Hello, Ritchie333, Yunshui, and DoRD. I understand this is the place for contacting you as election coordinators. Collect has posted the exact same questions as in 2015 and in 2016 to all the candidates, with minor wording variations from earlier years, as for instance here. Those questions obviously refer to Collect's own arbcom case in 2015, and their purpose seems to be to express resentment of things that happened during that case, rather than to actually request meaningful information from the candidates. It must be quite hard to understand the point of them for any candidate who does not have a detailed familiarity with that case, especially the first question, "Should the existence of a 'case' imply that the committee should inevitably impose 'sanctions'?" (Apparently an arb, or someone, made a thoughtless statement to this effect on a casepage, and Collect hasn't got over it.) I think it's disruptive to keep repeating these grudge questions every year. The candidates have enough work to do replying to relevant questions, and readers trying to follow the election have enough to read, without attempting to take stock of increasingly (as Collect's arbcom case recedes into history) meaningless questions. The work and time involved may be minor for Collect himself — just copypaste the questions — he never seems to take the trouble to respond when he does get replies, not even to a "thank you". (I may have missed something, of course.) But for those candidates conscientious enough to try to deal with all questions, however ill-judged, and/or fearing being criticised for not answering everything, these mechanically repeated annual questions must be a bother they really don't need in mid-campaign. And it entails more bloat for those of us trying to follow the election. I have twice asked Collect to desist from adding the questions to more candidates, on the basis that they're disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He has declined to stop, pointing out that he uses the questions as a basis for a voter guide.[1] Here's his 2016 voter guide, so you can see if you find its usefulness outweighs the inconvenience of this annual bloat of the candidates' question pages. (Personally I don't think it tells a reader much.) Please put some pressure on Collect to stop it, and preferably also, if you would, remove the questions per this RFC. Bishonen | talk23:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
There is so much bad faith assumption that must occur for the above comment to even make sense. Questions are questions, answer or don't. Usefulness of guides, saying "Thank you", or it being "mid-campaign", strike me as quite silly complaints. Arkon (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I rather think that different candidates appear each year, and that therefore the partial repetition is no more a sin than the use of "standard questions" has been for administrators over many years now. I further suggest that removing the questions is not a proper act of the committee running the election.Collect (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, the removing questions part is somewhat authorized in the RFC Bish linked. But, as you can see there, your questions aren't even near the realm where that would come into play. Arkon (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'd better summarize my central point, since neither Collect nor Arkon seem to have taken hold of it. It goes like this: should editors be able to post 'candidate questions' which are really just thinly veiled whinging about a years-old ArbCom decision which everyone else has forgotten, but which the questioner nurses as an undying grudge?Bishonen | talk13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Should an administrator assert bad faith by a person who asks similar questions for a number of years without such an accusation being made before? is a better question. I note that I bear no "grudges", that, for example, I did not assail a major plagiarist who gave "evidence" against me, nor any "grudge" about any Wikipedian who has repeatedly posted on my talk page about my perceived sins, nor about others as well whom I won't dignify by naming. My questions are there are an attempt to see what the positions of candidates are on such issues in general, and attacking me personally repeatedly is, in my humble opinion, ill-befitting of any neutral party. Collect (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answering questions is optional. Candidates are either free to leave things blank or to answer dumb questions tersely. I don't like the assembly line questions asked of all candidates very much either, but there should be free range of discussion permitted. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a question is truly transparently a grudge question, I can easily see how the candidate might point that out in the response, and might reasonably be able to say in response "Sorry, I'm not here to reopen old wounds" or something similar. Having said that, I also think that, in at least a few theoretical cases, such questions might actually provide us with very useful responses from the candidates, and wouldn't want to see potential voters lose potentially useful information because the question is perhaps a very personal one for s the person asking it. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to the idea that these questions are disruptive. As to the idea that they are "really just thinly veiled whinging about a years-old ArbCom decision which everyone else has forgotten", I object to that too. I recall answering these questions when I ran in December 2014, and was proud to receive Collect's highest score for my answers. I think they're good questions, and I take Collect's voter recommendations into consideration before I vote. By the way, I know nothing about that ArbCom decision. wbm1058 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above: There's nothing wrong with these questions and they should be left alone. Part of being an arbitrator is responding to people with specific years-old grievances. Candidates can respond to those questions as they wish, but they shouldn't be shielded from them. Second, the questions are neither personal nor in bad faith. In fact quite the contrary - they inform a surprisingly neutral voter guide (a minor example, Collect endorsed me in 2016 after asking these questions, yet I was a drafter of the 2015 case and the one who proposed the topic ban). I've no idea if the voter guide based on these questions actually carries any weight, but that's a matter for voters, not us here.
And as a general point we should be very uncomfortable with election coordinators removing questions outside of obvious vandalism and personal attacks. This is an open election for people volunteering for an often unpleasant and argumentative job. Let's let the community ask what they want. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have now been online since 1982 (I think those years are described as "B.I." or "Before Internet" to many here). I have seen many folks come and go -- and those who hold grudges have a short life. Unless they feel they hold a "position of power" so they can continue their grudges, of course. :) I have now read well over 2 billion words online (albeit not memorizing them), and written a few million. I had many "underlings" under a contract, which seems to be risible to those who follow my every edit - reporting me for noting that a person's name should not be given in Cyrillic on Wikipedia without a genuine real-life source. And being reported for saying on my own talk page that saying a living person is a close relative of a notorious war criminal is likely not proper under WP:BLP. Again, thank you. Collect (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping away from the issue of whether the questions should be allowed, but Collect, I hope you don't mind a critique of one of them. It's the first one, "Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?" The answer is obviously no, the only answer you're ever going to get is no (varied only by the number of words used to say no), and you're never going to get a yes. So what's the point? What can you possibly hope to get from it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, a few have averred a belief that sanctions are needed in the past. Sorry to disabuse your belief that no one would do so. More to the point, the degree to which they answer the question (that is to answer more than "yes" or "no" indicates their position as to the primary purpose of the committee. Now? Collect (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting, I don't recall anything even close to a yes in answers over the past couple of years (but I can't swear to it as I haven't re-examined them), and to me the no is as obvious a no as "If someone is accused of something are they automatically guilty?" is a no - and I really don't see how any elaboration is needed. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, thanks for listening and responding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between saying "no" and nothing else, "no, because if a dispute goes to Arbcom, there are going to be many factors in play and a simple solution will not work", or (as practiced by the Revd Ian Paisley) "no, and I denounce you as the antichrist". So I think it's a fair question to ask. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have semi-protected this page for LTA disruption, personal attacks and partial outing, and I have rev-deleted. The attacks were mainly aimed at me, so it would have been better for another admin to deal with it, but I thought speed was needed - please feel free to review and tell me if you think I did wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up ... has anyone communicated to the Office regarding details such as the dates of the election, and received confirmation that things are set? I realize this may sound like a silly question, but a few years ago it turned out that this had fallen through the cracks, and the election had to be postponed as a result.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The date was suggested by the Office in the first instance (it was originally scheduled to be today) because there is an Arbcom election for another Wikipedia (I forget which) happening in a few days. Our main point of contact is on holiday at the moment. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, that since a troll had been blanking pages from multiple IPs I tried to go ahead and set semi-protection on this years main election pages until it was over. I messed up the p-batch and full-protected them for 2 days instead. I believe I have gone ahead and reset the protection to semi-protection for the remainder of that two day period, but I thought I should leave a post here in case any issues arose. You all are of course free to do whatever you want regarding my protections. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Hello, Ritchie333, Yunshui, and DoRD. I am sorry to disturb, but may I request a quick look at Question 14 on my question page whenever you have time? I would like to know if the question is considered as appropriate (WP:POLEMIC) per the RfC. Since I have already answered the question, I don't mind if the question is kept or not, but I thought it would be better to solicit some opinions from the coordinators. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you Alex Shih think baselessly and repeatedly hurling ad hominem attacks against established editors with accusations like WP:POLEMIC and "trolling" strictly because they're drawing attention to your questionable (perhaps disqualifying) conduct (with countless supporting diffs btw) would help you get elected, you are sadly mistaken. If User:Ritchie333 or anyone else think my detailed investigation into your questionable ties with the POV-pushing pro-China clique is "trolling", at least man up and say it to to my face on the record. Don't hide behind e-mail and IRC. Frankly, you don't get to falsely claim there is so-called "unanimous consensus" against me off-wiki (on IRC) without listing who those people are (by the way, only a small subset of editors are active on IRC. Talk about groupthink). Pretty sure other than people who have long harbored a vendetta against me, the majority of the community found my reasonable, well-researched questions to have genuine merit, including User:Banedon, who called you out for ignoring my legitimate questions on your talkpage [2], and User:Bishonen (I don't appreciate the sarcastic tone you answered her question at all). Keep in mind that I'm not a candidate for arbCom; you are. Therefore, attacking my credibility/shooting the messenger won't get you anywhere because my record is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. A big part of running for arbcom is voluntarily submitting yourself to the community's scrutiny. If you don't want to deal with scrutiny, perhaps you shouldn't have run.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if it was continued on my talk page, mostly for the ease of people finding it when reviewing my ArbCom related arguments. I don't mind it what has already been said is kept on the question page or not, I will leave that to an uninvolved person. Dysklyver11:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've got scrutineers lined up, but I for one wasn't aware of the need to get Arbcom to tool them up - will get on that now. Thanks for the prod! Yunshui雲水14:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it will be difficult for them to withdraw once they get indefblocked. OTOH it is not the end of the world even if they stay on the ballot for technical reasons.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the main page, says, "An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who .... is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans." So this disqualifies Dysklyver from running. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers
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.
Resolved, That temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.
Proposed. This is standard procedure in connection with the election. The temporary rights will automatically lapse once the election results are certified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2017 (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.
Yunshui, I'm guessing that some of the data, e.g. the account mentioned above, was corrupted during the attempts at formatting it for Special:MassMessage. —DoRD (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely; all the formatting did was insert the text string of the username into a {{target}} template (which it now appears was a pointless exercise!). The actual text of the username was exactly as in the original list. Yunshui雲水15:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hang on... no, you're right. Usernames with inverted commas or quote marks appear to have lost their punctuation. Bollocks. Back to square one again... Yunshui雲水15:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one more thing to add - filtering the list to those who have edited in the last year is very difficult. I'm not sure it'll be possible to do this in a timely fashion. (Edit - at least I'm not personally sure. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did Joe send you a list? If so, we should be able to get a bot built quickly which takes each name on the list, checks time of the last live edit, and sends them the message if they've edited recently enough. If that's not possible, it's better to send out too many mass messages than none at all. ~ Rob13Talk04:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean check one at a time; sorry if unclear. I just mean this could be easily done by someone with a bot if the mass message extension is having problems (alluded to above). I'm still not sure exactly what that issue was, so perhaps that's unnecessary. ~ Rob13Talk04:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: The list's been sent to the commissioners. They're free to send it to whomever they want to make it easier. The list is, as you might imagine, pretty long (easily more than 100,000 users are eligible). Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As said before, I think the mass message is nothing I want (Brexit and our last German election come to mind), but here are simple checks:
Without going into people's edit's: when last years message is still on the talk page, they are not likely to be active, or interested.
Gerda, the time for discussing whether the message was to be sent was back when we had the pre-election discussion about it, and the consensus was strongly in favor - this is not the time or the place for you to carry on your anti-consensus complaining about it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, many thanks for sending the list over. I have passed it on this morning to Mdann52, who has a script from last year that, by the sounds of things, can weed out all the dormant accounts. Once that's done, we should be in a position to send the message. On behalf of the committee, I offer my apologies to the community for the delay in getting this done; we are doing or best to rectify the situation ASAP. Yunshui雲水09:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if you guys do struggle to find a way to successfully generate a mailing list that meets the criteria of the RfC, I'd strongly oppose mass spamming of uninterested people without a stake, as per the results of the RfC. Also, I copyedited the proposed message earlier today. I'd appreciate some eyes on my edits, in case I fouled up. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!17:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've run the script through my bot, and passed it back. For anyone interested, around 48% of people actually allowed to vote actually edited in the last year. Mdann52 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the first line of the close was Very clear consensus to send the message out again. Reading over it again, it is clear to me that while people did support limiting it, overall there was support for the message. Finding a technicality to not send it out on would be inappropriate. The message needs to go out, and it is better that we notify disinterested people than not notify people who may be interested. Claiming that the consensus was only for a limited message is a WikiLawyering reading of that conversation in my opinion: people's wishes were clear. The message should go out one way or the other. Obviously it is preferential to do the limited version, but it would be a much larger ignoring of consensus to not send it out than to oversend it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Never understood this occasional reluctance to let people know the elections are on. A technical issue with the mass message is no justification for abandoning it entirely. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assisting with the messaging as well, @TonyBallioni: this is going to go out as soon as targets are validated, hopefully in the next 12 hours. Some of the significant technical issues include missing some eligible voters on the target list and text encoding. — xaosfluxTalk20:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if, at this point, the best thing would be to send the message to all extended confirmed editors. That hits a large subset of eligible people (>500 edits instead of >150 edits). Extended-confirmed was added on April 5, 2016, and so we would be sending messages to only those who have edited since then. That's just slightly less restrictive than what the RfC determined. Failing that, I think there needs to be real consideration to extending the deadline for voting. ~ Rob13Talk04:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd need a new RFC for your interesting proposal on extended confirmed, as it takes the period of time up by about 50%, even if the number of edits has also been increased. The second idea *definitely* would need an RfC. Apart from anything else, it's a horrible one for the candidates IMHO. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!09:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller while the upmost respect for you (and I mean that), I reach the exact opposite conclusion. You'd need an RfC would be needed not to send it out because of technical difficulties. Anyone reading that RfC sees that the clear wish of the overwhelming majority of the community wanted some sort of message, and didn't really care the specifics. The consensus was overwhelming that we have a message. It was not an overwhelming "it must be limited!" consensus, because most people simply didn't comment on that, but were commenting on maintaining the previous practice. I urge the commisioners to send this out to all eligible voters if they can't figure out some way to make it to 1 edit in the last year. The wikilawyering on this page (and elsewhere) by people I respect makes me deeply sad. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting though how many actual sitting candidates are looking to change the current machinations of the election, even suggesting extending the length of the voting period until such a time they personally feel that enough exposure to various campaigns has been given. We all saw this coming, if WMF and Jimmy et al didn't realise this year's election was going to be an omnishambles, then we have even bigger issues than just this one election. If WMF didn't have the toolset to notify the right editors, they shouldn't have conducted the election in this fashion. I suppose this gives them, and Jimmy, an "out" on any result they don't particularly like right now! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technical difficulties
@Ritchie333:, @DoRD:, @Xaosflux:, @Mdann52:, @JSutherland (WMF): I'd really appreciate it if someone could pick up the ball on co-ordinating this; I'm going to be offline from now until probably Tuesday, and there are still issues that need to be resolved before the message can be sent. I'll try and check my email this evening at some point if I can, so if you need anything from me, please drop me a line (you all have my address). Cheers, Yunshui雲水12:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am, unfortunately, way out of my league with respect to the technical skills needed to generate this list. I don't know how it was generated last year, but I would think that that process could be duplicated this year. —DoRD (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that a clean source file has been provided, I think that Quarry is a wild goose chase, or probably unnecessary, at least. —DoRD (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've just ran a report from quary (quarry:query/23368) that I that is a superset of what we need - and it is over 68000 entries, needs filtering to remove blocked users and remove users that the edit count is <140 in namespace 0. I suspect this should all be able to be done in a database query, just not sure everything that needs joining. — xaosfluxTalk15:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more efficient to run that first one with edits first, then last edit, then registration date? I would think edit count would filter out the most editors on the first condition. (I know very little about SQL, so I'm assuming the same principles as edit filters apply here.) ~ Rob13Talk16:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a list on a subset of users is ready, may be it would make to send messages to these users first before expanding the set to other users (and sending them messages eventually)? We do not have a requirement that the mass message must be send in one run.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my concern @Ymblanter: - the last "ready to go" list I got only had ~5000 unique users on it, I have no idea what the methodology was used to make it: it could be wrong (and contain invalid voters), and it could be biased. — xaosfluxTalk16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Can you examine quarry:query/23378? I think I'm somewhat close to filtering out blocked editors, though I'm sure I've made some SQL mistake, since I'm not proficient in it. Note that ipblocks stores user block information. Great naming, I know.~ Rob13Talk17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: That looks to me to filter out every user that was ever blocked, expired or not. See 23376 for the block logic, which appears to work (takes ~2k users out of the original list from Xaosflux) – Train2104 (t • c) 17:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Why are we filtering mainspace edits at all, again? That's not part of the eligibility criteria. If train's code to remove blocked editors works, I think that's our list. ~ Rob13Talk17:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. If I understand correctly, Train2104, quarry can generate a list of potential voters meeting criteria (i) and (iii), and who have edited at least once in the last year. We then just need to filter for criterion (ii) (150 mainspace edits) to get the final list. @Mdann52: Is that what your script does? —DoRD (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for anyone following - the third filtered list generation failed yesterday, however the issue was discovered about 5 hours ago and the generation job is running again now. Will continue to update here. — xaosfluxTalk14:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another update - script ran successfully, but due to my stupidity, I managed to overwrite a load of the content. Hopefully(!) this sorry exercise should move in the right direction in the next few hours. Mdann52 (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Working with the commissioners
Sorry to make a new section but this thread is running away a little bit. :) There is no reason to run a Quarry query for this data, a query was already run in order to import the list of eligible voters to SecurePoll. SecurePoll can test some criteria "live" (for example, whether or not a user is currently blocked, or carries the bot flag), but cannot work out things like account creation or number of mainspace edits. Therefore we need to tell it who meets those requirements (or it'll just let everyone vote, which would be A Bad Thing). The list of voters (not filtered by "active in the last year") is already with the commissioners. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2017 (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.
User:BU Rob13/ACE 2017 voter list is a list of all editors that have made 400 total edits, are not currently blocked, registered early enough, and have edited within the past year. This differs from the suffrage requirement in that I filtered for 400 total edits instead of 150 mainspace edits. It's proving very difficult to filter mainspace edits in a SQL query; it can be done, but it can't be done within 30 minutes (which is when Quarry kills expensive queries). My list will include the vast majority of those meeting the requirement and very few editors who do not (e.g. editors who edit only in userspace, for instance). Given the overwhelming consensus for some form of message to be sent out, I think this is better than nothing. Thoughts? ~ Rob13Talk18:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generating a query on Quarry should not be necessary. The list of voters who are eligible for this election has been emailed to the commissioners. (It somehow got garbled the first time, but this time it should work.) It does not filter for activity within the last year. I believe we gave the same list to the commissioners last year, and that Mdann52 found some kind of solution for this then — assuming my memory is correct. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2017 (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.
Almost ready to send
The lists have been compiled at posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS. Several volunteers have reviewed to ensure that this list is properly inclusive. There is one known issue that will not be getting resolved - this list may include multiple accounts belonging to the same person (including bots and bot-like accounts). The mass mailings will begin in a few hours unless there are any last min issues identified here. — xaosfluxTalk15:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Couldn't you filter out bot accounts from the list by adding the list of enwiki accounts with a bot flag twice to the original list and then filtering out duplicate lines with a text editor (e.g. BBEdit)? Jc86035 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035: yes, that could be done, but was not the method used this time - I expect that operators of alternate accounts with full bot flags will know better than to attempt to use their bot to vote, perhaps a short line can be added to the actual message regrading the one vote per person principal? — xaosfluxTalk15:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: We had a similar issue come up last year - the final decision was to deliver the message regardless - as these users may well be unblocked before the end of the period, plus the number of users affected was such a small % of the overall, it didn't seem worth worrying about. Mdann52 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal at all, but I had already voted and then received the message today, so clicked the vote link to see what would happen and while it does note in the text that I have already voted, the actual voting grid looks like I never touched it. It would be interesting to see if there is any swing in those who already voted after the message though. Arkon (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
from 2017 and 2016. 2017 still has only 26% of the votes of 2017 for the same number of days. So I assume that the technical fix hasn't been found yet. It's not time to give up though. It looks like the effect of the notice in 2016 on voting was overwhelmingly in the first couple of days. So let's say that the announcements can be posted before Wednesday. That would give 3 full weekdays for the announcement to reach almost all the voters who'd be likely to vote. If it's a full 24 hours later than that, then I'd want to consider whether an extra day should be added before the election closes. If needed, could the commissioners add 1 extra day on their own without an RfC? Smallbones(smalltalk)17:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Arbitration Committee used to average 100 cases a year and now averages 5, it's understandable that it is less at the forefront of many editors' mind. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Still, the Committee does have important responsibilities, and I'd like to see a good voter turnout. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The voting before the mass message was sent out was right on pace with the voting from the last year the mass message wasn't sent out, 2014. That year, we finished with 643 ballots with 594 eligible votes (see here). This year, we had 479 ballots through the first six days without the mass message, for comparison's sake, with eight days of voting to go. The low turnout through one week shows how important the mass message is for a good turnout, which is presumably why the community almost universally supports sending out the message. ~ Rob13Talk04:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning Candidates this close to end of voting window
Hi, I wanted to raise a concern when people submit questions late in the game. I have no idea if I, or other candidates, can get to all questions asked if it's so close to voting. It would seem unfair and also it might give the appearance that we are ignoring or unable to answer questions posed this late in the game. Thoughts? Sir Joseph(talk)21:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable and justifiable concerns. However, given that I, amongst many other users, were only notified of the impending election yesterday, and that the ballot is open for another week, I think leniency must be afforded both ways, so that people in my scenario can cast an informed vote. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot complain about me critiquing the use of "the antisemitism card" when you just used it. In waiting for a response I saw your talk page discussion. My issue is not with Judaism - it is with your application of it as a defence mechanism. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in other words if I see an issue, I can't raise a concern because that's playing the card? I have no idea why you decided to get involved but you're now attacking me for raising a concern, which is terrible. Sir Joseph(talk)23:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see message on talk page. I could retort strongly, but would frankly prefer that we mend our differences at this juncture, and cease the back and forth. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Answer to the original question, hard to show:) I (only a voter, not a candidate) don't mind late questions, and don't mind late answers, changing previous ones. I voted early, but could still change my mind and vote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why people are calling questions "late" when there's no deadline to asking them. We should give voters the best sense of the candidates as we can, and questions help with that. ArbCom is a time commitment far greater than the time it takes to answer a couple questions. In any event, if someone wanted to propose a deadline for questions, the time to do that would be at next year's RfC on the election, presumably. ~ Rob13Talk09:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. It states on the main election page that Voters may ask questions throughout the election. If someone wants to limit the question period next year, they'll have their chance. Until then, by all means, ask away. Katietalk11:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Predetermined list of users authorized?
I got this message
Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election.
Your account does not meet the requirements to vote in this election.
@Sunshine Warrior04: You can see the voter eligibility requirements at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017#Timeline under the part describing the "Voting period" in the timeline. In order to be eligible to vote in this election, you need to have made at least 150 edits to articles (also known as "the mainspace"). According to your editing statistics, although you have made 165 edits to Wikipedia, you have only made 58 edits to articles. The other edits that you made were to talk pages and user pages, which, as SarekOfVulcan mentioned, are not included in the 150 that you need. Hope this helps, Mz7 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the scrutinzing period seemed to take forever last year. Since we're approaching the end of the voting period, I was just curious if the Commissioners had spoken to the Scrutineers to ask them to be as efficient as possible in going through the votes, so that it takes less time this year? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, in the first year we sent out the mass message they started the scrutineering process while voting was still going on, and that helped the process end a little bit earlier. Mz7 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask. I was reading Instructions for scrutineers, and was curious how the commissioners are selected. I'm potentially interested to help in the future in this kind of role in this or similar elections. Are the commissioners typically admins / what is the process for selecting volunteers? = paul2520 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
