Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination

2021 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 07:19 (UTC), Tuesday, 19 November 2024 (Purge)

Thank you for participating in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

Shortcut

WT:COORD21

Archives

Archive 1

SecurePoll Draft is ready to review

I have created a draft list for review. You can find it at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/SecurePoll Draft. The code used to make this list can be reviewed at User:Cyberpower678/ListGen.php. Options used for this list:

Blocked users are removed from this list, unless the block expires some time during the voting period. Partially blocked users should be included in this list.
The standard categories of users are not removed, except "All Wikipedia Bots".
Users not meeting the required activity period are removed from this list.
Format list as a SecurePoll input
Flagged bots are removed from this list.
Vanished users are removed from this list.

Best —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The electoral roll is ~2% smaller than last year, so no surprises there. I'm not seeing any obvious problems, will try some edge case spot checks. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors in Category:Deceased Wikipedians should be removed*, but do not appear to have been, Flyer22 Frozen and Jzsj for example (the first two listed at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2021 and whose accounts are in the category appear on the voter roll. *At least I thought so, but on checking the RfC that only covers sending the mass message. Their accounts are locked though, should such be excluded anyway? Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: as locked accounts can't log on, they can't vote. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678: with a bout a day to go, is there a final run on this needed - or is this the final? Has it been transmitted to WMF rep? Also, can the MMS list run be generated so we can start prepping that process as well? Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, I plan to generate the final lists tomorrow morning. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678: thank you. If the final securepoll list differed from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/SecurePoll Draft, please post what was used to seed the securepoll as well for reference. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, I think it differed only a little. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, List updated —CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting a block

I'm just noting for the record that I've blocked Horizon of Happy (talk · contribs · block log) who I have CU-confirmed to be a sock of WMF-legal globally banned user known as AttackTheMoonNow (talk · contribs · block log). If they want to appeal to ArbCom they're welcome to do that; I can also provide private information regarding this block to any checkusers. What you do with the questions they asked is more related to the coordinators or the candidates than to me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question removal is delegated to eleccom, outside of blatant vandalism/attacks, etc. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, ElectCom has elected to collapse all questions from this user. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

questions on my page that are not questions

I'm going to go ahead and close out this section, as it seems no additional action is required from an election coordination perspective. Further comments related to any candidate can be left at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Discussion. Mz7 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On my question page, I declined to answer a question from Littleoliveoil unless they rephrased it. What has transpired since is that they have written at length without actually asking any more questions, including this appalling comment " I communicated with Slim Virgin concerning a couple of arbitrations. She was extremely distraught and died quite soon after, and yes I am linking them for good reason which I can't explain here. " which basically implies that somehow ArbCom contributed to Sarah's declining health and eventual death. This is tasteless and crass in the extreme, and not in any way a question. Her latest "question" is explicitly not a question and she actually says she does not want a reply. I don't believe the question page is a place for users to simply make statements of their own and ask that ElectCom take whatever action they deem appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox concern ack'd, looking now. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that these are not questions, I've hatted 2-4 (left 1 for now since it at least contains a question, even if it's at the end of a paragraph of commentary) and left a note on their talk page. I note that their section on Opabinia regalis's questions page has me somewhat concerned as well, and Kolya Butternut's mass question (here, for example) on a related topic is also on my radar, but I don't think they require ElectCom intervention at this time. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

message apparently not received [1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, If I didn't know any better I would say this is starting to enter WP:CIR, but this is a long-standing and fairly active editor. So I'm a little at a loss for words here. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 22:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted the whole section - it does resolve their issue, I suppose. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox. You can't hide what you just did here. Yes, I am a long time user and what I see here, I've seen before. And I've been bullied before. (And General Notability you aren't helping anyone by trying to "cancel out" a user.) All of you. Don't confuse incompetence with asking a question you don't want to answer, in a format that is somewhat elongated because it is not a simple question. And all of you can back off about my SV comments. None of you know what she and I discussed in her last months or what she wanted and cared about then. Just back away from this all of you. I have. None of this is worth the time I'm taking to write about it, and it tells me a lot about this arb candidate. Thank you.Littleolive oil (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Littleolive oil, what question? Those last three "questions" were just statements to the candidate and was not an appropriate place to put them. If you want them stated somewhere, put on the talk page of the candidate. I certainly didn't perceive anything in your "questions" that could be responded to. If you are not able to see that you are not being clear in your line of questioning, then I suggest you re-evaluate how you question people. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed

To be fair to Beeblebrox, I don't understand how I would answer that question either. You haven't stated what you believe the "simplest path" to be, nor have you explained how ArbCom ignored it. So it is a loaded question, in that there is no way to answer it without agreeing to assumptions that may not be shared or understood. If the point of ACE questions is to get to know the various candidates, this style of questioning simply isn't productive. – bradv^🍁 02:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to deal with this further but I also don't want to treat other good-faith editors with disrespect, so I'll try to answer the questions asked. Cyberpower I was replying to Beeblebrox's question, as is allowed by the guide for questioning candidates. And to both Brad and Cyberpower: I could easily, after the fact, dissect my initial question if it wasn't clear. Beeblerox's reply which leaned on snarkiness and assumed I was loading the question somehow was what turned my question into something not meant. I knew I was allowed to reply to a question as the guide says. All Beeblebrox had to do was to ask me to clarify the question in a way that simply dealt with the syntax of the question. When I saw that he assumed I had loaded the question and when I saw the tone of his response I believed he felt this was personal attack so my first response was to assure him that it wasn't. I then attempted to explain my question. Nothing in Beeblebrox's responses to me and their tone led me to believe he understood what I was saying so I tried again to explain as is allowed. The matter could have stopped on the question page. However, Beeblebrox brought this here where an admin hatted the replies to the questions Beeblebrox had asked. How does that make sense in terms of other readers understanding the development of the thread? Further Beeblebrox's major emphasis here, was to bring up my comments about SV which he had to know would elicit an emotional response rather than a logical one. I'll repeat that I had a relationship with SV and knew her concerns and felt they had to be mentioned. How this escalated, first, to an admin partially hatting comments, and when I responded to him with frustration he hatted the rest, which sadly looks very vindictive to me, to then this page where several editors thought it was fine to pile on for perceived wrongs is beyond me. Beebbelbrox has now posted in multiple places, and created a mountain out of something that could have been left alone. That my intentions were cast in such a bad light is disturbing. And that a sitting arb was supported in this is also disturbing. Had Beeblebrox simply asked, as you did here, and with out the "tone", to explain what I was saying, I would have understood his concerns and could have rewritten the question. I believe there are issues with arbitration as a process. I have always acted with respect towards arbs for the jobs they do whether I agree or not. But this interaction with an arb is a concern to me. In my mind while arbs are not super humans in any way, they should be able to act with a certain level of decorum, they should be able to remove themselves from a situation especially where intentions where not to attack anyone and where I went out of my way to explain that nothing I was saying was an attack or loaded. I don't know Beeblebrox, and as far as I know have never interacted with him so this entire mess is way beyond me. At the moment, given my state of mind about this situation, this is the best I can do to explain; I won't post further on this issue. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass Message Mailing List ready

@Xaosflux: Lists are ready. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/MM—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, added /00 as a test list - just has elec coordinators on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, sure, go ahead and run it. We can rollback the edits if they work. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, Looks like it works like a charm. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678: looked good, the grafana dashbaord for watching the MMA dashboard from last year is gone, do you know if there is a replacement available? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, not to my knowledge. I say just throw all the lists in there at once. I'm sure the systems can handle it. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have 100% had problems with this before! We certainly can manually check along the way by just watching for the last name on the list to get delivered, it shouldn't take that long. We've been good sending this about T+4 hours or so from start to make sure there aren't any vote server hiccups first. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, I testing the voting server this morning. Everything appears to in working order. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass messaging has finished. Happy voting.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible SecurePoll quirks

Can we get our WMF contact to take a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Unable_to_login_to_the_secure_poll_for_the_ACE. Seems like some people are having problems, sometimes, getting to the vote when using mobile interfaces. We may need to update the WLN or elsewhere to let voters know that if they have a problem they should try again from a desktop with a current browser? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our contact is JSutherland (WMF)—I'll go ahead and ping him here so that it's on his radar. I can see Suffusion of Yellow is in the process of filing a bug report so that the issue is more clear. Mz7 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is usually a cookie issue. If you go back and tap the button again it should work. You don't need to log in to votewiki to vote. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, looks like that particular user's issue was resolved. I think the messaging on votewiki could be much clearer though for sure. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]