Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009

Eligibility to vote

There was a discussion above regarding how to handle situations in which an editor who would otherwise be eligible to vote is prevented from doing so based on how technical eligibility is determined (per account). It appears to have been resolved above that there should be a process to handle these situations, but I'm not sure where (or if) such a process has been detailed. Should editors, under these circumstances, contact one of the scrutineers directly? Thanks in advance. jæs (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Put a note here and someone will get in contact with you (if this is an actual issue and not just hypothetical). MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, that question has not been settled yet. For the time being, we are operating on the assumption that it is technically impossible for an eligible account to vote using the SecurePoll mechanism. The scrutineers should ideally have as little contact as possible with the electorate so as not to compromise their independence and impartiality. I expect that if an editor can demonstrate convincingly why they ought to be able to vote with an ineligible account, and willing to have their vote publicly known, it will be easy to add their votes on to the final tally (the "postal vote" idea proposed by John Vandenberg above). This could be done by appending them to the on-wik voter log. If the voter wants more privacy (in terms of their accounts and/or in terms of their vote), it will be more complicated. I suggest the election administrators, who have been cleared to handle private data, be the ones to deal with these editors. Note that these comments are speculative, not authoritative.  Skomorokh  02:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that all votes should remain private. How's this for a process.

We pull together a few folk and call them postal vote officers.

During the election:

1. Postal voters send their ballot via emailspecial:emailuser to any one of the postal vote officers.
2. The postal voter notes on a public page that they have submitted a postal vote, and to whom.
3. The postal vote officer then either accepts or rejects it publicly, including the Message Id and date (with the tz stripped).

At the end of the election:

1. The postal vote officer sends each postal vote to the scrutineers individually with the postal voter cc'd.
2. The postal voter then notes publicly that their vote has been received by the scrutineers in the original form.
3. The scrutineers check that the message id is the same as is publicly listed.

If the voter wants to amend their vote, the same process is followed, with the public message id and date amended. This process does not prevent the ballot being amended after the election closes if voter and postal vote officer collude together, but ... to what end? The postal vote collection ends before the results are known.

If a voter doesnt like the officers available, the scrutineers can ask for a few more to sign up. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am in a position in which I (as an editor) am qualified to vote (although my account does not meet the technical criteria). For what I imagine are somewhat obvious reasons, I would prefer to not disclose the details further here, but would privately provide the appropriate details to a scrutineer, an election administrator, or a (as proposed) postal vote officer once it's determined which of those three groups of individuals I ought to contact. jæs (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The thrust of John's scheme is good; I'll grant the desirability of keeping postal and Securepoll votes equally private. I wonder how the officers are supposed to authenticate the claims of identity though, given the absence of WP email accounts. Secondly, there has been justified mutterings about the different and opaque hats we have going already – scrutineer, election administrator, coordinator – so it would be best if the postal vote officer was folded into one of the existing roles. Given that coordinators are not necessarily foundation-cleared for private info, and scrutineers have another job to do, I suggest the election administrators take on the task (we can appoint more if the workload gets too heavy).  Skomorokh  05:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point about identity, however step 2 helps to ensure that the postal vote is authentic. However to be sure to be sure, the emails should be sent via special:emailuser. I've amended the proposal above.

The ballot is "self-disclosed" information, so I dont think clearance for "private" information is strictly necessary, but I'll leave that decision to the good folk running the show. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suggest that the voter log be used to file the on-wiki paperwork as detailed in steps 2, 3 and 2 (again).  Skomorokh  05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Among the coordinators, it is probably worth noting that Tznaki, myself, Jpgordon, and Alison are all cleared with the Foundation for private information per m:Identification noticeboard and additionally Tiptoety is cleared with the Foundation for OTRS-level information. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you spell it that way, I sound delicious. I'm also got an extra hat on as one of the three election administrators. The other two are Mr.Z-man, Happy-melon, both also Oversighters.--Tznkai (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems as if we have the volunteers and the process to pull this off. Shall we implement it? That would involve adding formal instructions somewhere official, notifying the election officials, and possibly amending some SecurePoll text.  Skomorokh  05:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The "postal vote officer" role will be assumed by the existing group of election administrators? jæs (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to sort this out soon. Does anyone know whether it's going to happen? I've just posted a query on the talk page of Election Administrator Mr.Z-man, since he raised the matter in the "Mechanics" section below. Tony (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to call this as closed unless we see movement on it today; matters like this should really be settled before the election.  Skomorokh  10:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify? The process seems to be simple enough, unless I have misunderstood the discussion here. I have been waiting on some update here so that I could (hopefully) vote. Is there some technical barrier to the postal voter procedure as it is described above (and as it was integrated into the overall process in the "mechanics" discussion that has apparently since been archived)? Put more simply, is there some reason this cannot be done, beyond the lack of further response here? jæs (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not being implemented because there is neither the demand, the consensus nor the volunteers to make it happen. Please do join the discussion on the feedback page though.  Skomorokh  16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Advertising and promotion

This is not getting a great deal of publicity and the more voters the merrier! There's a list somewhere of where this was announced for the initial burst; the same venues should probably be visited again this weekend with a second round of announcements ("One week left to decide"?). A final round, say next Friday ("Urgent! Only two days to go"?), would probably not go amiss.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Forgive the unashamedly popularist tone.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is true; I announced the opening of the voting stage only on WP:AN, WP:VPM and WP:AC/N, and it was declared in the watchlist notice. Ideas for further venues welcome.  Skomorokh  13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Swap out the fundraising banner for a notice about the election? :P Cirt (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

On the talk pages of major wikiprojects? Milhist, biography, etc? They have a lot of exposure and it might encourage participation from content contributors. It should be easy to make a list of the most hit/watchlisted pages (perhaps ask here?) and run announcements on them.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Really??? It's at the top of everyone's watchlist, for a start. And it's not urgent that people vote, either. I expect a lot of people, like myself, have chosen not to vote because of the shameful secret process which this election is using. Please don't spam it anywhere else. It was bad enough during the AUSC election; Wikiproject talk page are absolutely not the place to post messages begging people to vote, especially when they are probably already aware. Majorly talk 15:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously sugesting that the tens of thousands of editors who have not voted in past elections are deliberately boycotting this one? In fact, voting seems to be up on last year but let's encourage everyone to participate.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think posting at Wikiprojects would invite controversy. Why did you post at that project, but not this one? Are you trying to give those voters more clout? You're best to stay out of that quagmire. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I'm not sure how large a fraction of editors participate actively in Wikiprojects anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's already in the best place of all: the watchlist notice. Well, second best after the Main Page. (I don't quite understand why it is in the "Watchlist options" frame, though, at leat in the "Modern" skin). But maybe we should move the election to a time when there are no fundraisers competing for attention. — Kusma ^talk 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be at the top of watchlists like it was last year. I don't know what others are seeing, maybe I am misunderstanding, but I just looked and just the ugly donation banner is on mine, hidden of course but read. :) I don't think editors are boycotting this year. I think though that a lot are learning about some of the editors running this year. I for one don't know quite a few of them. But I will be voting. May I ask, if an editor is blocked now but will be unblocked just before the expiration of this election do they get to vote? I remember a discussion here about this and thought that if an editor was blocked prior to election they were ineligible. Just curious, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with reminders at critical high-traffic places; but not yet—we're only at Day 5 of 14. It's surprising but true that many people do not see watchlist notices—I've even received complaints from people who said they were not told about an RfC that was notified at the top of watchlists. Tony (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon is called banner blindness. rspεεr (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so. Too much crappola is advertised on the watchlist notices. I've turned mine off to eliminate the clutter. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting a notice at Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board is another option. -- œ^™ 21:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We should post there, indeed. Cenarium (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Added there and to cent. Cenarium (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• It may be useful to have a template displayed on all main wikiproject pages, and on all main talk wikiproject pages. It could display announcements. Of course, it'll be easier to advertize when we'll have talknotices. Cenarium (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've posted a reminder at WP:VPM, WP:AN, and WP:ANI.  Skomorokh  09:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• I've just done the rounds of the major WikiProjects, FAC, FLC, MoS, etc. Tony (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, really? I honestly think the admin noticeboards/village pump are enough. Wikiproject talk pages and the talk page of bureaucrats? Really? And it's still not going to make me want to vote any more. Majorly talk 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We should throw out a final reminder with 48 hours to go.  Skomorokh  10:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we really electing people for two year terms?

Jimbo Wales has stated that he intends to appoint some people to 2-year terms and some people to 1-year terms. I believe that this contradicts not only what is said on the voting page, but also community consensus. It certainly means that Jimbo's role is not "purely ceremonial". I don't believe he should be making this decision, so I won't change what is said on the election page, but I am no longer sure that the election page correctly describes the process. Some more discussion is at User talk:Jimbo Wales#ArbCom elections. — Kusma ^talk 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's clear that the term length decided at the RfC is two years; but whether that means that people are elected into unfinished terms (i.e., two-year tranches that expire the next year) to keep the elections balanced, or everyone gets two years regardless of the current composition of the committee is considerably less clear: very few people opined on the topic, and most people unarguably didn't consider that aspect of things when selecting term length. I does mean (if he goes through with this) that the committee election next year will be (more) balanced and we get a whole year to work it out. — Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The community's opinion was robust for two-year terms. There was nothing about unfinished terms or transitions, or dividing candidates into one-year and two-year tranches. Two years looks like two years, to me. And the 2.1% vote for the "Jimbo decides" is conclusive. The graph below show percentages along its y-axis. [Forgot to sign yesterday Tony (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)]

Haven't previously been involved, but I'm intruiged by the lack of an option in that graph for term length (1,2, or 3 years) to be scaled by support levels, per last years announcement. It seems to make sense that if someone gets (say) 90% support, it would be good for the project if they don't have to worry about campaigning again for longer. Likewise, it is good if someone who can only garner (say) 60% support gets a review (via an election) after a single year. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after a bit of reading, the listed options conflated 'Jimbo decides' with 'flexible duration' - without separating those two unrelated aspects from the outset, (or someone coming along and suggesting it before many 'votes' were cast, the idea of rule-based scaling of duration was never going to get support. For next year, when the question on duration is posed, I hope rule-driven-scaled-duration terms of 1,2,3 years is offered as an option. Given their being no 'electorates' or 'wards' involved, there should be no issue with needing to mesh to existing terms. Seats just come up as terms expire or whatever. It might be necessary to, rather than just set percentages, set a maximum number to be elected for 3 years, just incase too many break through (say) 90%.

I'm dumping this now 'cos not sure I'll be around next year. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be around next year :P

I hope that we do have another RFC, and that it is improved due to both the previous RFC and the outcome of this election.

We live and learn. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

←As Carcharoth has pointed out, baseline oscillation is inevitable from first-year attrition. I have come to accept Jimbo's observation that two tranches will be necessary for this election to minimise future baseline oscillation. Unless tranches are used, we will have an ongoing 13–5–13–5 oscillation. To this end, Jimbo has proposed that of the nine successful candidates in this election, 4 should take up one-year terms and 5 should take up two-year terms. This would produce a baseline oscillation of 9–9–9–9 (i.e., provided there are no early departures)-.

To take what John Vandenberg has said, yes, inevitably we need to officially write into the process the simple arithmetic that Jimbo has done on the back of an envelope. It's striking that the oscillation, and how it needs to be smoothed out, featured in neither the RfC we had on two-year terms nor the late-starting question on tranches. Unless the community decides it doesn't mind huge swings in vacancies from year to year, every election will need to manage the oscillation arising from first-year departures of arbs. All we need to do is work out the formula and express it.

Jimbo has, in effect, asked at least three fundamental questions to determine the electoral outcome:

1. "How many arbs do I want on the Committee?"
2. "How many candidates do I appoint to each tranche to minimise the future baseline oscillations?", and
3. "Whom do I appoint to which tranche?"

The first question has now been settled in favour of continuing the 18-strong membership Jimbo decided on last year. The second question is largely unchanged, except that we need to express the arithmetic officially, and for only one- and two-year tranches, not one-, two- and three-year tranches. WRT the third question, Jimbo's practice (last year totally, I think, except for Stephen Bain?) has been to appoint those with the strongest vote to the longer-term tranch(es); I recall he has recently said this will be the intention for the current election.

So, here are the three magic rules I believe Jimbo is using for the current election, which we need to write into the new ArbCom policy so they work automatically:

The three rules

1. The number of seats vacant at each election will be that required to bring the number of members to 18.
2. These vacancies will be divided into two tranches: two-year seats and one-year seats. The number of one-year seats will be equal to the number of members whose terms expire at the end of the following year and who have departed from the Committee since the previous election.
3. The candidates with the strongest votes will be allocated to the two-year tranche; the candidates with the next strongest votes will be allocated to the one-year tranche.

Rule 2 will operate for this election thus: four one-year seats are required to balance the departure of four arbs whose terms were to expire at the end of 2010: Deskana, FT2, Sam Blacketer and John Vandenberg. Casliber's departure does not need to be balanced by a one-year arb term, since his term—on the old three-year system—went to the end of 2011 and can be taken up by a two-year arb. This is the only "transitional" element of the tranches. I have updated the chart of arb terms by inserting a blank row for Deskana this and next year (the 18th arb last year, who resigned almost immediately), moving John Vandenberg up to Tranche Alpha, where he should have been placed originally, and adding the two new tranches (grey colour).

Beyond this, there is a possibility that Jimbo will invoke his 50% minimum support–oppose ranking to either appoint fewer than nine candidates—thus going against the community's decision that there be 18 arbs, or to partially go against the election result by making appointments of people who did not stand in this election. These scenarios are likely to be deeply controversial, and I remind users that the form of the election is determined by the community, as a matter of policy. Tony (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, Jimbo stated that if he doesn't have enough candidates over 50% to plug all the holes, he'll consult with the community so that we can all figure out what to do next. For all we know, the result could be that the 50% is scrapped once we see what the actual effects of secret ballots was, that we hold another election, that we "make due" with a slightly smaller committee, or that we find some other way to fill the seats.

I would also expect the answer is likely to be different depending on how close we are to filling all the seats — obviously one empty seat does not have the same impact as ten and would not be dealt in the same way. — Coren ^(talk) 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see some year-on-year variation as particularly troubling. If candidates are appointed for terms based on levels-of-consent (rather than fixed numbers for fixed durations), then any occilation will work itself out. Capping the number of 3-year terms, and setting a reasonable consent-threshold for a two-year term, will ensure there are at least some seats up for election each year. What does it really matter if the number wobbles around a bit? ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Some wobbling is inevitable, if only because of attrition. What worries some people is the possibility that 15 out of 18 seats end up open during one election because of that effect; which is downright likely unless some effort is made to rebalance at interval. — Coren ^(talk) 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would that be such a bad thing? If there is a 'continuity concern' then that should be shared by the community, and will cause an increased number of votes to go to sitting members. If elections cannot generate enough candidates getting (say) 50% support, because the candidates are so unelectable, then a new elections to fill the empty seats with a more public call for candidates is rightly in order. If 15 seats come up, (because very few achieved the 2-year confidence threshold last time, or only 3 seats came up last time, and 3-yearers are expiring) and 15 candidates meet the 1Y+ threshold, where's the problem. One could also argue that a better chance of success will encourage more candidates to run. Realistically, no matter what the algorithm, a mass-resignation is probably the more likely cause of such a situation arising, especially if there is scope for a capped number of pre-determined 3-year terms for any highly-approved (say 85%+) candidates. (NB: please excuse that I haven't been following ArbCom ellection stuff previously, so likely somewhat ignorant) ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad thing because of the enormous amount of time it takes for an arbitrator to get up to speed on all ongoing cases, clarifications, restrictions, amendments; many of which will return in the few months after they were passed. It takes time too for members to learn to communicate effectively with each other and forge consensus efficiently. These are practical human issues rather than anything else.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[Multiple edit conflicts] Yes; Coren and Roger took the words out of my mouth. Without one- and two-year tranches in this election we'll end up with 5 vacancies next year and 13 the year after. If two arbs whose terms expire in 2012 leave during 2011, there would indeed be 15 vacancies. That's a little shaky: you'd rely on the standing and re-election of a few expiring members, and three experienced mentors in the three continuing members.

Jaymax, what you refer to as "50% support" is not written into policy and has never received community consensus. Because SecurePoll makes it easy for people to cast votes for all candidates, it is likely to significantly increase the incidence of "oppose" votes. Opposes increase the value of a voter's Supports by reducing the relative scores of the other candidates. Because many voters can see this, the ease and privacy with which they can click on the oppose buttons will suppress the support–oppose scores compared with those in other elections. As an artefact of the voting mechanism—not an undesirable one, in my view—we should be prepared for much lower scores. They will not necessarily mean voters are disenchanted with the overall candidacy this year, and I will be putting the case that the nine candidates with the highest percentage scores should be considered elected by default. Establishing boundaries, whether 50% or otherwise, would assume that the notion of community support could be extracted from a single figure. But that figure will, in reality, be the product of support and artefacts of the voting-system; the real notion of "support" cannot be ascertained by comparing numbers with arbitrary benchmarks. The election is simply competitive on the numbers, not a series of qualitative judgements against an arbitrary benchmark. Tony (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation

There doesn't seem to be any way to confirm that you voted the way you intended after casting your vote. Any chance this could be fixed for upcoming elections? Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a question for the developers. A proposal to be able to revisit your ballot after voting and see the choices you made was rejected this year on the grounds of time constraints.  Skomorokh  07:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to add to Skomorokh's response, you may wish to raise this at the Feedback page, where improvements for the 2010 election are being proposed and discussed. Tony (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful to know. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes for Secret

Are votes for the withdrawn candidate Secret still recorded? Hiding T 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• By which I mean, are votes cast after Secret's withdrawal still recorded? Hiding T 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • From what I read at another place (probably a few sections up), it's impossible to remove a candidate from the SecretPoll extension, so I'd speculate that it's likely that the votes are still recorded since you can still vote for him. It would be strange if the recording could be turned off but the candidate itself not... Regards SoWhy 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The votes are still recorded, if someone ignores the strike through his name. It seems not to matter, though. The votes for Secret will probably not be included in the announcement. Tony (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Secret has recorded a desire to know the votes, so what would the position be regarding that? Will they be released publicly, will the information be known only to: the administrators; the administrators and the scrutineers; the administrators and whoever they see fit to share it with, for example the candidate? Disclosure: I'm asking in capacity as a Signpost editor. Hiding T 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Just an opinion, but once the withdrawl, I'd think the votes for that candidate are now skewed beyond any real usefulness. Do people oppose the struck out candidate? Do people who would have opposed abstain on the struck name, while wikifriends vote moral support? Not sure on ballance which way it would swing, but you have to say it's a major change in the voting pattern. No real opinion on if the numbers should be released for the curious, but I don't think any meaning can accurately be determined from them.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree the votes saved after a withdrawal are meaningless. But the vote admins/scrutineers can check the votes at the time of withdrawal and publish or inform Secret about them if desired. Cenarium (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
            • The results are inaccessible until the election ends. Mr.Z-man 19:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
              • But is it not possible to check the votes at a certain time after the elections ? Cenarium (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
                • I don't believe so, if it were, one might be able to use that to determine how users voted. Mr.Z-man 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
                  • Concur with Mr.Z-man: I regret that it would be quite inappropriate to go releasing any tallies before the scrutineers do their job after 14 December. Tony (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Just for clarification purposes, this is my understanding of how this is going to work: After the election closes the scrutineers are going to scrutinize the results. After they are done the tallies are going to be released, and then Jimbo will make an official announcement. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That is my understanding also. This is the tally from last year, this is what the announcement of tallies for the Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (dear God we have created a monster) October 2009 elections (the first English Wikipedia elections in which SecurePoll was used) looked like. Jimbo's announcement from last year.  Skomorokh  14:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

election turnout

Following up from the discussion #24 hours down (archived), I have compiled a list of voters in the 2008 election, and some stats on ballot usage. According to my log there were 984 voters, and a staggering 224 voters (23%) only voted for or against one candidate. (e.g. 19 voters only appear on the Kmweber vote page.) All of the 2008 candidates received a "neutral" vote from at least half of the voters.

As I write this, there are 757 voters in the 2009 election (3/4 of the number of voters in 2008). Due to the use of private ballots this year, we can't see whether these voters are making effective use of their ballot. We will have a better idea when we learn how many "neutral" votes each candidate has. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting figures, John. That 224 single vote figure suggests that for many people elections are entirely personality driven.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The one-person pattern is extraordinary. It may be indicative of a personal motive among some users, but I suggest that the sheer size of the task of "scroll down and vote" under the old manual system was also at play.

I predict the following for the 2009 election:

1. Casting votes for the entire field will be the norm (or at least a vote for most candidates). "Neutral" will be more likely to be a deliberate choice than a result of voter fatigue, although that will, of course, be beyond analysis).
2. There will be a significant increase in the average proportion of opposes, and thus in the so-called "support percentages". This will be because:

(a) voters are now free to oppose in private, whereas under the old system it was pscyhologically and socially easier not to enter a vote for candidates one did not significantly object to; and

(b) the "click the buttom" system now makes it relatively easy to enter votes for all candidates—many voters probably realised all along that their support votes are more powerful if they actively oppose all candidates they didn't support, but up until last year's poll couldn't face the arduous task of registering opposes to implement such a strategy.

In my view, the privacy and convenience of SecurePoll will deliver a more accurate reflection of community opinion than was ever possible under the manual system. On the matter of the plus–minus calculation of voting strength for each candidate (erroneously referred to as "support %" and better termed "support–oppose score"), we should prepare ourselves for much lower scores and stop treating them like the percentages delivered by other voting systems, notably those used for real-world elections. There is nothing magical about a support–oppose score of 50, or 60 for that matter. Perhaps we should seriously consider dispensing once and for all with the notion of minimum required scores if the support–oppose voting system is retained next year. Tony (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We won't know any of this until after the current vote ends. I am aware that in this election there are people who have voted for or against one candidate and against or for all others to maximize the effect of their vote. One can argue that the present method makes it easier to cast "bullet" votes like this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we've got quite a mess on our hands (particularly since the desired higher turnout hasn't been realized as of yet). Securepoll means voters don't necessarily read other voters reasons for opposing or supporting, so the candidates might not be getting full scrutiny; discussion of candidates on discussion pages is certainly way down. Add to that the number of new variables introduced all at once, and we could end up with a large (18) unwieldy arbcom comprised of marginal candidates. Add to that some of the issues we already see on arbcom this year, where the committee seems to have a hard time deciding simple cases, and next year doesn't look promising. We may regret having made so many changes at once, and I'd not want to be in Jimbo's shoes, having to sort the results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So with 4+ days left of voting, we have as many voters as last year (if one discounts users who only voted on one candidate last year). Seems to disprove the idea of a mass protest against private balloting. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 14:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC) yes, I acknowledge the fact that you can look at the same numbers and say there is such a protest, but I discount single-candidate voters last year, as they only dropped by to support a friend or oppose someone they've clashed with. We won't actually know if people this year only voted to support or oppose one candidate til we break down votes after, but for now I'm sticking with my point

Sandy, we have a long wiki-friendship, but I couldn't disagree with you more, on all counts.

First, it is important to discourage the kind of herd voting I myself have had to resist when short of time, say, at RfA. I don't want to be able to look down a list and see how people I know (and trust) have voted; I want to be forced to make my own decisions.

Second, there is ample opportunity (almost an embarrassment of riches) for voters to make comments. We have fallen over backwards to make it easy to view discussions in relation to each voter, and comments on the vote pages were banned last year anyway, weren't they?

Third, there are so many questions and responses, it's a big task to read them all. I do think they could be more targeted and succinct, but we can hardly complain that there's a paucity of information.

Fourth, I find the disparagement of the candidates as a whole ("marginal") to be unhelpful. I was surprised to find it relatively easy to identify at least nine candidates who were worth supporting. You have a perfect right to emphasise their track-record in content writing, but I do not agree that it should be the sole criterion, or even the most important one. (I find that some people with a "strong" record in content writing, FAs, GAs etc, do not write all that well, and have little idea of how to write judicial text. Yes, it's important that arbs have experience of engagement with article writing, but that is just one matter.)

Fifth, I am optimistic that ArbCom will continue to push through reforms in its process that will make poor judgements, long-winded bloat on hearings pages, obscenely long delays, and other unfortunate occurrences less likely. Please give them a chance: it is a very difficult job being an arb, and we don't hear the half of it.

Sixth, eighteen arbs spread around ArbCom's diverse responsibilities and allowing for time off does not seem to be too many. Perhaps I'll be proved wrong. Tony (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys (and gals) - it is too late to discuss this year's mechanisms, and premature to analyse their results and the implications for the future. Can I suggest dropping it until we get the outcome announced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Even if the turnout ends up being lower this year, there would be no way to say it was because of the voting system. There are other differences between last year and this, e.g. lower overall interest in the election. Last year there was high interest in the election starting early in the fall, with much speculation about who was running, even a page with possible candidates that was updated as people announced they were planning to run or not planning to run, long before the nominations opened. This high level of interest continued throughout the nomination and voting period. This year I've been struck by the relative apathy surrounding the election both before and during, in the community as a whole and even in the seeming lack of eagerness on the part of candidates to show up and run. I think it would be a great mistake to attribute any change in voter turnout to the election system, when this year's election differs in other aspects as well. Woonpton (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apathy is a good point. It's the best compliment possible for the current Arbcom. I hope this is not a pork cycle. Hans Adler 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the last couple of comments. I don't think I even remembered to vote in last year's elections, but I know there definitely was a lot of dissatisfaction with ArbCom, so high interest in the election would not have been surprising. While certainly one can (and many do) complain about the 2009 ArbCom, overall I think it has been viewed more positively by a higher percentage of active editors who follow such things. Also it's worth pointing out that overall participation on the site is arguably down of late (including, I believe, in places like RfA and the administrator noticeboards, both of which see participation from the kind of editors most likely to vote in elections), so if turnout in this election is not all that some hoped for it will be difficult to ascribe it to any one factor, be it electoral mechanics or anything else. But as Scott noted it's somewhat moot to discuss any of these issues while the vote is ongoing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

By my count, Ysangkok (talk · contribs) is the 984th voter, with two hours to go. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I should have acted earlier, but having taken the time to consider my votes and having pressed the vote button with a minute to spare, it was more than a little galling to have the processing take ages and SecurePoll ultimately respond with "you can no longer vote, the election is now closed" (or some such). If SecurePoll gets backlogged or slow, wouldn't sensible planning dictate closing the election at 00:01 on 15 December - exactly 14 days after voting opened - rather than two minutes earlier? EdChem (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, honestly, it's not that different from having gotten an e/c in the old format pushing your timestamp past the finish line. I'm sure it's frustrating, but it's dubious that anything can be done about it. — Coren ^(talk) 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think more trouble would have come from ending at 0001 on the 15th. We'd have people straggle in all day on the 15th asking why they can't vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get that confusion. There is a whole minute between the end of 23:59 and the start of 00:01 on the next day, that minute is labeled 00:00 and is the first of the day. A period of time that includes an entire day ends as the minute rolls from 23:59 to 00:00. — Coren ^(talk) 01:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A few points to consider in response to the above comments...

1. Starting an election at 00:01 day 1 and finishing it at 23:59 day 14 makes it less than 14 days long - either starting at 23:59 day 0 or ending at 00:01 day 15 is necessary for a 14 day election period. This inconsistency should be corrected for future elections. It might seem to be a technical point, but had the 00:01 times been used consistently I would not have been disenfranchised by the inadequacy / backlog built into SecurePoll.
2. Under the old system, an edit conflict could have interfered with voting on a single candidate only rather than on every candidate - so following Coren's analogy, the new system is twenty-something times worse.
3. The fact that the old system had flaws is in no way a reason for not fixing flaws in the new system.
4. The flaw in this case is akin to someone arriving at a polling station whilst the election is ongoing, receiving his or her ballot paper, filling it out, and then (on going to place her or his ballot into the ballot box) being told the polling station has closed and s/he may not place their ballot into the ballot box. Alternatively, with electronic voting, it is akin to entering the booth and filling in his or her vote on the voting machine, pressing "Save Vote" and the machine responding "Too Late, Bad Luck, Your Vote Won't be Saved / Counted". Can anyone seriously suggest that disenfranchising people inside polling stations who have completed but not lodged their ballots would be acceptable in any genuine democracy?
5. Surely the consequent logic is that the time cut-off should apply to being able to access the voting page rather than completing a vote from that page? This should be addressed for all future elections. The recent AUSC election showed the difference that one vote can make in determining the outcome. Software lags / faults / programming errors should not under any circumstances be allowed to disenfranchise voters.

EdChem (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The template on most election-related pages said: "Voting is open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009."[1] I don't recall seeing anything that said it'd be open until 0:01 UTC on 15 December 2009.   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, there are two issues here. The first is that the election was supposed to be open for 14 days, which 00:01 day 1 to 23:59 day 14 is not. The mathematics of this point are undeniable, and I have already noted two possible fixes. One of those should be adopted for all future elections. Your point about the template raises the second of the issues, and the more serious in that it is the systemic fault that led to my disenfranchisement. I was logged on, had entered my vote in SecurePoll, and had press the vote button all before the voting period ended. My vote was not counted because a lag in the software meant that it took an interminable time for processing, resulting in the software deeming the election closed before the processing was complete. The backlog / software lag / processing problem / programming error / whatever it was was beyond my control - it was akin to removing the ballot box as the paper ballot had left the electors hand and was moving under gravity through the slot. If a voter can be disenfranchised in this way then the message template was factually inaccurate, and should have read something to the effect that "Voting is open for all ballots completely processed by the software by 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009; since software lags, backlogs, etc, are unpredictable, this means you have until sometime near that time (likely a few minutes before that time, though precisely how close to it cannot be predicted) to lodge your ballot." I don't recall any notification that votes lodged by the deadline but not processed by the software would be rejected, and such should not have occurred and most emphatically should not be allowed to recur in any future election. EdChem (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if the cut-off time is based on when the user opens the page, there still needs to be some reasonable time limit on submitting it. We shouldn't let people hold up the election by keeping their browser open to the ballot for a day after the election ends because they waited until the last second to even review the candidates. To continue with the physical polling place analogy though, if you know that voting ends at a 8 PM and it takes you 10 minutes to get there, you should leave before 7:50:00 in case there's some sort of slight delay in getting there. I would disagree that you were really disfranchised. You were not prevented from voting during the 20158 minutes the election was open, you chose not to vote during that time. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man, I agree that some time limit would be needed on completing the vote after begining the voting process. I assure you that I did lodge my vote - before the voting period closed - within any reasonable time limit from begining the voting process. As regards the physical polling place analogy, I am not talking about arriving at the polling place after it had closed, which would indeed be a valid basis for refusing to issue a ballot paper. I am not even talking about being in a queue at the polling station at the closing of the polls, a situation where polling stations are routinely ordered to stay open in governmental elections. No, my situation is akin to arriving, having obtained and completed one's ballot, and being in the process of lodging that vote when the ballot box is summarily removed. Though I cannot prove it with any log, I assure you that the election was still open (though in its dying stages) when I pessed the "Vote" button. I was indeed disenfranchised, my vote was chewed up and destroyed by the software - either as a consequence of a lag, processing error, programming fault, or some other cause. I did vote during the however many minutes were available, albeit very late in the process, and my vote should have been incuded and counted. EdChem (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to go is in future years have the actual time of the close of the vote be a minute or two later than the announced time. There's no perfect solution. But that might avoid incident like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt - that is another practical alternative that would address the problem going forward. EdChem (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In my case, I came to the voting form, then progressively worked down the list, spending probably 5-10 minutes on average on each candidate, then clicking my option, etc. So I was 'inside the polling booth' a full couple of hours before 'inserting my ballot'. I would suggest a hard cut-off, a script timer to assist where browsers support it on the last day, and active voting buttons, rather than radio-buttons + submit, so any click registers immediatly right up to the cutoff time.

Also, taling in whole minutes here is misleading - when someone says 23:59, do they mean 23:59:00.0, or 23:59:59.9 ?

‒ Jaymax✍ 10:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

NB:which is just a more precise version of the 14th, 15th 'which end of the day did you mean?' issue. I would argue that by the time you're down to a tenth of a second, it doesn't matter if the poll closes at 14th 23:59:59.9, and it's given as 15th 00:00 in publicity. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

when will it end

According to Special:SecurePoll this election ends at "2009-12-14T00:00:00", however Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Menu says it finishes at the end of the 14th ("23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009"). Something looks wrong. My apologies if this has been raised already and it isn't actually a problem. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to avoid 00:00 times and straighten out the software wrinkles next year, yeah. Let's say for safety's sake that it ends at the time it ended last year, which would seem to be just after December 14th rather than right before.  Skomorokh  11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts this might be a problem if Securepoll actually rejects votes after Dec 13th.  Skomorokh  11:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The community was informed that voting would be open for 14 days. If it started at midnight beginning of 1 December, I guess it should close midnight (or 23:59) end of 14 December. Does this mean Tim will need to be pressed into service? I'd hoped to minimise our further call on him, but it may be necessary. Tony (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most likely. I've left messages for Mr.Z-man and Tznkai (election administrators) asking if they can change it themselves, but I doubt they can.  Skomorokh  12:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is something that Tim would need to change. Mr.Z-man 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've pinged him on IRC though he is away right now. Will email later if no response is forthcoming.  Skomorokh  09:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim deserves a picture of chocolates/flowers at the end of this. He really is very good at making things work, and we are lucky to have him. Tony (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No word yet. I am going to post the announcement with midnight tonight as the provisional close of voting.  Skomorokh  12:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The infobox on the project page here could do with an update, even if just to "Voting is open until 00:00 14 December 2009" to avoid too many more people thinking they've got more time that they actually might. ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Already seen to. Officially, we are still closing on 14 Dec; will update with an exact time once I have one.  Skomorokh  13:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so long as the exact time is quickly forthcoming. 'Officially', if I read "Voting is open until 14 December 2009.", I would officially assume it officially meant I could vote on the 14th at times other than 00:00:00.0  :-) ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That, amigo would be a conclusion underdetermined by its premises. Nor is the exact time is likely to be quickly forthcoming; but it's better to be vague than outright speculative. Thankfully we are neither a bureaucracy nor a democracy, so if some johnny-come-lately's turn up and can't get a ballot, we work with what we have, chalk the rest up to bad planning, and prepare to do better next year.  Skomorokh  14:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for the mixup everyone. Tim set things pretty much exactly as I had requested them and I interpreted "until 14 December" as meaning "voting stops once we reach that date" and I gave the ending time accordingly. — Coren ^(talk) 15:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Crisis averted

I am glad to report that Happy-melon and MZMcBride have managed to track down on IRC another sysadmin (Roan Kattouw), who has amended the closing time to 23:59 UTC as initially planned.  Skomorokh  20:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Participation

Could someone do a last-minute push for voter participation, including a mention that people can change their votes? I've never seen an arbcom election with less discussion or apparent interest from the community. No big essays, just a short and to-the-point reminder. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

See above; I'm planning on making a last round of announcements, but we have to wait until the time that voting is scheduled to close is clarified. Do you have any suggestions where to post?  Skomorokh  14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your job. ;-) Seriously, though, that's a tough question. People have learned to ignore banners and only a minority follow the village pump, etc. Maybe scatter it around a few highly visible places like WP:ACN, the dramaboards, etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, please see my contribs list for 8 December, when I posted the last message; but you might be a little more selective this time—up to you, of course. Tony (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like contaminating the exopedians with politics, so have restricted postings to non-content fora: Wikipedia talk:Elections, the administrator and arbitrator dramaboards, all four village pumps, talkpages for the help and reference desks, and the mother of all flytraps for opinionated metapedes, WT:RFA. The announcement includes the ambiguity of the end date and a promise to update as soon as the situation is settled, so if I am not around later and word comes from Tim Starling, it would greatly alleviate uncertainty if someone would amend the announcement with the solid info. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  13:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 135 potential voters here. They all voted on at least six candidates in the 2008 election. I've been waiting for clarity on the end of the election before bugging them, but it is probably more important to bug them given the election might end sooner than previously announced. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way the end date falls, time is running out, especially if as I suspect most of those potential voters are at reduced activity. Are you ok to notify them yourself or do you need a bot/AWB to lend a hand? While we are on the topic, my bot request to check the editors of this year's vote comments pages against the voter log was not picked up, but I've noticed a few commenters not on the log, so there are few more there if you're up to the task.  Skomorokh  14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, notification would be very very good, John. Please do it if you can manage. If the worst comes to the worst, we still have almost 10 hours. Tony (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Tim Starling will be asleep by now, but probably up well before the deadline. Tony (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sk. I'd have preferred you include a mention that people can change their votes as many seem unaware of this. But anything that increases turnout is good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I included that in the last announcement, but have been trying to cut them down so that I'm not telling the same people the same thing four times, training them to ignore the message. There's been a small, but noticeable increase in voters since though.  Skomorokh  16:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Skomorokh, and any other users who involved themselves in helping with the changes to the watchlist banner, and in the last minute announcement (without both, some of my last-minute votes would not have been revised in time). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've copied Skomorokh's message with a brief addition about changing your vote to 4 places I participate in on occasion specifically Wikipedia talk:In the news, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia and Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board signing it under my own name of course. A bit late but there's still time and I may have already got one vote. Anyone who's a participant in an area where they feel the message would be welcome but it isn't already present may want to do likewise particularly if they aren't a part of the coordination team Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving?

I archived all the requests for participation that I posted mentioned above and also the one posted by Skomorokh to WT:RD where I'm a regular participant. It occured to me that it may be best to do likewise in the other places it was posted particularly if there's no ongoing discussion since the message is obviously now of no use but I'll leave that up to other people Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sort order on the ballot

Hello! I understand the reasoning for not using alphabetical order on the ballot, but it would be nice if the table had cute sort arrows for those who do want to sort themselves. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We're sorry sir, but all your developer free talk time minutes have expired for this year. Please leave a message and we'll get back to you say, November. Seriously though, you're likely to have more luck on MediaWiki/bugzilla; ACE is the customer, not the product.  Skomorokh  16:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reporting ineligible votes

Where are ineligible votes reported? I believe User:Mr. Hicks The III is one, as a now-blocked sock of User:NoCal100 who had already been banned. Mackan79 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, but since it was a secret ballot, how do you know they voted? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Voter log. Steve Smith (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is ban evasion, and I have made a note to that effect in the log.  Skomorokh  05:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple votes listed where?

According to instructions, later votes will supersede earlier ones. I voted early in the election on the candidates I already had an opinion on, and augmented my vote after further research late in the vote. However, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Voter log only shows the time of my first vote. Is this effect known, expected, explainable and harmless? How do I know that my second vote was recorded? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the voter log; the list of votes is at Special:SecurePoll/list/80, which lists your last vote at 20:48, December 13, 2009.  Skomorokh  09:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a useful answer. I seriously suggest we simplify and clarify the system for the next election (if we stay with it). It's quite non-trivial to find all relevant pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, both logs are linked to in the (brief) instructions of the process overleaf. That said, any and all constructive comments and suggestions for next year are very welcome at the feedback page. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  10:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Results?

Moved from WP:ANI. –xeno^talk 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

*sings "I like to move it, move it ..."* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ok why aren't the results published already? i thought the process was automated.  Dr. Loosmark  13:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe they are submitted to the GodKing for his blessing. –xeno^talk 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Automated or not, you still peform validity checks, and what xeno said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "validity checks"?  Dr. Loosmark  14:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Checking that all votes came through, that no bug in the software caused someone to vote twice (or even several times), that there as many different votes as voters, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I was not elected, Cla68 (talk · contribs) finished ninth, and Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) finished somewhere above him. (Source: A dream I had last night) Steve Smith (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, in my dream they released the results and all the vandals fled in fear and all disruptive editors were awestruck into re-reading WP:RULES and following them to the letter, especially WP:CIVILITY. After having 2 months with nothing on the agenda the new arbitration committee declared success and dissolved itself. All was peaceful in the land of wiki. Then I woke up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The raw, unverified numbers ought to be published immediately. This will help prevent the appearance of back channel dealing or manipulation. Subsequent verification may result in disallowance of invalid votes. We should be given both the raw numbers and a list of disallowed votes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that you release raw numbers right away - this isn't voting for the president, and it's much harder to "fix" errors later when online voting is used. Research shows that the chances of problems are actually increased in an online system, so ensuring that the voting process was not compromised is vital before the release of anything. I'd give you raw numbers too, but for crying out loud, relax - don't insist on things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

???

By that I mean, just take the output from SecurePoll and publish it as "preliminary, unverified results". This information need not be kept secret while the checking is done. If there has been some sort of voting problem, it can be explained, and the results can be adjusted. It's not the presidency; why all the cloakery-and-daggery? Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's all a consipracy against you :-P We all know that Jimbo is given access to the numbers first. You want that changed, then wake him up. Process, Mr. Hochman; process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the Fix isn't in yet. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What relax? The community wants to know what is going on with the votes, who is "fixing the errors" and what processes are used to do so.  Dr. Loosmark  14:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And we're impatient, and bored. If there are no results to gossip about, we'll have to do real work. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For "community" read "drama addicts"--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For "Scott MacDonald" read, "administrator who thinks WP:CIVIL applies to everybody except himself." :-P Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the best venue for such commentary. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If the results are published now, and then adjusted later, and that adjustment causes a fall in the rankings of a candidate that makes a difference to their election, then all hell will break loose, and there will be assumptions of conspiracy and manipulation. Plus, the drama of someone's hopes set up and then dashed. Better that the results are scrutinised first by uninvolved people, and then released officially. The unscrutinised results, if of any worth, can be released at the same time. I really can't understand the impatience here, other than the feeling we don't want to wait for the next episode of the soap opera.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

who are these "uninvolved people" and what exactly are they doing?  Dr. Loosmark  14:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's only a billion articles on the issues with online voting, and the processes - how good are you at finding WP:RS's ?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume folks want the results released right away as some kind of bulwark against another fiasco. –xeno^talk 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the rush? Just wait until the info is released. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the discussion. To quickly clarify a few points:

• The tallies have not been released because the scrutineers (listed overleaf) are checking and verifying the votes.
• The tallies will be first announced here.
• Neither Wales nor anyone else other than the scrutineers will have privileged access to unreleased results.
• Things have done in this way because no-one started a discussion on this page to do them otherwise, and the coordinators improvised (see the email sent to the scrutineers yesterday).

Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) It's good to see the excitement, but it's the role of the non-en.WP as scrutineers to monitor the integrity of the election and to certify and announce the results. I believe the announcement will set out the data in tabular form here. We just need to be patient. Tony (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're absolutely dying for up-to-the-minute news, there is an IRC channel for the elections at #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode, with a membership that currently includes candidates, coordinators and a scrutineer.  Skomorokh  14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Skomorokh, you and the other supervisors have done an outstanding job with the election, and you have my full support and gratitude. Will you release the raw results, and a list of the disallowed votes? Since you are improvising, if you will eventually release the raw results, would you consider releasing them now? This would provide an opportunity for members of the community to look for improper voting and notify the scrutineers of any concerns before the final result is certified. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Again I thought the whole process was automated, what exactly does it mean they "monitor the integrity of the election"? Like usual it seems that the community is denied the info of what is going on behind the scenes. [2].  Dr. Loosmark  14:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote auditing

A reminder that the community is encouraged to proactively identify suspicious voting patterns in the now-concluded ACE2009 voting logs, in the same manner as former ArbCom elections. Any suspicious votes should be identified to the scrutineers by noting in the voter log. Inelegible votes come principally from sockpuppets of already-banned users, or instances where a user has vote-stacked by voting from multiple accounts. Final discretion on whether to strike a vote rests with the scrutineers. Happy‑melon 14:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)