Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Coordination

Responsibilities of coordinators[edit]

• Quickly and accurately responding to questions and problems raised at the election talkpage.
• Setting up and monitoring the required candidate pages.
• Identifying and stopping disruption (mostly in the form of inappropriate commentary and questions from voters, edit warring and so on).

Useful links[edit]

• ACE2010 – to get an idea of what is in store.
• Feedback 2010 – the feedback from last year's election.
• 2011 ACE RfC – this year's discussion on election parameters.
• Recent changes for all pages in the election category

Might come in handy, but hard to tell at a quick look. Tony (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not officially, though one has been pretty active and is just not on the list. Beyond that, I'm sure we can dig up an admin if the tools are needed for anything. Monty₈₄₅ 15:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's half the mischief of previous years, someone on watch with block and protect triggers will certainly be necessary. It's just MuZemike thus far, so a few more would be handy. Skomorokh 15:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman might be willing to be on stand-by again. Tony (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on a few personal things, I might request the tools back sometime soon. If I do, it will be closer to the voting period if anything. And @Tony, there is a user script that highlights admins, FYI. -- DQ (t) (e) 09:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Delta. I didn't know that. Tony (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You all still need an admin?--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure any old admin should be available if a situation arises (besides, when drama really ignites, they normally come in droves). I prefer not to emphasize a "huge admin presence" here if we can help it. –MuZemike 09:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in again as well - though you're right about the drama bringing admins by the dozen. It's rare indeed to see something left undone for too long come election time. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for scrutineers, written last year by election admin Happy-Melon, will be useful background for coordinators. Tony (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I put a bookmark on it! --Vituzzu (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any? The scrutineers and developer are listed on the election page, but not the election admins. Skomorokh 15:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but they haven't been asked, yet. I was going to post on WP:AN calling for any able-bodied and WMF-identified users to step forward. –MuZemike 15:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a call out on the functionaries mailing list? Skomorokh 15:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Tznkai is WMF-identified, I think. Could he be an election admin? Tony (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if hw wants. –MuZemike 16:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can a clerk be an election admin? The Signpost's coverage just out includes mention that the election is conducted by the community, not arbs or clerks. Tony (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai is no longer a clerk. Skomorokh 15:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually one three election admins in the first SecurePoll use, and I recall still being a arbclerk at the time.--Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a notice at WP:AN as well as at WT:OTRS to call for election admins. –MuZemike 17:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised as an OTRSer I'm eligible. Do people think there's any conflict with being an active coordinator? Skomorokh 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably avoid doing anything too controversial as a coordinator, purely because your impartiality as an EAdmin is harder to verify because it's less open to scrutiny (and there is a large cohort of editors on enwiki who refuse to apply Occam's razor to any scenario where there is instead the opportunity to create a conspiracy theory). But there's certainly no reason, IMO, why you can't fill both shoes. Happy‑melon 09:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given H-M's statement, I'll say I think it would be a positive advantage to have you in both shoes. Tony (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give coordinators a heads-up if you are looking for a way to help out, here is what currently needs to be done when a new candidate enters the fray:

• Eligibility: Check whether they meet the eligibility criteria (150 mainspace edits before Nov 1); if you're sure they do not, delist their candidacy and leave a polite explanatory note on their user talkpage
• Welcome: If the candidate is eligible, welcome them to the elections by subst'ing {{ACE2011 candidate}} on their talkpage. I've not done this for the initial two candidates because they are obviously familiar with the procedures (a briefer note might be in order), but the template should be deployed for first time runners and those who don't have all their pages set up properly or haven't complied with the nomination statement criteria (WMF identification & alt account disclosure.
• Paperwork: Check over each candidate's nomination statement (i.e. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example/Statement), profile page (i.e. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example) , and questions page (i.e. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example/Questions) and make sure they are in order (compare with those of earlier candidates). Fix them if you can, report errors here if you can't.
• Candidate talkpage: Set up the candidate's profile talkpage (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example). Use the following code:

==[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example|Example]]== <noinclude>{{ACE2011 discussion}} <!-- Please discuss the candidate below this line using third-level headings--></noinclude>

• Redirect: The talkpages to the nomination statements (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example/Statement) and candidate question pages (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example/Questions) should be redirected to their candidate profile talkpage (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example), for simplicity, so that there is only one page specifically for discussion of each individual candidate.
• List: List the candidate profile talkpage (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Example) on the main discussion page (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Discussion). If you're not sure what to do, follow what was done for earlier-listed candidates.
• Guide: Add the candidate to the candidate guide (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Guide). This may require a bit of research, so if you're not sure about the results, it can be a good idea to ask the candidate themselves to review it, and verify any corrections they might have before amending it.

I know I've forgotten bits, but I'll add them in as they come back to me. If anyone has any ideas about how to automate or otherwise streamline any of this, I'm all ears. Skomorokh 14:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Sko. Could this, or whatever version we end up with, go into a Guide for ACE coordinators, perhaps compiled after the election? We have one for scrutineers (which includes mention of the role of election admins, I think). Then the election will be easier for first-time coordinators in subsequent years. Tony (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and I'd be happy to write such a guide, but I'd like if someone technically-minded could take a look at the above with a view to simplification before we immortalise the monstrosity of paperwork for future generations. Skomorokh 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In past years, one of the more time-critical tasks was updating the header. At one point, we used a parserfunction to change the text based on the official server clock, and it might make sense to do that again here, if there are no objections. I can work on it over the next couple days. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements and the code there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using the code from the watchlist announcement, MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Should be easier to configure. Monty₈₄₅ 20:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I dropped the early date, since we're into nominations already, and added a back-end "results are forthcoming" switch. We'll need to remember to hard-code that after December 31. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&diff=460845578&oldid=460837449 – Would it be alright if I don't list all of the accounts Geni has created over the years on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Guide? Common sense tells me that I can't list all of those accounts, but I would to obtain a second opinion before I send a reply to Geni. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any account from which Geni has edited must be listed, as well as any bots. I wouldn't object to a handwave of "I also have the usual doppleganger accounts, none of which have actually edited" or some such. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queried into this at Geni's talkpage, I would be fine with the handwave comment about no-edit accounts, but otherwise they need to be listed. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] – Is this satisfactory? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone who has the time run through the full paperwork for these candidates? Steps listed above.

At a glance, neither of their disclosures are up to scratch - they need to list (or link to) all accounts, and state categorically something like "These are all the accounts I have ever used" or "I have never edited Wikipedia from another account than the following", so there is no wiggle room if someone discovers an unnamed account later.

The disclosures don't affect the 400-word limit, but they need to be airtight. Thanks for any help, Skomorokh 14:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should really have a page that lists if we have checked them so we aren't doubling over each others work...so  Done at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Coordination/Nomination checks. I'll do what I can for now. Someone feel free to clean it up/table it up. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of "meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and who confirms in their election statement they will fully comply with the criteria." is tripping me up, do they have to ident before we can check them off? -- DQ (t) (e) 19:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] – The closing admin said, "It looks like a combination of SirFozzie's view and Risker's view carried the day." Jclemens' statement is the one that says, "if elected," but NuclearWarfare didn't say, "A combination of SirFozzie's view, Risker's view, and Jclemens' view," despite the fact that Jclemens' statement had the most !votes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they need not identify, only pledge to follow the policy, which requires them to identify if elected. I think the best thing would be for everyone to simply make the statement that they will comply, but for those editors who have already complied with the policy, and so indicated on the statement, it is a bit bureaucratic to ask them to make the specific statement. Monty₈₄₅ 04:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, just wanted to double check, Amended per. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I got reverted, and I can see a bit why, would "(ii) agrees to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data January 1st 2011 or has already met the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data." work? -- DQ (t) (e) 12:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was at a restaurant and my food just arrived when Delta asked me to comment. In short, I misread that bullet point, and have reverted my revert. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pitching in all, and that checkpage is a great idea; to clarify, it was the alternate accouts disclosure rather than the WMF bit I was concerned with. Courcelles' statement looks in-line now, Geni's doesn't but I don't think it kosher to suspend the candidacy for a faulty memory no-one can do anything about. It's great to have such a diligent bunch co-ordinating this year, I really apprecite it. Skomorokh 13:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Geni's is a bit out to lunch, but what if they can't remember...idk...this is a stick one IMO. If you want my true opinion, let Geni run as is, and let the community deal with that part in the questions. We have quite a few accounts already. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note re the separate page, it was my intention to get signatures, so we know a coord checked it out...other wise we need to double check... -- DQ (t) (e) 20:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't sure if you wanted the co-ordinator who did the original action to sign or just anyone who checked; I'll go with the latter. Skomorokh 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the issue of Geni's account disclosure up on the main election talkpage. Skomorokh 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not being too picky, but there's a slippery slope to avoid. One of the statements is 519 words, well over the 400 limit. I've said to the candidate that I'd ask here whether the provision allowing a link to further statements might include a neat sequestering of the list of alt accounts (which might go most of the way towards beating the limit). Could people advise? Tony (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the disclaimers were not included in the word count? Seems a bit unfair to people like Geni with many alternate accounts to include them. Happy‑melon 16:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including the disclaimers in the limit disincentivises candidates to comply, and as H-M points out is unfair to sock-happy candidates, so I'd rather we left the 400 word restriction to the electioneering material. Skomorokh 16:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My calculations on the other page have been based without the required disclaimers. I also think it's unfair in general to limit word count with that, when we are forcing them to disclose it...it's not their choice to add it. I'm gonna note on Risker's talkpage that they are good, from what i'm seeing above. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Skomorokh and DG--Tznkai (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and updated the candidates' instructions accordingly; hope this is okay with you Tony. Skomorokh 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall no exclusion of account declarations from the word limit, as claimed on the candidate's talk page. I gathered from this talk page that the reverse was true (see above). But I've no objection to the clarification, of course. Tony (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We ought to have made the wording address this when we introduced the limit; the confusion arose as a result. All sorted now I hope. Skomorokh 14:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipating a lacklustre uptake in nominations, I was going to do another round of announcements today, and then the usual 24-hours-to-go-last-chance note on Sunday night UTC. Given the healthy state of the field, and the tendency in previous years for candidates to wait 'til the end of the nomination period to come out of the woodwork, I wonder if we ought to just have one more cal for candidates on Sunday and leave it at that. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Tony (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that I will be online later today UTC; will any of you be available around midnight to give a "Last call for nominations" run around the usual fora? Dig in the WP:VPM/WP:AN etc. archives for last year Nov 22-24 if you want to copy the wording. Cheers, Skomorokh 17:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody else, I should be around for most of the day. –MuZemike 19:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, were you intending to do this? I guess time is fast approaching. Tony (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be stepping away as a coordinator because of my involvement now. As for my bot, I'll be looking to transfer it to Alexandria who I will be talking with tomorrow to verify. I just see the best for conflict of interest that I don't run it. I don't expect any hiccups with it as it's pretty easier to operate. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions DQ and best of luck! It would be great if you could keep us informed as to the situation with the bot, yes. Skomorokh 14:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what the secure poll number for the election is going to be? There are several places it will need to be filled in. Also want to make sure we are on target for having it ready. Monty₈₄₅ 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is critical, yeah. We will need to get on to Tim Starling about it. Happy-melon, Tznkai, MuZemike, have any of you been in touch with Tim recently? Skomorokh 14:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He'll probably want to see some on-wiki confirmation of the parameters, so for the record:

• 17 candidate slots
• Voter elegibility is 150 edits to Article namespace prior to 23:59:59 31 October 2011
• SecurePoll admins are Bencmq, Trijnstel, Vituzzu, Happy-melon, Tznkai, Skomorokh.

Any objections to the above, speak now or forever hold your peace. And it would be nice to have some affirmation, too :D Happy‑melon 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks correct to me. Paynd needs to be added to the guide.--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent an email to Tim Starling about the SecurePoll specifics, noting the voter eligibility and Maxim's recent withdrawal. I also asked about random placement of candidates on the ballot to help reduce "top of the ballot bias"; that would be nice to have. –MuZemike 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim has now finished setting up the ballot; the election id is 240 (Special:SecurePoll/vote/240). We now need to decide on the syntax of the candidates' name fields, which last year looked like this:

	[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]{{•}} [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman/Statement|Statement]]{{•}} [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman/Questions|Questions]]{{•}} [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman|Discussion]]

And also the wording for the ballot instructions. We are now in the 'soft withdrawal' stage: we are able to replace a candidate's name with "withdrawn candidate", but cannot remove them from the ballot altogether ('hard withdrawal'). Happy‑melon 02:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from changing the 2010s to 2011s and updating the candidate names, I don't see any call to change the syntax. We could add the candidate profile page (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman), but as all that does is transclude the Statement and Questions pages it would be redundant.

As mentioned elsewhere though, a link at the bottom of the form (or on the completion page, if possible?) to the Feedback page (which needs to be fleshed out, remind me), for instant feedback could be very helpful. Skomorokh 03:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HM, is hard withdrawal unavailable because its technically infeasible, or no appropriate sysadmins/devs/code wizards is willing and able to make the change before voting starts?--Tznkai (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before any ballots are cast it is technically feasible but requires direct database manipulation; Tim is the only sysadmin who would have the confidence to do that and be happy that it wouldn't break anything. After voting has opened removing candidates would cause corruption of ballots, which would refer to an option id which no longer existed. Happy‑melon 09:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets call Tim manipulating the database the "only in dire emergencies" option then, and I'm having a hard time thinking of an emergency suitably dire. I'll notify the candidates in a bit.--Tznkai (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've now updated the candidate name fields. I've also tweaked the post-voting message, which is at MediaWiki:Securepoll-thanks; feel free to tweak it further. Happy‑melon 20:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the intro/instruction text, based on previous years. I've noticed that for 3 years now we've left 3 fields blank. Is there a reason for that?--Tznkai (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jump-text and return-text are for votes hosted on an external server ("you will be redirected" and "welcome back", respectively), so are irrelevant for local elections. I'm not actually sure what unqualified-error does. Happy‑melon 21:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim has withdrawn. Happy-Melon, could you follow up with the devs? I am untranscluding as appropriate throughout, following how Chutznik was treated in 2009.--Tznkai (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai and H-M, has it been made amply clear to candidates that they if they can't "technically" withdraw after the election goes live? And I wonder, for your and Tim's sake, whether a prior deadline would be wise. Who wants to get up in the middle of the night to remove a candidate before the start of the voting period? Tony (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think for this year, we can enforce a practicality deadline when all devs have gone to bed and refuse to wake up for this and in future years, we could clearly demark a cutoff time (say, 24 hours before voting begins. I'll post notifications later today to the remaining candidates on withdrawl procedures once we have agreement between election "staff" on what they are.-Tznkai (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we can before voting starts, I don't see a problem with taking withdrawals off the ballot (I repeat, before voting starts; any candidate is SOL after it starts). It's not like we're reprinting ballots – it's basically altering some code. –MuZemike 23:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Can a note be put on the candidate's page that they have withdrawn? I had gone straight to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Maxim (not knowing they had withdrawn) and was surprised when i didn't see them listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates. It was only after I did some digging that I found the canidate had withdrawn. I think it might help others if there was a note somewhere on the candidate's page that they have withdrawn. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, yes, good point Hydroxononium. I'll get right on that. Skomorokh 15:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, just letting you know I'm taking over from DeltaQuad to run the logging bot this year. Votes will still be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Log. The bot is currently going through approval, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 6 for details, and feel free to comment. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank goodness.--Tznkai (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it has already been speedily approved at BAG. Monty₈₄₅ 03:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No meltdowns thus far :D One very productive development over the past year is that with the cluster-wide SSL support (http://en.wikipedia.org and https://en.wikipedia.org instead of https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en) SecurePoll does not get confused over where the user is voting from and so correctly strikes the older vote; so we should have many fewer voters from secure.wikimedia.org and so less chance of a repetition of the problems from 2009. Happy‑melon 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the election coordinators for keeping everything running smoothly. And a big thanks to the election admins for the thoughtful and well-researched close of the last minute RfC. It was a very professional job and your efforts are greatly appreciated by the community. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have the scrutineers been sent the briefing from last year?

It might be good to check in with them now and make sure they are aware that voting is underway, and that all of them are still in a position to fulfill the duties of the role. --Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vituzzu sent us the email with that link. Ben.MQ (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vote log states. Editors are invited to comment on possibly ineligible votes and to identify sockpuppet accounts, but it is not clear where the comments should go. I think comments in the log area will be overwritten by the bot on each update. Should there be a link to some comment area for users who want to comment? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNRELATED NOTE - adding a new section (link at top) is corrupted by the <!--Please do not post below this line-> at the bottom of the page. Somebody may want to fix that. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments can be placed inline; the bot won't overwrite them if it behaves like previous years. I've dropped the footmatter of this page as it was causing more trouble than it was worth. Skomorokh 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was going to be ok, but SandyGeorgia has complained about it. Could you advise me whether it should be taken down? If you say yes, I'll do so immediately (really really busy at work, so I don't mind if one of you takes it down, if that's what you think is proper). Tony (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that two other people who are on the list of coordinators, Monty and JoeGazz, have voter guides, which (unlike the section on your talk page where you discuss the candidates) are linked from the official election template. (Although Monty's, the last time I looked, was really just a compilation of the opinions from the other guides and did not express Monty's own opinion.) I also see on the "Coordination" page the following statement: "While coordinators have as much right to participate in ordinary voter activity during the election as all other eligible voters (i.e. voting, asking questions, discussing candidates), co-ordinators should avoid acting in a way that might cast doubt on their ability to act impartially, or on the perceived neutrality of the coordinators or elections as a whole." Personally, I am not quite sure how you can "discuss" candidates, if that means openly supporting or opposing candidates, without casting doubt on "the perceived neutrality of the coordinators." In other words, if I were making the rules, I would at the very least strongly suggest (if not require) that anyone wishing to publicly express their preferences among the candidates NOT be an election official of any kind. But that is not what the "rules" are, apparently. And you removing that section from your talk page would not really accomplish anything unless JoeGazz also removes his guide. (I think Monty's does fall into a different category.) Neutron (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make clear that in my comment, I am specifically talking about "perception" and not necessarily reality. I am definitely not accusing anyone of bias. But as long as some significant proportion of the community thinks someone might use their coordinator "powers" (such as they may be) to sway the election toward "their" candidates, that is reason enough for the coordinators to keep their preferences to themselves. But at this point, I think the ship has kind of sailed on this issue for this election anyway. Neutron (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is here. Reviews and edits will be appreciated. Tony (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great job as always, Tony. The only change I would suggest is to add dates to the days. In other words, Satruday, December 10 instead of just Saturday. Some people may think of the wrong Saturday. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Replaces a previous comment) I am not sure whether I should be editing that page directly, so I will show my editing here. I would take the second sentence of the second paragraph (the sentence with two semicolons) and replace it with this: After voting, an editor may change their choices any time before the close of voting on Saturday 23:59 UTC, but will need to start again from scratch, because previous votes will not be displayed and submission of a new ballot page will override all previous votes by that editor. For this reason, voters should consider keeping a private record of their vote. Neutron (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been scarce coz of RL work, and I'm sure Sko (managing editor) would have been happy for your changes. I'll check now to see if they've been made, and if not, will incorporate. Thanks. Tony (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011#How_should_the_community_be_notified_of_the_election.3F – What ever happened to the promised "Wikipedia wide top banner"? Did I miss it? Are we saving it for later? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the WMF now using that space for the fundraising drive? –MuZemike 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say, "Let's work something out with them," but two banners would be intrusive and space-consuming, and two short banners wouldn't leave enough room for images of Jimbo's face. Perhaps we could arrange for text banners? I know how important donations are to the continued existence of Wikipedia, but we could donate money at any given time of the year, but there's only one, narrow window for users to vote each year, and consensus is consensus. Should we really break our promise to the community? I'll wait for a reply or a third opinion before I bring this issue to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011 and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a site notice prior to the vote starting at MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#ACE2011_Edit_Request and was shot down. Monty₈₄₅ 16:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that discussion, but what's more unfortunate is that the !voters weren't alerted to that discussion. A few on a talk page dismissed the desires of the many without any warning or notice. They could've at least added a note to the RfC page or the RfC's talk page. I feel screwed and cheated. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed and moved the questions by FT2 and their responses by various candidates to the appropriate discussion pages. On balance, they are not appropriate for the questions page, and the discussion bumps right up against the privacy of various parties. Other election volunteers should feel free to opine here. --Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are people's thoughts on the timing? The election closes end of Saturday UTC. What about late Thursday or early Friday? I wasn't exactly volunteering to do it, but I will chip in if no one else can. Tony (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer late Thursday so that we can get as many people out in the time remaining. I don't think I'll be around to oversee that, so someone else may need to make sure that happens. –MuZemike 18:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone done this? Tony (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted where I can think of, including the VP. Please see my contribs page. Tony (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A (gentle!) reminder that there are voters from other parts of the world (South America, Asia) as well. --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do people feel about having a messagebot send around a talkpage note requesting feedback from the voters? Skomorokh 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it could be excessive posting. Some users just read or vote, and goes on with their lives. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]