Well, the comments for the election close today, 10-9-2016. I'm hoping to get fueled up to vote for my first time. See you editors at the elections!— JJBers (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Randomizer
I've attempted to transclude my statement inside the randomizer template but either I'm messing it up or it's bugged because I couldn't get my statement to display. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉14:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanna be alarmist and I'm probably worrying for nothing because people always hop in late and I expect this weekend will see an influx of noms, but just in case I'm still gonna ask the question: what happens if there are less nominations than open seats? Is there an existing procedure? Do all the noms automatically get seats and there also remains one or more vacant seats? Is the nomination period extended? Because it's 10 days, we're a fifth in, and there's a distinct scarcity of candidates compared to last year at a similar time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉04:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind I just found the passage I had been looking for... "If there are more vacancies than candidates with 50% support, those seats will remain vacant." - this answers every above point. Guess I'm just getting more and more weirded out by being the strange loner sticking his head out right now. >_> ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉04:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that some of the candidates are distracted by the US presidential election (not that we want to start a discussion about that). If so, they should be arriving shortly. The total lack of candidates (other than you) is somewhat worrying, however. We do have 7 seats to fill. Tamwin (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the question to ask is whether the EC or ArbCom would consider extending the nominations period by an additional week if the trend remained this low? Last year we had twenty one candidates. In 2014 there were twenty and in 2013 there were twenty three. As Salvidrim! pointed out, there are procedural provisions if ever there are more seats than candidates, but I think giving it a boost or whatever we can do to keep the process within more ideal circumstances is worth exploring. There's still time but something to consider as the days inch closer to the deadline. Mkdwtalk16:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take my own election prognostication skills with a much larger grain of salt than I would have a few days ago, but... I think it will pick up next week. I suspect many people have figured out that nominating yourself later in the period exposes you to fewer questions. Also, a few have figured out that if you're a polarizing figure, nominating yourself later in the period gives people who don't like you less chance to try to lobby others to run against you. I'm too lazy to go back and look, but I think there have been similar threads about low initial nominations the last couple of elections, and a lot of late entries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of years ago I entered my name as the third candidate on the ballot when there were just over three days left for submission of nomination statements, which is about where we are now. Actually, we're ahead of where we were two years ago, as the two current entrants each have a decent chance, while the two who entered ahead of me two years ago didn't have a snowball's chance, and I knew it. I don't fancy my chances, even though I'm an administrator now, and I wasn't then – I could double my support percentage and still not get to 50 percent. It still irks me that the voters couldn't better distinguish me from someone who went on to get themselves banned for sockpuppetry. I'm confident that the Wikicratic Party is organizing their slate in private and their candidates will enter mostly in the last 24 hours. wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Perhaps no one supported you because you spouted moronic conspiracy theories about some "Wikicratic Party"? You should try again; moronic conspiracy theories are doing much better this year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm just half-joking there. Many were euphoric four years ago when Obama was elected based on his promises to do great things... which he mostly failed to deliver on. My bet is that history will hold (few presidents deliver what they promised in their campaigns) and Trump will mostly not follow though on his promises to do bad things... fingers crossed. Anyhow my to-do list is just too full. I'd serve if drafted, I think, but then too many projects I have going would suffer. Gonna play chicken with all those who wait till the last minute to enter. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I wasn't all that worried until today. Now we have less than two days in the nomination period and five candidates with seven open seats. =/ Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)03:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there should be a greater emphasis on non-admins standing? It is possible that many editors assume that it is an admin-only role- a perception that would not be dispersed by a cursory glance at the candidate list for the last three years! MuffledPocketed07:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure where to move these responses to my extended statement. I thought about the talk page on my statement page but the comments would have become too far out of sight. Also, it seemed like a similar discussion had already been opened up regarding the same issue. As mentioned above, during the 2014 elections, there were only three candidates in the first eight days of the nominations period. Therefore I am hopeful that others will be coming along any day now.
As for non-admins being candidates, we have had them before and they're not barred by the criteria to run. It comes up for discussion routinely but I think you're right that there is a perception and voting trend where a non-admin candidate has never been appointed to ArbCom. In past years, I do think that apart of the barrier was that no one really knew what would happen in that situation. There was an RfC held last year to seek a community consensus on what should occur if a non-admin was appointed. I don't know if it was ever adopted into a policy to be noted in the 'for voters' or 'candidates' section on the election page. Either way, I also think there will always be a part of the community that will simply want their arbitrators to be admins. The fact that it comes up for discussion so often also suggests there's an interest in non-admin arbitrators. I don't think it's an equal proportion but everything starts somewhere and things do change. So if there are non-admins who want to be candidates for ArbCom, they should still do it. Maybe there will be a first person that breaks the status quo. Mkdwtalk05:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A non-admin getting elected to ArbCom would be kind of like... someone who had never before been an elected officeholder or military general getting elected president of the United States. Ya never know, it could happen, but it would probably have to be a very special kind of candidate in a certain kind of political environment... wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might end up being a good thing if this secretive, bureaucratic system just quietly atrophied and faded away. At least we would have an opportunity to rebuild everything from scratch, assuming that people learned their lesson about how this system failed. Biblio (talk) Reform project.19:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biblioworm, you could always run and maybe get to see for yourself what horrible secrets we're keeping from you all ;) It's always good to see the system work before you decide if you're sure it needs to be smashed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I did very seriously consider running this year, but I decided that real life just doesn't allow me the time to be a Wikipedia Supreme Court justice. ;) Perhaps I could reconsider it whenever I retire, though...
Anyway, I realize that many of the secrets are nasty secrets, and that is why one of my ArbCom reform proposals involves reassigning that job to professionals. In my view, untrained volunteers simply have no business dealing with (no doubt overwhelmingly stressful) privacy and legal issues. Biblio (talk) Reform project.05:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really feeling the wisdom of democracies this week. Can we just draft Newyorkbrad, Bishonen, Paul August, Floquenbeam, MastCell, Iridescent, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Risker, TenOfAllTrades, and Black Kite and tell them to sort things out? 206.248.178.31 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(cross-posted from the coordinators' page) Is someone coordinating with the Office to make sure the voting system will be set up and ready? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad:. Yep, we've been in touch with the WMF since Oct. 24. The WMF has set up our vote.wiki accounts and we're in the process of setting up the poll. The WMF is currently running the script to create the voter list and it's on track to be completed before the start of the election. Mike V • Talk20:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find out more information about confirming my vote?
Attached below is the encrypted certificate that I was surprised to see upon voting. Is there a guide on how to read this? I have, as of yet not found one. Nor found a explanation for why such PGP keys are found necessary. A simple interactive bar-chart of who is getting votes and who isn't would give me far greater assurance that my vote was actually counted. As voters could see their votes being added directly upon voting.
Thank you, though I am still curious. How can I confirm my votes went to the candidates I have chosen? Essentially what I'm getting at is, the voting system appears to be a bit of a black-box as I have not been able to find how the system protects against election fraud. Not that I'm suggesting that, I just think in the spirit of transparency and the skeptical culture of the project, a manner of verification is to be desired to attract more voters. Is there some means to use the PGP code to give voters the assurance that everything is being conducted fairly?
To give voters the assurance that everything is being conducted fairly and protect against election fraud is fully in the hands of the scrutineers (chosen amongst Wikimedia-wide m:Stewards who are unaffiliated with English Wikipedia, which will verify each vote's validity. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉01:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Boundarylayer, it wouldn't be a very secret ballot if there were live updates every time someone voted ;) If you're uncertain about your votes, you can vote again and it will cancel your previous vote. You can always take a screenshot if you want a personal record of who you voted for (though it's not authoritative, since there's no way for anyone else to confirm you submitted those votes). Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis, I'd much rather have anonymous live updates without a record of who voted, then the present system of seemingly recording who voted and yet no way of verifying that my vote, or anyone elses for that matter, are truly being counted. What is the point or rationale behind this present system and again, just what can I do with the PGP certificate? Screen-captures of my polling-card sure are nice personal momentos or souvenirs but you seem incapable of grasping that we as voters want assurances of our digital votes really being counted.
We're in the process of finalizing the scrutineers. As there's a two weeks for voting (and scrutineering), the slight delay shouldn't have too much of an impact on the posting of the results. The scrutineer instructions are more or less the same from the previous year. I can have it set up in a day or two. Best, Mike V • Talk03:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salvidrim! has it right. They are stewards who are unaffiliated with the English Wikipedia and are selected by the election commissioners. Mike V • Talk22:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: Out of curiosity, is there an update on Ks0stm's first question (who are the scrutineers this year)? Has the scrutineering commenced yet? Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the scrutineering still going on? I seem to remember last year that the results were available a lot quicker. When can we expect the results? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question
The bot is leaving notices on the talk pages of indefinitely blocked users saying they are eligible to vote. Can they? I presume not, but the voting server isn't at en.wiki … Black Kite (talk)23:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While there was an error in sending the mass message out to blocked users, they will not be able to vote. The poll is set up so that it checks to see if they are blocked locally before they attempt to vote. If so, the system will prohibit them from voting. Securepoll sends them to a page with the following text: "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." (It's a generic message because it is also used for editors who have new accounts or do not meet the minimum edit count.) Mike V • Talk04:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I made a decision to deliver to all blocked voters – despite the fact they can't vote, many of the blocks I looked at while testing my script were lifted by the time I was getting ready to run it live (including indef) – this was previously discussed at User talk:Mdann52/Archive 30#ArbCom 2016 – MassMessage, but I chose to change the implementation due to it being difficult to define 'long-term' block in the context. Mdann52 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we next year please avoid to send it to people who are candidates, and who have voted? - My watchlist takes minutes to load today, because of thousands of extra messages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "every eligible voter would receive a message notifying them they were eligible to vote", I don't think that eligible voters who have checked "Suppress display of CentralNotices" in their preferences will get the notification. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on the user page of the MediaWiki message delivery bot, users who wish not to receive mass messages may add themselves to the opt out category by adding [[Category:Opted-out of message delivery]] to their talk page. Mike V • Talk20:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I did both (added [[Category:Opted-out of message delivery]] to my talk page and checked "Suppress display of CentralNotices" in my preferences) and seem to have misremembered which does what. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Double voting
Are votes by editors' eligible bot acccounts allowed? It seems that the rules don't explicitly prohibit accounts with bot flags (or, for that matter, things like "Example's Public Account") from voting. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me07:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The requirements are phrased in terms of editors rather than accounts - an editor can vote if they have an account which matches the criteria. I suppose it's theoretically possible that someone might have a bot account which meets the criteria when their main account doesn't, but in practice I doubt someone that inexperienced would be allowed to run a bot in the first place. The instructions for the scrutineering period say that duplicate votes will be struck. Hut 8.514:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The securepoll is configured to prevent accounts with the bot flag from voting. There is a limit of one vote per individual. Using an additional account to vote is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. In past elections we've instructed the scrutineers to strike these votes and the information is passed to the functionary team for further investigation. Mike V • Talk17:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be wonderful to get an update on how things are progressing beyond the somewhat-ambiguous one vote that they've struck so far. I somewhat dislike the feeling every time I step away from my computer that the results will inevitably be posted the moment I leave. =P Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)00:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The number of thrown out votes and struck votes hasn't seemingly changed since voting closed. There may be other issues they're dealing with such as CU checks. Last year's scrutineering period was unusually quick. In years before the time was between 6-10 days. Mkdwtalk02:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Good point. Scrutineering took ten days in 2014, and it only really needs to be done by December 31. So, plenty of time yet for us all to work on other things while we wait for the results. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"And time yet for a hundred indecisions, And for a hundred visions and revisions, Before the taking of a toast and tea." Or so people say. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or, updated by a hundred years: "Time yet for a hundred indiscretions, procrastinations and regressions; what's more, the craving of dat boastful glee." Samsara11:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if anyone has any update on the news that the Russians hacked into NewYorkBrad's email server during the election. (In a less imperfect world, I wouldn't have to say "That was a joke," but That was a joke.) Neutron (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a serious question, I think the most likely answer is that it would eliminate the secrecy of the ballot, since the voter would be putting in writing how he/she voted, with his/her user-name attached to it. In a "real life" exit poll a voter is interviewed by a poll-taker but, to my knowledge the voter does not give his/her name, or at least it is never known to the "public", as the results are aggregated. Neutron (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just like real elections, those operating the polls don't perform exit polls. However, if someone in the community wants to ask others, you could set up a user page and have others post there. I wouldn't recommend mass messaging or contacting a significant number of people via talk pages, as I could imagine some would object to that. Mike V • Talk19:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I can see a voluntary exit survey be presented via the Signpost's Arbitration Report (see GamerPro64 for that). The Signpost's large delivery system also allows an easy to advertise it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉00:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My congratulations to the candidates who did not get elected: you dodged a bullet! And good luck to those who were elected, and thanks to the editors who did the work of supervising and certifying the vote. (By the way, this year one of the voter guides predicted the results 100%.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And a congratulations to Her Honor, DeltaQuad the Great. What is it with the Arbitration Committee and pseudo-legalese/courtroom talk, anyway? We're creating an encyclopedia, not litigating a Constitutional issue here. Let's not take ourselves too seriously. ~ Rob13Talk23:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a Canadian, DQ would be properly styled The Honourable DeltaQuad the Great if she were a judge on the Supreme Court. But I can understand there being some small difference between a justice on the top court of the land, and someone who has volunteered to resolve disputes on some website. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, these results are shocking in many ways. One very surprising aspect of the election was that candidates who did no do so great in voter guide aggregates (such as Doug Weller and DGG) were elected so overwhelmingly, while in contrast those who fared well in said aggregates (Salvidrim!, for instance), ended up falling short. But perhaps the thing that most surprised me was the fact that Calidum actually won a majority of the votes. Biblio (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's true of the guides in aggregate, but there was one guide that actually matched the results 100% (hint, hint). Not all guides are created equal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that being an active article editor, taking part in talk page discussions, finding and adding sources, etc. helped me, although it's clearly not why the two editors who beat me were so successful. Which just shows that there were a variety of factors that affected the results, with different factors boosting different candidates. Tryptofish is right of course, not all guides are equal, and I'm not sure that trying to aggregate them is meaningful. Doug Wellertalk14:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Tryptofish is always right. lol) The rationale for aggregating has been to evaluate whether or not the community is influenced by the guides, whether the guides exert undue influence. Clearly, on the whole, they do not, and that's a good thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement from WMF regarding results
As the Manager for the Trust & Safety team for the Support and Safety department at the Wikimedia Foundation, my duties include overseeing the technical component of this election. I was assisted in this regard by Joe Sutherland from the Support side of the SuSa team. Based upon my experience and technical expertise, I certify that to the best of my knowledge, any deficiencies of process were inconsequential to the voting itself and had no impact on votes cast. Joe and I were also charged with holding the private key to decrypt results. During the election itself the key existed only on Joe's, encrypted, computer and a locked safe in the WMF offices with access available only to myself, Joe and Jacob Rogers of the WMF Legal Team . After the election was over the key existed only on the encrypted work laptops of Joe and myself until he inserted it into the database (which was logged in our operations log) and results run.
I believe:
the election to have been fairly and properly executed;
that the scrutineers and administrators were properly constituted and valid, and
that they performed their duties appropriately and with diligence.
I would also like to congratulate (or commiserate for depending on your view) the winners, thank all those who ran (that, in itself, is not easy) and call out the invaluable help of everyone involved in this years election Jalexander--WMF23:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was there anything during this election process that can explain the record low number of struck votes? For example, was there a technical element added to the voting poll that prevented ineligible voters from attempting to vote? At WAM this year they had a script that vetted submissions to assist with determining eligibility.
I don't mean to seem ungrateful; I only ask because to go from a 1 in 21 average over five years to suddenly 1 in 254 is a sizeable abnormal deviation in the results. It could just be one of those anomalies and the drop from 2012 to 2013 was also quite sizeable (accentuated by a very high proportion of stuck votes in 2012). Nonetheless, wanted to ask the question just in case. Mkdwtalk07:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Mike Vsaid that SecurePoll, the system used, had been configured to exclude bot votes. This leads me to believe that other ineligibles were probably filtered, although I'm not familiar with the details. HTH, Samsara10:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw, what is the difference between a "thrown out" vote and a "struck" vote? And from what page are you getting the numbers for each? Neutron (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsara: Definitely. MikeV's comment from earlier certainly indicated things were different from a technical aspect in this year's secure poll. I wouldn't have estimated that many of the bot operators would attempt to vote twice using their bots as typically they are well established members of the community. WAM's script seemed very successful in vetting submissions so I was curious if a similar one was introduced to enforce the Arb Com election voter criteria: registered an account before Wednesday 00:00, 28 October 2016l; 150 mainspace edits before Sunday 00:00, 1 November 2016; not blocked from editing Wikipedia.
@Neutron: Scrutineers please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my limited understanding of the scrutineering process, thrown out votes are usually duplicate votes (i.e. someone voted twice and the most recent vote is kept) and "struck votes" are ones deleted where the voter was ineligible (i.e. sock puppeteering, blocked, etc.). The data I used for the table was collected from the voter logs for each respective election. Here is a list of Special:SecurePolls and the respective voter log is also linked in the box at the bottom of every election page. The 2016 log is located here. Mkdwtalk23:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
