Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:35, 27 November 2013

2013 Arbitration Committee Elections

• WP:ACE2013

Status

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

v t e 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections Electoral Commission RFC Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Quick guide Candidates: Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Personal voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Boing! said Zebedee GregJackP Tryptofish Coffee Hot Stop Jclemens Volunteer Marek Bishzilla NuclearWarfare Collect Heimstern Neotarf Sportsguy17 Hahc21 The Lady Catherine de Burgh HJ Mitchell Reaper Eternal Elonka Rschen7754 Ealdgyth Sven Manguard SirFozzie

For the enjoyment of complaining

I have no idea what's going on here. Luckily I don't care about the arbitration committee, so it doesn't matter that much -- but I'm a pretty smart guy and don't think I could make heads or tails of this page without intense study, which could say something about what other uninitiateds are seeing. Of course, there's also the possibility that I'm simply not as smart as I thought I was, in which case you may want to disregard this. Contributors may nevertheless want to take the approach that stuff like this should be written with dumb people in mind. Pretend your audience has not one iota of a flippin' clue what a "tranche" is, for instance. Also the timeline graphic is made more confusing by its 8-bit kerning (what the hell is a cardidate?). equazcion → 08:46, 10 Nov 2013 (UTC)

I think "tranche" is a word that someone decided, long ago (before my time), should be the word that Misplaced Pages uses instead of the more common "class" or "group" to refer to the, er, classes of arbitrators whose terms expire in different years. Personally I think the vast majority of readers can figure out what it means from the context. As far as I know, nobody has ever bothered to try to change it, though when I am writing about the subject in the annual election RfC's, I usually say "tranches or classes" because the word "tranche" does seem awkward to me. (Someone else in the RfC this year pointed out that, outside Misplaced Pages, the term only seems to be used in the context of a certain type of financing transaction, and I have never seen it used outside the financing context either.) But as I said, it is one of those things people seem to just live with. Neutron (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be changed. I have three college degrees and I still had to look up "tranche" in the dictionary. I'm guessing it comes out of Wales' work in finance. And also, in previous iterations, there were different tranches for different lengths of time (one year, two year, three year) and each tranche had a different name. As it is now, it should simply say that 8 Arbitrators are elected each year for terms of two years and if there are vacancies from the previous year's class/cohort, there will be X openings for a one year term.

Maybe the Election Committee could make this change? I think it is confusing language for people who've never participated in an Arbitration Committee Election before. Liz 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this is a big issue, but I am adding the parenthetical term "(groups)" after "tranches", so if anybody really can't tell what "tranches" means from the context (or from the new link to Wiktionary), it might be clearer to them. I would not remove the word "tranche" because, whether we like it or not, that is the word that Misplaced Pages editors have been seeing in this context for years - perhaps as long as the committee has existed. This way everybody will be happy. (Just kidding, I know nobody is ever happy.) Neutron (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Voter guide on banned user's talk page?

Since Kiefer.Wolfowitz is currently under an indefinite ban (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds#Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned), I seriously question whether he should be maintaining an ACE2013 voter guide on his talk page (see User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Voting guide: Arbitration Election 2013). What do others think? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If it were a static complaint I'd leave it alone, but a banned user using userspace to actively maintain a project should probably be gone. I think are are maybe 3 people watching this page, so you should post this at ANI. equazcion → 22:07, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Okay 13 people. Still, though. equazcion → 22:07, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

(ec) He wrote a good guide in 2012 (and was polite enough to say that mine was better). Does being banned change his ability to observe? The position at the receiving end of sanctions might add a different viewpoint, I can tell you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Banning Policy says that a site-banned editor "is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Misplaced Pages", with the single exception that editors may appeal their ban via their talk page. This particular editor was indefinitely banned, by the Arbitration Committee, and must wait until at least next August before he is allowed to ask ArbCom to end his ban. The prohibition on site-banned editors using their own talk pages is frequently not enforced in practice — but in this case the user is (IMO) actively attempting to engage the community, not only by putting together recommendations for voting in the upcoming election, but also by tagging his "voter guide" with a category tag that may presumably cause his material to be included in the list of voter guides.

Since I am standing in this election, and Kiefer's comments are highly critical of my candidacy, I realize some people may see a conflict of interest in my bringing up the issue. That's why I chose to discuss it here and see what other people think, rather than taking it straight to WP:ANI or some other enforcement forum. I also realize that since the prohibition on site-banned editors soapboxing on their talk pages is not consistently enforced, the consensus might be that it's OK for Kiefer to say whatever he wants on his talk page, but not OK for him to try to get his "voter guide" listed amongst the officially recognized guides. If people think Kiefer has crossed the line and ought to have his talk page access blocked, I think it might be better if someone else (other than I) were to bring the issue to ANI. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I posted this. equazcion → 23:21, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

I am posting a link to this discussion (and the one that Equazcion started at ANI) at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Coordination, which seems to be the right place to get the attention of the people running the election. At least, that is where you go when you click on "Contact the coordinators" on the election template. It seems that nobody has actually signed up to be a "coordinator" yet, but we do have three appointed Election Commissioners, and I would say this is an issue for them. (And I would also say the real issue is not that the user in question is posting about the election on his talk page, but that his talk page is listed in the Voter Guide section of the "official" election template.) Neutron (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is now being discussed in multiple fora and should be centralized. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like his Talk Page access has been revoked. I understand why but I found his guide interesting to read. Liz 19:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Better chart?

Since I complained about the timeline's readability, I thought I might do something about it. The timeline coding is pretty limited, and normal-sized text just comes out all stupid looking, but I managed to mangle it into something that I think is more readable: Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent/sandbox. If anyone thinks that version is better they can feel free to replace the current one, or let me know and I'll do it. equazcion → 23:38, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought about doing that when I saw your post above, and actually went into edit mode on the template - and immediately realized it was nothing that I should be touching with a ten-foot pole. I figured that a technical-type person like you would come along and fix what I would probably only break more. It is definitely more readable without the distracting spacing issues (and doesn't smash letters together, so no more "Cardidate".) The only thing I would point out is that the phrase in the introduction, "on one screen without scrolling", may no longer be accurate depending on one's browser settings. I had to shrink everything down two levels, but I guess I usually have my browser set on can't-see-very-well-even-with-glasses. And actually at that size it is now much more readable than it was before, so I would say, please post it. Since it is still possible to see it on one screen (even though someone might have to change browser settings), I guess the description can remain as is. Neutron (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I view Misplaced Pages at 125 per cent magnification (running Vector skin on Chrome) and the sandbox version has about a quarter of the chart out of sight to the right. If I scroll over to the point where the tool bar on the left disappears, it fits on the screen very nicely. It looks good in mobile view. Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart shows the whole works on one screen, but is too tiny and blurry for me to to read. Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent is also quite blurry on my set-up. My preference would be the sandbox version -- Diannaa (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem :) I tried to keep the size down, but it seems the timeline coding is so limited that there's not much to be done about it -- it's either small enough to cause the text issues or large enough to bleed into scrolling territory for some users. I think the latter is the lesser of the two evils though. I will post it but I'll remove the message, since most users are likely to leave it at the default browser size and scroll to view it, if their screen resolution calls for it. Thanks for the feedback :) equazcion → 00:50, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the "Recent" chart is only supposed to show enough years to include the beginning of each currently sitting arbitrator's term; so we can actually knock two years off the start, which would make it more compact. Happy‑melon 11:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the decision and shorten it so it is more readable, Happy‑melon, but do you know where I could find data about previous years ARBCOM compositions from previous years? I would love to see some actual election results but it appears in early years, the "winners" were just announced without knowing how they ranked or what their approval percentage was. I've gone to previous election pages but I was wondering if this data was elsewhere. Thanks! Liz 19:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I found the original at Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart that shows the history of ARBCOM elections (although some names are unreadable. If you knew where I could find election totals (numbers), I'd really appreciate it. Liz 19:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You can follow the link to each election at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee elections. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad, I've already gone through the categories and pages. It's just that sometimes I find information has actually been posted to a different location (like to Signpost or Jimmy Wales' talk page. For example, I've found some data on Misplaced Pages on an editor's subpages and the user isn't active any longer. It was a complete accident that I stumbled upon it. And being a regular Editor, I have no idea what information is on pages which have been deleted.

I thought someone familiar with older elections (before 2007) might remember if this was the case here. I'm going through a discussion now about deleting old administration pages and putting my pitch in for keeping them for archival purposes. Liz 19:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I cut down the chart as Happy-melon suggested. equazcion → 12:50, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Q. Why does the chart state "Dec 2013 top 8 Candidates" and "Dec 2013 9th place"?

I could probably explain this better if I understood it fully myself, but according to my reading of the vacant seats section, the top 8 candidates get 2-year terms, while the 9th place candidate gets a 1-year term. equazcion → 14:20, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

In other words, 9 candidates will be elected. The one of those who comes in last (the one with the least votes out of those nine?) only gets a one-year term. The other eight all get two-year terms. But I'll let someone who actually knows what they're talking about confirm this. equazcion → 14:24, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

The 8 in the bottom section were elected in Dec 2011 and have sat for 2 years so they are out of a job (unless re-elected) when the new AC takes over. So the chart reference (appreciate not made by you) to "Dec 2013" is misleading. I agree with your sentiments way up top. The whole thing is as clear as mud and shrouded in oblique language. Leaky Caldron 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying it's unclear that the arbs elected in 2011 are now up for re-election, yeah, I'd have to agree. If I understood this whole thing better I'd give the whole page a rewrite with simpler language. I'm not sure what could be done about the timeline though -- I'm not sure if a timeline is the best way to illustrate what's happening here, not to mention the timeline extension's dilapidated workings. equazcion → 14:38, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Lowest turnout for candidates ever?

Perhaps I haven't paid as much attention to arbcom elections as others, but unless I'm mistaken, so far we have the lowest turnout for candidacies for arbcom since it was founded. I can think of a dozen excellent candidates but I doubt they would be interested.--MONGO15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We are behind 1 from this point last year, so it is too soon to say. Often, candidates wait until the later half of the nominating period before announcing. Monty₈₄₅ 17:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to pose this question, for those who are familiar with previous elections, Monty, if this was an unusually low number of candidates. Are there typically a lot of Editors filing statements on the last day? Also, it seems like in previous elections, the nomination period was longer (two weeks?) but I can't recall when that changed. Having such a short nominating period means that you'll mainly get candidates who've been thinking about running for a long time along with candidates who are acting more impulsively (nothing wrong with that if they are a strong candidate!). There is less time to go lobby Editors who you'd think would be good candidates, to persuade them to run.

Also, MONGO, I know of at least two (could be three) candidates who have already withdrawn. I think the level of experience and tenure on Misplaced Pages from the candidates who are still running in the election is pretty high. Liz 21:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any hard figures, but as a rule of thumb, candidacies are announced disproportionately very early or very late, with few in the middle period. Hence, I suppose, the belief that the length of the nomination period is not overly important, since a longer period just produces a larger 'middle' section... Happy‑melon 21:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Happy‑melon...there is so much regarding the way things work at Misplaced Pages that isn't written down anywhere. It's part of the "collective memory" that is probably buried in talk page comments. This turnout led me to wonder if there might not even be nine candidates running! I guess in this case, Wales would appoint some people. Liz 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Without delving into past history and past dramas, I doubt that Jimbo would appoint people to the committee who were not elected. I remember reading something about the idea that, if the Arbitration Committee believed that it had been left with an insufficient number of members, Jimbo would consider calling a special election. More generally, I suspect that if it turns out that there are fewer than nine candidates, there will be a great deal of discussion about a large number of possibilities, ranging from... well, let's not even go there unless and until we have to. Let's just say that if it does happen, the resulting controversy will be the Next Big Thing on Misplaced Pages. But there is still a week to go before the deadline for nominations. I am hoping there will be at least 18 candidates. Neutron (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Note also that last year 13/21 candidates passed the 50% cutoff. While it is certainly better to have an abundance of acceptable candidates, that we can seat those with the highest supports, based on last year's numbers, we would need only 15 candidates to fill the 9 seats. If it looks like it may be close, perhaps voters could be encouraged to oppose sparingly, but I agree we should see what the field looks like at the close of nominations before worrying too much. Monty₈₄₅ 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are 9 or fewer candidates then there is no reason for those who oppose for tactical reasons to do so and very little with only 10. My gut feeling is that those who vocally vote tactically are a greater proportion of all vocal voters than those who silently vote tactically are of all silent voters, but I obviously have no way of knowing whether that is true. Certainly if I am wrong then a small electoral field is more likely to demonstrate this than a large field. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There would still be a reason for voting tactically - to try to stop people you don't like getting 50% -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(No, forget that, I'm misusing "tactical" there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC))

Maybe you were misusing "tactical", but that is what a lot of people on Misplaced Pages seem to think it means. Personally, I don't worry about whether voting is "tactical" or not, because there is nothing wrong with "tactical" voting. All voting is designed to achieve some objective, and it is the voter's business what the objective is. Neutron (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree - nothing wrong with it at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with tactical voting. My point simply was that if there is no tactical voting then in theory there should be fewer oppose votes. The reason being that there are two reasons to oppose - (1) because you think the candidate would not be suitable for arbcom, and (2) because you think a different candidate would be better suited. If every candidate with >=50% support is guaranteed a seat then there is no reason to oppose for reason 2. Indeed, if people only support their favourite N candidates there is a greater chance of any individual candidate being in that N. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As there are still only 9 candidates, I've taken the liberty of dropping reminders that the nomination period is almost up at WP:AN WP:VPM WT:ARB/N and WT:ARB, mentioning the current nu,ber of candidates. Monty₈₄₅ 18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's quite unfortunate; those are the last people we want nominating themselves for the position of Arbitrator. :) Wer900 • talk 02:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Extra link

I want to link a userpage essay that I want to create (as nobody bothered to ask any questions) explaining my liberal position of the administrative job, and the risk of me "resigning" during my term, which given my history in the project, I feel I need to give a long explanation and its a major concern from voters. Is it still possible to link it to my candidate statement once I write it. Thanks Secret 02:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes, as long as you tacked it onto the end and noted you added it later. I'm not a coordinator though, so take that with a grain of salt. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I will discuss this with the other commissioners. GiantSnowman 12:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@Secret: - what is your actual concern here i.e. what policy/guideline are you afraid you might violate? GiantSnowman 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Should ACE2013 guides make "ratings" of other guides with personal comments or charges about the authors thereof?

Is it proper to "rate" other guides on the basis of personal comments about the person who has not yet even written any ratings of any candidates? I am affronted by one user whose guide says to ignore my unwritten ratings on the basis that I was added to a case after the workshop and evidence phases were completed -- thus (apparently?) making any ratings I offer to be anathema. I suggest that each guide should stick to issues about candidates, and not make personal comments about other editors who are not candidates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Collect:, please can you be more specific so we can look into this further? Feel free to e-mail us. GiantSnowman 12:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

shows the diff in question from, of all people, an ArbCom clerk trainee!. It calls my POV "extreme" and says I was a "party" to Lord Voldemort (I was warned in no uncertain terms to even avoid mentioning the "case" by the way) and that this "greatly affects my guide" which is interesting as I have not yet written a single rating of any candidate whatsoever! I suggest, in fact, that his own utility as a clerk is now moot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't see the issue with this, as I believe that I had issues with your 2012 guide. But I have removed the section anyway. My role as a clerk has nothing to do with this; clerks have written guides, and are writing guides. --Rschen7754 20:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet you referred specifically to a recent case as being the problem -- and that my views are "extreme" -- I ask you to note that this is still a problem from my point of view, as I find the possibility that a clerk would have such prejudice about any editor to be exceedingly distasteful, just as I would find any ArbCom candidate showing such prejudice about any editor to be, frankly, unqualified for any position of trust. And you did not remove the claim that some ACE2013 essays are "extreme" and so your "redaction" is actually pretty much wertlos. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerks always have the option to recuse from a case, and if you are concerned about this in a future proceeding you are involved in, you can always ask for it. As I recall, the TPM case was before my time as a clerk. In addition to this, the userbox at the top of your page is what I was basing my concerns on; I don't think that was improper. But I'm not going to fight this. --Rschen7754 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement from the WMF

The WMF wishes to make the following statement, in response to questions raised on my talk page.

The Wikimedia Foundation has been asked to clarify and/or expand on a previous decision of the legal team, specifically that the Foundation would not allow users to have Checkuser or Oversight rights added to the user account of a user who had not passed a request for adminship or an equally rigorous community selection process.

Our legal and community advocacy team has been asked whether running for (and winning) a seat on the Arbitration Committee would meet the "rigorous community selection process" test, and therefore qualify an elected ArbCom member for Checkuser/Oversight rights. We believe that being elected to ArbCom is an involved process that strongly demonstrates community trust, and that there is a reasonable expectation that Arbitration Committee members on the English Misplaced Pages's Arbcom will hold those tools, except in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, we will not object to the assignment of checkuser/oversight tools to any user who runs for, wins, and is seated on the Arbitration Committee.
Respectfully,
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy

I am, of course, open to clarification, though I'm traveling tomorrow, so it may be a couple of days. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A better matter for a statement might be: does the WMF have the individual members of ArbCom's back, legally speaking, in the event of the inevitable frivolous lawsuit(s)? Carrite (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. See m:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to note: By saying yes, I believe Philippe means that the WMF will consider supporting some or all legal fees for those members based on the linked policy, not that WMF lawyers will "have the individual members of ArbCom's back."--v/r - TP 18:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Sorry if I was too pithy. I thought it was implied through the link to the policy, but I can see the room for misunderstanding. Thanks, TParis.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk)`

Yeah, I'm glad to read this, to hear that non-Admins can run for ARBCOM, too. It doesn't happen often that a regular Editor runs (and wins) but ACE shouldn't be considered an election only for those with admin rights. Liz 01:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It does represent a lower standard. You only need 50% approval to get elected to ArbCom. Such an RfA would not succeed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that its a lower standard in the sense that it only requires a 50% approval. I also think however that due to the position the majority of the voters are going to be very seasoned and experienced and would likely not elect someone to Arbcom without having some experience being an admin first. This is even more dubious if the editor has multiple RFA failures. I for one am glad and agree with the WMF statement/decision but I don't think the community will accept it. I hope I am wrong though because IMO it will be of benefit to have both admins and nonadmins on the committee. A good followup question is will said individual be allowed to keep said rights once they are done being a member of the committee or have them revoked. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The pass rates in the two different kinds of election are not directly comparable, and a 50% pass rate in ArbCom is not necessarily lower standard than the RfA pass rate - a single-candidate support/oppose is completely different from a multi-candidate election with a limited number of seats. See here for further explanation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is a "lower standard" in light of the fact that in an ArbCom election there are opponents and a limited number of seats. At most, nine of the 25 (or so) candidates in this election will be elected, regardless of what percentages they get. It is good to see that this has been clarified in favor of allowing non-admins to run. Neutron (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like you are not just talking about voting margins but also believe that Admins are of a higher standard than regular Editors who haven't been through an RfA. I disagree. There are capable, experienced, knowledgeable, even-tempered Editors who do not have the desire to become an Admin. I'd also argue that the skills that would make a user a good Arbitrator are different from the skills that make one a good Admin. An arbitrator needs to know policy, precedent and sifts through a mountain of evidence and diffs. This is quite different from fighting vandalism, deleting pages and active AN/I debates although both require an understanding of WP policy and guidelines. Admins work swiftly, Arbitrators need to be more deliberate. I think a background in mediation would be more valuable quality for future Arbitrators than having a record number of blocks imposed or articles deleted. One doesn't need to be an Admin to have this experience. Liz 13:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Redlink where instructions about questions should be

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Questions

This is a redlink where it is supposed to have instructions about individual questions, is there some way that could be fixed?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cirt: Surprised nobody else has noticed this. I fixed it. The navbox and an earlier link to the Questions has the correct link. Things changed last year and the Questions page was created without "/Candidates/" in the path. This change continued to this year. Some of the links were fixed, but not that one. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gogo Dodo, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete implementation of WP:ACERFC

Earlier this month, the community decided to use Support, Abstain, and Oppose as the three types of vote available to voters. This was a change from previous years, when No vote was used instead of Abstain. However, it looks like the SecurePoll interface is configured to use the older style of language (see 'question(332)/column0'). Is this an error? AGK 13:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Changed to Support, Abstain, and Oppose. GiantSnowman 13:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

'election(331)/intro' still reads Please use the radio buttons below to indicate which candidates you wish to "Support," "Oppose", or register "No vote." A "No vote" does not affect the outcome in any way. Should this be modified as well? Altamel (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be. Neutron (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

About 1.5 hours left until voting starts. If the instructions are to be modified, it had better be soon. @User:GiantSnowman. Altamel (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Now changed - apologies for not being online at 10:30pm (my time) on a Sunday night. Did you attempt to contact the others? GiantSnowman 09:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That probably would have been a good idea, since I only noticed your name on the thread. No harm done. Voting had to be restarted anyway. Altamel (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn candidate appearing in vote options

Is anyone else seeing a candidate named "(Withdrawn before voting began)" as an option in the SecurePoll? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing that option --Guerillero | My Talk 00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that Secret withdrew too late to be removed from the ballot completely. --Rschen7754 00:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up question: if the withdrawn candidate is elected, can the community appoint someone at random? :D – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, only candidates can be elected :P Happy‑melon 10:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It also seems to be putting random people underneath it that haven't actually withdrawn (that I know of). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The order of candidates is random; the "withdrawn candidate" may appear at the bottom, top or (most likely) somewhere in the middle. Happy‑melon 10:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It gives the impression that all those below the "Withdrawn" have withdrawn. I think people won't tend to bother researching anybody below the line it appears. I thought it was a header at first. The text should have been changed to "(name of withdrawn) has withdrawn." or something specific. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If possible, something like "Name of candidate (candidate has withdrawn)" would be best I think. An explicit consensus about how it should be shown would be useful for next year's RFA I think. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason we have a withdrawn candidate is because before the names are inputted, an XML file gets imported into SecurePoll that basically sets up placeholders. 23 placeholders were set up, but with Secret's withdrawl, that leaves 22 candidates. We cannot remove that 23rd placeholder, and so all we can do is mark it as withdrawn.--v/r - TP 01:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This is extremely confusing. I read all the names below "withdrawn before voting began" as being withdrawn. And I'm sure no small number of other people do as well. Which means we don't pick anything for those below. That needs to be clarified as indicating its own line and not everything below it. Bastique 23:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You can vote "support" on "withdrawn" as I did, simply because it amused me to, or you can oppose, or you can skip that question. Makes no difference in any case. Does that help? 00:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would I bother to vote anything on those names if I think all the names beneath "Withdrawn before voting began" have been withdrawn? It's painful enough to have to read through the questions and statements of those I did look for. Clearer language that indicates that the withdrawn candidate refers to that line only is in order. Bastique 00:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying Bastique; it's not optimal. It cannot be fixed now, though. Doing so would mean crashing the current SecurePoll and creating an entirely new one for the second time in 24 hours. Risker (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've implemented User:Thryduulf's solution above so hopefully it becomes more clear. Bastique, you are allowed to revote. We'll simply discount all but your latest vote.--v/r - TP 00:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Logging in from different domains?

I note at Special:SecurePoll/list/331 that there are users who seem to be voting from multiple other domains. It is my understanding that SecurePoll is supposed to be logging the domain from which the vote originated, not the "home wiki" of the voter. How is this happening? Risker (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

At a guess (and it is only a guess), it's the wiki on which the user most recently logged in (ie where their SUL login session is propagating from). I don't think it's an issue as long as they are not able to vote multiple times (as happened a few years ago, I think 2009). Are you aware of anyone who has voted multiple times from different domains? Happy‑melon 10:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Did some more researching on this; it turns out that it is indeed listing the home wiki of the user, rather than the wiki on which the vote was made. While this shouldn't be too problematic for this one specific election (although I suggest that the election commission create a list of the non-enwiki votes so that users can verify eligibility on this project, just as a precaution), it does mess up the data. The effect would be very concerning on a multi-wiki election, as it would inaccurately reflect voting patterns and would make tracking down problem votes much more difficult, and I've suggested that a bugzilla be filed to fix this in SecurePoll. It's not clear to me what's happened since May (when voter lists were run for the WMF Board/FDC elections) that would have resulted in SecurePoll using "home wiki" instead of "project where vote occurred" for the applicable domain, but it is one more reason that SecurePoll has to be rewritten and its documentation improved. Risker (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, a bug to look into this would be good. I'm not sure what happened since it's clear that this was not an issue for past arbcom/functionary elections but it's possible that the bug existed before the board election (the only cause I can think of right now is changes to centralauth/loginwiki but I don't know why it would be ). The board election passed voter wiki somewhat manually since it went to an central vote wiki and so it's possible it skipped around this bug and we didn't notice it. Jalexander--WMF 23:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement from the Election Committee

It has recently been brought to the Election Committee's attention that the SecurePoll was improperly configured. We apologise for this oversight, but can confirm that WMF are working on fixing it as we speak. As a consequence, voting is currently suspended and all votes already made will be struck and will have to be re-cast. Again, apologies to all. On behalf of the Election Committee, GiantSnowman 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman is going to be unavailable for the next few hours, but I'll be here to answer questions if someone pings me.--v/r - TP 20:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is Monday night, 9:15pm in the UK. I should be back online properly in under 12 hours to answer any queries. Please bear with me/us for a while. GiantSnowman 21:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@TParis:, can you please turn off the watchlist notice during the interim, until the situation is resolved? Thanks. Risker (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done--v/r - TP 21:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Are individuals going to be contacted about voting again? If not, at least the resumption Mediawiki message will have to indicate that the previous vote was voided. Leaky Caldron 21:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we are in the process of contacting everybody who has already voted. GiantSnowman 21:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've revised Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Header, but if someone thinks this is some kind of conflict of interest, feel free to revert and then resave. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks, I have added a link to this discussion from the header. GiantSnowman 21:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am working on calculating the new start and end times. I've started working on a template to notify individuals User:TParis/SecurePoll and I've got a list on my computer of everyone who has voted so far.--v/r - TP 21:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good notice, TParis; however, please include a link to exactly where they can contact the election commission. In fact, there should be a link to the page that identifies the election commission and how to contact it on the main election page, but that can wait. If I may suggest, I'd recommend both a talk page notice, and an email-this-user wherever possible, to ensure that the communication is received.

Just speaking from past experience as an election admin for the WMF Board/FDC elections earlier this year: Once you have received confirmation that the configuration is fixed, you will need to test it with a few votes, and then strike all the original votes including the tests. Good luck! Risker (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

They are actually going to set up a brand new poll for us. We'll do some test votes as you suggest.--v/r - TP 21:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@TParis: Don't forget you can use Special:MassMessage now to notify large groups of editors. I don't know whether you already planned to use it, but if not, it should save you some time. Thanks for all your hard work in this matter. Regards, AGK 22:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, do they have one of those for emails?--v/r - TP 23:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a publicly-available one, but I'm almost certain the Foundation has an in-house method of mass-notifying people by email. AGK 08:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the fact that something is screwed up and we have to have a complete do-over unsurprising and the suggestion that WMF is on the case with a prospective fix unreassuring? Carrite (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Are there plans to extend the voting period? (I know you have bigger fish to fry right now, but it should probably be addressed by the EC at some point). - MrX 21:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. Since all previous votes will be lost, we are going to start the voting period with the full 14 days. The new timeframe will be 00:01, 26 November to 23:59, 9 December.--v/r - TP 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You might want to notify those who had voted per the log.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I intend to.--v/r - TP 23:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Voting has resumed for 14 days from this point.--v/r - TP 00:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Could someone remind me on or about 7 December to compare the list of voters from the now halted poll to the new poll to ensure all those who voted in the earlier one manage to also vote in the new one?--v/r - TP 00:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • We'll remember! GiantSnowman 08:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Timeline section on the main election page needs updating with the new closing time. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 11:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I realize space in the site notice must be limited; however, I suggest that "(Important note: Votes made prior to 00:01 26 November 2013 were discarded due to a configuration error)" be changed to something more positive such as "((Important note: Votes made prior to 00:01 26 November 2013 were discarded due to a configuration error. If you voted prior to that time, please re-cast your ballot.)" or some such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it's necessary. I've been keeping track, and over 70% of those who voted in the initial poll (i.e., the one with the discarded votes) have already recast their ballots. After a few more days, doing individual follow-up would likely be the most successful method of bringing these users back for a second vote. Risker (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't find myself in the voting log and I did not receive one of these spiffy messages . What's up? Am I missing something?  Volunteer Marek  18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's evidently related to the fact that you've redirected your user page to User:Volunteer Marek/ArbComEl tentativepositions. The MediaWiki message delivery system left you the spiffy message at User talk:Volunteer Marek/ArbComEl tentativepositions. I'm guessing if the system is provided with a list of user pages, it goes to those pages first, and then goes to their talk page. For you, it got redirected before step 2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(more) You're not in the current voting log, but you're in the old obsolete voting log: Special:SecurePoll/list/331. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I'm also on TPs list of people who were supposed to get the message. Makes sense with the redirect, though the message didn't pop up at /ArbComEl tentativepositions either. Someone might wanna manually double check the lists/messages. Volunteer Marek  18:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It popped up at User talk:Volunteer Marek/ArbComEl tentativepositions not User:Volunteer Marek/ArbComEl tentativepositions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/MediaWiki message delivery, it appears VM is the only person that this happened to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Just for the record: Based on my records, 24 hours after the election was restarted, 127 of 165 voters whose initial votes were discarded have now revoted; that is 77% of the total. I'll be sending my spreadsheet to the election admins to take over the monitoring. Risker (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no incentive to read the questions to candidates prior to voting

One may choose to read them or not, but there is no incentive to do so. My strong suspicion is that they are ignored and the entire ballot is based upon a mixture of prior popularity (The "swimsuit round") and candidate's statement (The "I want to work with old people and children round").

While there is no opportunity to alter the process for this election, serious consideration should be given to this for subsequent elections.

The contra issue to this is that the nomination and voting process is already unwieldy. Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What changes would you suggest to improve this? Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is hard indeed to see how one might improve matters since people always have the option not to do the correct thing. Nonetheless we need some sort of workflow (I hated that word while I was in the IT industry, and I hate it now) to induce people to read all parts of the candidate's submissions. In part this may be to do with the placement of text in better locations.

As you probably know from experience and as I certainly know from experience, it is far easier to identify something that does not quite work than to fix that thing. I'm not an expert in this field. We have, however, excellent experts here, people who can analyse the problem and the correct pathway

I do not dispute that we have the absolute right to vote as if it were a beauty contest (Uk general elections, US presidential elections etc), but I hope to encourage people to see the entire picture. ArbCom is considered important, and the procedure to elect to it must be both simple and effective. It is currently simple, but I question whether, despite the hard work by candidates, we will not necessarily see a result that reflects that work (factored by their suitability, naturally). Fiddle Faddle 11:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Check out the titles for the radio buttons - look "wrong" to me

This is what the top line of code looks like in the voting table:

<td class="securepoll-ballot-optlabel"><b><a href="/User:Richwales" title="User:Richwales">Richwales</a></b> • <a href="/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Richwales/Statement" title="Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Richwales/Statement">Statement</a> • <a href="/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Richwales/Questions" title="Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Richwales/Questions">Questions</a> • <a href="/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Richwales" title="Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Richwales">Discussion</a></td><td><input name="securepoll_q362_opt381" value="1" title="<p>Support
</p>" type="radio"></td>
<td><input name="securepoll_q362_opt381" value="0" checked="checked" title="<p>Abstain
</p>" type="radio"></td>
<td><input name="securepoll_q362_opt381" value="-1" title="<p>Oppose
</p>" type="radio"></td>
</tr>

This is what it probably should look like:

<td class="securepoll-ballot-optlabel"><b><a href="/User:Richwales" title="User:Richwales">Richwales</a></b> • <a href="/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Richwales/Statement" title="Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Richwales/Statement">Statement</a> • <a href="/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Richwales/Questions" title="Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Richwales/Questions">Questions</a> • <a href="/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Richwales" title="Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Richwales">Discussion</a></td>
<td><input name="securepoll_q362_opt381" value="1" title="Support" type="radio"></td>
<td><input name="securepoll_q362_opt381" value="0" checked="checked" title="Abstain" type="radio"></td>
<td><input name="securepoll_q362_opt381" value="-1" title="Oppose" type="radio"></td>
</tr>

I know this is probably a technical issue with Special:SecurePoll and it's extension, and if no-one beats me to it I'll submit a bug report on Bugzilla for it later. Just wanted to jot it down (in case it is just another minor configuration error that you can easily fix) someplace so others can know it's been seen and will be reported (and maybe fixed before this poll is complete). Technical 13 (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've been advocating strongly for a rewrite and proper documentation of SecurePoll ever since I had to work with it as an election admin for the WMF Board/FDC elections earlier this year. The software is extremely finicky, hasn't been updated in years, isn't keeping pace with the improvements in the rest of MediaWiki (and when it does, it does so in perverse ways, such as indicating "domain" as the user's home wiki rather than the domain from which they voted), and it's incredibly easy to make errors. It seems that the issue you're identifying will not affect the outcome of the election; it's not interfering with anyone's ability to vote. Therefore, I'd suggest it be filed as a bugzilla for future work, although I have been given to understand that Engineering does not consider this a priority. If you do file a bugzilla, could you please either include me in the CC or leave me a link on my talk page? Thanks! Risker (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Does domain really refer to the user's home wiki? Good grief, that's confusing. When looking at the log, I always thought a lot of people just liked to vote from other sites. The foundation loves reducing costs, so let's frame the proposal in terms they'll like. Writing a better voting extension would offer the foundation a chance to open the administration of elections to non-staff users, through an on-wiki interface (Stewards could set up global elections on Meta; bureaucrats could set up ArbCom elections on here; etc.). For a short-term investment of developer time, they'd therefore never have the headache of manually setting up elections every year, and we'd have a fit-for-purpose elections interface. AGK 17:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what "domain" is referring to this time; five months ago during the Board elections, it referred to the location where the person voted, and nobody is certain exactly why or how this changed. WMF sysadmins will always have to be involved in preparation of whatever software is involved because the voter lists pull from non-public data to some extent, and because the polls need to be encrypted, but I suspect that a complete rewrite with very good step-by-step documentation done by volunteer developers with sufficient access might get things done. It's not about costs, apparently, it's about staff time and priorities; in fairness, SecurePoll is used so rarely that absent a direction from the Board to get this done (it was originally designed for secure WMF Board elections), it's not going to be at the top of anyone's list. Risker (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppets voting

This guy shouldn't have been able to vote. Is it possible to strike his vote? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 20:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Umm. There's a lot of things wrong with that vote. Blocked user, but also insufficient number of edits. Were these criteria included in the development of the voter list? If not, we're going to have to go through and verify that all who have voted have met the edit requirements. Risker (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Superflat Monogram (talk · contribs), Neonchameleon (talk · contribs), PaulCHebert (talk · contribs), and Arkady Rose (talk · contribs) are also ineligible with less than 150 mainspace edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Got those 4. GiantSnowman 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Happy-melon:, @TParis:, @GiantSnowman: - please check what configuration was used to make up the voter list. If the standing voter criteria were not met, then *all* voters need to be checked to confirm they meet the criteria. Risker (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dearth of Rats (talk · contribs) and Lustywench (talk · contribs) are ineligible too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Got those 2. GiantSnowman 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Resuna (talk · contribs) has just voted, but is ineligible. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it's 150 mainspace edits as of November 1. Seems the scrutineers will have more work this year... --Rschen7754 01:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

150 mainspace edits

I find voters with less than 150 mainspace edits are voting. User:Mr. Treason now blocked and also User:Superflat Monogram with 135 edits being able to vote.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC) User:Lustywench has 131 edits ,Neonchameleon, PaulCHebert, Arkady Rose and User:Dearth of Rats as far I can see so far.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Already dealt with above. GiantSnowman 21:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I've peeked into the config on request of Risker when she noticed the discussions here. There appears to have been a problem with the import on min edits (it was set somehow to 1, possibly misreading the xml config when it was imported because that was clearly set to 150). That setting has now been fixed. That said I do not know if that setting actually checks mainspace edits only (my understanding is that it only checks edits total but I may be wrong). On the blocked question I have no clue right now... the setting appears to be correctly set for that but clearly if people are getting through something isn't working. Jalexander--WMF 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe y'all should have done a better job of configuring the system so that users who don't qualify either could not vote, or knew what the qualifications were. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to answer this. I'm not sure, User:PaulCHebert, who you are referring to with that comment, but I'd like to say that User:Jalexander had nothing to do with setting up the system or configuring it. As his manager, I feel obliged to step in here. He's fixing these issues, but he didn't create them. I don't frankly know who did, but the WMF didn't set up this election. We were handed a file and told to run it as the config. Only once Jalexander got involved did we notice there were problems. So I'd like to be sure that you're not calling out a member of my staff for 1) identifying, 2) isolating, 3) reporting, and then 4) fixing the issues. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This is part of life in Misplaced Pages unfortunately. For a user to become an admin they have to run through a gauntlet, have every piece of dirty laundry drug out and scattered around, present a virgin and sacrifice a goat...just to be able to see deleted content and delete vandalism. Then the Arbcom, who are supposed to be a group of our most trusted users and are elected to participate in some of the most sensitive areas of the project hold "secret" ballots, with minimal comment and then they are there for a year? Then they make it so complicated only the most experienced editors will even turn out or those who have a vested interest. I doubt there will be more than 200 editors and that's a generous number. Last year I don't think it was that many. Then there are problems with the vote and it had to be wiped out and advertised to restart, which frankly probably helped draw in people because its a big banner message at the top. Then they come here and have to navigate a maze? It hardly makes sense but its just par for the course here. Personally I wouldn't vote for any incumbent or clerk. There was one or 2 highly qualified persons, several more somewhat less qualified a non admin (which I think is good) and there is someone who works for the WMF (which I also think is quite good). Other than that, its either the same cast of characters or frankly folks I have never heard of. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure virgins aren't too hard to find around most parts of the Internet. That said, I have no dog in the "what the voting requirements are" fight. I just kinda resent being given an opportunity to vote, and then being called out like a petty criminal by exercising it. PaulCHebert (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I totally understand that too. Unfortunately over the years WP:AGF has become less of a policy. These days it rarely applies to editors but is often used as a bludgeon by admins. That's why I edit rarely these days and when I do its as an IP. The only time I even bother to login is if I want to vote on something like this. The Misplaced Pages culture has become such a shadow of what it once was and could be that I've become pretty disenfranchised (as you can probably tell) with the whole place. Maybe the new Arbcom can help turn that around. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Mr Hebert has a point; perhaps a link to the eligibility requirements on either the watchlist notice or the securepoll page itself, or (even better) maybe a rundown of the eligibility requirements on the securepoll page itself. I think that might have been done in previous years, but I can't see the page used last year to verify. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In the past, the configuration was coded so that people who were blocked or who did not meet the editing requirements did not get a ballot, but instead got a message that said they were not permitted to vote. I am at a loss to explain why this did not happen this time. Risker (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

How are sockpuppets dealt with?

Checking to see how many mainspace edits a voter has is relatively easy, and something anyone can do, but how is the problem of sockpuppetry dealt with? Is there a CU available to rule out potential sockpuppetry?

I raise the issue because in looking over the voting log I see teo users, Mrmoustache14 and MrMoustacheMM, who disavow any connection to each other on their respective talk pages, but who voted within 18 minutes of each other. I am explicitly not accusing these editors of being sockpuppets, and the similarity of their names can be explained by their being based on the name of a song, but such a prima facie example of the possibility of sockpuppetry raises the question of how that is dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee Elections 2013