v t e 2014 Arbitration Committee Elections Electoral Commission Nominations Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Quick guide Candidates: Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Personal voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Tryptofish Go Phightins! Hawkeye7 Elonka Rschen7754 HJ Mitchell Collect Ealdgyth Worm That Turned Gamaliel Carrite EllenCT

Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else and I couldn't find it. Will there be any general questions for all the candidates this year? Gamaliel (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: During this year's RfC it was decided that the general questions should be abolished. Mike V • Talk 02:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is still almost a week left for nominations, but with only one candidate so far I am wondering if there is a minimum number of candidates required for the election to proceed? What if we wind up with exactly as many candidates as there are seats to fill? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are less candidates than there are seats they all get in and those extra seats are vacant. If there are the same amount all get in. KonveyorBelt 19:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellowed Fillmore and Konveyor Belt: There is not a minimum number of candidates required to proceed. Also, it's not necessarily true that those candidates will receive a seat on the committee. Candidates are still required to receive at least 50% support during the election. Mike V • Talk 19:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is usually a flurry of nominations near the end. Neutron (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal to see people drop out? Secret did, and now Wbm1058 has. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Last year 5 out of 27 dropped out, one of them only after the ballot was already set up, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates. Kraxler (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the candidates is not an administrator of the English Wikipedia. If a non-administrator is elected as an arbitrator, would that result in the non-admin arbitrator being granted the administrator privileges in order to be able to carry out their responsibilities for the duration of their tenure as an arbitrator? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless they pass an RfA. They just wouldn't be able to view any deleted content or use the other admin functions that arbcom members use. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 23:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the WMF provided an answer to that question, sometime within the past 12-18 months. I'm not sure where to find the answer quickly, but my recollection is that the decision was that non-admins who have been elected as arbitrators, having been through a selection process that is (at least) more-or-less on a level with the RfA process, WOULD be given access to deleted content if necessary. I don't think they would be given all administrative powers. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong, or maybe someone can link to what the WMF actually said. Neutron (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection (subject to someone confirming the position; Philippe is the person to ask) is that the WMF said it would be acceptable to them for a person in that position to be given administrator access to deleted content. That's a different question from whether this community is willing to confer such access. I would hope the answer would be yes, as an editor who's just been elected arbitrator would necessarily enjoy broad community confidence, but I don't believe the discussion has been had. (An alternative would be for the arbitrator-elect to post an RfA during transition season, which would certainly pass.) Incidentally, admin access is required (for technical reasons) before an arbitrator can be granted the Oversight button. Also incidentally, there have been non-administrator arbs before, albeit it has been several years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, your last sentence surprises me. I have read several discussions of the possibility of a non-admin being elected to ArbCom, and the assumption always seems to be that it has never happened. In fact, I believe I have seen direct statements to that effect. So, who was it, and when? Neutron (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC). P.S. Here is Philippe's statement. Would have found it faster if I knew how to spell "Philippe". Interestingly, it mentions CU and OS but not access to deleted material. Is there any reason why an Arb (qua Arb) would need access to deleted material? Neutron (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of some cases and the issues that seem to be taken to Arb, it's entirely possible a page would have been deleted, content could have been RevDel'd, etc. making it necessary for that to be viewed in order to have an understanding of the case. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To your second point, yes; for example, if a party to a case were accused of misconduct consisting of edits on a page that was later deleted. To your first point, there used to be a table somewhere listing present and former arbitrators with their adminship dates, and there were definitely a couple of "non-admin" entries from the 2004-2006 time-frame, but I can't find that chart at this moment. To the general point of "there's nothing new under the sun," see here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is some irony here, that technically a person could have enough support to become an Arb (50%+1) yet clearly fail at RFA. Obviously, not all votes would be the same for one job as for the other, but still. Under the previous 70% rule, you could have given it to them for at least the duration of their term with little controversy. Dennis - 2¢ 18:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested: WP:VPR#RfC: Should ArbCom be broken up into smaller boards. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the rules on voter qualification not explicitly state ONE PERSON-ONE VOTE regardless of the number of "old" accounts they have? This is a glaring omission that absolutely needs to be corrected in the future. Carrite (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because all voters get checkusered when the stewards verify the votes. If somebody voted twice with two different accounts, they will get caught. → Call me Hahc21 13:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that whoever wrote the instructions assumed people would use common sense and realize that each individual human being gets only one vote. I think most people will realize that, but perhaps we should not assume the exercise of common sense on the part of everyone. By the way, Carrite, the heading to this section seems to be unnecessarily sensationalistic. Would you consider changing it? Neutron (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true, @Hahc21:, are you sure? I very seriously doubt everyone who votes is getting Checkusered. Checkuser can be used if fraud is suspected, but I don't believe it is used in such a blanket manner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might be incorrect, but I think scrutineers have access to the IPs of those who voted straight from the SecurePoll interface. I know it's not the same as being checkusered using the CU interface but the IPs are there. → Call me Hahc21 19:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be sure of the exact wording, but memory tells me that Stewards do have access to all IPs and the ability to checkuser as needed, with any hint of suspicion. I can only guess (and hope) that this is the most liberal use the CU tools we have here. Dennis - 2¢ 19:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding that's correct as well. It's also good to note that the stewards in question will be appointed as local CUs so their checks are recorded in the local log which can be seen by all CUs and is audited by the AUSC (also AFAIK they have to perform checks in accordance with local policy) so people shouldn't worry, not that there would be any reason to suspect any ill-conduct by any stewards. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The voter qualification was written with the understanding that the sockpuppetry policy applies to all of Wikipedia and that using multiple accounts to vote for candidates would be a violation of this policy. It's also stated directly in our instructions to the scrutineers. Election commissioners (TParis, QuiteUnusual, and myself) and the election scrutineers (Trijnstel, Matanya, and Barras) will have electionadmin access to the poll, which will allow us to see the technical data collected from the voters. The scrutineers will be granted local checkuser access for the duration of the voting and scrutinizing period. The checkuser tool is not intended to be used on every voter, but can be used in conjunction with the technical data collected to confirm reasonable suspicions of multiple accounts. Mike V • Talk 15:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there the usual log of everyone who's voted? I just want to double check. After voting, it takes you to the WMF page, logs you out, but somehow still knows your username. Maybe I'm misremembering but this appears to be different this year. Volunteer Marek  04:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a log here Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely little me won't get checkusered when I vote? That would be fishing! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 22:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Me too! darwin^fish 22:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to take a moment to recognize the six arbs who are about to leave the committee: Newyorkbrad, Worm That Turned, Carcharoth, Timotheus Canens, David Fuchs and Beeblebrox. These people are all volunteers who have devoted a substantial amount of time to a largely thankless task. Hopefully, now that your terms are up, you will all be able to return to a more normal and enjoyable editing experience. Thanks to all of you for your service. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding thanks to Floquenbeam for inspiring comments during his short period of service. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree with Mellowed Fillmore and Gerda - well done & thank you to those passing the torch. Especially NYBrad who has put an extraordinary amount of time into volunteering at one of the hardest and often least appreciated jobs in WP for as long as I can remember--Cailil ^talk 11:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is in the wrong place,
When I click the voting link I keep getting "Invalid parameters", When I try and log in my username doesn't exist yet when I click "Help with logging in" it redirects me to mediawiki.org where I'm logged in ....
About an hour ago I've cleared all cookies/cache so I know it's nothing laptop wise so I'm lost as what the problem is
Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having the same issue. It tells me I need to log in to vote, but then says my username doesn't exist. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010 and Lithistman: It might be possible that you are trying to vote directly from the vote.wiki. (Note that the vote wiki log-in is only for WMF staff, election commissioners, and scrutineers.) I would encourage you to vote directly from this link. It will ask you to click a button and it will take you directly to the voting page. If that isn't working for either of you, could you offer a detailed explanation of what steps you are taking and what errors you are receiving? This may help us pinpoint the issues you are encountering. Best, Mike V • Talk 22:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Mike, That's what I am clicking - It redirects me to https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/login/---?site=wikipedia&lang=en (the "---" is a 3 digit number but I'm not sure if everyone's assigned same one or its just for me), and it then says "Invalid parameters."

So I click log in in top right - Enter my username and password - I don't exist! - Click "help with logging in" where I then am redirected to the mediawiki page logged in,

Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same here.

1. I am logged in,
2. click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/396 ,
3. get the message "This poll is set up for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Please click the button below to be sent to the secure voting server.",
4. click on "go to the voting server",
5. get the message "SecurePoll Invalid parameters.". There's a log-in button, where,
6. I don't exist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:@Davey2010: hmmmm .... I've never seen the invalid parameters issue, looking into it now. Re: Logging in, you will not be able to log in to vote wiki and shouldn't (and it won't help you, no one can start voting from voteWiki, only English). I assume that when you're viewing the vote page on English Wikipedia that you're appearing logged in, I'm looking to see if I can figure out what's causing the error now. Jalexander--WMF 01:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I numbered my post above. I show as logged in on steps 1 to 3. On my step 4, I click a button, that sends me to my step 5, (invalid parameters page), where it appears to want me to log in. I am in no hurry to vote :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:@Davey2010: If either of you could attempt to vote again from Special:SecurePoll/vote/396 that would be great. Trying to track down the issue, I have a couple thoughts (which would have work arounds if they turn to be true but would help figure out what to look for to fix it more permanently too). I've verified that you both did authenticate too the voting system on voteWiki (so it knew you tried to vote) but it looks like it somehow failed before it gave you a ballot. I've therefore given it a poke to force it to recreate your voter info/parameters to see if that fixes it (in case they were corrupt somehow... though I can't see how from looking at them). If you can give me a ping when you've tried that would be great (though I'll be keeping an eye out). Jalexander--WMF 01:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalexander: Tried again, same deal :) Again, I do not intend to vote right away, but am happy to help sort out the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jalexander - Nope still the same unfortuantly, and ofcourse I'll try & help in any way I can, Thanks –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010 and SandyGeorgia: This might be a long shot and only a short term fix, but try going to Special:SecurePoll/vote/396, click the button as before, and when you get to the the vote wiki, remove "?site=wikipedia&lang=en" from the URL and submit. If you've already authenticated through the voting system, you might be able to go directly to the voting page. Mike V • Talk 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did that (removed part of URL and submitted), went to https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/login/392 , got "error fetching your account from server". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. Thanks for giving it a shot, though. Mike V • Talk 02:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[e/c]Davey2010SandyGeorgia I appreciate both of your patience, we'll definitely figure it out but trying to narrow down the issue so that I can have it sitting on a better programmers desk tomorrow (since calling me a programmer is kinda laughable). I've done another thing for both of you ;). I know you've likely tried this already but (after you try first, to see if my current poke helped) if you could try voting from a clean browser it would be great (If you want you can completely clear cache/cookies but probably best just to use a private browsing session):

1. Open new private browsing session (InPrivate/Incognito/private window etc) [make sure you do not have any other private browsing sessions open on that browser already, they can share cache/cookie]
2. Log on to English Wikipedia and go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/396
3. Attempt to vote and see what happens Jalexander--WMF 02:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went to another computer, logged on, clicked on your direct link above, and got a voting page. I shut down and restarted this computer, re-logged in, and also got a voting page. So that worked! I don't know anything about private browsing sessions, though :) Hope this helps locate the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the next logical question might be, do you and Davey2010 use the same computer.  :) Neutron (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That depends: Davey, are you good looking, of mature age, and a liberal or conservative? More importantly, can you help me get my X5 out of the shop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on clearing again - Ill also try restarting as well as using this useless browser, Sandy - No, Yes, and I'm a UKIP person if that helps –Davey2010 • (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jalexander:@Mike V: - Cleared everything and restarted - still the same, Tried Internet Explorer - still the same, BTW I use Chrome, Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Shit sorry I'm a bloody idiot! - I was clicking "voting" via the top notice - Clicked above link and it's worked :) Thanks @Jalexander:@Mike V: for fixing - Much appreciated :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Same. That is, when I go to WP:ACE2014 and click on the voting link there, I still get the same problem. So although I can get a voting page by clicking on the link Jalexander gives, the problem still needs to be sorted (I used Firefox and IE for my tests). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is.... incredibly odd.... as far as I can tell they are the exact same link... I wonder if the fact that I gave a full url (and, therefore, it was treated as an external link) compared to clicking the links above (which are internal wiki links) causes the cache to react differently.... Jalexander--WMF 03:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does restarting my computer clear the cache? (I don't speak cache clearing :) Right now, if I click on the link in your post above, I get a voting page, but if I click on the link at the top of WP:ACE2014, I get the same error. I think the only difference in the URLs is the http vs https SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's something to do with "/login/" I think With the top notice link- when I remove https from en.wiki and click link it's https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/login/392?site=wikipedia&lang=en (which doesn't work) where as the new link with https doesn't include "login" so as I said I think the "login" in the url is maybe causing the issue?, Thanks –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The "login" part should actually say "vote" .... I don't think it's an https issue just the login word needs replacing .... ?

So instead of it being https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/login/392?site=wikipedia&lang=en

It should actually be https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/392?site=wikipedia&lang=en

?–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm interesting, when exactly are you getting the login url? After you click the 'go to the voting server' button and when you're on English Wikipedia it's an 'http' site rather then https? (generally you will see a little green lock symbol or similar in the browser bar if it's https)? I've replaced the template urls (may need a page purge to get them) to go directly to the https version to see if that works. SandyGeorgia Are you using http or https here (on English Wikipedia? I know it starts to force it on voteWiki. Generally you will see a little green lock symbol or similar in the browser bar if it's https). [regarding the cache clearing sadly the best I can say is "maybe???" depends too much on how your browser is set. Jalexander--WMF 04:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - If I remove https enwiki (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/396) it then goes to the "login" url whereas If https stays it goes to the "vote" url :)

Sorry but it's 4:14am here in the UK and I need to be up fairly early later so me needs some sleep , Thanks again for fixing the issue :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see above you have bigger problems. But I'll leave this here so you have something to do after that gets solved. Instruction #1 on the voting page says (various colorings mine):

• Please use the radio buttons below to indicate which your preference for your candidate(s) with "Support," "Oppose", or “Neutral.” An “Neutral” vote does not affect the outcome in any way.

The three colored parts of that could use some improvement. I suggest taking out the "which", changing "your candidate(s)" to "each candidate", making the commas consistently inside or outside the quotation marks, and changing "An" to "A", resulting in:

• Please use the radio buttons below to indicate your preference for each candidate with "Support", "Oppose", or “Neutral”. A “Neutral” vote does not affect the outcome in any way.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:  Done Thanks for pointing that out. It was correct in the test poll, but I forgot to move the corrections over to the *actual* poll. Note to self, no more poll testing at 1am. :) Mike V • Talk 03:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted in one of these for awhile, so this might be a dumb question. I seem to remember, 5 or 6 years ago, that running vote tallies were visible. Is this still done? If so, where can I find it? If not, why not? LHM^{ask me a question} 17:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for longer ago than 2012, but since at least then only the number of voters who have participated has been public during the voting period. This is at least partly due to the need for scrutiny of the votes (confirming that nobody has voted twice, and that everybody who has voted is eligible to vote). The number of votes is not disclosed until the result is published, which can be several days after the close of voting (it depends on how much scrutineering is needed and how long those checks take). Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago the voting took place openly on-wiki (i.e. all the support and oppose votes were displayed on-wiki the moment they were cast—just like on RfA, except these were real votes rather than "!votes"). Obviously the running totals were visible in those elections. I don't recall running totals ever being posted since the elections were moved to the securepoll/secret ballot system, nor do I know whether securepoll would have the capability to post running totals even if hypothetically we wanted to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the elections I'm remembering. I just found it interesting to see where the candidates stood throughout the process. For example, I remember one year where Giano was fairly close to election, which had people on the edge of their seats for a bit. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SecurePoll is set up so that the votes cannot be tallied until the conclusion of the poll. Once the scrutineers have completed their task, an encryption code is entered by a 3rd party to allow the release of the results. You might be interested in RfCs from past years, where private voting was agreed per consensus. (2009, 2010, 2011) Mike V • Talk 19:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the light of how elections were conducted in the past, because it forces people to justify their votes. I'll have to look at those discussions you linked, to see what the reasoning was behind switching. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/JoeSperrazza was possibly late by a few seconds. Either they should be allowed, or the pages should be deleted/marked accordingly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates#Deadline for other discussion of this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough:, I have collapsed and marked the pages to reflect the non-entrance to the election. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC).

I see a page that lists answers to questions to the candidates, but maybe I didn't navigate the pages thoroughly enough. How do I pose questions that I would like answered by all of the candidates? How do I pose a question to a particular candidate? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For better or worse, I don't believe there's any facility for posing a question to all candidates by inputting it only once. To pose a question to a specific candidate, go to that candidate's "questions for the candidate" page and follow the instructions there. To pose a question to every candidate, you would have to repeat the previous step for each of the candidate's pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is probably for the best. Questions for the candidates involve a significant amount of time, for the candidates to provide a thought out and thorough answer and for the voters to read all of the answers carefully. Making a harmless bit of extra work for those of us posing the questions will force us to think about the quality of the questions and might cut down on frivolous ones. Gamaliel (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long should we expect to wait for the announcement of results? What exactly goes into the process of scrutinizing the votes? I don't understand why it would take so long. Everyking (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no maximum time, the voters are each examined by the scrutineers to validate suffrage requirements and check for sockpuppetry. If any issues at all are suspected, they need to investigate further and determine the appropriate action. Last year the process took about 6 days, I think the longest has been a month. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014/Coordination#Results.3F. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying as the delay might potentially be, and I agree that it can be a bit annoying, so far as I can tell the really only hard line for the results being announced would be the beginning of the term of the new arbs, and that is still a few weeks away. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were only about 500 votes, right? And surely the overwhelming majority were from established editors who don't need to be investigated. It's a bit baffling to me. Everyking (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be circumstances in the lives of one or more of the scrutineers which may be relevant in some way, and also, although I don't know this as fact, there may well be some sort of procedural precedent indicating that the final tally cannot be announced until all the votes are individually judged. If that were the case, and there were a few really questionable votes, the final results may take however long as it is until those final questionable votes are fully scrutinized. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little odd how no one other than Risker knows how the election works or when it will be announced... one might suspect she is running the show... 2601:7:1980:5AD:59AF:7858:C9F8:ECA4 (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea when it will be announced; if I'd been running the show, it would have been out within 48 hours of the close - just as were the WMF elections a year and a half ago. I was really hoping to see the results today, some time after noon, but I too have been disappointed. Risker (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was being a bit facetious in mentioning your name, thank you for taking it in good humor. But the serious point I was making is true: an election where no one seems to know what happens or why it happens that way is a strange election indeed. 2601:7:1980:5AD:59AF:7858:C9F8:ECA4 (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, disappointed as I am, I think in fairness that as a community we've probably not provided enough guidance or structure to the scrutineers so that they could perform optimally. For example, it's not clear to me whether or not the scrutineers knew that the upgraded SecurePoll software and the scripts used to develop the voter list really does prevent people who don't meet the voting criteria from voting, so they may be investing time in checking whether accounts met those standards. And also in fairness, there are so few people throughout the entire Wikimedia family who've worked really closely and intensely with SecurePoll (and elections, for that matter) that there's not been a corpus of experience to call upon, and none of us have done much documentation. Risker (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SecurePoll is also set up to overwrite old votes when someone revotes, but it didn't happen on two occasions this time. Given this it will be prudent to check at least a sample of the voters to see if there was also a bug there - if it did occur in one of the sample then there would need to be checks done on other accounts to (potentially every voter who is not a candidate or current or former arbitrator). They may also be waiting for a response from a third party. In short it could be any number of things, or a combination of things, not all of which are within the scrutineer's control. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I just spent half an hour checking about 10% of the vote - selecting usernames I didn't recognize immediately - and everyone met the voting requirements. Incidentally, this would be an easy thing to build a script for. However, the people whose duplicate votes weren't auto-cancelled did meet the voting criteria; while it's a bug, it's not related to voter eligibility. Risker (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting it was the same bug, just that the existence of one bug makes it worthwhile checking to see if there are others. It doesn't appear that this is the case though, which is good! Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the report of @Mike V: here, there was at least one other problem: All the voting data was deleted about an hour after the election and had to be restored from a backup. I have no idea whether that is something within the SecurePoll software itself or not. I just asked Mike a question about it over on that page, but it sounds to me like it is just a matter of luck that votes were not lost. I also am not sure why there are two different "Results" discussions on two different pages. Neutron (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't know why there are multiple threads, but I'll post here as well in case some are only following the discussion here.) To clarify, the data that was temporarily lost was the checkuser-like data that SecurePoll collects and is used by the scruinteers to certify the votes. The actual votes were not lost. The WMF has a 24-hour slave database from which the lost personal data was restored. Let me assure you that luck wasn't involved. A copy of the technical data was also made before the SecurePoll closed and was provided to the scrutineers. The scrutineers, while thankful for the copy, expressed that they wished to only use the data directly from the SecurePoll interface to preserve the integrity of the election. Mike V • Talk 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that does make me feel better.  :) Neutron (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm here (as the person running around the WMF when this happened) that what Mike says is correct :) Jalexander--WMF 01:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the tools coordinator and project manager for the Legal and Community Advocacy department at the Wikimedia Foundation, my duties include overseeing the technical component of this election. Based upon my experience and technical expertise, I certify that to the best of my knowledge, any deficiencies of process were inconsequential to the voting itself and had no impact on votes cast.

I was also charged to hold the private key to decrypt results. While the key was in my possession, I did not release it and did not use it to decode any votes.

I believe:

• the election to have been fairly and properly executed;
• that the scrutineers and administrators were properly constituted and valid, and
• that they performed their duties appropriately and with diligence.

I would also like to congratulate (or commiserate for depending on your view) the winners, thank all those who ran (that, in itself, is not easy) and call out the invaluable help of Tim Starling, Brad Jorsch, Chris Steipp and Sean Pringle who helped troubleshot and fix two issues we had with SecurePoll ensuring that everything worked in the end. Jalexander--WMF 01:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to Jalexander, Mike V and everyone else who has put their efforts into this election. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks from me as well. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a candidate for the 2014 election, I want to thank everyone who took the time to take my candidacy as a non admin serious. I didn't believe I had a chance in winning, however, I wanted to show support for the community and those who feel they don't have a voice. I want to thank those who took the time to ask me questions and get to know me better as an editor. While it was clear that I had some support to be on the committee, there was some obvious doubt towards my abilities. I will take the feedback that I received to heart and apply it to my life here on Wikipedia as an editor. I plan on broadening the scope of my time here and go into other areas and (hopefully) become better known (in a positive manner) as some didn't even realize I existed :-). I do plan to, in the nearish future, to go up for the admin tool bit, and I hope to use this experience to better my chances as well. If there's anyone who has any other feedback that they'd like to share, I invite them to message me on my talk page or privately via email. I, at the very least, will see you all again next year. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:VPT § Usercheck template out of date?

to generate more visibility. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 17:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in thinking that Jimbo still need to gives his 'royal assent' to the arbitrator-elect? If so is there a specific time/person (commissioners?) who need to do this? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This tradition is a silly relic of a different time, best ignored. I think everyone should just continue on as if this isn't a requirement, if Jimbo wants to say something before the first, he can, if he doesn't then nothing really changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging @Jimmy Wales: in case he wants to add something,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And @Jimbo Wales: too,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<Trips while walking backwards, bowing in supplication> Tony (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be wise for Jimmmy Wales to give up his roles / powers just because some vocal folks don't like him. This is no reason for the project to be denied the benefit of his vision, energy, guidance and extensive experience. If anything, I think Jimmy Wales should play a more vigorous role, and it would be unpardonable to do otherwise. Thanks in advance.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the years have passed, Arbcom has had an ever-diminishing influence on the English Wikipedia community. The surest way for Arbcom to lose the respect of the community, and what influence it still has, would be for anyone other than the candidates selected by the community to be "appointed" to the Arbitration Committee, or for any of the candidates selected by the community to *not* be appointed. Jimmy is a nice enough guy, and I know he tends to mean well, but my betting is that he doesn't even recognize the names of most Arbcom candidates, and has very little knowledge of their work, their wiki-history, or their abilities (he had no idea who half of us were back when I was first appointed in 2009, and I am certain that hasn't improved since then). I don't think it's a good idea to encourage the exercise of some sort of hypothetical "right" under these circumstances. Risker (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: 100% agreed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arbs are losing influence seems to indicate that they need guidance and oversight. You may think he does not know, but I am sure he did a thorough check, and is busy doing it now too. Although there are some isolated incidents, I usually find him thoroughly well informed about the things he is doing or talking about. If there is a lack of communication between the arbs and Jimmy Wales, that should be improved. Anyway, I am generally all for discussion, but on this, I don't think discussion could be of use, not with me at least.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need both conventions:

1. "Royal assent" is required.
2. This assent should be automatically given.

--Boson (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Coordination/Instructions for scrutineers says that after the scrutineers post and certify the results, their last step is as follows: "As a formality, they should post a notification to Jimbo Wales's talk page to inform him that the results are available." It does not appear that any of them did that this year. On the other hand, surely Jimbo is aware that the results are in, because there has been a discussion on his talk page regarding the voter turnout. I agree with some of the comments above that the best thing would be for ArbCom to just welcome the new arbitrators and show them where their desks are, so to speak. Neutron (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We get desks? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about scrutineer's actions. Last year's polling was about 1200, this year 600, if this trend continues, we might need Jimbo to make a decision even after the results are in. Even now, he is the one who ensures all those elected have properly ided themselves to the wmf etc.. If instructions are not followed properly, some are sure to raise questions about validity of new arbs. Most of the above comments seem irresponsible to me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy has nothing to do with the ID requirement for new arbitrators. The IDs are sent to and checked by a staff member in the Office. In any event, most of the new arbitrators were already ID'd from prior work as checkusers, oversight, etc. (My personal opinion is that the identification requirement is a pointless ritual anyway, but that is neither here nor there.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just so everyone knows, Jimmy was emailed the results of the election at the same time as the scrutineers and election commissioners. Thus, it's likely that they haven't felt the need to formally post it on-wiki since he already knew. Speaking with my election commissioner hat off, I don't think there's really a need for him to "bless" the results. After all, it wasn't done this year when the EC was appointed. Mike V • Talk 01:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: Thanks for clearing that up. I would suggest that in the future, the commissioners/scrutineers go back to giving the notification on-wiki so everybody is clear on the process.

@Newyorkbrad: The desks were virtual, as were the law clerks who were assigned to you. Neutron (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the incoming arbs are now listed as identified. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]