Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination

2018 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 20:20 (UTC), Monday, 25 November 2024 ()

• Thank you for participating in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections. The results have been posted.
• You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

Mass Messaging - Dopplegangers and bots

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.

---

The mass message listgen (also lists eligible voters) is ready to go, and running a final test run right now. Do we want to skip messaging editors in Category:All Wikipedia bots, Category:Wikipedia alternative accounts, and Category:Wikipedia doppelganger accounts? This is already written, but could be easily turned off. SQL^{Query me!} 02:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes to skipping them. -- KTC (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I think it would only result in some annoyed users, and maybe bots, otherwise.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 11:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: what are your sample run counts for "message targets" vs "eligible voters"? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: it looks like 137,597 eligible, of which 59,144 would receive a message. You can get the list of eligible users here: eligible_users.gz, and message users here: message_users.gz. SQL^{Query me!} 17:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: as far as mass-message targets, do you want to include indefinitely blocked users? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: - I saw there was some discussion last year - it's possible some could become unblocked by the time the election happens. I could easily filter these editors by adding

and user_id not in (select ipb_user from ipblocks where ipb_user = user_id and ipb_expiry = "infinity" )

to the generator query if desired. This removes 17,121 accounts from the initial prescreen. SQL^{Query me!} 22:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a pretty significant number for messaging purposes - suppose a decision one way or the other should be made. I'd like to publish your lists online to allow for more checking - but will wait until this is decided. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, that's only the pre-screening number, and it's likely to have a lot less of an effect on the final number. The process takes a few hours to run. I'll update this when it's done. SQL^{Query me!} 23:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: - Regarding publishing, I don't mind. I could probably put together a page with all the links we'd need when we have the desired output nailed down. SQL^{Query me!} 23:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You can watch it run live, by the way. https://tools.wmflabs.org/aivanalysis/ace2018.txt. I understand that NS0 edits tops out at 165 - there really isn't a reason for me to poll the API for more than this, and it's a significant performance gain to limit the API call to 165 (really, I could tune it down to 151...) SQL^{Query me!} 23:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: for mass message we need to load up anyway, here is where the ones from last year ended up: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Coordination/MMS. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Looks like the run finished, it only reduced message_users to 57,646, and would appx double the runtime. SQL^{Query me!} 10:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: thanks for the note, not a significant number for mass message processing compared to the total (1498 users) - do you want to include the indef blocked users in the messaging? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would, yeah - mainly because of how much it slows down generating the list. SQL^{Query me!} 12:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Looks like the final list can be generated after 20181101T0000 - good to see we are way ahead on it this year, thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 13:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody refresh me on the eligibility criteria? I'm of the opinion blocked users should be excluded unless they will be unblocked by the time they are able to vote. I don't see why that would cause a significant slow down of the list generator.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 18:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: A second api call per editor x 164,181. The single api call to determine if there were 150 ns0 edits made is what makes it take a while to run. SecurePoll is set up to exclude blocked editors at the time of voting anyhow. SQL^{Query me!} 18:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: what about the replication DB? Seems like a trivial implementation to just hammer that. I could fashion up a script to do that before we're going to need it and test how fast it can pull the list we need.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 18:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: - I started with that. It was actually far slower, and had issues staying connected while making hundreds of thousands of queries. SQL^{Query me!} 18:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

SQL, I finished my script and it filters out blocked users, users with less than 150 edits to the mainspace and filters all members of the mentioned categories above. It's able to process all 33 million accounts in 1.5 hours and this test run turned up 125,888 eligible users. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 16:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: 'currently blocked' isn't an ineligibility criteria - blocked at 'time of voting' is (if this is being used to load the voter roll in to secure poll that is). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I thought this was for the mass messaging lists. And this script can be run when voting starts which make the latter quote hold true. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 17:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: OK thanks you for the clarification. In general for messaging a filter should be "last edit within 1 year" did you include that? Basically the messaging list should be a subset of the voter rolls where inactive (and possibly indefinitely blocked users) are excluded. I wouldn't suggest excluding people on short term blocks as they could still be valid voters when their block expires. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Nope. I can't add that filter and rerun it. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 17:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: sounds like some choices for you commissioner types :D — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, autocorrect fail. Also using Enterprisey's newest tool to respond. x1000 better than flow, and should honestly be part of the common.js for this site. But I'll add the activity filter and exclude blocks set to expire before the end of the voting period. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 17:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @SQL, Xaosflux, and KTC: So I have a script that is pretty much ready for production. It gets the job done in roughly 1-2 hours and it compiles a list for SecurePoll eligible voters and candidates for mass messaging. For the eligible voters, my script counted 125,733 users that are eligible to vote on SecurePoll. The filters used are must not be indefinitely blocked, or have a block that runs past the end of the voting period, must not be a bot, and have 150 or more mainspace edits. For the candidates for mass messages the script counted 57,690 users who should receive a message. It uses the same filters as above, but on top of that, the user must have made an edit within the last year, must not be an alternate account, and must not be a doppelgänger account. For the securePoll, I filtered out bots for two reasons. One it's absolutely unnecessary to add bots to that list since they shouldn't be voting, and two, eliminating bots from the processing list makes the script run faster. When the script is ready, I'll post it here. Thoughts?—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 19:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: after verifying the SecurePoll has a check for "are you currently blocked" I think you should remove filtering blocked users from the voter rolls (but probally keep them filtered from messaging??) reason being: they COULD become unblocked between generation and the end of the election and should not be disenfranchised. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, Good thought. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 19:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, By the way, how is secure poll formatted. How do I need to provide the list of users? —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 19:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Now would be a good time to engage the WMF resource! — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, A link would be nice. This my first time getting near any of this. :-) —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 19:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  @JSutherland (WMF): - It looks like you helped out last time, do you know what format SecurePoll expects? SQL^{Query me!} 21:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  I believe it just takes a raw list. Not 100% sure. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: if you don't hear back from JSutherland, try User:Jalexander-WMF. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, Yep. I already reached out to both. I should expect a response back soon. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 21:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  @SQL and Xaosflux: /Mass message—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 23:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: thanks, it will need to be regenerated after 20181101T0000 but it is good to look through for any issues now. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, Not a problem. The list can be regenerated in 1.5 hours when it's started again. So we shouldn't have any timing issues with it. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 23:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, User:Cyberpower678/ListGen.php is my script. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 00:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  Obviously don't message a known bot, but must not be a bot is not listed in the eligibility criteria. One person one vote, but there is no listed criteria that say a person must vote from their main or non-bot account. -- KTC (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  @KTC: to be clear, as far as adding accounts to the eligible voter rolls, you believe known (i.e. flagged) bots should be included as eligible, and determination if someone has voted with multiple declared accounts (bot or otherwise) should be left to the election administrators? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: I think that the list of voters need to be exactly in accordance with the published criteria, whether that is filtered during the list generation (number of edits & age of account) or at voting time (blocked status). If we want to decide no voting from bot account (flagged or otherwise), only voting from main account (however that's defined), etc. that's fine, but that need to be done before voter generation and published. Else, yes it would be down to the scrutineers to decide on the validity of a vote based on whether a human has voted more than once. -- KTC (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  KTC, I’m still of the opinion that bots should be excluded from the list. If the botop is eligible to vote, they should do it from the primary account. If they have a bot account that is eligible, and they aren’t, that would effectively give them a way to circumvent the requirements. I think SQL agrees here too. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 21:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  Cyberpower678 It's not circumventing the requirements when it's not prohibited by the published requirements. The requirements as it was proposed back in 2011, re-adopted unchanged in 2012, and not modified since says nothing about not being able to vote from a bot account (flagged or otherwise). If the Electoral Commission feels it is within its prerogative to clarify/change that outside of the election RFC, that's fine, but it's a decision that need to be made explicitly, not through how the voter list generation is scripted. -- KTC (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  I'm making a list of things that come up for next year's RfC - feel free to add. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  KTC, SecurePoll filters out bot accounts and blocked users automatically, so the discussion is moot. It doesn’t really matter if the list includes them or not. But if you want to make it explicit let’s call for a vote right now. I’m in favor of disallowing bot votes. Pinging SQL. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 22:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  Cyberpower678, SQL Speaking of SecurePoll, you don't have to generate a list of eligible voters, only the list of accounts you want to MassMessage. SecurePoll allows voter eligibility configuration on minimum edits, registered before, whether the user is currently blocked, number of active blocks across Wikimedia, and flagged bot status. One can have a manual eligibility, override, and exclude lists, but just let the software take care of it. (For anyone who may ask why I didn't mention it earlier, I failed all day to get Vagrant to work to double check, and only just managed to confirm it.) -- KTC (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  KTC, I am aware and I thought of it too, but the problem is we need a minimum count of mainspace edits. SecurePoll just counts edits. So it will include ineligible users. Which is why SQL and I generated a SecurePoll list. A user with 150 edits exclusively to user space would be seen as eligible by SecurePoll, when in reality they are not. So while we are activating the filters for blocked users and bot users on SecurePoll, it should still receive a custom generated list. Not only that, they have to have the edits by November 1, which SecurePoll can't keep track of either. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 23:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break: Bots!

Please read last year's discussion if you have not already.

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)

So, blocked / not blocked, that's handled. We do have to provide a list of who's made 150 NS0 edits, which either of our programs can easily do. As far as bots - so long as the person behind the keyboard only votes one time, I have no strong opinion. I will admit that I thought this was enabled last year - re-reading, it seems like I might be wrong. I filtered bots and dopplegangers from messaging because I didn't want to annoy people with a lot of legit accounts. SQL^{Query me!} 04:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

SQL, thank you for your work on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

SQL, so it would seem we have no consensus on the matter and to allow bot accounts into SecurePoll. Personally I still think it’s a bad idea but I can’t argue with consensus. :-) —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 13:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Conversely, I think the overall consensus and prior convention of not sending them mass-messages stands. The election will still be otherwise widely advertised (e.g. via watchlists, noticeboards). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I have the script set to start compiling the lists on November 1, 00:00 UTC. They should be ready 2 hours later. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 15:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Echoing others' thanks, SQL. We've actually been busy organising another wiki's ArbCom elections, so the whole of votewiki will be in Persian for at least the next few weeks. Just a heads up! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

JSutherland (WMF) - Our election will start the 19th. Will that be an issue at all? SQL^{Query me!} 20:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: Should be totally fine—in theory they should be done and tallied by November 16. We have to patch English back in, though (yeah, I know), so it's SWAT-dependent. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

JSutherland (WMF), I sent you complete list of eligible voters for SecurePoll via email. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Mass messaging pages prepared

@Cyberpower678: Based on your dump at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination/Mass message, I've sorted and created the MMS target pages for this year, see processing page here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination/MMS. These are grouped to batches of 5000 to avoid some issues with large mms queues (and they worked fine last year). So long as that source is good, anyone is welcome to examine these to ensure accuracy, however I have protected the pages to prevent modification. The actual MESSAGE (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/MassMessage) will need to be updated prior to sending. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I actually created one massive MMS list on at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination/Mass message. Wouldn't it be easier to just use the big list once? —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination/Mass message (before you deleted it) is where I sourced the subpages from. If I recall correctly we ran in to some technical issues when trying to run MMS 'at scale' (as it has over 50,000 targets) during prior years, think there was some job-queue challege. Theoretically it should work - but trying to get developers and server ops to troubleshoot it in the middle is a headache that can be avoided if done in batches. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: is your new page (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination/Mass message) the same content as the page you deleted at ( Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination/Mass message) after updating? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Yes it is. Just in the MassMessage Content Model. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: OK good, Note - that page is having a problem even LOADING :D

I strongly advise that this procedure is used for sending:

1. Send to a batch of 5000
2. Monitor the job log until it is cleared
3. Mark off a checklist
4. Repeat until all done

— xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I've got the message updated for this year, unless there are changes that need to be made. SQL^{Query me!} 23:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Indeed. :p —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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.

2018 pages now created

I've created all of the pages for the ArbCom 2018 elections. Let me know if I missed anything.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 14:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Feed of ACE2018-related edits

I've written a feed tool here to help keep track of related edits. SQL^{Query me!} 19:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Scrutineers

Just as an FYI, an election commissioner needs to make a formal request at meta:Stewards' noticeboard requesting stewards with different home wikis as volunteers to be scrutineers. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Thanks for the heads up. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

+1. -- KTC (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Once you have the volunteers, someone also needs to alert ArbCom/request that the scrutineers be given local CheckUser access by an arb motion (I remembered we did this a bit late last year, which is what spurred me to check if we knew who the scrutineers were.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

KTC, SQL I went ahead and appointed three volunteers and sent a request to ArbCom to get them functionary access when the scrutineering period starts. I did this under the assumption this is fairly uncontroversial, but I thought I should ask to be sure. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower678 Yeah I saw, it's fine. :) -- KTC (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Request made. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Motion filed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Temporary_checkuser_permission_for_election_scrutineers—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Get SecurePoll up and running

Has a phab ticket been put in to convert this back to English for our election? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware, but Joe knows about it (see above), and it's premature anyway seeing fawiki election don't end until 14th. -- KTC (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I've been in contact with James and Joe via email. They are very aware of the elections and the timelines. I don't think we'll need a phablet ticket, especially since we have fawiki elections going on. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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 local Checkuser rights are granted to -revi, علاء and Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2018 Arbitration Committee election.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Enacted - --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Support:

1. Proposed (with last year’s wording). This is standard procedure in connection with the election. The temporary rights will automatically lapse once the election results are certified. Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Euryalus (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 14:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
6. Mkdw ^talk 16:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
9. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
10. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Fred Bauder

SQL, Cyberpower678, FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fred_Bauder_moving_questions & Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fred_Bauder. Fred is currently the subject of an indefinite block. As such, he is not currently eligible for standing in the election under (ii). If the block remains active come close of nomination, I suggest he would be disqualified from being a candidate in the election. As an alternative, he could be considered disqualified now, and if he is unblocked before the close of nomination, he would be free to renominate himself or is automatically reinstated. -- KTC (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

KTC, I've already marked him as disqualified and shut down the question page. There's no way he's going to re-qualify before the nomination period closes. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower678 I saw. You were doing that while I was typing the above. BTW, I make no presumption whether he will or will not be unblocked before the close of nomination. If he does get unblocked before the deadline, either he is free to renominate himself, or he is automatically reinstated. Either a decision now, or the commission can wait to see if the question ever comes up. -- KTC (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

KTC, Well if he does get unblocked, it's not likely to happen for at least another 24 hours. I'd say wait and discuss if it happens. While the blocking is the technical thing disqualifying, one should consider, per WP:IAR, his loss of sysop access, which is an indication of his standing with the community. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer not to IAR when it comes to election candidate (or voter) eligibility. -- KTC (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

KTC, Well condition 2 of eligibility says that candidate must be in good standing AND not be subject to sanctions or block. The way it's worded implies blocks and standings are separate things. IMO, Fred is no longer in good standing. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree that that Fred became uncontentiously disqualified from this election due to loss of good standing. He has engaged in behavior that has led to both an indefinite block and a desysop, which is just about the most severe loss of good standing that can occur here. The good standing of a user of this magnitude can be easily regained within a few months, but not in the short time before the election. That's my opinion, however I am not the one authorized to decide this matter. You folks have done a great job running the rountine matters in this election, but this kind of emergency situation is the real reason we have an Electoral Commission. The Commission is not only fully authorized, but responsible for decisively ruling on this matter. To maintain the legitimacy of the election, the Commission should, as soon as is possible, make a formal, unified statement that rules on whether or not Fred is disqualified, by majority rule if necessary.  Swarm  talk  23:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Swarm, And for that we need SQL to chime in here. I'm against re-qualifying Fred, KTC would be for if he were unblocked. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've left SQL a talk page message, maybe he'll see an email notification before he gets the pings.  Swarm  talk  00:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"Good standing"

This term has not been well defined. For what it's worth, by nature of being blocked I agree Fred is currently disqualified, however should he become unblocked in the next ~23 hours, and all of the active discussions that may lead to sanctions are closed, and he wants to proceed I suggest it be allowed. Due to the timeline I don't think this is likely to resolve by then. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, perhaps, but it is what it is, and as such we need to go off of how the wording is being interpreted. I imagine you would especially understand as a 'crat. ;-) It may not have been intended as it is now, but for me condition 2 are two separate items. Be in good standing for me means, does the community trust the candidate? Being blocked or banned, means... well... literally that. At this time Fred fails both of those questions, and even if he's unblocked, he will still fail the first question. I'm against re-instating the nomination. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Good standing is subjective, but that doesn't mean it's esoteric. It's a fairly simple concept that we assess all the time as administrators. We usually judge whether a user is in "good standing" by looking at recent blocks, warnings, and behavioral issues in the context of positive contributions to the project. There can definitely be a grey area, but I don't think it's contentious that you lose your good standing when you are blocked and/or desysopped, and that it needs to be subsequently re-earned, assuming the block and/or desysop were legitimate. Fred would not automatically be 'in good standing' the second he gets unblocked, unless the block and desysop themselves were deemed by Arbcom to be inappropriate (which no one is arguing). That said, it may be worth considering that the original block was arguably INVOLVED, and the desysop itself was out-of-process, and the whole situation was an unfortunate escalation of a fairly minor incident. Not saying that there isn't arguably cause to let Fred stay in the election, but the intent of the current rules seems more likely than not to disqualify a candidate who gets blocked and desysopped shortly before an election.  Swarm  talk  00:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

And, to be clear, this is just advisory commentary on my part. I encourage the Commissioners to rely on their own judgment if they're inclined to disagree with me.  Swarm  talk  00:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: I agree with the current disqualification, my argument is only that in the event that all of the blocks and discussions regarding sanctions are cleared before the expiration of the nomination period that the "good standing" question would cease and Fred should be allowed to re-enter if they so choose - that is that the current disqualification is procedural rather than prescriptive as the disqualifying condition is capable of being overcome. As I mentioned above, I doubt this is likely due to the timeline. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Following the candidate eligibility criteria back over the years to see how the wordings got to where we are today. Back in 2010, the wordings was "is in good standing, that is, not subject to active blocks or site-bans" [emphasis mine]. In the 2011 RFC, the determined consensus was that an editor is eligible to stand if they meet the voter eligibility (+bits on required disclosure etc.). The corresponding voter eligibility is as we are today, "not currently blocked". That closure was translated into the election page as "is in good standing and is not subject to active blocks or site-bans". The 2012 RFC concluded with candidate eligibility as "same requirements as [2011]". Before the 2013 RFC, the results of the 2012 RFC was adopted as standard going forward save any explicit changes. No proposed changes to the candidate eligibility has since been proposed. Given this, the definition of "good standing" must thus merely be "not currently blocked or banned".

Now, an unexpected discovery. The 2013 RFC concluded with a determination that while a candidate doesn't get special exemption from being blocked, "a candidate shouldn't be disqualified for being blocked (except for sockpuppetry) after nominating him/herself". Given this, and the fact that Fred's block while indefinite, is likely to lifted if he ever asks for it, I'm afraid I have to propose that Fred be reinstated, even if he remains blocked at the close of nomination, unless he makes clear he wish to withdraw or has no wish to return to the project, and let the community decides with their votes. -- KTC (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

KTC, I understand your views but it still doesn’t change what the wording is now when the RFC was closed for this year. So the block isn’t the issue at this point, it is the emergency Desysop that happened during the nomination. Quite frankly, even if he were unblocked before voting, he has lost almost all community trust. So I’m proposing the opposite. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• I will preface this with I have not read absolutely everything yet. But my instinct is that Bauder would be ineligible while blocked, or while subject to any bans or sanctions. If unblocked by the end of the nominations, he would become eligible again. SQL^{Query me!} 02:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  SQL, it’s an interesting read. KTC and I share interesting viewpoints on that matter. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've read a lot at this point. I've yet to see anything that would cause me to change my opinion. Put frankly, I don't see how an ill-advised-at-this-point candidacy would cause harm to the project. SQL^{Query me!} 03:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678: Surely it is up to the community, not the electoral commission, to determine whether any given editor has their trust? The commission is charged only with determining whether a user is in "good standing", which in this context means, per KTC's findings, "not currently blocked or site-banned". Being an administrator is not a requirement for candidacy so ceasing to be one should not be a reason for disqualification. In my view, should Fred be unblocked at any time before the opening of the ballot he should be reinstated as a candidate absent any indication he has a desire to withdraw. Thryduulf (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, Can you then clarify something for me? I am currently an administrator. Suppose I did something that warrants my sysop bit being forcefully removed. Would you still trust me? It is my understanding that a user needs community trust to get the toolkit. If you don't have enough of it, you won't get it, and if you do something stupid, you lose it. My understanding of good standing and not blocked has been that naturally, you aren't blocked, but if it's blatantly clear that there is an issue of trust with the community and the candidate, that would qualify as not in good standing. I am perceiving such a rift. Now I'm not going to unilaterally say no, if everyone else says yes, but I just want to emphasize my views on this. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  If you were involuntarily desysopped you would (probably) not have my trust with the admin toolkit, however (depending on what it was you did) you might still have my trust in other matters (e.g. edit filter manager, new page patroller). Given that being an administrator is explicitly not a requirement for standing for arbcom, I don't think it can be inferred that someone who has lost the trust of (some of) the community as an administrator is necessarily lacking that trust as an arbitrator - especially as no current definition of "good standing" includes any mention of "trust". I would almost certainly vote against you in the election, but that is different to your being disqualified. Ultimately though I am not the community, I am just one member of it and cannot speak for anyone other than myself. Thryduulf (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, Fair enough. If Fred is unblocked before the voting period begins, he can be reinstated as a candidate. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: whoa there - so you want him disqualified and delisted, thus avoiding the community opportunity to ask questions or even know he is a potential candidate, then as long as he gets unblocked 1 second before voting you want him on the ballot? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, no what I’m saying is that if Fred is unblocked, he can be a candidate on the ballot, given the unblock happens before a deadline as agreed upon below. I’m on a mobile and very sleepy right now. So forgive me. Putting him in last second is not what i intended to say. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• I could swear I see a ping from Xaosflux, but I don’t see the message. In any event disregarding what I just said above, I’d be interested in agreeing on when the deadline for Fred being unblocked should be, which I asked below. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just making a note here that I have removed the "good standing" clause from the requirements, based on the revelation that it was never actually implemented as a requirement by the community, and there was, apparently, never any intent to make it a requirement. If anything, based on the 2013 RfC, the community's decision to not disqualify candidates who get blocked implies the opposite intent from what the erroneous wording implied. This would be no different than returning the wording to the original intent of "in good standing, that is, not blocked or banned", and if anyone prefers that wording, I don't really care, but I decided to just remove it outright instead, as it's caused more trouble than it's worth for a bit of redundant terminology.  Swarm  talk  01:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• FWIW, there have been past candidates whose candidacies were allowed even after they were desysopped by ArbCom. --Rschen7754 01:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• On second thought, I've decided to restore it to the original wording which defines "good standing" as "not blocked or banned". While it should never have been presented as a separate qualification, and that decision has resulted in unnecessary confusion, it has been posing as a real requirement for several years, and frankly, it's wouldn't be an unreasonable one. I think there's a reasonable chance the community will want to either formally change, or formally uphold, the original intent of the phrase in the next RfC.  Swarm  talk  02:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock deadline

Now that we all agree on whether or not to reinstate him, let’s talk about when Fred should be unblocked by to be allowed on a ballot. The nomination period ends in less than 48 hours. The questions to the candidates will remain open after the closing period. And the voting period begins in about a week. Should we set the unblock deadline to November 14 at midnight or November 19, factoring in that our WMF needs to promptly update the ballots? Or maybe some time in between?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

See my note above, I think it disenfranchises the community to have a candidate on the ballot that they were unable to question before hand. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, we could put him back on the list and let others ask away if we know he’s going to be unblocked soon. I just want to know if it’s happening. I don’t see any indication it’s happening soon. Am I overlooking something? —CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, but also, won’t they still be able to ask questions while the ballot is open? —CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that if he isn't unblocked by the end of the nomination period, it is too late as all candidates should be on equal footing at that point in time. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I can agree with that. Just need to hear from my colleagues. :-) —CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that Fred has already been unblocked, I will go ahead and reinstate him. Speaking in general now, Xaosflux, I would have agreed with you on the end of nomination period if it wasn't for this RFC determination, to prevent the possibility or appearance of a questionable block right around deadline time disqualifying a candidate, and thus circumventing the right of the community to decide who they want on ArbCom. Anyway, I'll leave any further discussion on this subject to next year RFC unless anyone else get blocked in the mean time. (Please don't!) -- KTC (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Folks, as the admin who imposed the original 24-hour block, and with the consent of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who upped it to indefinite, I have unblocked User:Fred Bauder as there seems to be a consensus that the block is no longer preventative. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for the notification. -- KTC (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with FB's question page

If he does get to participate and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions is unprotected - the larger question that seems to be at contention with the candidate and others is if candidates may curate their own questions pages to remove questions from others in general? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, unless it is a blatant attack or an attempt to get the candidate to reveal private data, I would say no. While I haven’t actually taken a close look at Boing’s question, I didn’t get that impression when I glanced at them. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll point out that Fred was moving questions from a number of people - mine were pretty much inconsequential and just asking him to expand on previous answers. And he did not move the only ones that I think could be judged as coming close to the privacy line. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI: 2017 RFC on EC removing questions. So anyone are free to remove clear vandalism and egregious personal attacks etc. but leave to EC if they feel it's inappropriate or off-topic but not unquestionable remove on sight anywhere on the wiki. -- KTC (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• RfA/RfB candidates do not get to curate and move/remove questions they do not like, or comments they do not like. Why should ArbCom candidates? They should probably be able to request the election commissioners to review and possibly remove/move/redact questions they don't like, but by no means should they do it themselves. This is basic transparency and common sense. Softlavender (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree that this falls short of even being a legitimate question.  Swarm  talk  10:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. I completely agree with Softlavender's answer, but just because a question has a clear and obvious answer does not mean it cannot be asked - indeed its a good thing it was asked as it's now clear (from the 2017 RFC consensus KTC notes) what the answer is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Of course...poor choice of wording, perhaps, but I think we’re all on the same page.  Swarm  talk  16:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, having seen that FB was disqualified/withdrawn, I now don't see that. Only by coming here is the confusion resolved. Is it worth clarifying this for others? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella157, I’m about to post a statement. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, exactly what's the statement you are proposing to make, and where will it be posted? -- KTC (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

KTC, regarding the electoral commission’s decision on Fred’s nomination and about him moving questions around to other pages. I intend to post it on the candidate’s talk page, the nomination talk pages and here. But due to technical problems, I won’t do that until tomorrow. Would you mind sending me an email? —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Closing statements

The electoral commission has discussed the issue of Fred Bauder's nomination and agrees that he is to appear on the voting ballot. After discussing the the definition of being in good standing, the committee has opted to consider good standing as "to not be subjects of an active block". Fred's block was lifted before the nomination period was closed, thus his nomination has been restored. Fred Bauder is also reminded that unless the questions outright attack or out users, questions cannot be moved or removed from the candidate's questions page.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I have added the members of the Election Committee to an arbitration request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Fred_Bauderhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Fred_Bauder User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions for Lourdes

OK, I received a few loaded questions, but nothing compared to what Nihlus had for Lourdes. "Given your attempts to quickly enforce WP:CIVIL to an extent beyond its scope...", for instance, is a pretty clear version of "have you stopped beating your wife". Regardless of how one feels about Lourdes's actions/statements in that RfC and other places (and I certainly don't agree with them), I do not think that it's fair to ask loaded questions or say things like "throwing your newly found weight around". Sorry Nihlus, I may well agree with you on all the substantive issues, I don't know, but that's just not right. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Poor behavior by any candidate should be brought to light and scrutinized by those who may not be aware of the situation. The community made their opinion known and completely rejected how she handled that situation entirely. The only thing that is not right or fair is you comparing my questions to domestic violence. Nihlus 05:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus, Drmies was using a well known example of a loaded question that is used in major media and at least was taught in my philosophy classes as the stereotypical example of a false premise fallacy. He wasn't comparing your actions to domestic violence. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus come on. And if the behavior was so poor, it doesn't need rhetorical fancy or logical entrapment. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not entrapment. It was more of a "convince me this won't be a problem if you get elected." She failed to even remotely convince me; if anything, her answers (or lack thereof) show me it may be an even bigger problem now. Nihlus 05:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is. Any answer she gives will have her subscribe to the premise "you attempted to enforce CIVIL beyond its scope", which is simply not a factual statement--it is your opinion, and that I may agree with that doesn't change a thing, since reasonable other people can reasonably disagree with that. That's how the fallacy works, and that's why it's not fair to ask that question. I'm surprised the coordinators/overseers didn't act on that. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion held by many of the community. You saying it's not a fact bears no more weight than me saying it is. I'm not sure what you want me to do, but I'm not removing the question. Nevertheless, it's not an attack on her to call a spade a spade, so I don't understand your reasoning behind giving her a free pass on a pattern of behavior I find unbecoming of any editor, let alone an administrator and potential arbitrator. Nihlus 06:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: As I mentioned over on WP:ARC, the mandate of the Electoral Commission is that it "should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion". Also, the community has specifically stated only in last year RFC that questions removal for inappropriatness (beyond clear vandalism or egregious personal attacks) should only take place by the Commission as a whole after its own discussion and not by individual members acting on its own. Given this discussion, I'll raise the issue with the rest of the Commission. I'll also note the general question of proactive curation for community reconsideration at next year RFC. -- KTC (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@KTC: Feel free to contact me in private if you have any concerns that you wish to discuss. Nihlus 10:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought: there are ways to ask the same questions in a more diplomatic way that might be more convincing to other editors. --Rschen7754 06:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it at the time. I think it fits and is appropriate considering her behavior. Nihlus 06:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So, in fact, you literally do not understand what anyone has just told you. And if it is not that you don't understand, it's that you won't understand—and that's worse. ——SerialNumber54129 09:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I do understand the point they are trying to make; however, I do not agree with it. Also, the coordinators don't either: (in the section two above this one) Fred Bauder is also reminded that unless the questions outright attack or out users, questions cannot be moved or removed from the candidate's questions page. I am attacking no one. Thanks. Nihlus 09:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not, and the coordinators' statement does not. Have you stopped beating your wife? ——SerialNumber54129 10:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I know what a loaded question is. I also know that I am done discussing this with anyone other than the commissioners. Thanks. Nihlus 10:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet you misrepresent the words of those coordinators, who didn't tell Fred Bauder that they wouldn't remove loaded questions. Yes, you are attacking Lourdes. As Serial# says, it's sad. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't removing the offending portion of that question yield the exact same answer with the added benefit of not giving the appearance that you are using your questions as a high-visibility place to express your opinion? SQL^{Query me!} 04:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Official response from the Electoral Commission

The Electoral Commission has been informed about a potentially problematic set of questions directed at candidate Lourdes by user Nihlus. After reviewing and discussing the questions, the commission agrees that the questions are loaded. Because the questions provides evidence to justify the claims being made, there is no mandate for the commission to remove the questions. However, the commission recognizes that questions are unnecessarily provocative and strongly urges Nihlus to reword them to read in a more neutral manner as suggested by the comments left on the coordination talk page. All candidates are reminded that they are not required to answer questions they feel uncomfortable answering. On behalf of the commission—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I've withdrawn

Can someone please do the necessary? I've edited my candidate statement. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- KTC (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

MassMessage distribution

The lists (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination/MMS) and message text (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/MassMessage) are ready to go. As far as timing goes, any requests for how long after the election starts to send? I suggest a short delay (perhaps up to 1 day) in the event there are any SecurePoll issues uncovered during the initial activity. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I was planning to fire them off immediately after the start of the vote. Everything appears to be functioning correctly on SecurePoll. I’m eager to try out this feature. I never had a reason to use MassMessage yet. :p —CYBERPOWER (Message) 06:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: so long as you are confident SP is good there is no functional need to delay, I've put the steps at: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination/MMS and created a test list of the the election team, you can practice with that one :D — xaosflux ^Talk 13:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, a little more than 10 hours to go. I'll be confirming everything is as it should be with our contacts. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T209899

• @Cyberpower678: so apparently Special:Statistics isn't working, or isn't able to keep up with you sending 50000+ of these within 7 mins..... at least MMS normally delivers in order, please check the start and end of each list to make sure everything got sent out right. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  phab:T209899 opened for the incorrect queue reports. I spot checked some and the process appears to still be running. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Duplicated distribution

Two lists got double messaged: 01 and 03

@Cyberpower678: It looks like 10000 people got double messages. I'll send a bot to clean these up after the initial distribution is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Thank you. I have no idea why a duplicate entry appeared. I'm not aware that I hit the submit button twice. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: argh, cleanup is going to be a bit harder than I hoped, since all the messages are different. If someone want to give me a regex for find/replace on it I'll be happy to process. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, why use a reflex? Search for the section header, grab the section ID and nuke it. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: because this is going to run under AWB - best I've got so far is being able to fix everything with leave the username in there twice :( — xaosflux ^Talk 01:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It might just be easier to not use AWB in this case. Because two API calls on each talk page and the section is going without any parsing needed.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's also not "that big of a deal" and may not even be worth making the ~10,000 edits needed. Think I'll pass on this. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Example calls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action=parse&format=json&page=User%20talk%3ACyberpower678&prop=sections&sectiontitle=ArbCom%202018%20election%20voter%20message and then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action=edit&format=json&title=User%20talk%3ACyberpower678&section=7&sectiontitle=&text=&summary=Removing%20duplicate%20vote&minor=1&bot=1&nocreate=1&token=<redacted>%2B%5C —CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that it's "no big deal", but this question did occur to me: why does 'Mass Message' allow duplicate recipients at all? Is there ever a case where 'Mass Message' tool just automatically ignoring duplicate entries in the submitted list would be the wrong thing for it to do? If not, then updating the tool might seem sensible - it could always report ignored duplicates in its run/error log. Or maybe this was run as 2 separate jobs, and duplicates are already ignored 'per job'? If so, then forget I spoke -- Begoon 04:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Begoon: the MMS extension already has duplicate prevention, however due to the huge size of this distribution it was split in to lists of 5000 recipients each. Human error caused two of the lists to be processed twice. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  Ah, ok, thanks - that makes sense. I suppose the extension could store some kind of a 'checksum' for jobs it processes, and use this to warn about possible duplicate request submissions, but I'm perhaps getting a bit elaborate there, and hindsight is always 20/20... -- Begoon 04:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

NB anyone (like me) who received a duplicate message on this, or presumably other mass message occasions, hits this black hole when trying to alert someone to it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dweller: regarding the actual message, the senders name is in a comment at the bottom of the wikitext (see Special:Diff/869692703). Normally, a contact should be included with MMS's in the visible text and we will make a point to ensure there is a visible link for questions, etc on the message used next year. Thank you for helping improve this. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Good result, thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Bad timestamp"

FYI for anyone checking on that, this timestamp was manually entered on the source (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/MassMessage) which was then delayed when it was going out. There were better ways this could have been done, but nothing that can be done about it now. Thanks for bringing it up. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The timestamp is also incorrect in both messages. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DuncanHill: see above. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong election end date

I can see there's been a point about duplicate notifications, which I also had. There's also the issue of it being the wrong date (Sunday 3rd) - should it be Sunday 2nd or Monday 3rd? Aiken D 06:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Aiken drum, The election had to be pushed back a day due to technical issues with SecurePoll. The correct end date is indeed the 3rd. It seems that this was missed before sending the notification out. SQL^{Query me!} 12:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The voting servers seem to be down

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A fix is actively being worked on. -- KTC (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, They seem to be up for me. What's the specific error you are getting? —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Long wait, then a notice that the servers are unavailable. Tried 4 times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, being worked on now. Hang on... —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to track this on Phabricator. We're working on it. Apologies for the delays. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps until the problem is fixed, the "Vote" link should be disabled on the template, and an announcement posted on the main ACE2018 page? People won't then waste time filling out the voting form only to have it not be accepted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the header. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting has been delayed

Due to technical difficulties of the voting server, voting has been delayed by 24 hours. From the electoral commission—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Does this mean the end of voting will be pushed back a day also? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it should be clarified. Calidum 01:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Calidum, yes. All deadlines have been pushed back 24 hours at this time. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a deadline for asking candidate questions? Is there a deadline for candidates to answer the questions? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you can keep asking questions until the end of the election. Candidates are not obligated to answer any questions. -- KTC (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting works again!

Hey all - looks like the Foundation's ops team have worked out the kinks with SecurePoll, and voting is back on the table for 00:00 UTC (about five hours' time). Sorry for the delays there! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting form is missing the "Support" column header

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's been fixed. -- KTC (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it clearly understood.....

that human error, mistakes with dates, voting columns missing, servers not available, duplicate TP postings (again) collectively undermine confidence in what should be a simple, clean, easy to use voting process?

Seems to me a lack of preparation, testing, checklists and testing are once again leading to avoidable incidents. Not expecting much support for this point of view but in any self-respecting organisation someone would accept overall responsibility for what is a bit of a shambles. Leaky Caldron 17:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, yes it is. This is why I’m attempting restructure a lot of the ACE pages to avoid this next year. As for the duplicate messages, that was from an accidental duplicate submission. Unfortunately jobs can’t be killed once submitted.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving timelines to a central location for easy updating

I've created {{ACEWatchlistNotice}} and {{ACEMM}}. They auto update based on the data found at {{Arbitration Committee candidate/data}}. This should at least help us keep our dates straight when making changes to the timelines. It also creates a universal MassMessage template to subst, just update minor details to suit the latest RfC, and a notice that automatically adds and removes ACE watchlist notices.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Status of questions asked by user blocked by a checkuser

This diff? The poster has been CU blocked. Should the question stay or be removed? Nthep (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edit as block evasion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Fram's question to Drmies

The question at [1] seems like a polemic; should it be struck? Courtesy ping @Fram and Drmies:. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to let a candidate for ArbCom get away with making up stuff to defend his sock account, then by all means remove or strike through my follow up question. Notrmal practice would be that Drmies would withdraw his candidacy because he lied about his sock account (which he used very often for regular and contentious editing, not simply for his work with students), but I don't expect normal behaviour on enwiki anyway. Fram (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, normal practice, like not just Wikipedia practice but also human practice, would suggest that you ask me privately first if you're worried about an imposter. Power~enwiki, I don't care if the question is struck: it's too late. Oh, Fram, you had a follow-up? Wonderful. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If it was an imposter, they needed blocking, and no need to ask that privately. If it wasn't an imposter, then you did a terrible job of covering up yur tracks and keeping the two accounts separate, and my asking in public was just the result of your poor attempt at secrecy. If you create articles with the Drmies account and then edit them with the secret account, then you shouldn't blame it on others that the link is made. Fram (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fram, the amount of bad faith you display is mindboggling. I always respected you as an editor and administrator. That you'd pick these pages, and AN, to pick a fight with someone you don't like is pretty shitty. Anyway, whatever you're doing here is working: look who created this--another banned editor who keeps track of me. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean the bad faith you showed to that user because you could only read his username in a negative way and could wait for even a single edit before blocking? Why is it shitty to point out at an ArbCom election that someone isn't really fit for that position? The only thing I regret isn't looking at your candidacy earlier, but then again both the sock edit in reply to an edit by me, and the poor blocking only happened now, so I could not have brought it up earlier. Feel free to suggest better locations for e.g. the discussion of a poor username block after the blocking admin has indicated they won't change their position. Fram (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We've been discussing this for a couple days now. My own opinion is that there isn't a policy based reason to remove the question. To be polemic, it would need to be lacking evidence, but evidence can be seen by viewing the alt account's contribs. It's an aggressive question for sure, and the follow-up question is probably longer winded than is needed, but I don't see a solid policy-based reason to remove the question. I noticed none of the 3 of us have responded here, and didn't want everyone to think we're ignoring the concern presented here. SQL^{Query me!} 06:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Same here. After discussion, the questions are allowed albeit very aggressive. I fully endorse moving the comment to the talk page as well. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Question - is (Redacted) really acceptable on election pages? If not, I believe this could do with a redaction. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Pre-striking

Hi. I believe in some past elections -- maybe not last year, but the year before? -- the Coordinators did some striking of votes even before the scrutineering phase, based on a quick investigation and finding that the voter was not qualified to vote. That sped up the scrutiny, and we got results pretty fast. Last year (if memory serves -- this is all by memory, so I may well be wrong) there was no pre-striking by the Coordinators, and getting the results took what I recall as quite a long time.

Is this any intention on the part of the Coordinators to do any pre-striking this year? All of you folks have been here for a while, so it's likely that usernames that don't seem as if they would have the necessary number of edits etc. would kinda pop out at you. If you take a look and all is well, fine, but if you find someone who should be struck, that's one less vote for the scrutineers to have to deal with.

Please ping if any of you respond, I don't have this page watchlisted. Thanks.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What I heard from the coordinator was that WMF T&S revokes coordinator's access as soon as the real voters start voting. — regards, Revi 09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Yep, entirely within the scrutineers wheelhouse. -- KTC (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

And rightly so. As much as I trust the co-ordinators, I don't believe the community has elected them to look at private information, but rather for their ability to make decisions. Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected it might be something like that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What a guess! being the user who over enthusiastically created a talk page for the candidates for this project, this user's user account somewhat fits into this category which does not figure in this year's predetermined list of voters authorised to vote. Sachinthonakkara (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

When you say "this user", to whom are you referring, to myself, to yourself, or to some other unspecified editor? If you're talking about me, I did no such thing, and I am fully qualified to vote. If you're talking about yourself, I can't see anything in your contributions that points to that action, but those pages might well have been deleted -- and I have no idea if you're qualified or not (nor do I care). If you're talking about some unspecified third party, perhaps you should say who that is, instead of talking behind their back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sachinthonakkara closed this discussion. I un-closed it. Participants should not close discussions they are involved in, especially when a question is outstanding to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I’m beginning to believe “this user” is failing WP:CIR. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, Every year prior to this one, including the previous years where we had commissioners that didn't agree to the ANIP, had access to that data. I agree that it wasn't clearly spelled out, but I was able to make the connection before nominating myself. SQL^{Query me!} 06:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: We've had an Arbcom motion for the past few years to give scrutineers temporary local CU rights, but no such similar for coordinators. That alone implied that one should see the data and the other should not. Worm^TT(talk) 07:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, it’s something I suggested for next year’s RFC. Either remove the NDA requirement, or make the commissioners temporary functionaries for ACE related work only. One or the other should pass. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower678 I wouldn't support either. What's more, my criteria for commissioners and my criteria for users who can see non-public information are vastly different - and given the small pool of volunteers, I'm not sure that I'd be able to see 3 who I'd accept as able to see the private info. But yes, that's something to discuss at the RfC. Worm^TT(talk) 13:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There's discussion in certain off-wiki forums where blocked users are boasting about how many times they've voted, presumably using socks they have built over the years. I'm not sure if it is possible to find these and strike them, but I just wanted to pass along a heads up about this. I'm sure it goes on every year, but with 2100 votes, a single person voting 20 times with sock puppets has influenced the elections by nearly 1%. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Questions for the candidates" pages

Can I suggest that all of the "Questions for the candidates" pages be fully protected? I've noticed that at least one of them (I did not check them all) seems to have been edited after the voting was over, which obviously serves no real purpose, and could be used for purposes of harassment. Perhaps if you agree that locking them is a good idea, all edits which took place after the end of voting should be reverted as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I would support page protection from further edits. However, I do know at least one candidate, Drmies, answered some of my questions after voting had closed, and I do appreciate that. So I would not want those answers stricken. However, I would support the striking of any new questions submitted after the close of the voting, as well as their answers. If there was conversation going on at a question, I think it might be acceptable to keep that too. My two cents. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing, David Tornheim. I appreciate your questions, and your putting the candidates' feet to the fire. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional CheckUser permissions for election scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Temporary local Checkuser rights are granted to Linedwell (talk · contribs) for the purpose of acting as a scrutineer in the 2018 Arbitration Committee election. Any additional reserve stewards appointed to scrutineer the 2018 election may also be granted temporary local CheckUser permissions without a further motion of the Arbitration Committee. This motion may be enacted as soon as it reaches the required majority.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Additional CheckUser permissions for election scrutineers

• My apologies, I'm unclear about what, exactly this means. Was an additional scrutineer appointed? If so, was that because one of the original scrutineers was unable to continue their service, or because the scrutiny was moving too slowly? I do note a big jump today in the number of votes struck, from 19 yesterday to 94 today -- it had stayed at 13 for quite a while, and then at 19 for a couple of days, I believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • revi was unable to continue as a scrutineer for personal reasons unrelated to Wikimedia, so the reserve scrutineer took over, he can comment more if he want, I just know this from conversation with him. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, there's no need for me to know anything more than that. revi, I hope all is well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BMK! — regards, Revi 17:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)