Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021

2021 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 20:17 (UTC), Friday, 28 June 2024 ()

• 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.

Election RFC timing

I can't help but notice that the "Election Request for Comment" is scheduled to start the minute after voting in the current global trustee election ends. Was it chosen that way, or was that a coincidence, if you don't mind my asking? —2d37 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@2d37: This was a coincidence. We've always started the ArbCom election RfC in early September, regardless of when the trustee election happened. Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

role of electoral commission

Hello. What exactly are the tasks of electoral commission? And what experience should an editor have to be on the commission? I am not asking about the bare requirements, but more like, what should be they familiar with? —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: the primary role eleccom is to enforce the rules of the election, and to make binding decisions on situations that arise during the election. Their ability to do so stems from the community RfC's that created the position and empowered them (c.f. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date). Eleccom takes care of things like resolving eligibility disputes for candidates and voters, the voter rolls, enforcing behavioral and content rules, and determining how to proceed in the event of unplanned events. In general they are given wide latitude, but limited to things specifically related to the election. Since the election is directly related to the final step in the normal dispute resolution process, the commission provides a way to keep an arms length separation from the current path to an arbcom case for situations related to the election (where the current arbcom, various admins, etc) may otherwise have a conflict of interest. Additionally, as de facto coordinators, eleccom may be involved in the technical aspects of the election - though this is not strictly required and the other coordinators can take care of that part. Once the election begins, if any material technical changes are required (which are performed by WMF staff) - eleccom would be involved as the decision makers on behalf of the community. Hope that helps! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Experience-wise, is is generally helpful if at least one elecom member is familiar with the mechanics of the election system; other than that there should be demonstrable trustworthiness, the ability to work on a team (with your fellow commissioners), and the ability to make fairly quick, wise decisions - especially in the absence of explicit directions. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response xaos, it is very much apprciated. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 21:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Coming at it from a slightly different direction, the electoral commission makes decisions on election issues that would ordinarily be resolved through community discussion but, due to the fixed schedule of the election, need to be handled rapidly. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Votewiki availability

Per this phab ticket it seems like the Farsi wiki elections are getting pushed back a week from their normal timing. I believe there normally is a two week gap between the scheduled end of their elections and the start of ours. Will a week be sufficient time to do any votewiki setup? Pinging JSutherland (WMF) who might have insight into that answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Still working on this with the team behind the MCDC elections (which is causing the delay) but I think a week will be plenty time to set things up. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Sounds like fawiki will be done with votewiki by November 16-ish, so we should be good to run this election as scheduled. The biggest thing will be to get the voter list prepared, something usually done by the community and slotted into the software by T&S. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. Presumably the voter list can be prepared in advance of November 16 so it is ready to load right away so the delay will not end up impacting enwiki elections. Ping Cyberpower678 who I know has done a lot of work on the voter rolls the last few years. My goal here was to raise the potential issue so that those who need to be made aware have been and having done that I now intend to step back from participation in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Compass

Some of you may have seen that there's an election compass for the movement charter drafting committee. I was skeptical about it at first, but for such a large field it's useful to have tools beyond statements/Q&A to get to know the candidates better. What do people think about doing one of those for ACE? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: seems like a lot of work to get it going, but could possibly be helpful. I just went through that tool, and it requires a lot of data mapping and there seems to be more subjective than objective measurements. I'd envision it more along the line of a "voter guide" right now, that anyone could make. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This kind of thing is an absolutely necessary innovation. Who except the most obsessive insiders has time to read and decipher a bunch of boilerplate statements? In politics this is why we have parties! I am a benevolent outsider and as usual I am hesitating whether to take part in this whole process, simply because my vote will be arbitrary unless I set aside hours to work out who shares my general vision of the project. Year after year, the same problem. So ridiculous and frustrating. Rollo (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Update @Rhododendrites. Perhaps I have not understood this all correctly but none of the candidates seems to have responded to this survey. Correct? Rollo (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rollo: The candidates mentioned there are, presumably, those standing for the movement charter drafting committee. I'm a candidate for the arbcom election and Rhododendrites' message above is the only thing I've seen about an election compass related to Wikimedia/Wikipedia.

If you want to know who shares your general vision for the project, then you can read the questions and answers page for each candidate. If there is something you want to know that hasn't been asked already then you can ask up to two questions of each candidate yourself. As I don't know what your general vision for the project is, I can't comment on how well it matches with mine (and I'm also not certain that this would be an appropriate venue to do so if I could). All the links are in the green template at the top of this page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf @Barkeep49 Thank you. My point was more fundamental. It is that we cannot expect non-insiders to take the time to do conscientious and fastidious due diligence on each candidate in the way you both hint at. My position is that there needs to be a simple way for a voter to know which candidate, in general, shares their vision of Wikipedia. There is not one at present. Therefore I will not participate. I doubt very much I am the only one. Perhaps low participation does not bother you but it bothers me. In a democracy there are well-known ways to address this problem. Rollo (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rollo you are correct that no compass was made for this election. You may wish to read one of the guides for some help making your choice? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Responding to WMF-banned user's question

Just checking: can I respond? Didn't see anything in the big green box or on the question page, but I could've missed it. I recall candidates were allowed to respond in a vaguely similar situation last year by editing the collapsed content (example). Enterprisey (talk!) 08:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Enterprisey: as the election commission decided not to remove that question, just collapse it (decision), that appears to be left up to the candidates. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Yes, you may still respond if you would like by editing the collapse box. Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover's question

There is an active and routine off-wiki freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki. I have watched this corrupt discussions on enwiki, but would feel guilty reporting it, since I know that the editors actually making the comments really need the money. In addition, I feel that editors from the non-English speaking countries have the potential to contribute more to Wikipedia-- but fall into selling votes because it is both lucrative and requires little understanding of wiki code. It would be a shame to drive them away, given the great potential which would be lost. Would you support a WMF-funded bounty program modeled after the Nordic model approach to prostitution, where the editors from non-English speaking countries could receive a financial bounty for turning in their employers to ArbCom for discipline, while at the same time also be offered access to an exclusive Wiki syntax training program so they can build skills to pursue greater things? (emphasis mine)

Does no one else think anything of the extent of generalisation made here? I am really curious because my first reaction to it was not mild at all. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

For more on what my question is about, see User_talk:Wugapodes#Paid_voting_/_commenting_plan. I have traded efforts multiple times with non-English speaking editors on the English Wikipedia whose work was about to be deleted; including on the presumption that their editing was paid. I edited "their" articles, and they translated "mine" in their own languages. If you search my username on AfD, I have repeatedly defended articles pertaining to non-English speaking areas which appear to be written by those close at hand.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote"

One of the conditions listed for being eligible to vote is that the user "is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote". I apologize if this has already been explained somewhere, but what about somebody who's partially blocked? Maybe just from one page? Such partial blocks tend to be quite long. Would they make a user ineligible to vote? (I don't think they should, myself. A p-blocking admin didn't necessarily mean to strip a user of the right to vote.) Bishonen | tålk 11:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen - partially blocked editors are allowed to vote. This was decided as part of the pre-election RfC. :) firefly ( t · c ) 11:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. Bishonen | tålk 12:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

My link to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/801 would seem to suggest otherwise... Buffs (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: can you clarify? Are you being prevented from voting? Exactly what message do you get? For a test, I gave myself a partial editing block, and was still able to access the election without issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I appear to be being prevented from voting. When I attempt to do so, it points me to the above linked page. Buffs (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: Everyone is originally sent to that page when they click on the "vote" link in their talkpage or watchlist notice, or the {{ACE2021}} navigation template on various pages. But what happens when you click the "Go to voting server" button on that page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination#User:Buffs_unable_to_vote. It was giving me the error that I was not eligible to vote. I was unaware that the page showed different results depending on who it was; until the error was fixed, I thought it was the "You are not eligible to vote" url ("Go to voting server" was not an option). Buffs (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, FYI I've defaulted that message - which is now more informative as to the cause of the problem. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note I think this user is having a different problem, checking. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Buffs problem doesn't appear to be about being on a p-block, but possibly missing from the electoral roll, following up at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination#Unable_to_vote...should_be_able.... — xaosflux ^Talk 23:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: we are checking on that part, when you do go to that page, Exactly what message do you get? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Buffs' personal issue was resolved at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination#User:Buffs_unable_to_vote with an override, the account ws missing from the electorlal roll. Root cause as to why is not yet determined. They should have been getting a specific error message on the securepoll page (due to the problem). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

SecurePoll issue

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T296349

A SecurePoll issue prevents access for some eligible voters. It's discussed Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unable to login to the secure poll for the ACE. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

So far for some eligible voters when using certain mobile devices. If you have run in to this issue with the desktop browser, please let us know! — xaosflux ^Talk 22:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Zero votes cast?

The List votes: 2021 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election shows zero votes cast. Is something broken? Thanks.— Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa, here is the correct link: https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/1303. At this point 1,125 votes have been cast. – bradv^🍁 00:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Diannaa: While we have a link here, the actual voting takes place on votewiki, see the current list of voters here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I was super alarmed for a minute there  !!— Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Guides

User:Nick/ACE2021 is an unworthy guide. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination‎#Is this a guide? Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I could also offer a "not-a-guide", User:Gerda Arendt/ACE 2021. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Epiphyllumlover/ACE_2021 is worse. It take time to read before finding it meaningless.

Why are there no allowed guides to guides? Template:ACE2021 is a trivial guide to the guides (shows me how to find them). SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Guides to guides are disallowed due to community decision, see WP:ACERULES. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the template should contain only quality guides. Not joke guides, not non-guides. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

In this years RfC the community explicitly rejected disallowing "satiric and non-serious" guides. I'm not aware that restricting the template to "quality" guides has ever been discussed but it would need some definition of "quality", and ideally an objective one, if you want to propose it for next year. If the election commissioners felt that this was a "Non-guide" then I'm sure they would have removed it and/or endorsed someone else's removal of it, although I don't think there is an agreed definition of what an election guide actually is, whatever your view on it Nick's guide is directly relevant (i.e. its subject matter is the 2021 Arbcom election). Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I see I was one of them. I had an idea of clever and funny. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• I already posted in the other thread, but I do hope that highly, highly deficient guides would be removed by electcom - I'm talking about extremely error or deceit filled guides that seem to confuse which candidate is which, make really indisputably false and damaging claims about candidates, etc. I don't see a problem with satiric guides. I obviously see a problem with non-guides which I wouldn't think would even require a community decision on - the "Voter Guides" section should contain, well, voter guides. If someone posts their Angry Rant to the voter guides section that doesn't actually contain any guiding, that's just clearly Not A Guide. A satiric guide might be demonstrating some deeper truth through humor, but (at risk of a BEANS violation) a single sentence "guide" saying that their advice is in musical form here is just off-topic - that's only a joke, not a satirical guide. Which is the problem with Nick's essay - it's not a guide, so obviously it shouldn't go in the Voter Guides section, it should be a userspace essay, where useless rants are generally tolerated. SnowFire (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Guides were discussed in 2012. To adjust the rules for guides, follow the same procedure used in 2012.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

ACE2021 - analysis

I won't say it's a seminal work, but a broad ranging analysis of the election, with some graphs, is available here. It will be further updated when the election results are known. Comments are invited on its talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Math issue

"A total of 1633 ballots were cast including 63 duplicates, leaving 1572 votes. 2 votes were further invalidated, thereby resulting in 1570 votes which are tallied below."

As far as I know, 1633 - 63 equals 1570, not 1572. https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/1303 the SecurePoll list apparently shows 1633, then 63 duplicate, then 2 struck. Not sure where the inconsistency lies. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If I see correctly, the inconsistency lies with the "1572" number. The stricken votes are counted in the 1570 number since they were manually removed and not automatically by the software. Checking the voter list, the stricken votes were from Cyberpower678 and Daniel Case, both of which appear as regular voters as well, explaining why the number of voters stays the same despite their two votes being struck. Since Cyberpower678 was on the ElectCom, they may be able to explain it. Regards SoWhy 07:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)