two of the candidates were better suited. I wish all of the new arbiters the best in their new roles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe not never - there are always edge cases like Xeno's case last year -- but I wouldn't normally support a non-admin for CU&OS during community consultations for open seats, so would oppose ArbCom as a backdoor to those function for someone I wouldn't support for them already. — xaosfluxTalk15:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, why is that a problem? There are editors who aren't admins on any project which are on the Ombuds commission with global CUOS, though I guess they're not meant to run checks outside their casework(?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: last I checked there was exactly 1 ombs like that, they are not selected "by the community" (they are selected by WMF) - they are governed by specific use cases - and they are not lifetime appointments. I think the bar to entry to arbcom being as low as 50% support (esp in cases where there is low candidate turnout) is too low for these functions as well, but it is what it is and there isn't enough of the community that cares to take over the governance of the functionaries from the committee. Conversely, I don't think there is too low of a bar to other wise be part of the committee whose core function should be behavioral issue resolutions. — xaosfluxTalk21:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In practice I usually find myself mainly just trying to stop one particular candidate (usually successfully, as in this year, but that's probably mostly just luck), which is not all that easy under the current electoral system (there's a lot of boring reading and guesswork as to how to do this most effectively without also irresponsibly doing too much unintended collateral damage through ignorance, etc), though I doubt if there'd be much support for a change intended to facilitate that, perhaps thru eliminating those with most Opposes until there are only the right number of candidates left, etc, (which is a bit like how jury selection tends to work in many places, and arguably ARBCOM is a special kind of jury), instead of electing those with the best percentage support, etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would significantly extend the running time. Not everyone is active on a particular day to vote for arb elections, whereas both parties are there to challenge potential jurors. So you'd have to give time for each round of oppose elimination. It'd also add enough friction which reduces the number of votes I imagine: currently the process takes a minute, a longer process and many folks just won't care enough to vote. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can be done with one vote if people ranked their choices. That has its own set of advantages and disadvantages, as was discussed to some degree during this year's request for comments. isaacl (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of jury selection methods involving many votes and eliminating those with the most opposes; do you have any pointers to more info? isaacl (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; I don't see any particular similarity to the proposal of eliminating candidates with the most opposes incrementally, in that case. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats to all our new arbs, and to all our candidates - both for running and the exceptional support rates noted above. To our outgoing arbs, thank you, and may you have a calmer 2021. In fact, that last bit applies to us all! Nosebagbear (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Arbitration Committee Elections
Resolved
Mz7 (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Like^^^ — Ched (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
--Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
