Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination

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

2021 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 14:36 (UTC), Saturday, 11 May 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

SecurePoll Draft is ready to review[edit]

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]

see also Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/SecurePoll Draft/Sorted. — xaosflux Talk 14:11, 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[edit]

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.

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]
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.

questions on my page that are not questions[edit]

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[edit]

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.

@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]
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.

Possible SecurePoll quirks[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T296349

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]
@JSutherland (WMF): please see phab:T296349 - anyway some resources can be marshaled to look at this? — xaosflux Talk 22:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've added a mention of this problem to the watch list notice here. — xaosflux Talk 22:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I can try but at the moment there are no teams assigned to work on SecurePoll bugs. We'll likely have to deal with it for this cycle. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

me again[edit]

Removed under standard WP:DENY criteria - standard admin action. — xaosflux Talk 23:44, 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.

Obvious sock is obvious [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sigh.... [3]. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it again. Mz7 (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I recall the ridiculousness tends to slow down as we move into the voting phase, so hopefully we're done with this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:12, 24 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.

Is this a guide?[edit]

There seems to be a slow-motion edit-war about whether User:Nick/ACE2021 is a guide and so should be appear listed on the ACE template or not. I have a view about its appropriateness but I don't know whether, as a candidate, I should be expressing it publicly?

I think it would be useful, for now and potentially future years, to get a determination on whether pages like this qualify. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding establishing a standard for future years, there was very little support in this year's RfC to set a standard for excluding guides, beyond dealing with it on a case-by-case basis—see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021 § Exclude satiric and non-serious guides from template. isaacl (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we can discuss again but as isaac said it feels like the community wanted a case by case eval which means ultimately electcom will need to make the calls at the margins. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I voted oppose in that RfC specifically citing this as (in my opinion) being an example of an acceptable, yet arguably 'non-serious', guide. The proposer of the RfC statement felt it was acceptable too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to decide how to vote is to read the statements of the the various candidates, review their answers to the questions, and ask questions of your own if anything is unclear. Nick's guide is a helpful reminder not to depend on user-generated guides as being objective, neutral, or comprehensive. – bradv🍁 16:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv: The best way to decide how to vote ... is itself a subjective comment. Indeed this year's guides are possibly the most objective (as near objective as one can be), at least I am unable to see anything emotional or vindictive as in previous years. I believe it's best for the voters themselves to decide whether to find a guide useful or to take it with a pinch of salt - some of the guides even include a caveat to this effect. In fact the 'Discuss this candidate' section tends to focus more on the personal relationship between the voters and the candidates and should probably be squinted at - even my own comments there ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been disappointed with some of the comments on the candidate discussion pages this year. "$Candidate is totally unfit for office because of one thing they said once" is not a useful contribution, regardless of the merits or otherwise of what they said, and doubly so when that thing is removed from any context. "$candidate is a great/bad person because I like/don't like them" is even worse. I don't know how we fix that, as there is value in some of the comments and having somewhere a discussion is possible (which is not the case with guides) is probably valuable. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, it will get fixed when - like they are trying to do with RfA - this flawed election and voting system is properly overhauled. Or if Arbcom gets disbanded and replaced by something else. At the moment, like at RfA, because some candidates are better suited than others discussion is necessary and inevitable. Because Arbitrators are Judge, jury, and executioner it's even more important than at RfA. Candidates will therefore unfortunately have to have a thick skin, or do a self analysis to see if they are really qualified for office, and if not, stay out of the running. Which, basically in a nutshell, is the advice potential admin candidates are given at ORCP and RFAADVICE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a matter for Electcom. Non-serious guides were certainly allowed. From first view, it seems the question is if this guide is against the prohibition on violating any policies or guidelines (in this case likely Wikipedia:Civility or Wikipedia:Etiquette) in guides - as it invites the reader to Fuck off ((ACE rule from 2020). A counter argument is that it doesn't violate these as it is satire. — xaosflux Talk 16:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, then in that case, looking at the some guides of previous years will leave you wondering why the ACE police did nothing about some of the vilest personal attacks; or is ACE to be like RfA where anything is allowed with impunity? Just sayin'... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: agree that NPA should apply to guides! This was reinforced last year according to WP:ACERULES. — xaosflux Talk 02:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, thanks for reminding me about that RfC. Indeed, based on what I had seen in the past, I was one of the few to vote for deprecating the guides altogether. However, that RfC seems to have at least created some quasi policy, so until a complete reform of the flawed voting system can take place, the guides are the best thing the community has. They certainly do get read by the majority of voters of whom the home Wiki is en.Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The community has repeatedly decided that fuck off directed towards actual specific individuals is OK in some circumstances. This isn't even that. It is a generic fuck off and is followed by some self-depreciation as he refers to himself as a grumpy old bastard. So I definitely don't see policy or guideline violation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have long reserved the right to call myself a grumpy old bastard. Nick (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EQ is quite broad and includes "be polite", though I'd lean on the side of this being satiric and not impolite. — xaosflux Talk 17:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any more in violation of policies than it was in years prior. If people want it removed, then we should revisit Nick's guide specifically for the next ACE RFC. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally speaking, with my electcom hat off, this should be removed as allowing this will set a precedent for others to clutter up the guides with this useless stuff, subsequently causing the guides list to be lose value as now users are less likely to read them if all they find is this piece of text that anyone can just pull out of their behind in 5 seconds. Bringing this up to my fellow electcommunists.—CYBERPOWER (Happy Thanksgiving) 18:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberpower678, I usually agree with you on most things, but I'm not happy with your metaphor here. Some of those guides (at least this year) have taken literally hours to research and prepare. But see also my reply to Xaoxflux above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I think you are misunderstanding me here. I was referring to Nick's guide, not anyone else's. I was saying that coming up with a one line guide that anyone can write up in a minute, devalues the guides that others have spent hours preparing, especially if we have more one liner guides mixed in with the fewer thorough guides. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberpower678, I apologise if I missed the point - there was no malice aforethought. I'm actually more concerned that anyone found it even necessary to start this entire thread, or unilaterally removing the guide in the first place. It looks as if it's all generating more heat than light. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, Perhaps, though it might pave the way to a policy change next year, or, it's just useless banter at this point since Electcom has ruled on this matter. :-) —CYBERPOWER (Around) 18:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does nobody have anything better to do than argue over whether my vastly superior voting guide should be allowed to stay or not. Nick (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, Best ask the self-appointed Wikipolice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the original remover, I was gonna let this go as not worth the effort (and since Nick responded to my good-faith inquiry and notification on his talk page by insulting and cursing at me), but since this discussion was opened - I would have argued the Electcom call go the other way. To be clear, I would have voted the same way as everyone else on the above ACERFC proposal: I don't think satiric guides are a problem. But this is fundamentally not a guide. The problem isn't that it's some humorless satire, it's that Nick's page is an essay on how voter guides are bad, not a voter guide itself. It's like having a list of restaurants that includes an essay about how restaurants suck and you should do home cooking in the kitchen instead. That's nice, you can certainly have an essay like that in user space, but it's not a guide.
  • Also, there's some weird conflation going on above. Nobody would complain if Nick was cursing himself out, or saying some specific arbcom decision was fucking ridiculous. No, he was cursing out the reader for the crime of... expecting a voter guide in the "voter guides" section? I'm not the tone police, I think people should get mad sometimes, but... I don't even know what to say that won't make things worse, so I'll leave it at that. SnowFire (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like your restaurant analogy SnowFire, but FWIW, I very nearly reverted your removal of Nick's 'guide' too, in fact I was hovering over the diff page, but then I realised that I would have had one of my edit stalkers on my back, and in any case I'm supposed to be retired from all this stupid Wikipedia drama. Yes, best to leave it at that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire, electcom hat off, I believe there is precedent that the community does not consider "fuck off" to be a personal attack (not one I particularly agree with, mind you). GeneralNotability (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Results have varied. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that is not correct; there is no such precedent. "Fuck off" is clearly a personal attack in certain contexts, and you can and will be sanctioned for it. However, the context of this particular case makes it pretty clear that Nick does not intend to personally attack the reader (... Don't let a grumpy old bastard like me ...). Mz7 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Voting Eligibility[edit]

No error, voter was confused. — xaosflux Talk 05:25, 28 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.

I think I have checked the 4 voting requirements at least 3 times again and again, but the SecurePoll page still says "

  • Sorry, your account on the English Wikipedia does not meet the voting requirements for this election.
  • Your account does not meet the requirements to vote in this election. If you believe you are receiving this message in error, please contact the election commissioners."

I read one of the voting guides, but still facing this error. Can anyone please guide me? SassyGamer483 (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not made at least 150 mainspace edits before Monday 00:00, 1 November 2021. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SassyGamer483: (you have only made 119 total mainspace edits). — xaosflux Talk 21:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I make 150 mainspace edits before 00:00 6 December 2021, will I be eligible for voting? SassyGamer483 (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now I understand this SassyGamer483 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, you will not be eligible to vote in the current election, but assuming the rules are the same next year, if you have 150 mainspace edits, you'll be eligible to vote next year! Mz7 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made 154 mainspace edits now, but I can wait for the election in 2022. Thanks ;) SassyGamer483 (talk) 12:23, 27 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.

Candidate questions from blocked user[edit]

The user Hijiri88 asked the candidates some questions. Currently he is under a WP:AE block of 2 weeks, which extends beyond the voting phase of this election. As the Electoral Commission has the power to remove or hide questions, and has already collapsed the questions from a different blocked user, I am requesting that the Electoral Commission review whether it is appropriate for Hijiri88's questions to remain on the candidate questions pages. Best, 96.5.254.136 (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE of IBAN: Special:PermaLink/1057462783. — xaosflux Talk 21:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has not voted in the election. — xaosflux Talk 21:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to decline the request based on who is making it - technical data shows a lot of attempts from this IP's range to reset Hijiri88's password, which Hijiri has previously reported as harassment. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no checkuser, so I'm deferring to GenNotability on this one. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 06:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that should be enough to decline the request? Look at the actual questions Hijiri88 asks, he basically asks specifically about his ArbCom case which has led some candidates to think that Hijiri88 is going to vote based on who is likely to modify or amend the existing sanctions in his favor (User:Cabayi said That's a pointed question... [line break] am I willing to give you assurances regarding an appeal in order to get your vote? No. [line break] am I willing to give you a fair hearing, as one voice out of fifteen, if I'm elected and you appeal? Yes.). See User talk:Hijiri88#Just so we're clear : I couldn't find a way to properly phrase this as a question without simply saying "Would you support my appeal if I made it again at some point next year?", which doesn't feel appropriate. He admits that a direct question would be inappropriate but is trying to sidestep that. Best, 96.5.254.136 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buffs unable to vote[edit]

Directions say to notify you here, so here I am. This has already been brought up at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#"Blocked_from_the_English_Wikipedia_at_the_time_of_their_vote". If this is unnecessarily duplicated, my apologies. Not trying to spam...just trying to follow the directions/rules. Buffs (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Works for me - need more information, please centralize discussion in the other thread. — xaosflux Talk 23:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: Buffs (talk · contribs) does not appear to be on the voter rolls (Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/SecurePoll). Can you validate if this is in error, and if so - can we get a request in to WMF to add to the whitelist? — xaosflux Talk 23:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is indeed because Buffs is partially blocked. @JSutherland (WMF): Do you think Buffs could be manually added to the allow list? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7: (a) I p-blocked myself, and was able to go to the voting server - so don't think it is an issue with having an active pblock; (b) if the electoral rolls erroneously excluded anyone that was p-blocked at the time, we may have more of this issue (the script should not have excluded as it has a directive AND ipb_sitewide = 1). — xaosflux Talk 02:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I've looked at five editors who have currently active partial blocks placed before 02:31 23 November (the timestamp you posted the updated roll), an old enough account and >150 mainspace edits:
  • JCJC777 (1 article, 19 November, indefinite)
  • Aditya soni (article and draft namespaces, 17 November, indefinite)
  • Jimmyp3 (article and draft namespaces, 8 November, indefinite).
  • Werldwayd (article and draft namespaces, 6 November, indefinite)
  • A. C. Santacruz (1 Wikipedia: page, 5 November, 3 months)
None appear to be listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/SecurePoll. JCJC777 is the only one of these editors (and the only editor with enough edits) whose block was placed between the 17 November draft and 23 November update, they appear on the draft roll, the others do not. I note that all these blocks expire after the close of the election, but your test block of yourself did not. This suggests that partially blocked editors were excluded from the voter roll if their block extended beyond the closing date. No editors who are currently partially blocked and who have enough edits to vote in the election have blocks expiring before the election ends, and I don't know how to search for blocks that have already expired, so I can't test this theory further. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, the following is a list of editors who I think should be eligible to vote who were partially blocked on or after 15 August 2021 but do not appear at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination/SecurePoll.
I've run out of time to look for any other users (I'm doing it all manually), but it is very likely that at least some of the editors partially blocked before that date will also be affected. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: thanks for the update. @Cyberpower678: can you re-run the roll with the original dates, check for this situation, and run a differential against the previously provided list? Then missing people could be added to the whitelist and possibly notified? — xaosflux Talk 15:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7 and Buffs: Added, should now be able to vote. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe! — xaosflux Talk 14:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C678 - can you tell if this was a 1-off or systemic? — xaosflux Talk 14:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like perhaps the listgen is missing "AND ipb_sitewide = 1" on the second instance of this check? — xaosflux Talk 15:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux, good catch. This had me stumped until you mentioned that the second clause was missing it. I had it in there, but I don't know how I fat-fingered it's removal. Probably hit the undo button inadvertently. Re-running it now. —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 12:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux, List updated —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 13:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyberpower678: I'm running a diff check on these now. — xaosflux Talk 13:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff at Special:PermaLink/1058103946. — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing the current list and the former, 42328 names are on both lists; 73 names are on the NEW list that are NOT on the old list; 57 names from the OLD list are no longer on the new list. As far as why have "old" names been removed: (a) renames, (b) new perm-blocks. Some of the names on the NEW list are the results of those renames. — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

listgen was fixed - suggested course of action[edit]

@GeneralNotability, Mz7, and Cyberpower678:; following up on the above section I have 2 suggested courses of action for immediate review and implementation:
  1. Ask WMF to add the 73 names from Special:PermaLink/1058103946 to the election whitelist
  2. Send a MMS to these 73 people
    In the case of renames, they will get a redundant MMS
— xaosflux Talk 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, It's very nice to see that this error only affected a small proportion of users though. —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me Xaosflux, thanks for running this down. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JSutherland (WMF): can these be added? — xaosflux Talk 02:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Note that I added these to the override list, which means they'll be able to vote even if they shouldn't be able to (say the block becomes not-partial later). So you might need to look out for that. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Commissioners, may need to have a scrub of these at the end of the election? — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on MMS. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done — xaosflux Talk 02:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I vote? (NotReallySoroka)[edit]

Resolved
 – Did not meet requirements. — xaosflux Talk 23:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure that I have had enough mainspace edits before a certain date, but it still shows I am not able to vote. Please check. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You fail the criterion has made at least 150 mainspace edits before Monday 00:00, 1 November 2021, as you only made 133 mainspace edits before November 2021. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I know coordinating is a fairly thankless job, so let me just say thank you to Electcom, the scrutineers,and anyone else who helped keep this thing from going off the rails. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the commissioners, coordinators, scrutineers, candidates, and all others for ensuring a smooth election process! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with an ACE template?[edit]

Hello, anyone,

I'm not sure if anyone is watching this page, months after the election. But I think we have a problem with an ACE template. Specifically, candidate pages are appearing in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2022 candidates, a red link category. But they aren't candidates from 2022 they are from last November. According to WP:REDNO, red link categories have to either be created or removed from the page but the category can't be removed which means it's the result of a template. Should these pages just be deleted? Thanks to anyone who is monitoring this page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was fast, * Pppery *! I didn't think anyone would even be watching this page. Your help is much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this something that we should change so the same problem doesn't happen next year? Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, and I've fixed the underlying problem in Special:Diff/1053897732/1073500391 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thryduulf,
From what I can remember, the pages were candidate pages for editors but they were empty of content, they just had templates on them. You can look at the page history and see the edit that Pppery made to your own page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Thryduulf that restored the content on the page so that it looks normal again. It looks like Pppery changed the parameter "Current year" to "2021" and that was why they pages were transposed into 2022. I guess that someone was editing one of the ACE templates, but I'm not sure where those are located or what edits were done. Maybe Pppery can track back and say what was done. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was typing this response as Pppery was replying so I'll strike my comment. It looks from the diff that no recent editing was done on this template so I'm not sure why the pages changed today. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't change today. They actually changed on January 1, 2022. T20478 meant that the red-linked categories didn't show up in the wanted-categories report until today, and I guess old arbcom pages receive so little attention that nobody noticed that they were broken for 6 weeks. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I understood of what you said makes sense, I'm just grateful for editors who understand the technical quirks that occur. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Pppery (although an edit summary on that edit would have been ideal). I understand some of the technical detail but not enough to have fixed the issue myself so it is definitely good that you do. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination&oldid=1073559598"