Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Coordination

2013 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

Thank you for participating in the 2013 Arbitration Committee Election. Results are available here.
Please offer your feedback on the Election process.

WT:COORD13

Banned user's "Voter Guide" listed in election template

Election coordinators, administrators and commissioners: Please see discussions that have started here and here. I don't think that what the user writes on his talk page is within your "election jurisdiction", but the fact that his "Voter Guide" is listed in the template is. And, although I know that issues are supposed to be dealt with first by the "coordinators" (of which none are currently listed), I think this issue is controversial enough (as indicated by the discussions, especially the one at ANI) that it should go straight to the Commissioners. Neutron (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification request has been submitted to the current Committee regarding this issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the other commissioners.--v/r - T P 14:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the commissioners already know this, but this situation seems to have been "handled", at least for the time being. Someone has removed this editor's access to his talk page, and someone else has de-linked that talk page from the voter guide template. Now all we need are more candidates to run in the election. Neutron (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility criteria contradiction

I have just discovered that there is a contradiction between the eligibility criteria for candidates listed on the main election page (WP:ACE2013) and those listed on the candidates page (WP:ACE2013/C). Specifically, clause (ii) at WP:ACE2013 states that a candidate must be:

"(ii) is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans,"

This clause does not appear in the eligibility criteria listed at WP:ACE2013/C.

As there is at least one site-banned editor who apparently wishes to stand (if eligible) (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates), this contradiction must be resolved before nominations close. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for candidacy are very clear in spirit, although they have evolved slightly in wording:

2011: policy first implemented as "A user may run for Arbcom if they meet the voting requirements..."
2012: RfC closed as "Same requirements from last year: 500 edits, editor in good standing, not under block or ban..."
2013: RfC closed as "Requirements: 500 edits, editor in good standing, not under block or ban..."

As far as I'm concerned, the eligibility requirements are absolutely clear: a banned user is not eligible to stand. Happy‑melon 02:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That currently blocked or banned editor may not run is pretty clearly the case, with the minor caveat that a candidate blocked after they nominate themselves is not automatically disqualified, except possibly in the case of sock-puppetry, as discussed in the 2013 RFC. It is possible that a blocked editor could therefor be elected, especially if blocked after the voting, but lets worry about that in the unlikely event it ever occurs. Monty ₈₄₅ 06:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is serving on the election committee?

It seems to be remarkably difficult to learn this. In previous years there's been a link to a page that shows who has signed up. Could we know, please? Tony (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: - please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Coordination#Electoral Commission. I don't think it can be much clearer. Giant Snowman 14:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, thanks. The "what links here" shows that no standard election page links to the list. To get here I followed the "contact the coordinators" link. I was expecting to find coordinators. Could there be a link at the top of the election page for the sake of transparency? Tony (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason there isn't a page notice is to try and keep discussion centralised i.e. to stop posting at the talk pages of individual committee members. If editors post their requests/concerns etc. here then one of us will pop along (as I have done) to help. Giant Snowman 16:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was half expecting a separate page purely on the electoral commission. Possibly a redirect for those expecting a separate page, pointing to the current listing? Though that may change each year. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing

Can a coordinator withdraw me from the elections? I knew I needed two significant eye surgeries in 2014, but thought I would be gone for, at most, a fortnight each time. One of the standard questions got me researching more and calling my doctor this morning, and it turns out I could likely be unable to devote any significant computer time for more than a quarter to a half of the next term. This isn't fair to anyone, so I'm going to drop out. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks to whoever does the paperwork. Courcelles 16:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: - I have noted your candidate page accordingly and your name should not feature in the poll. Giant Snowman 19:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest also blanking or otherwise clearly marking the questions page, so that community members won't waste time posting more questions, or analyzing the responses already given, or checking for additional responses. The same also goes of course if any more candidates withdraw. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see Kevin Gorman has also withdrawn. But he has done so in a different way (striking out his candidate statement and appending a note). Might be best if all withdrawals are handled in a uniform manner to avoid confusion - the key bit being to (a) avoid confusing those reading the election pages; and (b) to make sure the list of names entered into SecurePoll is correct. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't withdrawn candidates get removed from WP:ACECANDY, or moved to a separate section? Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved them to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Withdrawn candidates, which the WP:ACECANDY page transcludes. (The transclusion code was copied from last year, and I think dates back at least 2 years) Monty ₈₄₅ 06:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: - good suggestion, I have collapsed both editor's question pages, stating they have withdrawn. Giant Snowman 12:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened by your withdrawal, and understand your rational. Best wishes always. Collect (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the surgery. Hope you make a safe and speedy recovery. Thanks for all the hard work on ArbCom, Courcelles. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What went wrong?

I'm interested in what went wrong and so why the poll had to be reset but I can't seem to find this information anywhere. Have I missed it somewhere? For the sake of transparency I'd suggest a link to a description of the problem should be included in the election notice where it is stated people will need to vote again. Dpmuk (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013#Statement from the Election Committee for more information. Giant Snowman 12:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to explain the technical problem at all, or what the consequences of the problem are. Dpmuk (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean it does not? I was merely directing your attention as that is where further information will be posted. Giant Snowman 14:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the subliminal message

The site notice for the current election reads: "Voting is now open to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee." This contains the apparent unintended subliminal message that the election is purposed to replace the current members with new members. I think this bolsters the resonating theme which precedes the election about replacing sitting arbitrators with "new blood" and disadvantages candidates who are sitting members, seeking another term. Subliminal messaging is powerful, and this is the wrong message to promote. Please redact "new", making it more neutral in form: "Voting is now open to elect members of the Arbitration Committee." Thank you for considering this request.—John Cline (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SecurePoll adminship

I don't appear to have access to the SecurePoll admin interface for this election: I don't see any difference viewing Special:SecurePoll/list/360 logged-out or logged-in, and I've tried this in Chrome, FF and IE. Can someone help me? Mathonius (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argh; looks like I misspelt your name as "Mathionius" in the SecurePoll config, sorry! I have created that account to prevent what would be a very serious private info leak if someone random created it. I can transfer the password of that account to you if you want to contact me via email (I'll ask you to make an edit with some text I'll give you to confirm your identity), so you can use that to access the election. Or we can ask the WMF to edit the configuration to fix the typo, but that might take a while. Up to you. Happy‑melon 21:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've sent you an email. Mathonius (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, I am getting to my laptop now and will make the db adjustment. Jalexander--WMF 01:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jalexander--WMF 01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took over the account "Mathionius" from Happy-melon, which also solved the problem, but this is probably better. I've now locked that account. Thanks! Mathonius (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]