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

I've updated most of the to-do list for candidate eligibility, we have a loosely worded requirement of "is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans.". Have validated that no candidates have an active block, not sure to what extant other areas should be reviewed such as:

1. any types of sanctions ?
2. party to active arbitration ?
3. under discussion at a notice board?

Any feedback? [Ping to commissioners: @QuiteUnusual: @Mike V: @TParis: — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts so far. Personally, I would interpret "is in good standing" as not being subject to any specific sanctions that would prevent the user from serving on the arbitration committee or holding advanced permissions. To my knowledge, I believe all of the standing candidates meet this qualification. Mike V • Talk 02:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm not aware of any reason any of the candidates would be ineligible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MikeV's explanation sums up my impression. No blocks, Arbcom sanctions, or clouds. I wouldn't define it any more than that for fear of creating subjective measures that would allow inappropriate influence in the candidate pool.--v/r - TP 06:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ditto- QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are the securepoll arrangements in place? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Yes, the electoral commission has been in contact with the WMF since late October. The eligible voter list has already been compiled and we're currently working on acceptance testing to use the new version of SecurePoll through the Vote Wiki. A bug was discovered, but the WMF is working to fix that very soon and hopefully we can resume the testing tomorrow. If the new SecurePoll does not look like it will be a viable option in time for the election, we have plans to use the previous, local version of SecurePoll. Mike V • Talk 04:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: It looks like there may be two SecurePolls set up for this. From Special:SecurePoll, the List Votes link takes one to Special:SecurePoll/list/396, whereas the Vote log link from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014 takes one to here. Thoughts? --Tgeairn (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

392 is the correct poll - not sure why 396 is being linked. It's not one of the test votes we used earlier so I will need to ask the experts. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeairn: The poll numbers on enWiki are different then the poll numbers for voteWiki (where the actual vote is held and there the list of voters is, there is no list of voters on enWiki) so while they seem different they are in fact the same poll. The system picks the lowest available number on each wiki and English (because of past Arbcom elections) had a different lowest number. When you start at Special:SecurePoll/vote/396 on enWiki it actually sends you to https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/392 and the list of voters (from people who started at Special:SecurePoll/vote/396 is where the template links at https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/392. I know it's a bit confusing, especially since it's different from the previous arbcom elections (it's the same set up the previous board elections have been, where the voter list is always on the central wiki). I already had a couple requests (for the future, I'm not tempting fate and putting in a patch to try and change it now) to make sure that the 'list' button on the local wikis redirects (or points you to the right place) and I'm going to try and get that into the next round of SecurePoll changes. Jalexander--WMF 11:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jalexander. I had not tried clicking through to vote on the "wrong" (396) one - and I can now see that it goes to 392, which is where the votes are tallied. So, the issue is really just cosmetic with the potential for slight confusion if someone ends up at the list for 396 (via the Special:SecurePoll page). I completely understand not tempting Murphy by attempting to patch during an Arbcom election! Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a question about this from an intending voter, but nowhere can I find the eligibility criteria. Tony (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: The voter eligibility criteria can be found here, at item #2 (Timeline -> Voting period). Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tgeairn. Could be a little more prominent. :-) Tony (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to the watchlist message. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be useful to have a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Eligibility page that does noting except say who is eligible to do what role (stand, coordinate, vote, scrutineer, etc) so it's all in one place and easy to find for anybody who wants to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointed out to me in a private conversation off-wiki that User:Chris McKenna was not registered, so I have registered it to prevent interpretation and marked it using ((Alternative account)). The account user:Chris Mckenna (lowercase "k") is registered to someone who is not me. It has no live contributions, and a single deleted contribution from 2006 (speedied by me as a G10 attack page a few months ago).

I thus wish to change the mandatory information section of my candidate statement to read:

In addition to this account I also control user:Awkward42, user:Chris McKenna and user:Chris McKenna (WMUK) – the first as a test user, the second to prevent impersonation, and the latter from when I was employed by Wikimedia UK (May–August 2014) to help deliver Wikimania 2014. I do not control User:Chris Mckenna.

I apologise for all this, but I have only just been made aware of my mistake. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I see no issue with that, as it's merely a compliance change. Mike V • Talk 23:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've made the change [1]. I asked here before doing so as I'd rather everything be scrupulously above board. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to real life commitments, I'm going to have to withdraw from the election. Can you do the necessary? Or could you advise me of what I need to do? PhilKnight (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is sufficient, best wishes. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@QuiteUnusual, Mike V, and TParis: - I'm noting the on enwiki pages as withdrawn, can SecurePoll be updated? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalexander-WMF:, I think you'd need to do this if it is possible? QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last year when a candidate withdrew between the poll being set up and voting starting, their name on the ballot was replaced with "candidate name (candidate has withdrawn)". I don't know if this is possible once voting has started. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can do that, I just need to work out how to use the translation interface on Vote.wiki - I'll take a look now. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the ping but it looks like you got it (for those that don't know you can see the log entry for the change here. I appreciate you keeping his name in there, I know last year I saw some confusion about a name just 'disappearing' and it made it harder in the end. Jalexander--WMF 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty hard to navigate this year: people shouldn't have to come here to ask where things are (I've looked in a few places, including the overall category list). Can you reveal, please???

Tony (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony,

On each of the green navigation templates (such as the one at the top of this page) there is a link that says "Voter log". This will take you to a list of all the users who have voted so far in the election. Best, Mike V • Talk 07:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. Tony (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While looking at the SecurePoll list of votes, I noticed that Clayoquot's name is listed twice at 06:41, 26 November 2014. Did the poll count Clayoquot's vote twice or is it just mistakenly logged twice? Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The poll is set up so that a user may change his or her vote as many times as he or she wishes during the voting period. The most recent vote is the only one that will count towards the final tabulation. If you look closely you'll notice that the earlier vote has a lighter font color, indicating that SecurePoll has cancelled out that vote. Mike V • Talk 08:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike V, I hadn't noticed that. Have a good day! MJ94 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just voted with no problems, but first I inadvertently went to the voting page while logged out, and was surprised to see the message:

"You must log in to vote in this election. If you do not yet have an account you can create one."

with a link to the "Create account" page. Since a voter needs to have been registered before 28 Oct, the second sentence should be omitted (or qualified with "but you won't be eligible to vote till next year"!). JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is part of the mediawiki interface which would apply to voters for all SecurePolls. There is no guarantee that a poll in the future wouldn't allow an IP to register and vote.--v/r - TP 21:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is part of the interface; it can be hidden (as can most parts of the interface) with scripting, but we chose not to do so - QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to replace it with a customized interface message for a particular election? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible, that should be done in order to avoid confusion. Or maybe the interface message could be kept uniform but changed to something like: "In order to vote, you must be logged in and you also must satisfy the eligibility requirements for voting in this election, which may include having a certain number of edits. If you do not yet have an account you may create one, and vote if the rules for this election so permit." I'd like to figure out a better way of wording the last part of the second sentence (after the comma), but I think this is better than what is there now. And I suppose if I really want to make this suggestion, I probably need to find the page for SecurePoll on meta, not here. Neutron (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took our the part about signing up, almost all polls will have a suffrage requirement that will exclude brand new accounts anyway. N.B. the message is located here: MediaWiki:Securepoll-not-logged-in. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take for results to post? How long is the scrutineering period? 67.193.24.118 (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The period begins now, and runs until complete. Last year certification took 5-6 days, with about the same number of ballots. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The results can take anywhere from immediately to a month out. Historically it has been closer to a month. Last year we made an effort to get they certified much sooner. We'll try to do the same this year if I have any say in it.--v/r - TP 02:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally up to a week. Please don't appear to put pressure on the stewards—we're lucky to have them involved at all. Tony (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has any action been taken at all? I'm not seeing any evidence on the Voter Log. For instance, I voted three times, yet my first two votes have not yet been struck out, as they have been in the past. BMK (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just saw the thread above with info re: lighter color for disregarded earlier votes. BMK (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There were about 30% fewer ballots last year. Just as a comparison, with over 1800 votes at the WMF elections in 2013, the results were posted within 48 hours, and that was after receiving Board approval for posting the results, a step that isn't required in this election. So yes, it can be done quickly and efficiently if the people scrutineering the election are in a position to review votes as they go along and to ensure that any questions are answered as soon as they arrive, even during the active voting; however, in fairness to the scrutineers, their instructions did not suggest that they do that, there have been significant changes to the SecurePoll software that created some new issues not seen before (the duplicate accepted votes listed below), and it is possible that all of the data has been analysed already but is awaiting approval from one or more of the scrutineers before posting the results.

  I think some significant work can be done to improve the instructions to scrutineers after this election to provide more guidance for future elections, because there are common issues that can probably be handled more effectively and some lack of clarity about certain expectations. Risker (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Who would it take to make changes to the scrutineering period? i.e. the process, timeline goals, etc.? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of this should be commnity discussion, but some of it can be based on the experiences of prior election admins and scrutineers. Some of the things that could be clarified:

• When to start reviewing (i.e., starting 24-48 hours after voting begins)
• How to resolve "suspicious" votes. There are a surprisingly large number of people who are related to at least one other editor; start off by looking at user pages to see if there is a disclosure, use "email this user" to make an inquiry if appropriate, and try to resolve it as soon as it is identified.
• There wasn't an enwiki checkuser assigned this time around, but I think that was a useful position to have filled, because a local checkuser is more likely to be able to help the scrutineers with local sockmasters and known related accounts or people known to have family members editing (if they haven't disclosed).
• Decide in advance what to do about likely socks. (This is where community opinion may play a role.) Specifically:

• Whether all votes should be struck or only one vote kept (probably the last vote made, if kept)
• Whether or not the scrutineers are expected to report suspected socks for action to a (designated) local checkuser for further review and action
• Just as background, for the global WMF 2013 elections, we decided *not* to report socks to local checkusers (in part because projects have different rules for what CUs can investigate), although we didn't actually encounter any. For the Personal Image Filter plebiscite, we struck the early votes (keeping the last one made) and did not report to local CUs for the same reason as the WMF elections.

• What scripts are available to help the scrutineers analyse the votes. There have been different scripts written to speed up looking for similar usernames, looking for "bot" in any part of a username, looking for same IPs, etc. I'm not sure how many of them still work now that SecurePoll has been largely rewritten, but they'd still be useful.
• What communication has to take place between the scrutineers in order to come to the conclusion that all the checks have been completed, so that the tally can be run - probably all three scrutineers agreeing that they've finished checking. Once the tally is run, no further changes can be made.
• This probably shouldn't be publicly posted, but the scrutineers need to know who holds the key to obtain the election results, and how to contact that person, and to make sure the person is put on alert about 24 hours before they think they will need the key. (For security reasons, that person should probably not be identified by name onwiki.)

This is just off the top of my head, I could probably come up with some more that would be useful. In fact, much of it is useful for *any* election, and I might well consider also writing a page over on Meta for the use of election administrators there, too. Risker (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last year was unusually fast, and they had 4 stewards - this year they only have 3, and they have other Wikimedia responsibilities, so I'd wager around 10 days. --Rschen7754 09:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what their "release rules" are; if all 4 had to verify the votes last year before tallying the votes, it would require a 25% greater investment of time. My suspicion is that one or more of the scrutineers has not been available, because there really aren't that many votes to review. The SecurePoll is set to only permit voting from people with 150+ mainspace edits before November 1 who are not blocked at the time of voting and were registered before October 28; the scrutineers don't even have to check that, although they did last year. Risker (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few points Risker made that aren’t necessary correct. If you read through the instructions for the scrutineers, the scrutineers were informed about the eligible voter list. (The first point under Scrutineers’ role) In addition, while the on-wiki instructions didn’t specify that they could begin the scrutineering process as soon as the voting started, this information was conveyed to the scrutineers on November 24 (the first day of voting) through our email chain. Some votes were questioned during the voting period and the appropriate parties were contacted to resolve the concerns.

With that said, Risker does raise some valid points and I agree that the instructions could use some refining. Even as an election administrator there were not explicit instructions on what needed to be done. Once I have the time, I hope to put together something that will aid future commissioners in setting up the election. The topics mentioned above serve as a great starting point and I’m sure that I’ll think of some more when I have the chance.

There were some technical difficulties encountered that delayed the scrutineering process by one day. About an hour after the close of the poll, the script that runs and deletes the data stored on the database after 90 days accidentally deleted the data immediately. Fortunately this was caught promptly and through the assistance of a number of WMF staff members, they were able to troubleshoot the issue and recover the data from the backup database.

As of now, one scrutineer has signed off on the data, one has reviewed the data and should be complete in the very near future, and one has not yet indicated where they stand in the review process. Mike V • Talk 11:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, with regard to the deletion and restoration of the voting data, I am inferring from what you are saying that the backup was made sometime in the hour after voting ended, so no votes were lost. Is that correct? Neutron (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutron: Sorry, let me 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. Mike V • Talk 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Neutron (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When looking through the voter log alphabetically I noticed that both Dusti and Ignocrates appear to have two valid votes (each of them have two non-grey votes); apparently when they voted the second time the system did not invalidate their first votes. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just exported them all and will list on a subpage in a moment, there may have been a glitch which will require manual striking by the scutineers. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: Thanks for pointing that out. We will look into it. Mike V • Talk 02:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, same results. All multi-voters are listed here Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Coordination/multivoters along with the current SecurePoll status of their vote, double votes have been manually tagged. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - I re-voted due to the drop-outs, not in an attempt to actually vote twice. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dusti we are currently assuming this was a technical glitch, your LAST vote should be the one that counts. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I waited for Harold to drop out and re-voted. Sorry that caused a problem. Ignocrates (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, all of the duplicate votes have been struck from the record. No malicious intent was assumed. Mike V • Talk 23:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but when I look at the "multivoters" list it appears that for both Dusti and Ignocrates, their FIRST vote is "accepted" and their LAST (second) vote is marked "Double Vote", which I assume means it has been stricken. Shouldn't the second vote be the "accepted" one in each case? Or am I missing something? Neutron (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the table, Xaosflux just identified the original vote as the "accepted" vote and used "double vote" to indicate that the original ("accepted") vote wasn't struck by the SecurePoll software. Don't worry though, the most recent vote of all the duplicate voters was counted and the prior votes were struck. Mike V • Talk 17:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just checking. Neutron (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, that was just a picture in time to show the errors and check for others; the live results (link in the header template) show the correct striking now, the LAST entered vote is now accepted for those two. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note that while I know that the scrutineers have made sure to go through and manually strike the past votes we are tracking this so that we can try and figure out the underlying bug involved. Added tracked template. Jalexander--WMF 03:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]