Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggested agenda for the Electoral Commission

[edit]

Feel free to ignore this if you feel it is intrusive, but I thought I'd give you some suggestions based on my previous experiences which led me to suggest the creation of the EC in the first place.

  1. Establish e-mail contact between all of the commissioners
  2. Do you decide between yourselves by vote or by consensus? I chose three members because both are possible, and when push comes to shove, you have an easy majority.
  3. Decide on how the reserve member (Jimbo called it an advisory member) should be included, or not.
  4. Decide on what other election staff need to be looped in on e-mails, or whether to do it on an ad-hoc basis.
  5. Decide whether or not Election Administrators are still necessary, or whether the Electoral Commission has functionally displaced it.
  6. Decide on your relationship with coordinators. Coordinators are self selected and essentially run themselves. Do you wish them to do so again this , with the EC serving to resolve disputes that the coordinators get into or cannot fix, or do you want to take on the disputes yourself and direct coordinators to act like your agents? There are other options you might think of as well
  7. Related to both of those, someone needs to get into contact with Starling or someone equivalent. Who?

If I can be any help, let me know.--Tznkai (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I've done this now.
  2. I consensus with a default to voting if it isn't clear what has been decided.
  3. I think Avi should be included in all discussions and emails, but if we have a vote, he shouldn't vote unless someone is recused to preserve the easy majority.
  4. I suspect Tim Starling and the Scrutineers would need to be. We're all identified, so we can share private information among ourselves, but we should keep this in mind when looping others into aspect of it.
  5. I think Commissioners have replaced Administrators as I always viewed Administrators as Coordinators who happened to have higher levels of access.
  6. I think Coordinators are still useful, among other things handling the complex templates and linking. I would say things like removal of candidates, questions, or edit wars on ACE pages should be sent to the Commission to handle. I'm not saying we should take on the disputes ourselves, but if there is going to be an outcome-determinative action or an action requiring discretion, like removing questions, I think the RFC-granted authority of the Commissioners is a positive factor.
  7. I nominate HappyMelon to contact Tim because he's clearly the technical expertise on the Commission.
I also think that at this point, the Commission needs to verify that all candidates are eligible. I believe all meet the 500+ and not banned/blocked criteria. I'm concerned that YOLO Swag (talk · contribs), Count Iblis (talk · contribs), David Fuchs (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs) have not included statements on former accounts (I realize they may have in an earlier election, but that doesn't cover new accounts created since that election). Count Iblis (talk · contribs) and YOLO Swag (talk · contribs) have not included a statement on willingness to identify. Also, if Jc37 (talk · contribs) could amend his "over 18" statement to reflect a willingness to ID; those are different things. MBisanz talk 18:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In progress; thanks Matt.
  2. Agreed
  3. Agreed
  4. Tim for the technical setup, indeed; but he probably doesn't have much interest in the 'community' side of it. Conversely scrutineers are interested in the community side but not the tech.
  5. Agreed, the EAs were only ever coordinators who happened to be identified and willing to shoulder the privacy-related aspects of coordination. There's no need for a three-tier system.
  6. Agreed.
  7. I emailed Tim this morning (although since he's on UTC+10 he won't get it until tonight, he tends to reply in the small hours...).
Happy‑melon 18:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, while we're on the topic of preliminaries, I'll be recusing from matters that individually involve Salvio giuliano's candidacy, because if he is elected, I will assume his seat on WP:AUSC and Keilana's candidacy, because she nominated me for RFA. I won't be recused though from actions against multiple candidates that happen to include them (such as striking an inappropriate question asked of 8 candidates). MBisanz talk 18:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. I think the division of responsibilities MBisanz wrote above for EC v. Coordinators sounds good. We should definitely try to reach consensus if possible; ideally, we won't have anything controversial to deal with (crossing my fingers). Lord Roem (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a note on YOLO Swag's talk, Kww's page, and Jc37's page while another editor has already left messages on Count Iblis' page and David Fuchs' page, regarding missing items in their statements. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be monitoring this page and conversations, but will attempt not comment unless specifically asked to step in; unless you three prefer otherwise? -- Avi (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Matt and Happy-melon, but I don't mind if you want to share an idea/comment on this page. Lord Roem (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly welcome any comments you have, particularly if you think one of us is about to make a mistake. MBisanz talk 00:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't see any reason for you to be turned into a seen-but-not-heard Victorian child simply because you were late to the party! :D Happy‑melon 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status of setting up SecurePoll

[edit]

I have to ask, because the voting is supposed to start in 51 hours. Have arrangements been made for a SecurePoll setup? I have a lot of faith in the commissioners being able to get their part of the work done in a timely manner (in particular, because Happy-Melon has lots of experience with it), but without the core setup, there's a bit of a problem here. It's now the weekend pretty much everywhere in the world, and WMF sysops with the appropriate level of access probably won't be available to help out; this isn't an emergency situation (like the servers crashing).

If it hasn't been possible to get this particular task started, what changes in the voting schedule will be considered by the electoral commission? Risker (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally it has been pointed out to me that the template that says when voting is scheduled to start is wrong: it should be starting in 2 days xx hours, not 3 days xx hours. Risker (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've emailed Tim to try and get it started, but we haven't heard back from him. MBisanz talk 23:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed Erik to try and get in touch with Tim or find a replacement Sysadmin. MBisanz talk 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken with Oliver and emailed Philippe. Also, we have a bugzilla:42447. I've also notified the scrutineers of the delay. MBisanz talk 14:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

[edit]

This is a start anyway. 64.40.54.65 (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Election committee members and voter guides

[edit]

Just wanted to mention there was a conversation about election committee members and voter guides at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012#Stuff from last year. I didn't want anybody to accidentally find themselves in an awkward situation because they missed that conversation. Thanks. 64.40.54.65 (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement requirements

[edit]

All candidates besides David Fuchs and Count Iblis have complied with the requirements for statements (Kww, Jc37, YOLO Swag all have edited to include the willingness to identify + list of any alternate accounts). I have left an additional statement on both remaining candidates' talk pages, informing them of the missing items. --Lord Roem (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs has updated his statement. --Rschen7754 00:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754, thanks for the update! --Lord Roem (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it appears that Count Iblis has not made an edit of any kind in four full days (his last edit was the posting of his candidate statement.) It is therefore possible that he has not yet seen the notice on his talk page regarding the identification and account-disclosure requirements. Also, although there is no actual requirement that candidates answer the questions posed to them, it is interesting that he has not answered any questions, either general or candidate-specific. Neutron (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed him (or whatever email he set up for WP) a few hours ago informing him he may not be listed on the ballot if he does not comply with the requirements for his statement. Lord Roem (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Count Iblis may not have seen the notice if he has not logged into Wikipedia in the last four days, however the requirements were available prior to the posting of his statement, so it was his own risk of not being listed to fail to comply with them prior to going inactive. MBisanz talk 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Count Iblis has just updated his statement. Lord Roem (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and with that, all candidates are eligible for inclusion on the ballot. Lord Roem (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting delay

[edit]

According to the timeline, voting is supposed to start within the next 24 hours. As of now, we have not heard from Tim or Erik about setting up SecurePoll. In the absence of SecurePoll, we would need to explore other options for voting, such as having the election publicly on-wiki. While recognizing the RFC set a start and end date for the election, I believe it is within the Commissioners' discretion to move those dates due to unforeseen circumstances. I therefore propose we delay the start date of the election until Tuesday 00:01, 27 November and the end date until Monday 23:59, 10 December. I'll contact Philippe on Monday during business hours and try to find another shell-sysadmin who can set it up. If Tim and Happy do get it set up in the next few hours, the election can go ahead as scheduled, but this seems like the sort of event that requires a delay. MBisanz talk 06:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. While a delay is unfortunate, I think the benefits of using SecurePoll outweigh the benefits of starting the poll exactly on time. A delay of a day or two won't cause too much damage. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this? Is voting going to start on schedule? When will a decision be announced? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't been able to get hold of a developer to set up the SecurePoll interface for the vote, so it won't be starting on time, no. Various emails have been sent, but this probably won't be actioned until working hours tomorrow when the developers are likely to be around. If you mean a decision about when the voting will start, then that depends on how quickly we can get hold of a developer to set things up for us. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is at odds with what MBisanz said above ("If Tim and Happy do get it set up in the next few hours, the election can go ahead as scheduled, ..."); I'm looking for something "official" from one of the election commissioners. Is someone working on changing the countdown at Template:ACE2012 and the timing of voting at the top of the elections page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the templates, ACE2012 will switch over to a notice that the poll is not yet ready when voting should have started, I have added a note about the impending issue to the ACE header, and it will also switch over to a note that the poll is not ready at the scheduled start of voting, with a link directing here for additional information. Monty845 16:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I've been unable to get an "official" vote of the Commission, I feel comfortable announcing an official 24 hour delay. If people could update the templates and timelines, I would appreciate it. As I said, we'll continue to try to get in touch with the WMF during business hours. In the event we still can't get in touch with them on Monday, we may need to consider switching to a public vote model, which could be done by Monday evening to start the voting at the delayed time. MBisanz talk 17:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the 24 hour delay at this time, which counts as 'official vote', I guess. Happy‑melon 19:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this as well. Once we get in touch with the WMF, things should start rolling rather quickly. Lord Roem (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, we've, as of yet, been unable to procure a sysadmin. The current state of affairs is that if we don't have a sysadmin onboard by 1800UTC, we'll be delaying the start and end dates of the election by a further 24 hours. Of course, now that Happy-Melon has submitted a config file via Bugzilla, the election could simply go live at midnight UTC if a sysadmin finds the config file, loads it between 1800-2400UTC and never sees this note. That wouldn't be the worst surprise though. MBisanz talk 15:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given time differences / public holidays etc. in the States, would it be possible to have sysadmins from outside North America? Or do we already have some? GiantSnowman 16:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They exist, but from my inquiries, it appears that only Tim and Andrew actually understand how SecurePoll works, so there is hesitation on the part of otherwise unfamiliar sysadmins to run code and configurations on the live cluster that they don't understand or have the time to learn. Sort of like walking into a repair shop and asking the mechanic to repair hybrid battery using the manufacturer's booklet. MBisanz talk 16:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We used to vote on December 1st, back in the day - starting off before that is just bonus time. We should be careful to adjust the end-of-voting times as well as the starting times, so that we have the same total duration - and so that voting doesn't unexpectedly cut off too soon. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know about the start date. I think I've been careful in adjusting the end date to maintain a 14 day voting period. MBisanz talk 19:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l

[edit]
Appreciated, but this doesn't really involve coordination. MBisanz talk 12:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Arbitration Committee has recently been made aware that information posted to its arbcom-l mailing list was inappropriately shared outside of the Committee this month. The disclosures involved posts made to the mailing list by arbitrator Jclemens on November 6 and 7 (UTC), and pertained to some of his positions in the coming Arbitration Committee election. These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election. The unauthorized disclosures were reported to the Committee separately by two non-arbitrator candidates in the current Arbitration Committee elections, and our understanding is that other candidates and other editors have also received correspondence repeating some or all of the information.

Arbitrator Elen of the Roads has confirmed that she shared information, including direct quotes from the mailing list, with two non-arbitrators within 24 hours of Jclemens' original posts. This information was subsequently shared with other parties, including at least some of the current candidates. The Committee was made aware of this on November 13. On polling the arbitrators, Elen of the Roads disclosed that she had released a portion of one email to non-arbitrators, and denied sharing any further emails. She subsequently clarified on 25 November that she had released information from two separate emails, including the full text of one.

In addition, an email written by Jclemens was copied and sent to at least some current candidates on November 19 from a Gmail account. There were certain modifications made to the email that do not match the original or the information shared by Elen of the Roads. All arbitrators have been polled, and all have denied sharing that post with anyone outside of the Committee.

Arbitrators supporting this statement: Casliber, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie
Arbitrators recused from voting on this statement: All current candidates (Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad)
Arbitrators inactive on voting on this statement: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this statement

Are we sure it doesn't? I'm not looking for a conspiracy theory, but it would not be unexpected that editors would wonder how on earth the developers managed to not be available to implement the secure poll on time, so y'all may as well address that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo was supposed to appoint Election Commissioners on November 17, he waited until November 22 to appoint us as the Commissioners. Generally, it has been the Commissioners (Election Administrators) who work with the sysadmins to initiate the code to run SecurePoll. On November 22, Happy-Melon emailed Tim Starling to ask him to initiate the code. Tim hasn't emailed us back. On November 24, I emailed Erik Moller to ask him to get in touch with Tim or find us another sysadmin. Erik hasn't emailed us back. After concluding yesterday that we wouldn't be able to get in touch with anyone at the WMF until they opened for business this morning, we decided to delay the start of the election. This morning I spoke with Oliver Keyes and emailed Philippe. Happy-Melon also set up a Bugzilla request to make it easier to communicate with whomever in the sysadmin corp agrees to help us. Hopefully one of these avenues of request will pan out. I should also note that November 22 was a national holiday in the USA and November 24 was a weekend in the USA, so it's not entirely unreasonable to expect Tim and Erik to not be working when we emailed them. MBisanz talk 14:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A response from Risker at WT:ACN. I guess coordinators will know to start earlier next year? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll try? Coordinators are volunteers and no one volunteered until November 22 this year. Commissioners weren't appointed until November 22 either, so really there was no one assigned to "start earlier" until that date. MBisanz talk 15:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering recent developments, perhaps now the infamous community will reconsider past RFCs that gave us boatloads of arbs with little support and left Jimbo with no means of dealing with ... unprecedented emergencies. Those RFCs left unforeseen constraints ... such as no one in authority to make the election happen. Of course, this observation results from my vested interest as similar issues could affect FAC ... where a director/delegate structure is needed ... it's not the coordinators' fault, but if you leave *all* authority to the community based on ill-formed RFCs and depend exclusively on volunteers with no one person in charge where The Buck Stops, things like this will naturally result. In the past, it woulda been Jimbo's neck on the line. Now, it's no one's fault-- just a consequence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In theory, the current four people are appointed without terms, so I guess we could be the responsible commissioners until such time as we resign or new commissioners are appointed? It's an awkward arrangement, but I guess it would give us a responsible person to make sure things get done next year if Jimbo is delayed again. MBisanz talk 16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My read of the RfC is that it only' applies to the 2012 elections (with the presumption that there will be a new one for the 2013 elections). So I would thus presume that you and the others are EC's for the duration, until next election, or til you are replaced. - jc37 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was drafted broadly enough that an indefinite duration until replaced is a plausible reading. Either way, the plan is to have the EC up and running the next year with a refined mandate and much earlier.--Tznkai (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that you're raising a hypothetical question, anyone who does treat it as a genuine concern has cynicism that extends a long way towards paranoia. For the record: I had absolutely no awareness of this entire issue until I logged on this afternoon, nor has the technical implementation of the poll been delayed (to my knowledge) by any enwiki user. Anyone who wishes to construct a conspiracy theory along these lines is doing so against an outright statement to the contrary. Happy‑melon 16:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relax; your paranoia is showing. The question *will* be asked, and methinks it's much better asked from someone who isn't an arb hater. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to SandyGeorgia, I think this is a question that the Committee anticipated would be asked. It is definitely a very unfortunate confluence of events, but the two are unrelated. I expect that one of the most important "learnings" from this bump in the road will be that the process to select the "electoral commission" should probably happen about a month earlier, so that there's lots of time to go through the checklist and line things up. It's important enough that I'd suggest starting the traditional "what worked/what can be improved" page now, so that we don't forget this is something that can be improved. Risker (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think it's me that's paranoid (although I recognise that you're not asking on your own behalf, Sandy). Just because the question is inevitable doesn't make it any less preposterous, or those who ask the question genuinely any less paranoid or skeleton-hunting. Happy‑melon 16:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting delay 2

[edit]

I tried calling Philippe at his office number, but he wasn't by his phone. I've left a message for him there, but as we haven't heard from anyone at the WMF or from a sysadmin on bugzilla:42447, we have no choice but to extend the delay of the start of the election a further 24 hours. I'll do the formalities of updating the templates in a moment. Of course, if a sysadmin randomly initiates the election within the next six hours (the configuration file expires at midnight), we'll just revert and start the election. We'll keep you up to date as we know more. MBisanz talk 18:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

++ Happy‑melon 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. --Lord Roem (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm a little surprised that anyone is shocked that they wouldn't reach someone at the WMF on a holiday weekend. I'm also surprised that there's an expectation we could make a sysadmin resource available with almost no notice... I'll find out what we can do, but I'm not fond of the intimation that the WMF is responsible for this delay, when we were given almost no notice of the need. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, such a matter should have been filed on bugzilla as soon as the dates were known rather than today. I do not think the WMF is to blame and hope the coordinators are not implying so. It is sad that this was not communicated better and with proper advance notice, and I'm sure everybody appreciates your efforts in getting this matter sorted out regardless of the circumstances, Philippe. Snowolf How can I help? 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree the Foundation isn't responsible for the delay. As soon as the Commissioners knew, we put in a request to the Foundation and as soon as the Foundation opened for business, you've been in touch with us. We do appreciate your efforts and know sysadmin resources are limited. Really, we'd just like to know when it can be done by, so we can adjust the timeline accordingly or make-do otherwise if resources can't be made available. Thanks. MBisanz talk 20:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Phillipe's statement is entirely fair, as I've said on the bugzilla thread (albeit with more emphasis on "can we just get this fixed please" over there). The timeline for the 2012 election is virtually identical to the timeline for the 2011 election: in 2011 the first contact was made on the 23rd November and the process was completed by the 25th. Equally in 2010 the config requirements were sent on the 19th and resolved by the 23rd; in 2009 the config requirements were not sent until the 27th. I don't think it's unreasonable to have expected a system which had worked fine for three previous years to continue to work for a fourth, or for the community to be surprised when the support we have not unreasonably come to rely on suddenly fails to materialise.
On the other hand, I'm not suggesting that it's the WMF's fault, because with the benefit of hindsight we see that the process (of contacting one or two sysadmins individually rather than going through bugzilla) was fragile at best. I'm merely saying that it wouldn't be fair to blame the community for continuing to rely on it beyond its sell-by date. Happy‑melon 21:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

[edit]

I have 2 questions concerning "decorum" of candidates.

In years past a candidate was allowed to ask other candidates questions. Is that still true? Is it prohibited? Is it discouraged? (all separate questions.)

And I have the same question about whether a candidate may create a "guide". prohibited? discouraged?

And if allowed are there any other rules concerning questions or guides that I should know of should I avail myself of that opportunity? - jc37 18:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself and with the caveat that just because something is allowed, doesn't mean it is a good idea to do it, there is nothing in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Selection_and_appointment that would prohibit a candidate from asking questions of other candidates or creating a guide. There is language at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#How_should_voter_guides_be_handled_for_the_election.3F indicating that summary tables should have disclaimers and that interactions must conform to the general policies for user conduct. As I understand it, nothing is "discouraged," only prohibited or not prohibited. Some things may be discouraged by prior community reactions, but that isn't enforceable by the Commissioners. MBisanz talk 18:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)I'm unaware of rules that prohibited asking questions of other candidates. But such a candidate would be wise to do so with caution, as voters will judge them on their conduct during the election - and asking pointed questions or tossing implications and accusations about will only invite the same in return. I would think the same goes for the guides - I would question how well a candidate would work with an arbcom that consists of people he recommended against in his voter's guide. It's another point of data that comes into consideration. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I've been considering all of that myself. (the non-prohibitives). There are a couple candidates I strongly support, and wanted to express that (Not that that would be difficult to figure out, as I asked several concerning whether they were running this year, prior to adding my candidacy). - jc37 19:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of data, I deleted my guide when I was persuaded to consider running (but did not delete the two questions I had asked as they had been answered already). YMMV, but I would have felt iffy to campaign for or against other candidates. — Coren (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Coren, that it does feel iffy. However, this election has already seen some of the questions ask candidates their opinions on statements made by sitting arbitrators and statements made by sitting arbitrators running for re-election in these elections. Have a look at the candidate responses to that for how they handled that. Also, one of the questions Cunard asked me was about something I said earlier this year, and Cunard asked that same question of at least one other candidate (Coren). I did consider whether there should be a way for me to respond to what Coren said, but decided it was fine as it was. I have also noticed at least one clear (and fairly major) factual error in what one candidate said in response to one of the general questions, but am not sure whether it would be right for me to bring that up or not. I've also just read about the other stuff currently going on over at WT:AC/N and WP:A/R/M, and intend to steer well clear of that. Hopefully people won't be too distracted by that, and will continue to assess and scrutinise the candidate statements and answers to questions to ensure a successful election. It looks like the incoming arbs will have a fair amount to deal with. Whoever gets in, we should support them in that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC) PS. Should some (all) of this be at WT:ACE2012 instead of here? It is not 100% clear where the dividing line is between this page and that one.[reply]
I don't think there is really a right or wrong place, coordinators/commissioners would be the ones tasked with removing them if they were deemed impermissible, (I agree they are allowed) so it makes sense to ask here, but its also a general point that the community may be interested in, so it would also make sense to as it at WT:ACE2012. I'm going try to remember to suggest unifying the talk pages at the next RFC, while its clear from the issues this year that a coordination page is needed, I'm not convinced it needs a separate talk page. Monty845 15:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening now

[edit]

We're going live at 00:00 UTC 27 November. That gives us an hour and half to set up all the links. Let's go go go! MBisanz talk 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutineer instructions

[edit]

Someone needs to go through Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination/Instructions for scrutineers and make sure it reflects the current state of affairs. I had a quick pass, but don't have time to read it all in detail. MBisanz talk 23:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

[edit]

I regret that I accidentally voted from this account, rather than my personal account. Could I please ask that whomever has the bits please strike my vote from this account? Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. A Scrutineer will do this. In the meantime, feel free to vote with your personal account, should the rules (enwiki or WMF) otherwise permit you to. MBisanz talk 17:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the scrutineers monitor this page, but you've got their e-mails, right?--Tznkai (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, once we finalize their instructions, I'll send them a link to it with a list of the accounts that need to be stricken. Hopefully we'll finalize soon. MBisanz talk 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voter log

[edit]

Could the coordinators please help out here by notifying users of the problem?`--Tznkai (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template for this? Would make it so much easier. GiantSnowman 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a template and while there could be one, I suspect these messages will need to be customized to the extent that it won't be worth the effort. There are dupe votes, staff accounts, insufficient edit votes, CSRF votes, and votes based on deleted/moved mainspace edits that all will need to be notified. MBisanz talk 16:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the four remaining editors for "Insufficient mainspace edits" - surely that will be the most frequently occuring issue? GiantSnowman 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably? CSRF votes will be a likely second, but they will need to be handled by Commissioners/Scrutineers given that it's only visible to us. MBisanz talk 16:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and thanks for notifying them. MBisanz talk 16:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No responses on-wiki from any of those voters.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up questions moved

[edit]

I posted the following on MBisanz's talk page earlier:

Hi there Matt. In most cases, I feel that the followups you removed were actually quite valuable in terms of the responses they got me to elucidate. I would prefer if you could re-add them to the main questions page. Thanks, NW (Talk) 09:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if the coordinators could address this please. NW (Talk) 18:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to another user, the problem is that they were structured as a threaded discussion. Threaded discussion isn't allowed on the /Questions pages because that page is supposed to showcase the candidates' responses to questions, not showcase the candidates' interactions with voters. The /Questions talkpage and other discussion pages are the appropriate place for threaded discussion. If a threaded discussion really is a request for clarification, I've already said you could restructure it into Q&A style of the page and not a threaded discussion and re-add it. MBisanz talk 20:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's bureaucratic nonsense. If the user wishes to ask me a follow up question or clarification, what does it matter if there are zero, two or six indents? If you want to make sure others don't feel uncomfortable adding their own input, I am happy to add a note saying "please feel free to chime in on other users' sections." NW (Talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because a follow-up question like this one, looks like a discussion with you, not just a Q&A to you. Also, I'm trying to be uniform across all the candidates and that means no threaded discussions anywhere. See the existing discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates#Enough. MBisanz talk 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be the case if your definition of the word question were so narrow as to only include nothing but something with a # at the beginning and a ? at the end. What is the purpose of this? I have followed the thread you cited and see nothing there that even remotely applies to my questions page? I would appreciate if you could get consensus for your action and if not, revert yourself. NW (Talk) 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to encourage discussion of answers to question in a forum and format where other users besides the original person who asked the question are able to engage in the discussion, while preserving the question page as a place for people looking for the candidate's response to inquiries. MBisanz talk 05:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how are readers helped by my initial responses to Begoon or AlexandrDimitri's questions (all that is left on the main page) when I didn't even understand their questions the first time around? NW (Talk) 18:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what MBisanz has done here. There are pages for threaded discussions, and there are pages for questions and answers. Admittedly there is a fine line between "follow up questions" and "threaded discussions", but I think it was reasonable to adopt a bright-line rule and take everything that resembled a "threaded discussion" off the question page. Personally, I think the questioning of candidates in these elections has gotten way out of hand (and I realize, NW, that you have more "standing" on this issue than I do, since you are a candidate, but that's what I think.) Vigorous questioning is one thing, but were you really expecting the Spanish Inquisition? Neutron (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second that. Perhaps there are different ways to do this sort of thing, and those ways may have merit, and we can debate those merits - after the election. Once we start with a set of rules, we need to stick with them for this go-around. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something in the policy that prohibits this? I can't see any, and I know that followup questions were not disallowed last year (as I participated in such activity)?

Neutron, I appreciate the sentiment, but the questions are certainly not too onerous. NW (Talk) 18:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Coordination&oldid=1145852827"